True Rue
05-06-09, 07:20 AM
#26
Peloton Shelter Dog
Thread Starter
05-06-09, 07:26 AM
#27
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
If the UCI had their way everyone would be riding 12 speed steel frame Colnagos from the late 60s and time trials would all be won by big guys who happen to have chosen the right parents. Aerodynamics are part of cycling. It's time to just embrace that and stop the love affair with the ubermensch.
05-06-09, 07:42 AM
#29
.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40,375
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 27 Times
in
12 Posts
not sure if i entirely agree. there comes a time when technology overshadows the atheletes, i.e.
In post-Beijing era, the swimsuit makes the swimmer
Published: 4 May 2009 10:45 | Changed: 4 May 2009 17:52
By Rob Schoof
When Pieter van den Hoogenband (31) retired from swimming six months ago he thought he would be the fastest swimmer alive for many years to come. Instead, 'VdH' finished in fifth place at an Olympic event in the water cube in Beijing.
In retrospect this event was much more than the departure of one of the greatest sprinters of all times. VdH's fifth place marked a watershed, a threshold between two eras. In ordinary swim suits, many of today's champions would not even come close to the world record that VdH set in the 100-metre freestyle in Sydney in 2000. The record was untouched for almost eight years. Now, fourteen months after the appearance of the first 'magic' suit, 'VdH' is only the 26th fastes swimmer ever.
Technological doping
But the sport, his sport, had changed too much to be a true reflection of ability. Since the proliferation of performance enhancing swimsuits in the Olympic year 2008, nothing is what it seems anymore. But the opposition to this 'technological doping', as it is increasingly being called, is growing. No one believes that so many swimmers are suddenly so much better than old champions like VdH.
In a way, 2008 with its 108 world records was still manageable, since most of the progress was made in the LZR Racer suit, the invention that first plunged the swimming world into the suit crisis. But then new swimsuits came on the market that allowed swimmers to be yet another few seconds - or tenths of a second, what does it matter? - faster than last year.
The world swimming federation FINA stood by and did nothing. After protests from coaches, including Dutch coach Jacco Verhaeren, guidelines were introduced that set regulations for suits, but to date none has been banned. The results are raising more and more questions now that the swimmers have discovered all the advantages of the Jaked, the X-Glide and the BlueSeventy.
Scanning the competition
Swimmers used to have their training programme and a coach who ordered endless repetitions of the 10 x 100 metres - followed by free swimming. Nowadays, swimmers are busy scanning pictures of the swimsuits of their opponents. Swimmers and coaches would like to return to a world without these new suits - but only if everyone else does so at the same time.
"Otherwise it is as if you are going off to war with a toy pistol," says Frenchman Denis Auguin, who coaches Alain Bernard, the first to come in under Van den Hoogenband's legendary world record last year. Just like Verhaeren, Auguin wants to get rid of the polyurethane suits.
Once in a while someone still argues that nothing happens when you just throw a swimsuit in the water. “My suit doesn’t swim, I do,” Frederick Bousquet said last week at the French championships after he beat Bernard in the 100-metre freestyle wearing a Jaked, and smashed his own record by a second.
But criticism is growing in France. "This is no longer a sport. On all sides I see fish swim past me," said Hugues Duboscq, winner of three Olympic medals, but now overshadowed by unknown fellow countrymen in bodysuits. And sprinter Amaury Leveaux found it "nauseating" to see how swimmers were beating their own records by seconds. That used to require years of getting up early and training hard. "It is a disaster."
Blame FINA
The fact that swimmers are helped by their suits is so obvious that some are almost apologetic about it. Like Lennart Stekelenburg, who recently beat the 100-metre record for the fifth time in a Jaked suit he was wearing as a demonstration. He wasn't excited about this world record, he said.
That says everything about the seriousness of the crisis. Records are barely even taken seriously anymore. There is little doubt about who is responsible for the chaos: FINA. The world swimming federation seems to have completely lost its grip on the sport. The federation is having an independent testing and control system set up for suits, but that takes time.
Simply banning suits does not seem to be an option, since many suits were already approved before Beijing. A ban now could lead to enormous lawsuits from the manufacturers, who have put millions into the development and manufacturing. Moreover, the manufacturers are the most important sponsors in swimming - Speedo is an official FINA partner.
