As already mentioned by others, weight isn't as great a concern as it would be on road race climbing stages. Deep frame and wheel sections, in addition to drinking systems ensure that tri bikes aren't too threatening to the 6.8kg limit. But, yes, to the best of my knowledge there isn't a weight limit for tri bikes. The 3:1 frame element ration also doesn't apply to tri bikes. Hence the Tri-Shiv vs TT-Shiv from Specialized.

However, it's the saddle set back and bar extension measurements that really seperate a UCI position from tri positions. In this instance, Gordon could probably comply with the UCI TT regulations, as he really isn't taking advantage of the forward rotation that tri's lack of regulation allows.

The consequence to UCI legal TT positions is that you'll see saddles further aft than the same rider might use for tri, with bars that are also set further aft, making it more difficult for some to achieve a low and flat back.

I think as you said, the TT regulations of UCI are more concentrated on bar positions and saddle angle. I was watching the World Championships this year and a UCI guy was telling the TV reporters that the saddle angle must be within +/- 3 degree range. I suppose the rules try to avoid the so called "superman" position.

http://www.wolfgang-menn.de/pics/obree7.jpg

BTW some guy managed to build a proper TT bike just under 13 lbs.

http://www.tririg.com/articles.php?i...htest_Tri_Bike

But he did it with a chinese carbon frame so let's blame him for counterfeiting, cheap labor, human rights and stuff...

That "UCI guy" would have been incorrect. It's a 5cm window measured aft from plumb with the bb center. Keep your saddle nose at least 5cm set back from bb center and you could take advantage of a morphological exemption that allowed your bar extensions to extend 85cm forward from the bb center. Run with less than 5cm of saddle setback and your bar extensions could extend no further than 80cm from bb center. Your correct in supposing that their aim was to disallow the superman position. But, what they did with the arbitrary measures was, create a situation where different sized riders have different fit options available to them. There isn't a great solution to the situation. If they were to apply either frame angels or physiological angels the consequence would be people simply fitting onto their bikes in strane ways. Either to pass pre-race inspection or while actually riding.

Where is his sleeveless jersey?

Here it is:
http://youtu.be/mLCgbcOn-t4?t=2m45s

They actually do have a spirit level and the guy mentions it quite clearly...

I nearly choked I laughed so hard.

Tri frames make for a heavy bike.

I ride a Cervelo P5-6...comes in around 8.2kg with Zipp 404 wheels and ultegra mechanical. It's not mountain goat...but with my position, which yields a 20 degree back angle, once I get some power through the Rotor QXL standard crank on a 11/25 cassette....that thing really flies. The extra weight actually helps me keep momentum under most conditions. Obviously pay a heavy price on the climbs (both the weight and the different hand hold on the bull horn affect this.

On the same Strava segments, under different conditions obviously, my heart rate will be 10-20BPM lower and my speed about 5% faster than my times on the same segments riding my Scott Foil Team Issue in the drops.

One of the most important aspects of tri bike fit is the hip angle and how your bike fit changes your run speed. Most guys will be faster with a less efficient but more comfortable bike position because they will be able to run faster than if they are slammed low and tighten their hip flexors and then try to run.

All that said...it is a weird looking bike...but it helped him to an amazing achievement that none of us can take from him! Go Ironman Ramsay! You are an Ironman!

I guess I'm supposed to know who Gordon Ramsay is ? Good thing I can search the interwebz

Edit: ... oh, he's some chef guy.

At 63yo, I completed my IMFL last month in 13:31:48 but it is by far a less demanding event compared to Kona. My tri bike is my road bike, a 2013 Giant Propel Advanced SL3 so it is UCI legal but set up for the comfort I need. I also have a slightly larger than needed frame like Ramsay does and yes it plays into a slower ride but I'm not going for Gold, rather just to finish.

Plan to be under 13 hours in next year's IMFL.

Ah, yes, the saddle must be "level" rule. Which at least at that event was +/- 3*. I thought you were referencing an effective seat tube angle. Oh well. And, yes, you can add the level saddle to the list of rules I believe to be silly and misguided. In the words of the technical director, "to make sure there is no technological advancement".

