Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup
Quote | Reply
Specifically 5.11e here:
http://www.usatriathlon.org/...lebook.aspx#article5

Quote:
(e) There must be no protective shield, fairing, or other device on any part of the bicycle (including frame, wheels, handlebars, chain wheel, and accessories) which has the effect of reducing resistance. Aerodynamic carriers for food, water, and or cycling provisions may be attached to or be an integral part of the aero-handlebars if they meet the following guidelines:

(i) The carrier can pass from front to rear, through a rectangular loop with dimensions of 10 inches (25 cm) in width and 8 inches (20 cm) in height. (ii) The front of the carrier is behind the cyclist’s hands when the hands are placed in their customary position on the end of the aerobars, and (iii) the length of the carrier is no greater than 10 inches (25 cm) front to rear.

When the carrier is an integral part of the aerobar, this integrated unit must be able to pass through the rectangular loop defined in (i) above and the carrier portion of the unit must meet criteria (ii) and (iii). In the event that compliance with this section is in doubt with respect to any particular carrier or integrated unit, a member of USA Triathlon may submit the carrier or integrated unit to USA Triathlon for evaluation.

Currently all kinds of bikes and parts potentially violate this rule. Trek, Cervelo, Specialized, Scott, various chainrings, various types of wheels (Flos, Jets) etc. Some of these have been verbally agreed to be legal but we know from past experience that such arrangements can change and ruin everyone's life (see UCI reinterpretation of handle bars and seat posts)

So, lets nix this rule, or fix it. Who here reading is part of USAT to get a discussion started with the powers that be?



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This rule does seem to make Hed jet and Flo wheels illegal. There is an informal agreement in place to ignore this? That definitely seems worrisome. What frame-integrated parts are illegal under this? The chain stay on the Ventum that shrouds the cassette and rd seems it would violate this rule. Aero chain rings too. The Scott bta bottle seems ok though I do not know its exact dimensions. Lots of front brake shrouds I think violate this.

Edit: do you think just adding in more exceptions for wheels like hed and flo and brake fairings is sufficient or does it need to be totally re-written?

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Last edited by: RowToTri: Mar 3, 15 7:45
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Can you give a specific example of something that you would use that would be illegal under that rule?

I know that Jets are on the UCI approved list but don't know about Flos.

What bike's have this issue? I understand the different opinions on the Chainrings.

jaretj
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:

So, lets nix this rule, or fix it. Who here reading is part of USAT to get a discussion started with the powers that be?

Let's start by figuring out what the actual intent here is. Why are we restricting what are essentially modifications to a stock bike?
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:


Edit: do you think just adding in more exceptions for wheels like hed and flo and brake fairings is sufficient or does it need to be totally re-written?


(Just quoting since it helps make a point not commenting directly do you)

I had wondered about this myself, as in are disc covers illegal then? As that even more than a flo or hed is specifically adding a fairing with something like the aerojacket is specifically added for aero after the fact. In the revised WTC rules that came out a few weeks ago there was this very specific exception for disc covers/fairings on the wheel.

Is it possible that in the USAT rules, which I have not read recently, that the same exception already exists for wheels like hed/flo or disk covers?

(edit don't multitask and post)
Last edited by: mrtopher1980: Mar 3, 15 8:04
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [mrtopher1980] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wheel covers are explicitly allowed on rear wheels in a later rule on that page.

mrtopher1980 wrote:
RowToTri wrote:


Edit: do you think just adding in more exceptions for wheels like hed and flo and brake fairings is sufficient or does it need to be totally re-written?


(Just quoting since it helps make a point not commenting directly do you)

I had wondered about this myself, as in are disc covers illegal then? As that even more than a flo or hed is specifically adding a fairing with something like the aerojacket is specifically added for aero after the fact. In the revised WTC rules that came out a few weeks ago there was this very specific exception for disc covers/fairings on the wheel.

Is it possible that in the USAT rules, which I have not read recently, that the same exception already exists for wheels like hed/flo or disk covers?

(edit don't multitask and post)



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think this rule has been in there for 20 years or so, and I don't remember any illegal equipment rulings. I think a couple of examples would help.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jaretj wrote:
Can you give a specific example of something that you would use that would be illegal under that rule?

The front cover on a shiv TT
the brake cover in the rear of a speed concept
the brake cover on the front of a p5
certain types of aero chainrings
a flo or hed jet front wheel, and possibly rear depending on the specific meaning of 'wheel cover'
all manner of fiddly bits that cover bolt holes or fair attachment points on various aero bars and brakes, cleats, shoes, skewers and so on

This has nothing to do with the UCI, this is a USAT rule.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Last edited by: jackmott: Mar 3, 15 8:10
Quote Reply
Post deleted by klehner [ In reply to ]
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That carrier on the Ventum must be longer than 10 inches? It runs the whole length of the top tube...

