Cycling on TV

[G3CWI]

I watched the cycling on Channel 4 the other day. While I quite enjoyed it I did think that the coverage could have been a lot better. I would have liked some more metric such as speeds. Cameras on some key riders would have been nice too. Some discussion about the bikes would have been nice. Basically I would like the coverage to be a bit more like F1.

 

[montage]

I watched the cycling on Channel 4 the other day. While I quite enjoyed it I did think that the coverage could have been a lot better. I would have liked some more metric such as speeds. Cameras on some key riders would have been nice too. Some discussion about the bikes would have been nice. Basically I would like the coverage to be a bit more like F1.

and I wish there was no single ply toilet paper in the world

 

[Risex4]

I watched the cycling on Channel 4 the other day. While I quite enjoyed it I did think that the coverage could have been a lot better. I would have liked some more metric such as speeds. Cameras on some key riders would have been nice too. Some discussion about the bikes would have been nice. Basically I would like the coverage to be a bit more like F1.

Which coverage was this?

Was your problem with C4's coverage specifically or bike racing coverage generally?

 

[G3CWI]

Which coverage was this?

Was your problem with C4's coverage specifically or bike racing coverage generally?

British Nationals in Glasgow C4 I think. Never really watched any before.

 

[Hacienda71]

I quite liked the Pearl Izumi Tour Series, they had an onboard cam with Kristian House in one crit and had good interviews with the riders. They rode the courses prior to the races and looked in detail at some of the team bikes.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I quite liked the Pearl Izumi Tour Series, they had an onboard cam with Kristian House in one crit and had good interviews with the riders. They rode the courses prior to the races and looked in detail at some of the team bikes.

Yes, it was covered pretty well, I thought. The Nat Championships coverage was trying to cram too much in without enough actual footage of cycling - I never quite got a sense of the actual cycling.

 

[Scoosh]

It's all about how much £££ is put into it, how much advertising they can sell, how much the target audience buy those products ... which can be a bit disturbing when one sees what adverts are on during a cycling programme !

 

[Risex4]

British Nationals in Glasgow C4 I think. Never really watched any before.

Didn't catch the Nationals so can't comment, but I'd say cycling coverage (away from the velodrome or an extremely well planned Crit circuit) will always struggle to achieve F1 type coverage for a number of reasons.

On terrain not designed with racing in mind (i.e roads), the only timings available to broadcasters are those at preset checkpoints. Likewise, speeds are a bit redundant as at any given time they will rise and fall dramatically. The only real timing which matters is the gap between any breakaway and the peloton, which most broadcasters are normally pretty good at covering off. Things like the average speed of the peloton at any given moment are nice (and humbling to a mere mortal), but pretty academic to the race itself in many respects.

Cameras, there's only so many to go around, and if "key" riders are buried in the peloton and/or there are multiple groups up the road, they can only cover so much.

Look on the bright side, at least there weren't mountains in the way meaning that there were no routine breaks to slow-mo replays whilst they waited for the signal to come back...

To be honest, I quite like cycling coverage. As is true at all levels of the sport, it really is about the rider and how they are performing on that day physically and tactically. The equipment and such are the extra 1%. F1 is such techo-porn that all these figures and stats make sense and are relevant, in cycling things like group-sets and tyres and the like very much less so and although the commentators will often talk about the technical side of things, it really is the guy in the saddle who is the difference and therefore rightly the focus.

Also, IMO the more you watch it and learn whats going on on feel (rather than a reliance on flashy screen graphics and statistics) the more you learn to appreciate it!

Pull up a seat and watch the Tour. Watching a Nibali haring down a descent to put time into the pack, watching the peloton systematically and ruthlessly hunting down a breakaway (and either urging the little guy to stay out or be eaten up depending on your disposition) or seeing teams getting their trains in shape for the bunch sprint is far more interesting than trying to comprehend stats about who is faster is what sector because of some technical consideration.

Just my own tuppence like.

 

[Risex4]

I quite liked the Pearl Izumi Tour Series, they had an onboard cam with Kristian House in one crit and had good interviews with the riders. They rode the courses prior to the races and looked in detail at some of the team bikes.

Yes, I thought the Tour Series was very well done. If anything the program was just too short for what they wanted to do which didn't give much taste as to the race itself as a whole - especially when they crammed the ladies and gents highlights into one show - it was kind of "and they're off, here's a break, here's a crash, and across the finish line", but the overall package; the looks at the teams, the looks at the course, talking to the racers, the ride around, I thought it was all to a high standard.

 

[Lee_M]

i quite liked the nationals coverage (but wasnt it ITV4 not C4?) but thats because I like short summaries of lots of races rather than spend 55 minutes on the mens road race and not even mention the TTs or the women

plus I've worked in Glasgow, so quite liked playing 'spot the location'