Can you explain why Kona is more demanding than any other Ironman triathlon? Is it more challenging in a psychological way or any difference in the course?

I've heard it's quite hard to get your name on the list for Kona but aside from that a 140.6 IM should be a 140.6 IM am I wrong?

LAVA flats, winds, climbs, heat, treading water start......

BTW, my seat is dead nuts on, bubble centered

Explain something to me. OP commented about the unusual appearance of a bicycle and was interested partly due to the celebrity status of the cyclist. He cast no aspersions on the cyclist, his abilities, or effort in any particular race. He did not actually criticize the bike as unsuitable; he only mentioned how unusual it is. His whole post was about the interesting characteristics of the bike. Actually he started a good conversation about bike design. You came back with an attack on OP and suggested he is not qualified to talk about this bicycle, because he has never completed an IM and likely rides slower than the subject cyclist. On what planet is that reasonable, and more to the point: what is your problem?

Kona has a lot of hills and wind. Some others, particularly FL and AZ, are very flag and fast. Very different expected speeds.

Thanks for the explanations. As far as I know, only people who finish Kona are deserved to be titled "Ironman" am I right? Who is the governing body of this? International Triathlon Union?

my knees would be a wreck after 10K… really sad because I used to enjoy Tris.

Chef Ramsay thread…. of course its going to get nasty and personal.

No, if you finish any triathlon with the distance of the Kona race, you can call yourself an Ironman.

Technically, "Ironman" is a trademarked name by World Triathlon Corporation , which is different than the International Triathlon Union (ITU). WTC is a commercial group primarily out to make money, whereas ITU is more of a competitive triathlon organization focused on world-class Olympic-distance racing. (Much, much shorter than an Ironman, but typically on elite athletes or budding elites participate in their big races.)

Kona, however, is the world championship for the long Ironman race, and you can either qualify for it by winning a slot in another IM race prior to it, or trying to get a lottery spot (of which there are very few.) Ramsey is a celeb, and there are a few special reserved spots for celebs who can bring particular media attention to the race, so he doesn't have to qualify.

Qualifying for Kona today typically means you're amongst the top 5 amateur triathletes who race iron-distance in your state, maybe top 20 in a large state like CA. It's hard - these guys typically beat a handful of professional triathletes in races (pro triathletes have to meet certain time standards, so it's not as easy as calling yourself pro.)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm currently training for my first sprint this July, then plan to do a regular by the summer of '15. I don't really know if I'll like it or I don't know if there's a Tri bug (like cycling bug). I really like all three sports individually but I have no idea how much of a suffering it is when combined.

Ironmans are cool but I think as you stated it is a little bit of a commercial product. Although I do respect the efforts of the participants, I don't think they are feasible in a biomechanical way. I don't think the human body is suitable to whit stand 10 hours of aerobic activity.

The human body is actually built for ultrarunning, at least that's the main accepted theory on evolution (published in Nature 2 years ago, which is one of the premier science journals.) We do best on megadistance runs - humans ably compete with and beat horses at 100 mile races.

I would like to check that article, if you could provide a link that'll be great.

For what I've known, human beings suck pretty much at every athletic aspect. That is why we have a developed front brain and learned how to search for shelter, make tools and weapons to turn our physical disadvantage to our favour. Dolphins for example are considered to be almost as smart as humans but their athletic ability provides them enough agility to hunt for themselves and out-swim any threat. Our intelligence and dominance is also well respected in nature as no wild animal (except polar bears) hunts humans.

I'm not saying what you are saying is wrong but I see no evolutionary advantage in being able to outrun a horse in a 100 miles race.

How could he not know who I am ?? I won a criterium in an industrial park once !

You don't see the evolutionary advantage in chasing a bigger, faster animal into exhaustion so that it drops to the ground where we kill it with the spear or club we are able to carry (bipedalism plus opposable thumbs)?