A ban would also result in practical problems. What would happens to the records that were set in 2008 and this year? There is no official record of what suit swimmers were wearing when they set these records. And they were legal at the time. But if FINA lets all the records stand, and makes everyone go back to swimming trunks, there is the chance that existing world records will remain in place for may years to come.
Allowing all suits is not an option either, because then the materials will become more important than the swimmers. Swimming, like running, used to be a sport in which it came down to a combination of technique, strength, speed and endurance. That is why a form of regulation is now being worked on, but 123 world records since February 1, 2008 is evidence that the damage has already been done.
Published: 4 May 2009 10:45 | Changed: 4 May 2009 17:52
By Rob Schoof
When Pieter van den Hoogenband (31) retired from swimming six months ago he thought he would be the fastest swimmer alive for many years to come. Instead, 'VdH' finished in fifth place at an Olympic event in the water cube in Beijing.
In retrospect this event was much more than the departure of one of the greatest sprinters of all times. VdH's fifth place marked a watershed, a threshold between two eras. In ordinary swim suits, many of today's champions would not even come close to the world record that VdH set in the 100-metre freestyle in Sydney in 2000. The record was untouched for almost eight years. Now, fourteen months after the appearance of the first 'magic' suit, 'VdH' is only the 26th fastes swimmer ever.
Technological doping
But the sport, his sport, had changed too much to be a true reflection of ability. Since the proliferation of performance enhancing swimsuits in the Olympic year 2008, nothing is what it seems anymore. But the opposition to this 'technological doping', as it is increasingly being called, is growing. No one believes that so many swimmers are suddenly so much better than old champions like VdH.
In a way, 2008 with its 108 world records was still manageable, since most of the progress was made in the LZR Racer suit, the invention that first plunged the swimming world into the suit crisis. But then new swimsuits came on the market that allowed swimmers to be yet another few seconds - or tenths of a second, what does it matter? - faster than last year.
The world swimming federation FINA stood by and did nothing. After protests from coaches, including Dutch coach Jacco Verhaeren, guidelines were introduced that set regulations for suits, but to date none has been banned. The results are raising more and more questions now that the swimmers have discovered all the advantages of the Jaked, the X-Glide and the BlueSeventy.
Scanning the competition
Swimmers used to have their training programme and a coach who ordered endless repetitions of the 10 x 100 metres - followed by free swimming. Nowadays, swimmers are busy scanning pictures of the swimsuits of their opponents. Swimmers and coaches would like to return to a world without these new suits - but only if everyone else does so at the same time.
"Otherwise it is as if you are going off to war with a toy pistol," says Frenchman Denis Auguin, who coaches Alain Bernard, the first to come in under Van den Hoogenband's legendary world record last year. Just like Verhaeren, Auguin wants to get rid of the polyurethane suits.
Once in a while someone still argues that nothing happens when you just throw a swimsuit in the water. “My suit doesn’t swim, I do,” Frederick Bousquet said last week at the French championships after he beat Bernard in the 100-metre freestyle wearing a Jaked, and smashed his own record by a second.
But criticism is growing in France. "This is no longer a sport. On all sides I see fish swim past me," said Hugues Duboscq, winner of three Olympic medals, but now overshadowed by unknown fellow countrymen in bodysuits. And sprinter Amaury Leveaux found it "nauseating" to see how swimmers were beating their own records by seconds. That used to require years of getting up early and training hard. "It is a disaster."
Blame FINA
The fact that swimmers are helped by their suits is so obvious that some are almost apologetic about it. Like Lennart Stekelenburg, who recently beat the 100-metre record for the fifth time in a Jaked suit he was wearing as a demonstration. He wasn't excited about this world record, he said.
That says everything about the seriousness of the crisis. Records are barely even taken seriously anymore. There is little doubt about who is responsible for the chaos: FINA. The world swimming federation seems to have completely lost its grip on the sport. The federation is having an independent testing and control system set up for suits, but that takes time.
Simply banning suits does not seem to be an option, since many suits were already approved before Beijing. A ban now could lead to enormous lawsuits from the manufacturers, who have put millions into the development and manufacturing. Moreover, the manufacturers are the most important sponsors in swimming - Speedo is an official FINA partner.
