Bye bye aero

tunney

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2009/feb09/california09/tech.php?id=/photos/2009/tech/features/toc_aero_liquigas_helmet09/UCI_3-to-1_rule


All because Pharmstrong no longer has a TT bike?

Very very interesting developments. Might pick up a few new TT bikes on teh cheap if this kicks in - thank god the ITU and WTC don't follow the UCI on bike rules.

RobFowl

tunney wrote: »

Pharmstrong

Ah now, he's never failed a test (apart from the cortisone ones (and the possible EPO's from1999)). And none of his team even tested positive (apart form Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Beltran et al). And no one who worked for him ever saw his dope (apart from Andreau, Swart, O reilly etc)
Reminds me of the Monty Pyton sketch "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

petethedrummer

Rob, why do you love cancer so much?

If anyone else was as confused as me about the link posted here's the full story. I'm still mildly confused.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2009/feb09/california09/tech.php?id=/tech/2009/features/toc_aero_liquigas_helmet09

scottreynolds

tunney wrote: »

Very very interesting developments. Might pick up a few new TT bikes on teh cheap if this kicks in - thank god the ITU and WTC don't follow the UCI on bike rules.

Interesting developments. Look like the UCI are trying to limit aero innovations with these restrictions which is strange but we'll see. I think the UCI may be being a bit silly although I don't know anything about the aero advantages.

TinyExplosions

Looks like Columbia will be off those mental Giant TT bikes so (I know they're with Scott now, but they were using the Giant at the prologue)

Chips Lovell

I read it this morning before I had my coffee and got very confused trying to figure out what exactly was being banned. Long and the short of it anyway is that some TT bikes won't be legal any more.

The UCI has a long history of dictating bike design. The logic is that riders and not equipment should win races.

Lumen

Perhaps the UCI should just stick a sideways wind tunnel at the start of each TT. Empiricism FTW.

Viewing figures would shoot up.

Raam

I'm in favour of design limitations. In fact, I don't even like the way wind tunnels are used to perfect position.

DirkVoodoo

I thought Lance has his training TT bike anyway so he isn't a factor is he?

I would not like cycling to become like formula 1. As much as I like formula 1 and the engineering that goes into it, the emphasis has certainly shifted away from the drivers and more to the cars.

scottreynolds

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought Lance has his training TT bike anyway so he isn't a factor is he?

I would not like cycling to become like formula 1. As much as I like formula 1 and the engineering that goes into it, the emphasis has certainly shifted away from the drivers and more to the cars.

Iwas thinking about saying the same thing but ten remembered that F1 has so many rules so its not about pure speed anymore. You don't want it to be like the other world car racing series where thay all have the same car -- that wouldn't be fun.

DirkVoodoo

That's true Scott, plus much like in motorsport, without the innovation at competition level, there would be nothing (or very little) trickling down into the consumer market.

Bring back turbochargers and 1500HP cars!

How come none of the teams checked this regulation if it came in at the start of january? Why are Astana the only ones who seem to be complying with it?

Diarmuid

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought Lance has his training TT bike anyway so he isn't a factor is he?

I would not like cycling to become like formula 1. As much as I like formula 1 and the engineering that goes into it, the emphasis has certainly shifted away from the drivers and more to the cars.

But then you start introducing dumb arbitrary limitations (see above). I'd say they should go the opposite direction. Encourage innovation. It's bike racing, the bike is a very integral part of the competition. We'd still be racing on singlespeed fixed wheels if the other attitude prevailed.

I'd prefer to see a competition between the bike manufactures than between the doctors for a change

DirkVoodoo

Diarmuid wrote: »

We'd still be racing on singlespeed fixed wheels if the other attitude prevailed.

