This reminds me of something. Here at CERN where I work we have had an
annual relay race (running) for teams of 6 around the 4 km site for the
past 30 years. About 20 years ago, the head of the Fire Brigade, who had
played some part in founding the race, retired and wanted to donate a cup.
Being a Frenchman and keen on cycle racing he proposed that the cup be won
by the first team to pass the Fire Brigade building.
The first leg of the race is 1000 metres, of which the last 400 metres
is steep uphill. The Fire Brigade building was situated after 600 metres
of the race, that is at the start of the hill! Luckily we were able to
convince him that this was not a good idea for running, and the cup is
awarded instead to the leading team at the end of the first 1000 metres.
I think basically the difference is that in cycling one can still
freewheel on at a reasonable speed and recover in the saddle, whereas in
an all-out effort in running one has to slow right down for a while, even
if this can be fairly short, as we have seen in the report of Lasse
Viren's interval 200 metre sessions. Also cyclists in a group gain much
more from shielding each other from the wind because of the higher speed
involved. In fact, I have read that even the leading cyclist in a group
has it easier than if he were alone, because of the aerodynamics of the
way in which the wind moves around the elongated line of riders (less
turbulence). This is why breaks by individual riders in cycling can be
pulled back more easily by the field, whereas in running the leader only
tends to come back if he really slows down (as in the latter stages of
marathons).
David Dallman
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Mcewen, Brian T wrote:
> <<<<<<<<
> Talk about drama and
> suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position
> from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where
> everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as
> individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid
> being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the
> fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to
> finish ...
> >>>>>>>>
>
> This race has nothing to do with running, but in track CYCLING they have an
> event called the Points Race. It is not an exhibition, and it IS an event
> at the World Track Championships.
>
> Nobody is pulled from the "hind-most", but on predetermined laps, the racers
> compete to be first across that lap's finish line; earning points for their
> "finish" on that intermediate lap. Additionally, you can win the Points
> Race by lapping the field (and maintaining your 1 lap advantage to the
> finish). If the field all finishes on the same lap, the rider with highest
> points (the total of intermediate sprint finishes) wins .
>
> It is also common practice in all cycling races with many laps to offer
> "primes" (pronounced: preems). Criterium races can be as long as 1:30-2
> hours, and a lap is rarely longer than a mile. This means 50-60 or more
> laps for the senior men. The prime provides the excitement of a field
> sprint, except that the riders with serious intent (of winning) usually
> abstain. A prime winner is always paid a little, and they sometimes offer
> primes for 2nd and third. Occasionally, this motivates a rider to break
> away at the start, get a decent lead, and coast through the primes,
> collecting a better payday than if he just sat in the bunch. These guys
> rarely finish the race though.
>
> My favorite kind of primes are the mountaintop-finish primes in the Tour De
> France, where leading riders earn some money AND a time bonus on the rest of
> the field (usually 20 seconds for first, 15 for second...).
>
> These kind of intermediate sprint finishes/bonuses would NOT fly in distance
> running though.
>
> -Brian McEwen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conway Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 11:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: t-and-f: What's next?
>
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
> >
> >If one accepts that the main reason for the change is television,
> >that reinforces the notion that the no false start rule will result
> >in a greater focus and popularity for the sprints. TV, being a
> >visual medium, is acutely sensitive to "the show". The no false
> >start rule creates a scenario that is nearly irresistible to watch -
> >the speed merchants being held to absolute stillness, on penalty
> >of disqualification, racing where victory or defeat is of the slimmest
> >of margins. That brings the spectator to the edge of his chair.
> >
>
> At the risk of extending this thread further I have to ask the question:
> does that mean you are willing to sacrifice the sprinters and hurdlers for
> the sake of a few ratings points ??? Would you then be willing to create
> other rules for other events that would create more excitement and thrills
> for the TV audience ???
>
> How about Devil take the Hindmost Distance races ?? Let's try a mile where
> we start with a field of 12 ... And at the end of each lap we drop off the
> trailing 3 individuals ... They clearly aren't going to win anyway - and
> after all we are willing to not let sprinters run in the race at all ...
> When we get to the final lap we will have our 3 medallists fighting it out
> mano a mano to see who is going to get which medal !!! Talk about drama and
> suspense ... Everyone in the race would be fighting to maintain position
> from start to finish ... Should end those boring tactical races where
> everyone is waiting to kick .. There would be excitement on every lap as
> individuals would have to jockey before the end of the final lap to avoid
> being amongst the last 3 ... Would make the race much more exciting for the
> fans, and give TV a race that would keep everyone riveted from start to
> finish ... And who cares if we lose some athletes along the way and they
> don't get to finish the race ... After all it's not about them is it ?? Its
> about TV and creating excitement for the fans right ???
>
> We could even do the same for the field events ... 8 Competitors ... 6
> rounds ... Individual in last place at the end of each round is out ..
> During final round only medallists are left to duke it out for the medals
> ... Now THAT would have people watching the field events ...
>
> NO I am not advocating any of these things ... My point is that, YES I think
>
> we want to appeal to TV and new fans ... But I don't think that ANY athletes
>
> should be sacrificed in the process ... This isn't ancient Rome and the
> athletes are neither gladiators nor peasants to be sacrificed for the sake
> of the crowd ...
>
> The competition itself (given quality competitors) is riveting enough to
> bring the crowd to its feet ... From the closest of 100m races to the
> thrilling 10K at Sydney ... To an athlete fouling all but the final attempt
> in the long jump, yet pulling out the win on that last jump ... We have the
> excitement ... The 3 ring show ... We just need to look for better ways to
> present and promote it ... Without damaging the competition or sacrificing
> the athlete ...
>
> Conway Hill
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