A ban would also result in practical problems. What would happens to the records that were set in 2008 and this year? There is no official record of what suit swimmers were wearing when they set these records. And they were legal at the time. But if FINA lets all the records stand, and makes everyone go back to swimming trunks, there is the chance that existing world records will remain in place for may years to come.
Allowing all suits is not an option either, because then the materials will become more important than the swimmers. Swimming, like running, used to be a sport in which it came down to a combination of technique, strength, speed and endurance. That is why a form of regulation is now being worked on, but 123 world records since February 1, 2008 is evidence that the damage has already been done.
05-06-09, 07:59 AM
#30
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I don't think we have gotten to the point where technology has overshadowed the athletes in cycle racing. The guys with the power still win the TTs. Cancellara doesn't win because of his bike but because of his engine.
I think all of this bruhaha is an extension of the world hour record debacle.
I think all of this bruhaha is an extension of the world hour record debacle.
05-06-09, 08:00 AM
#31
Acquiring new target....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 1,276
Bikes: Trek XO-1, Gary Fisher Rig
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The UCI's waffling baffles me.
Consistency is not their forte. In fact, the only thing they do consistently is to be inconsistent.
Part of my distaste for the UCI is the fact that their Technical Director, the person who determines what constitutes a legal racing bicycle, has no prior technical/engineering/cycling experience. His background is industrial ergonomics. This is the guy who has the last word about racing bicycles.
Personally, I'd like to see the bicycle manufacturers get together and lobby the UCI for a role in the process of writing the rules concerning legal racing bicycle design.
Consistency is not their forte. In fact, the only thing they do consistently is to be inconsistent.
Part of my distaste for the UCI is the fact that their Technical Director, the person who determines what constitutes a legal racing bicycle, has no prior technical/engineering/cycling experience. His background is industrial ergonomics. This is the guy who has the last word about racing bicycles.
Personally, I'd like to see the bicycle manufacturers get together and lobby the UCI for a role in the process of writing the rules concerning legal racing bicycle design.
05-06-09, 08:07 AM
#32
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
There is no "fuselage" on a bicycle. A handlebar is not a fuselage, neither is a seatpost. The UCI just makes things up as they go along, which is great when you have a one or two year product pipeline.
At this point they could apply it to the gearshift paddle on all STI type shifters. None of them meet the 3:1 ratio test.
Sending out a letter at the beginning of the year that you're now going to apply a horribly written rule to part XYZ has more to do with holding up people for money and showing who has the power than trying to create a level playing field. These are the same jackarses that took Unibet's Protour license money then couldn't deliver.
The end game here is no doubt an inspection/approval process that will have a fee attached.
Virtually every improvement in cycling was first applied to and tested on race bikes, they are the primary marketing vehicle for smaller companies to display innovative technologies and products. Zipp, Cervelo, Etc wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are without racing. Bikes might well look radically different and be much lighter (and cheaper) today had the UCI not decided frames needed to be two triangles, a concept which motorcycles abandoned 20 years ago.
Had the UCI been around at the turn of the last century, we all might be racing penny farthings. Had a UCI official loved downtube shifters, I've no doubt that STI would never have gotten off the ground. Too complex, too expensive, and too much of an advantage to teams that have access.
Like laws, rules need to be justified before they are applied.
Finally, it's not in equipment disparities where the big advantages lie. It's budget. The rider is 90% of the equation if not more.
Some teams have large support staffs with masseuses, cooks, mechanics, Etc, who take care of the riders every need while they fly to point "A" for training camp, point "B" for their altitude training, Etc. Others get in their cars right after the race and drive 3 days to the next event eating carp food and staying 4 to a hotel room.
Banning a $400 aerobar in favor of a $200 aerobar isn't going to address that. And we are talking about applying this at the highest level of racing, where most teams budget is at least several million euros.
At this point they could apply it to the gearshift paddle on all STI type shifters. None of them meet the 3:1 ratio test.
Sending out a letter at the beginning of the year that you're now going to apply a horribly written rule to part XYZ has more to do with holding up people for money and showing who has the power than trying to create a level playing field. These are the same jackarses that took Unibet's Protour license money then couldn't deliver.
The end game here is no doubt an inspection/approval process that will have a fee attached.
