I was watching the Giro d’Italia (which as far as I can tell is
Italian for Tour De France) on SBS the other day, mainly because it immediately
precedes the excellent and very much underrated Ninja Warrior, and there was
footage of one of the lead riders whose bike had had a ‘mechanical’ (which as
far as I can tell is Normal Person for ‘busted’).
I was faintly amused I have to say, by the little tanty the guy
threw on the side of the road in response to his bad luck – he got off his
bike, stomped up and down a couple of times, chucked the bike into the bushes
and then retrieved it all in very good time – but then I was amazed to see his
support car come screaming to a halt behind him.
In response to furious beckoning, one of his crew ran up with A
COMPLETELY NEW BIKE, then gave him a nice big push to get going again before
cleaning up the riders now discarded bike, hopping back into the car and
shooting off in pursuit of his man (presumably in case he needed to get a new
pair of underpants 3kms up the road or something).
Now. I am aware of the arguments around this kind of thing at the
top level of any sport. It’s all about allowing the athlete to do what he
trains to do at the best level he can and the punters don’t pay to see Cadel
Evans (it wasn’t Cadel, he’s just the only name I could come up with at 5
o’clock in the morning. Cadel would have fashioned a new tyre from surrounding
vegetation, made the change and been back in the lead before this other guy had
finished his first stomping dummy spit because he’s a TOP AUSSIE) or whoever sitting
on the side of the road/track/oval twiddling his or her thumbs instead of being
all elite and shit.
I reckon those arguments are bollocks.
I could go completely off on the whole interchange/replacement
thing at this point (and don’t get me started on all the fluoro wearing bastards
that get to run around all over the field during Rugby League and AFL games)
but let’s just stick to cycling for the moment.
One of the great justifications for the absolutely INSANE levels
of money pumped into the top levels of cycling as a sport (and you can probably
apply at least some of this to motor sport as well) is that it allows the big
companies to test out new products and pass on what they learn to us. Which is
fine. What better way to sort out a bike that I can buy and ride securely for
years than to submit it to the punishment of elite competition?
Except if you remove the need for a bike to be durable by allowing
a rider to replace it, in its entirety, in the middle of a race, where is the
value to me. Particularly as one of the reasons it broke down was almost
certainly because it had been so absurdly engineered to be light as a feather
with strength a secondary consideration.
And speaking as a punter. I LIKE the idea that a rider can have a
breakdown, whip on a new tyre from the gear he is carrying himself and continue
on valiantly. Given (in my world at least) all the other guys are in the same
boat and just as likely to have the same problem at some point in the race,
isn’t that just the kind of thing that makes for truly awesome spectacle.
Next: Friday? I don’t know. I am now making this up as I go.
No comments:
Post a Comment