I like where this is going. So, in a perfect world this is how racing would be

TinyExplosions

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I like where this is going. So, in a perfect world this is how racing would be

It is how racing is, on the track -the best form of bike racing

niceonetom

Diarmuid wrote: »

But then you start introducing dumb arbitrary limitations (see above). I'd say they should go the opposite direction. Encourage innovation. It's bike racing, the bike is a very integral part of the competition. We'd still be racing on singlespeed fixed wheels if the other attitude prevailed.

I'd prefer to see a competition between the bike manufactures than between the doctors for a change

if limitations on bike design hadn't been enforced then they'd all be bombing along in something like this - on the flatter stages anyway. and who amongst us would welcome that?

there has to be a balance between allowing manufacturers to innovate (and give us shiny new things to buy ourselves) and adhering to something that is still a bike in the traditional sense of the word, something that, although the materials and production techniques would be a total mystery, the end product would be instantly understandable and recognisable to someone a hundred years ago.

the line in the sand is always going to be arbitrary, and a 3:1 ratio seems reasonable to me. designers will still have plenty of fun with that.

for purity i quite like the hour record that has to be done on a bike with round tubing on wheels with round spokes etc. (the champion's hour ? ) that really allows people to pit themselves against each... but no one's brave enough to take it on it seems.

Bunnyhopper

el tonto wrote: »

Long and the short of it anyway is that some TT bikes won't be legal any more.

Which is all very well, once the ratio between the long of it (L) and the short of it (S) does not exceed 3.



...sorry...

Diarmuid

niceonetom wrote: »

if limitations on bike design hadn't been enforced then they'd all be bombing along in something like this - on the flatter stages anyway. and who amongst us would welcome that?

Why not? Although on grounds of safety something like that wouldn't be practical in a bunch race.

the line in the sand is always going to be arbitrary,

Exactly. So why draw a line.

TinyExplosions

Diarmuid wrote: »

Why not? Although on grounds of safety something like that wouldn't be practical in a bunch race.


Exactly. So why draw a line.

I'm not entirely sure what the fuss is all about, they've been drawing lines for years -for example, the bikes have to have 2 'triangles' in the frame, and before this new amendment came in cross-sections of any particular frame or component had to fit within an 8 x 2.5cm rectangle, so this is just changing that.

That's without even mentioning the weight limits that the UCI imposes. I have no problem with having technical restrictions in any sport, but unfortunately they have to be incredibly precise and complex by their very nature. I'm happy to keep the racing on 'traditional' bikes (you all know what I mean by that before you start putting up pics of penny farthings and boneshakers etc!)

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

Why not? Although on grounds of safety something like that wouldn't be practical in a bunch race.


Exactly. So why draw a line.

As well as it being a question of riders, not equipment winning races, it also affects budgets. Probably all the top level teams could get the latest far out designs, but, as far as I recall, UCI bike standards apply across the board. So, at an amateur level, the standards mean that only very small benefits come from getting high end equipment. Scrap the standards and that gap could widen.

Trojan

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I would not like cycling to become like formula 1. As much as I like formula 1 and the engineering that goes into it, the emphasis has certainly shifted away from the drivers and more to the cars.

Actually F1 have introduced more techical rule changes to shift the balance from engineering back toward drivers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkVKPdyWs0

I love the engineering innovation in F1 - that feeds back into mainstream car manufacturing. The same can be said for cycling.

el tonto wrote: »

As well as it being a question of riders, not equipment winning races, it also affects budgets. Probably all the top level teams could get the latest far out designs, but, as far as I recall, UCI bike standards apply across the board. So, at an amateur level, the standards mean that only very small benefits come from getting high end equipment. Scrap the standards and that gap could widen.

Exactly the same as F1.