Virtually every improvement in cycling was first applied to and tested on race bikes, they are the primary marketing vehicle for smaller companies to display innovative technologies and products. Zipp, Cervelo, Etc wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are without racing. Bikes might well look radically different and be much lighter (and cheaper) today had the UCI not decided frames needed to be two triangles, a concept which motorcycles abandoned 20 years ago.
Had the UCI been around at the turn of the last century, we all might be racing penny farthings. Had a UCI official loved downtube shifters, I've no doubt that STI would never have gotten off the ground. Too complex, too expensive, and too much of an advantage to teams that have access.
Like laws, rules need to be justified before they are applied.
Finally, it's not in equipment disparities where the big advantages lie. It's budget. The rider is 90% of the equation if not more.
Some teams have large support staffs with masseuses, cooks, mechanics, Etc, who take care of the riders every need while they fly to point "A" for training camp, point "B" for their altitude training, Etc. Others get in their cars right after the race and drive 3 days to the next event eating carp food and staying 4 to a hotel room.
Banning a $400 aerobar in favor of a $200 aerobar isn't going to address that. And we are talking about applying this at the highest level of racing, where most teams budget is at least several million euros.
05-06-09, 08:11 AM
#33
Peloton Shelter Dog
Thread Starter
Fixed.
On all other points Racer Ex is 100% Correct.
He's still faster than most of us regardless. He could dump me on a Schwinn Varsity. I wonder if that's UCI legal?
Hey Racer Ex, how much sway would UCI banning some of this stuff have with the USAC? Would our Cervelos be illegal in Central Park? That would be interesting.
I could always race my Cdale. They won't ban the Cervelo on the Nyack Ride that's for sure.
On all other points Racer Ex is 100% Correct.
He's still faster than most of us regardless. He could dump me on a Schwinn Varsity. I wonder if that's UCI legal?
Hey Racer Ex, how much sway would UCI banning some of this stuff have with the USAC? Would our Cervelos be illegal in Central Park? That would be interesting.
I could always race my Cdale. They won't ban the Cervelo on the Nyack Ride that's for sure.
05-06-09, 08:12 AM
#34
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
There is no "fuselage" on a bicycle. A handlebar is not a fuselage, neither is a seatpost. The UCI just makes things up as they go along, which is great when you have a one or two year product pipeline.
At this point they could apply it to the gearshift paddle on all STI type shifters. None of them meet the 3:1 ratio test.
Sending out a letter at the beginning of the year that you're now going to apply a horribly written rule to part XYZ has more to do with holding up people for money and showing who has the power than trying to create a level playing field. These are the same jackarses that took Unibet's Protour license money then couldn't deliver.
The end game here is no doubt an inspection/approval process that will have a fee attached.
Virtually every improvement in cycling was first applied to and tested on race bikes, they are the primary marketing vehicle for smaller companies to display innovative technologies and products. Zipp, Cervelo, Etc wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are without racing. Bikes might well look radically different and be much lighter (and cheaper) today had the UCI not decided frames needed to be two triangles, a concept which motorcycles abandoned 20 years ago.
Had the UCI been around at the turn of the last century, we all might be racing penny farthings. Had a UCI official loved downtube shifters, I've no doubt that STI would never have gotten off the ground. Too complex, too expensive, and too much of an advantage to teams that have access.
Like laws, rules need to be justified before they are applied.
Finally, it's not in equipment disparities where the big advantages lie. It's budget. The rider is 90% of the equation if not more.
Some teams have large support staffs with masseuses, cooks, mechanics, Etc, who take care of the riders every need while they fly to point "A" for training camp, point "B" for their altitude training, Etc. Others get in their cars right after the race and drive 3 days to the next event eating carp food and staying 4 to a hotel room.
Banning a $400 aerobar in favor of a $200 aerobar isn't going to address that. And we are talking about applying this at the highest level of racing, where most teams budget is at least several million euros.
At this point they could apply it to the gearshift paddle on all STI type shifters. None of them meet the 3:1 ratio test.
Sending out a letter at the beginning of the year that you're now going to apply a horribly written rule to part XYZ has more to do with holding up people for money and showing who has the power than trying to create a level playing field. These are the same jackarses that took Unibet's Protour license money then couldn't deliver.
The end game here is no doubt an inspection/approval process that will have a fee attached.