I agree with your disdain for rules like this, but I do think there is a difference in dynamic to consider that may save tri from UCI style rule-fascism. Triathletes can for the most part choose the bike they ride at will (just ask Crowie) and are rarely forced into a big aero disadvantage to other athletes. Pro cyclists on teams are at the mercy of fixed sponsors and so intensive equipment regulations become more important to level the playing field and keep any one team from decimating everyone else with technology (kind of a F1 attitude). Maybe I am talking out my ass though..

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
jaretj wrote:
Can you give a specific example of something that you would use that would be illegal under that rule?

The front cover on a shiv TT
the brake cover in the rear of a speed concept
the brake cover on the front of a p5
certain types of aero chainrings
a flo or hed jet front wheel, and possibly rear depending on the specific meaning of 'wheel cover'
all manner of fiddly bits that cover bolt holes or fair attachment points on various aero bars and brakes, cleats, shoes, skewers and so on

This has nothing to do with the UCI, this is a USAT rule.

OK, good examples to look at
According to the rules the brake covers are fairings (IMO) and should not be allowed. Maybe they could argue that they are dust covers :) Do I think they should be allowed?...Not with the current wording of the rules.

I really think the intent there is to prevent someone from putting a shield in front of the whole bike. Perhaps better wording of the rules is in order.

Do you happen to know the UCI rules and what has been tolerated?
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
wheel covers are explicitly allowed on rear wheels in a later rule on that page.

Yeah saw that right after I posted.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [Jordano] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jordano wrote:
That carrier on the Ventum must be longer than 10 inches? It runs the whole length of the top tube...

I agree with your disdain for rules like this, but I do think there is a difference in dynamic to consider that may save tri from UCI style rule-fascism. Triathletes can for the most part choose the bike they ride at will (just ask Crowie) and are rarely forced into a big aero disadvantage to other athletes. Pro cyclists on teams are at the mercy of fixed sponsors and so intensive equipment regulations become more important to level the playing field and keep any one team from decimating everyone else with technology (kind of a F1 attitude). Maybe I am talking out my ass though..

I made a similar analogy to a coworker the other day.

UCI "road racing" is like nascar, strict rules everything checked and double checked.

Tri is/should be like F1 where there are general rules and you are allowed to make advancements within those vague confines.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jaretj] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jaretj wrote:
I really think the intent there is to prevent someone from putting a shield in front of the whole bike. Perhaps better wording of the rules is in order.

My question is why? Why do we want to restrict someone from being as aero as possible? Outside of safety concerns, this is a race. Make yourself and your equipment as fast as it can be.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [noofus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
This is what I think they were trying to prevent the use of:



Why is a matter of opinion I suppose.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Disk front wheels aren't allowed. Rear disks are allowed; only exception I've seen is Kona, and maybe Honu? I've seen deep rim wheels all over the place, and never heard anyone complaining about them being illegal.


I've seen shivs, speed concepts, P5s, and such at lots of races, again with no apparent issues. I also haven't heard anything about bolt hole covers, skewers, and such being brought up as having failed inspection at a USAT race.


The one thing I remember from a while back was one of the pros in Kona had some kind of 'water and food carrier' that looked more like the motorcycle fairing, and it got shot down.


So it sounds like just about any of the examples you brought up are legal, but the rule is there for the one-offs that are pushing the envelope? Maybe you can take up your concerns with USAT directly?

Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [Peanut] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The issue is not deep rim wheels in general but the wheels that use a shallow aluminum rim with a non-structural aero fairing like Hed Jets and Flo wheels that do violate the rule. A quiet agreement to ignore the rule for these products could easily end and is not the right way to encourage innovation. Would you invest in developing a new product with no more than an unwritten backdoor exception as the only hope of your product being allowed? The conversation about discs is about covers, not structural carbon discs, but there is a rule specifically allowing those on rear wheels.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [Peanut] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Peanut wrote:

I've seen shivs, speed concepts, P5s, and such at lots of races, again with no apparent issues. I also haven't heard anything about bolt hole covers, skewers, and such being brought up as having failed inspection at a USAT race.

So it sounds like just about any of the examples you brought up are legal, but the rule is there for the one-offs that are pushing the envelope? Maybe you can take up your concerns with USAT directly?