CheGuedara

Just been reading more about this on bike radar, looks like some teams are setting up team road bikes with TT positions due to the rule changes -

Looks like there'll probably be a lot of TT/tri bars, frames & bikes going on sale soon.... (not that you'll be able to use them in actual competitions mind you)

(hmmm Cervelo P3 anyone...?)

jayzbrady

I'd love to see a cycling competition (or any sporting competition) where drugs are allowed, to see what the human body, (plus some chemically enduced encouragement) could achieve.
It could have its own world record system, of sporting achievement with drugs, and let it not be a shame or a dishonour.
It could see the medical fields push the boundries of what they're capable of and what humans are capable of. Let the non drug takers have their races, and let the drug takers have theirs.

kincsem

jayzbrady wrote: »

I'd love to see a cycling competition (or any sporting competition) where drugs are allowed, to see what the human body, (plus some chemically enduced encouragement) could achieve.

Already in place. :pac:

CheGuedara

jayzbrady wrote: »

I'd love to see a cycling competition (or any sporting competition) where drugs are allowed, to see what the human body, (plus some chemically enduced encouragement) could achieve.
It could have its own world record system, of sporting achievement with drugs, and let it not be a shame or a dishonour.
It could see the medical fields push the boundries of what they're capable of and what humans are capable of. Let the non drug takers have their races, and let the drug takers have theirs.

Right.....


Good first post btw......

Lumen

jayzbrady wrote: »

I'd love to see a cycling competition (or any sporting competition) where drugs are allowed, to see what the human body, (plus some chemically enduced encouragement) could achieve.
It could have its own world record system, of sporting achievement with drugs, and let it not be a shame or a dishonour.
It could see the medical fields push the boundries of what they're capable of and what humans are capable of. Let the non drug takers have their races, and let the drug takers have theirs.

Interesting idea, explored much in science fiction I think.

The main problem is that the competitors are likely to be very poor people exploited by drug companies to act as test mules. Much death and suffering will ensue.

As a grossly simplistic generalisation, if the human body were to perform better without damage on drugs, it would probably have evolved to produce them as a matter of course. EPO is naturally produced by the kidneys, and no doubt there has been the odd prehistoric human with a mutant EPO gene who was brilliant at catching mammoths until his thick blood caused a heart attack and removed the mutation from the gene pool.

petethedrummer

kincsem wrote: »

Already in place. :pac:

Yes, it's called the Giro d'Italia.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/09/sports/CYC-Doping-Giro.php

jayzbrady

if the human body were to perform better without damage on drugs, it would probably have evolved to produce them as a matter of course.

But humans suffer from ailments like asthma. Our body can't produce the steroids that alleviate suffering, so we take the drugs. To perform stronger, drugs provide a manufactured and obvious way of performing better.
Drug companies may have their eyes on their bottom line, rather than what's good for people. That's true.

CheGuedara

Off topic methinks.

There's a sci-fi section in arts. Or if serious try Biology & medicine or popular science in the science section perhaps?

Bunnyhopper

Leaving aside the broader arguments about whether there should be technical (or pharmaceutical or bionic-man) restrictions at all - and leaving aside the Astana-Lance-centric conspiracy theories while we're at it - why make this very specific change now?

TinyExplosions

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Leaving aside the broader arguments about whether there should be technical (or pharmaceutical or bionic-man) restrictions at all - and leaving aside the Astana-Lance-centric conspiracy theories while we're at it - why make this very specific change now?

It was made at the start of January, it just seems to have surfaced now (the teams will (or should) have known about it from the start of the year)

Raam

McQuaid is gonna explain it all today

http://www.velonews.com/article/88080

Pat McQuaid to attend press conference

Evidently in response to rumors regarding enforcement of a new UCI rule, UCI president Pat McQuaid is scheduled to attend the post-race ToC press conference Wednesday. Hopefully he will clarify both the new rule, and plans to enforce it.

The rule essentially redefines acceptable dimensions for frames and components that have a streamlined or aerodynamic shape. Enforcement of the January 1 rule change, which was assumed would not take effect until 2010, could potentially throw the race into chaos as teams scramble to find acceptable replacement parts. A significant number of components and even frames are unlikely to pass the new standard.

We'll know more tomorrow ...

CheGuedara

Should be interesting - it seems like a de-evolution in the sport IMO.