Virtually every improvement in cycling was first applied to and tested on race bikes, they are the primary marketing vehicle for smaller companies to display innovative technologies and products. Zipp, Cervelo, Etc wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are without racing. Bikes might well look radically different and be much lighter (and cheaper) today had the UCI not decided frames needed to be two triangles, a concept which motorcycles abandoned 20 years ago.
Had the UCI been around at the turn of the last century, we all might be racing penny farthings. Had a UCI official loved downtube shifters, I've no doubt that STI would never have gotten off the ground. Too complex, too expensive, and too much of an advantage to teams that have access.
Like laws, rules need to be justified before they are applied.
Finally, it's not in equipment disparities where the big advantages lie. It's budget. The rider is 90% of the equation if not more.
Some teams have large support staffs with masseuses, cooks, mechanics, Etc, who take care of the riders every need while they fly to point "A" for training camp, point "B" for their altitude training, Etc. Others get in their cars right after the race and drive 3 days to the next event eating carp food and staying 4 to a hotel room.
Banning a $400 aerobar in favor of a $200 aerobar isn't going to address that. And we are talking about applying this at the highest level of racing, where most teams budget is at least several million euros.
I am totally in favor of technology trickle-down for those of us who buy our bike stuff.
05-06-09, 08:30 AM
#35
Peloton Shelter Dog
Thread Starter
I'd say the Euros that run pro cycling are disturbingly consistent in their random waffling. Hell, the UCI and the Tour de France idiots seem to revel in their constant and moronic bickering. That's good for the sport eh? That's like the NFL front office engaging in perpetual pissing contests with the Super Bowl host cities year after year.
05-06-09, 08:38 AM
#36
Old & Getting Older Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,343
Bikes: Bicycle Transportation: 2022 Hyundai Kona Electric, 2019 Kia Niro Plug-In Hybrid
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
5 Posts
I wouldn't worry about USAC until you start winning national championships. Even then, USAC might interpret the vague rules differently than the UCI at a national championship.
I still see the occasional funny bike at local TTs. Of course I also see bikes that Cancellara would gladly ride at local TTs.
__________________
Thanks.
Cleave
"Real men still wear pink."
Visit my blog at https://cleavesblant.wordpress.com/
Lightning Velo Cycling Club: https://www.lightningvelo.org/
Learn about our Green Dream Home at https://www.lawville.org/
Thanks.
Cleave
"Real men still wear pink."
Visit my blog at https://cleavesblant.wordpress.com/
Lightning Velo Cycling Club: https://www.lightningvelo.org/
Learn about our Green Dream Home at https://www.lawville.org/
Last edited by Cleave; 05-06-09 at 09:44 AM. Reason: would should have been wouldn't
05-06-09, 08:38 AM
#37
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
That time comes when you can say with legitimacy that rider "A" cannot win without special part "B". That argument cannot be made here, nor are we even close to that tipping point, though it's a good basis for drug testing.
05-06-09, 08:40 AM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I wouldn't give a damn if we had to go back to steel bikes and no TT bars. As long as they're still racing bicycles, it's fine with me. Sure, the rules may be inconsistent, but in ten years, we might not even be able to call it bike racing. I have no interest in semi-human-propelled missile racing.
05-06-09, 08:48 AM
#39
Carpe Diem
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: MABRA
Posts: 13,149
Bikes: 2007 CAAD9; 2014 CAADX; PedalForce CG1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I wouldn't give a damn if we had to go back to steel bikes and no TT bars. As long as they're still racing bicycles, it's fine with me. Sure, the rules may be inconsistent, but in ten years, we might not even be able to call it bike racing. I have no interest in semi-human-propelled missile racing.
__________________
"When you are chewing the bars at the business end of a 90 mile road race you really dont care what gear you have hanging from your bike so long as it works."
ΛΧΑ ΔΞ179 - 15% off your first Hammer Nutrition order!
"When you are chewing the bars at the business end of a 90 mile road race you really dont care what gear you have hanging from your bike so long as it works."
ΛΧΑ ΔΞ179 - 15% off your first Hammer Nutrition order!
05-06-09, 08:49 AM
#40
Peloton Shelter Dog
Thread Starter
Hi,
I would worry about USAC until you start winning national championships. Even then, USAC might interpret the vague rules differently than the UCI at a national championship.