Read the rule and then look at Jack's examples. They clearly violate the letter of that rule. Just because you've seen them and they've been allowed, doesn't mean they're not still technically illegal. Jack's point is that USAT could very well wake up tomorrow and decide to enforce it more strictly. More likely, it will be someone pushing the edge that USAT decides is a bit too far, but it will be hard to justify banning that new innovation that's just a little bit different from a previous feature. The end result is they go back to a far more restrictive reading of the rule and, *poof*, thousands of dollars of equipment become useless.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
jaretj wrote:
Can you give a specific example of something that you would use that would be illegal under that rule?


The front cover on a shiv TT
the brake cover in the rear of a speed concept
the brake cover on the front of a p5
certain types of aero chainrings
a flo or hed jet front wheel, and possibly rear depending on the specific meaning of 'wheel cover'
all manner of fiddly bits that cover bolt holes or fair attachment points on various aero bars and brakes, cleats, shoes, skewers and so on

This has nothing to do with the UCI, this is a USAT rule.

You could actually make an argument for the rear brake cover on the Speed Concept being "structural" in some form. You have to compress it a bit when installing it and one could argue that pre-tension reinforces that part of the bike.

... I'll concede it's a dodgy argument. I don't recall whether or not they got that one by the UCI
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
The issue is not deep rim wheels in general but the wheels that use a shallow aluminum rim with a non-structural aero fairing like Hed Jets and Flo wheels that do violate the rule...

The "aero fairing" on a Hed Jet is bonded to the aluminum rim, thus adding to the strength of the wheel. I would assume the same could be said for Flo wheels.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jackmott wrote:
Specifically 5.11e here:
http://www.usatriathlon.org/...lebook.aspx#article5

Quote:

(e) There must be no protective shield, fairing, or other device on any part of the bicycle (including frame, wheels, handlebars, chain wheel, and accessories) which has the effect of reducing resistance. Aerodynamic carriers for food, water, and or cycling provisions may be attached to or be an integral part of the aero-handlebars if they meet the following guidelines:

(i) The carrier can pass from front to rear, through a rectangular loop with dimensions of 10 inches (25 cm) in width and 8 inches (20 cm) in height. (ii) The front of the carrier is behind the cyclist’s hands when the hands are placed in their customary position on the end of the aerobars, and (iii) the length of the carrier is no greater than 10 inches (25 cm) front to rear.

When the carrier is an integral part of the aerobar, this integrated unit must be able to pass through the rectangular loop defined in (i) above and the carrier portion of the unit must meet criteria (ii) and (iii). In the event that compliance with this section is in doubt with respect to any particular carrier or integrated unit, a member of USA Triathlon may submit the carrier or integrated unit to USA Triathlon for evaluation.


Currently all kinds of bikes and parts potentially violate this rule. Trek, Cervelo, Specialized, Scott, various chainrings, various types of wheels (Flos, Jets) etc. Some of these have been verbally agreed to be legal but we know from past experience that such arrangements can change and ruin everyone's life (see UCI reinterpretation of handle bars and seat posts)

So, lets nix this rule, or fix it. Who here reading is part of USAT to get a discussion started with the powers that be?

Charlie Crawford is your man to get in touch with, pm me if you want.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [Peanut] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Peanut wrote:
So it sounds like just about any of the examples you brought up are legal

No, it sounds like the examples I have brought up just haven't been enforced. So, get rid of the rule.



Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jstonebarger] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah.... I think it is a pretty weak argument since the aluminum rims are completely good rims all by themselves. The amount of stiffness added by the fairings I would think is pretty small.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Yeah.... The amount of stiffness added by the fairings I would think is pretty small.

Apparently just enough to satisfy the UCI.
Quote Reply
Re: Let us fix a USA Triathlon rule before it turns into a UCI style screwup [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Why not first concentrate your efforts where the camel's nose is already under the tent: ITU?

This particular rule (and it's analogue in the IRONMAN rulebook, 5.03(b)) is one I've personally discussed with Charlie Crawford and Jimmy Riccitello...generically, and specifically with regard to existing and/or upcoming projects. I've done that to avoid exactly the scenario you're describing...at least with respect to projects I'm associated with. You're worried that one or both of those guys is going to wake up with a change of heart, ignore the history and traditions of the sport, and incur the wrath of thousands of athletes and a great number of manufacturers by directing their troops to execute a 180...when there's an organization with global reach and a hankering to grow that already cites UCI in their rulebook and has a history of random enforcement of same.

I'm far more concerned about what happened at Challenge Dubai than I am about USAT or IRONMAN. Doesn't mean the language of 5.11e or 5.03(b) is perfect, but how about let's step on the embers already landing in the brush over there before we worry about clearing away a little of the brush over here? I'd feel a lot better about the future of tri bike design if ITU harmonized bike equipment rules with USAT & IRONMAN than if we haggled over what constitutes a fairing. Besides, that conversation got started a month ago.

Carl Matson
Quote Reply

Prev Next