I still see the occasional funny bike at local TTs. Of course I also see bikes that Cancellara would gladly ride at local TTs.
I would worry about USAC until you start winning national championships. Even then, USAC might interpret the vague rules differently than the UCI at a national championship.
I still see the occasional funny bike at local TTs. Of course I also see bikes that Cancellara would gladly ride at local TTs.
I'll be very surprised if that happens, but it's an interesting question. Actually I'll be surprised if the UCI announcement results in any significant changes. The push back from the bicycle industry and other involved entities will be very strong.
They're just aholes at the UCI in my view. Maybe we can all go back to toe clips and wool jerseys. Maybe that would make them happy. Let technology into the sport just like other areas of human endeavor. It's cycling, technology is part of the sport, always has been.
05-06-09, 09:19 AM
#41
Senior Member
Personally I'd like to see the Spinaccis (sp?) and Tirimasuus come back (they were banned in 1998 I think for pros). The reference to 2000 - maybe they're talking of the Scott Rakes and Cane Creek Speed bars (which, as far as I know, are still USAC legal)? Those + EPO = 70 kph leadouts in 1997.
UCI is like the F1 or NASCAR governing body. Some stuff isn't clear, some stuff isn't enforced. If someone brings up a sticky point, enforcement gets a bit better.
A friend of mine went to a NASCAR race. They have templates for various bodies, you can't deviate from this car-long, car-tall template, at least not down the middle of the body. It's beneficial to have different hoods and such, and at 180 mph, it can make or break a car's performance. The inspectors would put the template on the car, then the mechanics would pound/bend things to try and get the car to fit the template.
The enforcement varied.
For some teams, smaller teams usually, gaps of about 1/4" were okay.
On some teams, one in particular according to my friend, the inspectors even got out feeler gauges. They wanted to see the body fit the template to within tenths or hundredths of an inch.
However, on other teams, like the established favorites, they'd remove the template so fast that it barely touched the car. It was obvious that there were huge, huge gaps - 1-2" in places, esp in the critical points. The officals would drop the template down, lift it up, and turn. "Okay, next!"
Then the announcers say, "Oh, so-and-so has a good car today." Well, no kidding. He's running a totally illegal car.
In F1, the big controversy this year is you can't have an aero tunnel to create downforce in a certain area of a car. But a few teams interpreted having two wings with vertical things connecting the two as "two wings", not as "a tunnel with wings on top and bottom". The tunnel (or "diffuser") is acknowledged to be worth up to half a second per lap, significant when lap times are measured in thousandths of a second. After some debate, some protests, the tunnel-type design was declared legal. But this was 4 races into the season.
I don't agree with the UCI's timing, but I think what they're doing is correct. It's by the book.
If they change the rules, so be it. But until they do, rules are rules.
cdr
UCI is like the F1 or NASCAR governing body. Some stuff isn't clear, some stuff isn't enforced. If someone brings up a sticky point, enforcement gets a bit better.
A friend of mine went to a NASCAR race. They have templates for various bodies, you can't deviate from this car-long, car-tall template, at least not down the middle of the body. It's beneficial to have different hoods and such, and at 180 mph, it can make or break a car's performance. The inspectors would put the template on the car, then the mechanics would pound/bend things to try and get the car to fit the template.
The enforcement varied.
For some teams, smaller teams usually, gaps of about 1/4" were okay.
On some teams, one in particular according to my friend, the inspectors even got out feeler gauges. They wanted to see the body fit the template to within tenths or hundredths of an inch.
However, on other teams, like the established favorites, they'd remove the template so fast that it barely touched the car. It was obvious that there were huge, huge gaps - 1-2" in places, esp in the critical points. The officals would drop the template down, lift it up, and turn. "Okay, next!"
Then the announcers say, "Oh, so-and-so has a good car today." Well, no kidding. He's running a totally illegal car.
In F1, the big controversy this year is you can't have an aero tunnel to create downforce in a certain area of a car. But a few teams interpreted having two wings with vertical things connecting the two as "two wings", not as "a tunnel with wings on top and bottom". The tunnel (or "diffuser") is acknowledged to be worth up to half a second per lap, significant when lap times are measured in thousandths of a second. After some debate, some protests, the tunnel-type design was declared legal. But this was 4 races into the season.
I don't agree with the UCI's timing, but I think what they're doing is correct. It's by the book.
If they change the rules, so be it. But until they do, rules are rules.
cdr
05-06-09, 09:21 AM
#42
Snail-paced new boy
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cheshire, England
Posts: 1,828
Bikes: Colnago Extreme Power, Ribble Winter
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I seriously think the UCI have, for years now, completely overestimated the effect of technology/design.
Yes it might make a few watts difference but hey, everyone can do it. Wind tunnel testing is used to get the rider in a more aerodynamic position, not just to test the equipment.
What the stuffy gets at UCI really want is a return to standard shaped frames and downtube shifters.
They stipulated the minimum weight for 'safety reasons'. How can a block of wood lodged under a saddle to make a bike hit the limit be described as safer?
Yes it might make a few watts difference but hey, everyone can do it. Wind tunnel testing is used to get the rider in a more aerodynamic position, not just to test the equipment.
What the stuffy gets at UCI really want is a return to standard shaped frames and downtube shifters.
They stipulated the minimum weight for 'safety reasons'. How can a block of wood lodged under a saddle to make a bike hit the limit be described as safer?
05-06-09, 09:37 AM
#43
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
if the UCI really wanted to level the playing field they could have weight classes for riders. Imagine Leonardo Piepoli and David Millar in two separate time trials. One of them up Alpe d'Huez and the other one on 50km of flat. Is that a level playing field?
05-06-09, 09:42 AM
#45
Senior Member
The main issue here for me is consistency and timing. The UCI is completely right to have rules governing the use of technological advances within the sport. We do want a level playing field, so that athletic ability is what really matters. But there is also the need to allow for technological innovation and change, because it is true that technology is a part of the sport and always has been. The rules actually don't strike a bad balance at the moment. In a situation where 'anything goes,' there is a HUGE advantage to teams and sponsors with big budgets to devote to testing novel frame designs, components and etc. With an admittedly arbitrary template in place, there is still room for technological innovation, but restricting it to modifying that template within certain limits greatly reduces the variables which means that the playing field on technology is somewhat leveled. There are still advantages to those with the better tech, but under good rules the technology game remains in place, but it stays competitive for the non-juggernauts of the sport. The UCI would be doing an good job at this if they had any consistency in their application of the rules.
So, no, the goal is not to stifle innovation, let alone revert to old technology. Rules are GOOD. We need them. The problem is poor enforcement. The UCI has sucked at this for years.
05-06-09, 09:44 AM
#46
Senior Member
Missing the point. Either that or you're being sarcastic. "Weight classes" in cycling would make for an incredibly boring sport, not that it would even be possible to pull off.
05-06-09, 09:48 AM
#47
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
[QUOTE=grolby;8866300It is obviously true that they want to restrict the application of aerodynamic technology, but suggesting that they want to return to the bicycles of the late 1980's is unnecessarily hyperbolic.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. There is a precedent of exactly this in the case of the world hour record. It remains to this day. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of the same kind of thinking applied to road time trials.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. There is a precedent of exactly this in the case of the world hour record. It remains to this day. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of the same kind of thinking applied to road time trials.
05-06-09, 09:49 AM
#49
gmt
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
My point with the weight classes is that it is a completely ridiculous concept. As is the aerodynamics witch-hunt that they are engaging in in order to "level the playing field"
05-06-09, 09:58 AM
#50
Senior Member
The point is to allow everyone the choice of equivalent equipment, so that the equipment advantage of one rider to the next comes down to choices that everyone can make (disk wheel or 404 in windy conditions, light rim or aero rim on the mountain stage, etc). If team A has $10 million to play with, and team B has only $1 million (or whatever units makes sense, you get the picture), it is logical to think that in an "anything goes" system, team A has a big advantage. $10 million will get you a lot of development; lots of prototypes and lots of testing. $1 million might get you one shot in the dark; maybe it's good, maybe it's bad - can't tell because there isn't money for trial and error.
The problem for the bike manufacturers is that they have two options, both bad from a business standpoint. Either they concede that the playing field is not level (i.e. teams that can afford the R&D get a significant advantage in the race) and bring on regulation to level the field, or they are forced to argue in front of their customers that the "aerodynamic benefits" they tout so much in their sales material are not significant enough factors in the bike race to affect the outcome, which means they are arguing their own irrelevance.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter