Will definitely be interesting how they officiate this. They talked about it being banned in the t100 race in Miami but then had like 3-4 ways your could still do it “legally”. I’m all for it being banned for multiple reasons. It looks ridiculous for any photos taken while riding and it gives an insane advantage to some based on the position you ride in. The more upright you are the more it helps. Someone like ryf got like 15 extra watts or something crazy from it.

Section 5.03 needs a lot more clarification. I think their intent is to rein in all the MacGyvered crap people attach to their bike for aero benefits that aren’t really part of the bike. Okay. But then it says “Aerodynamic assemblies and protuberances on the head tube or elsewhere are prohibited” which would also suggest nosecone type things that are part of the original design of the bike. My new Cadex, for example, has a nosecone. There’s stuff it hides underneath it but we all know what it’s really there for. Am I going to show up to a race and have them say I need to remove the nosecone?

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

 

One "easy" solution would be allow UCI rules + a very specific list of exceptions such as a bento box.

Easier to specify what is allowed rather than what isn't.

Thank you--this was what I was about to post, myself.

Not really "get extra watts" but a better CdA.
So now the trend is to ban everything that gives some kind of benefit? Will aerosuits, disc wheels, aero calfs, helmets etc also be banned? And carbon shoes, wetsuits or swimskins? It's understandable up to a certain point but come on... It will only lead to different applicability criteria at check in based on each official.

As long as it's at check in. Imagine the guy at check in waves you through but you get DSQd after the bike leg.

It is quite the double edged sword though in terms of innovation though. Easy is good, but I would rather like to see it in the opposite direction. No rules, but if you endanger others (or yourself) it is an instant DQ.

I was close in ordering a 3D printer just for some proper MacGyver projects. At the very least the Ironman decision will hurt the 3D printer sales! Unless the new challenge is to make it that professional that it looks like it is an original part!

Home printed 3D parts should be an instant DQ. Ask me how I know :-)

No but seriously, I see people think they can 3D print spacers/angles for their aerobars.

I have 3 printers, off to get a 4th today

These new rules would seem to have some unintended consequences. I’d venture to guess these are aimed at the bottle down the kit (clearly) and the Joe Skipper bottle setup. But 5.03 would also seem to make the profile design aeria front hydration system illegal. This is OEM on lots of Quintana Roo bikes, and would also make the similar system on the Giant Trinity and Cube Aetherium illegal. It is also relevant for me and I’m sure other athletes who planned on using the profile design aeria system this year non OEM, but attached using the specific profile design stem. Will there be an exception for OEM systems like this? Will I get a DSQ if I add this on my bike? Not to mention, lots of BTA hydration systems could technically be read as being illegal under this rule. I suspect that Ironman will enforce it based somewhat on a level of egregiousness test, i.e. if the primary if not sole purpose of an attachment is aero benefit, but it unfairly leaves a lot up to interpretation.

Adding this here as text.
The 2024 IRONMAN Rules have been published (wef 6 March) and the relevant section is:

5.01(m) Except as set forth below in Section 5.02(b) [actually IM may have wanted to refer to 5.03(b); below but it's not clear (5.02(b) refers to helmets)], additional equipment that has the effect of reducing wind resistance is prohibited during the bike segment of the Race (whether such equipment is worn under the athlete’s clothing, over the athlete’s
clothing, or is otherwise attached to the athlete's body or the athlete’s bike). This
includes, but is not limited to, (i) any bottles/hydration or any other insert located in
the front of an athlete’s race suit and (ii) any insert in an athlete’s calf sleeves; (DSQ)

5.03(b) Protective screens, fuselages, fairings, or any other devices or materials (including
duct tape) added or blended into the structure with the intent to reduce (or having
the effect of reducing) resistance to air penetration are prohibited. Aerodynamic
assemblies and protuberances on the head tube or elsewhere are prohibited; (DSQ)

This rule implies that temporary storage of a bottle in a pocket or down the front (see Sanders at Oceanside) will risk a DQ. And chucking outside a litter zone will mean DQ.

As for zippergate (off topic):
6.01(e) Uniforms with a front zipper may be unzipped to any length, provided, that (i) the
zipper should be connected at the bottom of the uniform at all times, and (ii) the
top of the uniform should cover the shoulders at all times; (30 or 60 Second Time
Penalty (as applicable), DSQ if not remedied promptly). The uniform should be fully
zipped when crossing the finish line;
Note that zipping up at the finish is a 'should' not a 'shall' and has no penalty attached
but IM have used 'should' when they mean 'shall' or 'is to be / are to be' on all this stuff.

If I want to wear a tinfoil hat I would think the new rule was advocated for by companies like Profile Design. No cost hydration solutions directly impact them financially. I doubt this rule means no more Aeria’s or BTS solutions as these are profit centers for these manufacturers.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

We have 50 now. None of them I would trust with structural parts. One that I would trust costs like 20 of ours and you still need to understand materials engineering or something will break.

Agreed. I have had many home made parts fly off my bike. All during training/testing rides. There is a stretch of road about 5km long, there must be a half dozen aero sensors in the ditch somewhere since I print my own Garmin/Gopro mounts :-)

IM could make this simple. Allow accessories from an approved manufacturer list. Then work with that manufacturer. Profile Design, on the list. QR on the list....Those companies won't muck with the rules. Make it simple for the athlete. I bought everything from QT, I am good to go.

I hope they extend the litter zones a bit with this rule change. It can be tough to grab a bottle, open the bottle, and refill a hydration system within the litter zone. I've had to stuff empty bottles down my kit in the past due to missing the window. Now the only option will be to take what you can get and chuck the half-full bottle at the end of the litter zone.

One of the areas I heard mentioned that they could get around the 'rule' was that if it was a bottle taken from the course. I personally think that is one way to normalize the rule a bit - it is accessible to everyone, and frankly I have put a bottle in my kit (before I knew it was aero) because I forgot to throw my empty one out that was BTS.



There is a lot of gray area with the fuselage piece of the rule. If it has a purpose (IE carrying nutrition, flat kit, etc) then it would be allowed, however if the sole purpose is to reduce drag (I immediately think of the old P5 brake covers, that had zero structural add), it is illegal.

I can only imagine how many people that do not have the $$ to get a semi-custom/custom front end, and were using the duct tape method will get a 3d printer to get an 'aftermarket' looking piece. I would be more afraid of catastrophic failure from homegrown solutions like that than duct tape.

Playing devils advocate, will taping gels to your top tube (amazes me that people still do this, but thats a whole other point) be illegal?

---

IG: NCGregory8778

Gonna be really tough to draw clear lines on this mess of a rule.

I suppose I should take my TriRig delta cover off.

"This rule reads like it was written by a new college grad trying to impress his boss. Fancy words that sound cool but obfuscate the actual meaning. Purple prose"


This is the most accurate description of this. Bravo!

---

IG: NCGregory8778

Thinking more about this and aero hydration solutions.

A massively tall double bottle holder behind the arms, effectively pressed against your chest, one bottle below each pectoral.

Would it still be effective without the fabric covering it? Maybe. Will it be much more dangerous and unwieldy than a bottle down the kit? Yes. Is it legal under these rules? Also yes

I’m still trying to convince my wife that we need a Markforged but not there yet haha.

I’m still trying to figure out how a bike frame is legal now. Based on the second set of rules you don’t get a bike because most carbon frames are multiple molds that end up blending together as they put the frame together.

What yahoo wrote this?

It's such a mess.

Fuselage: def: the main body of an aircraft. Not a ton of those on bikes these days.

I'm waiting for the front page article and follow up from Riccitello before passing judgement.

---

blog

OMG, yeah no structually important parts please! ;)

I have some good ideas in terms of a more aero chain catcher and tool boxes. Also a bottle holder that fits on top of my "integrated" system. TBH I think there would be no danger for any part involve but it would make me look faster at least. :p

That sounds like the Pieter Heemeryck T100 back setup but at the front

Ditto, and note that it's banned if the intent or effect is to improve aerodynamics. Reading the rule literally, even if you're just trying to get more fuel on the bike, you're basically not allowed to do it in a way that improves aerodynamics!

I have the run-of-the-mill Elite Crono bottle on the downtube, which almost certainly makes the bike more aero than if the downtube were bare. Whether or not users of said bottle will be DQed will be at the discretion of the officials. Of course they won't penalize anyone, until an underpaid idiot does.

We're back to writing non-existent double yellow lines into rules and such silliness...

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

Wonder if some headhunter poaching them from UCI ;-)

Exactly. They could have simplified and stick with the classic "non functional fairings are prohibited". If you choose functional over structural as the adjective you allow bottles, computers, bento boxes, flat kits, all the typical things people carry on their bikes. Sure they may be shaped in funny ways, but that's allowed in the as-written rule too. There's no need to go into such granularity.

I think that is part of the “problem” they are trying to fix. Everything can become a functional fairing now with 3d printing. What bento box shape do you want and I can print it in a few hours.

This reeks of executive leadership at its finest. “Just give me a couple sentences that covers everything” uhhh it’s not that simple, “yeah whatever your just overstating the complexity go figure it out” ummm okay I’ll just use a bunch of big words that will make my boss happy.

especially since you have to actually draw a line as to whether it reduces or just doesn't increase "air penetration", given there is no baseline established (unless you go with intent which is even messier). suddenly everyone will be claiming their products as aero-neutral hydration instead of a reduction.

i like what i think their intention is - getting rid of random additions with no purpose other than drag reduction - but this has to be a contender for worst rule ever written!

I wouldn't fret...I understand there will be new aero rule consultants in the pebble gardens at an Equinox near you

Definitely not. The rule is as surprising to PD as anyone else.

It looks like someone went to the UCI Academy for vague and unintended consequence rule writing then was eager to apply their new knowledge.

The wording calls into question many elements on a tri bike.

Also - hydration not as profitable as you might expect. Fairly low msrp per unit but blow mould tooling costs as much as bike frames so the up front costs are really high. PD can only justify making bottles because of their wide distribution network (including OE partnerships).

Probably going to be waiting a while for that one. Likely not till after Oceanside.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

The most interesting part of the race at Oceanside may be bike check-in.

Kinda my point -- need to see what is / isn't under permissible in action, and there's not going to be much of an enforcement arm on this until we get to the first Pro Series stop of the year.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Additional clarity required - what constitutes “additional equipment”? Do some helmets lower cda below that of a bare head? Sounds like those would be banned. Skinsuits? Same. The note calling out items under the athletes clothing clearly indicates the ruling is not only applicable to items on the frame.

Furthermore, who’s the judge on whether an item has the effect of reducing wind resistance? Can I have professional aero testing done and ask for a certification from the tester noting that the item tested does not reduce wind resistance? There’s no way ironman goes for that but then every item under scrutiny is left up to the judge to eye the effect on cda. I think most everyone knows how unreliable that is for the small details.

Or the DQ's of those checked-in bikes, afterward. Bummer start to a new CEO's tenure, being responsible for all things IM.

This is a difficult rule. What about the bento box and bottle cage holder on example the Ku, that is aero fairing incl. ‘spoiler’ that dual acts as a bento. The classics HC bta bottle from profile design with the torpedo ‘aero’ profile lid, etc. The new Canyon behind the saddle bottle mount is just putting the bottle up higher, but still ‘just’ bottle mount.

This going to be very difficult to control.

Jeroen

---

Owner at TRIPRO, The Netherlands

I still ride, and occasionally race, a Specialized Transition Pro. I have the triangular, good for nothing but making the bike more aero, water bottle that goes in the frame. Is that now illegal?

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Is that due to not being able to sit down with Jimmy/IM prior to Oceanside? Or just wanting to see how Oceanside plays out first?

---

blog

It's mostly column B -- I think we're making a mountain out of a mole hill here. It's a set of rules that, on the surface, appear to be written to outlaw Skipper's set-up and jersey stuffing. I find it hard to believe they are going to suddenly DQ half of the age group field.

But, we won't know until they actually start enforcing the rules. Nobody thought the zipper thing was a big deal 8 or so years ago until pros suddenly had to safety pin their kits together if the zipper broke (looking at you, Jessie Thomas) and guys suddenly had sports bras made to get around the torso coverage limits.

That and I think Jimmy's pretty darn busy with RaceRanger and checking everybody's running shoes. ;)

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Something needed to be done about Joe Skippers setup. Personally think that the sport of triathlon should be focused on being better athletes. Not on fiddling the bike setup to get the lowest cda. Certainly I am guilty, but I'd be happy to ride a road bike as long as everyone else is doing the same.

Personally, I wasn't impressed with his DNF.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

Personally, I wasn't impressed with his IMTX DNF.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

you're probably right that none of the stuff considered normal a year or so back is going to be an issue, just the recent more extreme skipper like innovations.
however thats not to say we're making a big deal about nothing - a rule that means virtually every athlete turning up to an IM race could be DSQed is not a molehill. we want to be confident about what we can and cannot do so that when we spend time and money prepping for that race we aren't losing sleep about the possibility of an overly officious official

i would guess that most anything commercially available in reasonable quantities, used as intended, is probably ok (or will be explicitly called out if not) but some custom stuff eg the huge mono-extension things and non-standard use of things will be up for examination

I agree with you that this probably mostly nothing. That’s why I wrote my original post that I’m withholding judgement.

But wouldn’t it be nice to be proactive and get specific clarification especially for people who are spending a lot of money on front ends like drag2zero, aero coach, print4watts, etc which while very unlikely could be interpreted to be illegal with the new rules?

I think IM just needs to come out and say this is the intent of the new rules and here’s what we are trying to prevent.

---

blog

Not replying to you or anyone else, but I do like that Ironman is somewhat trying to slow down the technology a bit. I believe that is one of the reasons UCI has its rules, to make cycling more affordable and equal for all

Aerocoach for one offers custom 3d printed bars for 3k USD and these things do help. Not long ago clip on bars were 100 USD. I'm all for techology improvements, but the cost of the sports especially at high performance is too high right now.

How to balance these two factors: Allow some innovation while maintaing a reasonable cost for everyone looking at high performance?

---

--
Vinnie Santana, Multisport Coach
http://www.ironguides.net
* * * Your best is our business. * * *

Good news. The rule is written too broadly and they need to provide much more clarification but I'm sure the intent is to get rid of all the newer ridiculous DIY type aero add ons. I'll be happy if I don't have to strategically strap 10 bottles all over my body and bike to be on a level playing field.

---

Coach of TriForce Triathlon Team

But they're actually doing the exact opposite of what you're saying here. The $3,000 aerobars are still legal. Trying to copy the design with $5 worth of duct tape now isn't. This is actually widening the gap of what is affordable and accessible. Same thing for bottles down the kit. For a short time there was a nearly free method of potentially gaining some aero benefit. Now you'll have some company marketing a huge bento box that is technically within the rules that fills that space under the chest.

Rules like this both stifle creativity and make certain technological gains more exclusive.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

Triathlon has always been the Wild Wild West of sport.

This needs to continue. We are early adapters. The future comes from tri. IMO

---

http://www.TriScottsdale.org

Yeah...the fastest equipment has always been $$$ and a financial burden for many - but allowing people to try to approximate it with duct tape, for instance, is pretty crazy. You nailed it Ben.

---

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!

Let's not forget that some DIY innovations have often become something the manufacturers adopted... Lots of the tool boxes behind bottles and saddles were DIY early on. Bento boxes from touring etc on top tubes became more aero and then bento boxes they are now.

And on another note, if they tell you at the check-in, "take it off or you get DQ", it is alright. However, people might stick their funny stuff on in the morning. Work with photo proof otherwise it will be a "he/she said, he/she said" scenario? What a pain to police.

Would you have to make your bike intentionally "un-aero" in order to comply? Like round bottles instead of the elite ones? This needs a catalogue of what is allowed and what isn't.

Regarding 3D printing: Some (imo) smart bike computer holders are in my mind, too. Other items are 1 to 1 available on thingverse. Someone redesigned or 3d scanned original Garmin/wahoo holders. The branded one by Canyon for Canyon might be legal and the unbranded one 3d printed isn't? Or only the “improved design” (e.g. closed/hidden bolt holes) is illegal?!

One last note: If you wanted an all fair, all equal sport focused on athletic ability only, wouldn’t you need everyone on the same equipment (wetsuit, bicycle, shoes, etc) ?

Not sure this has worked out well. UCI/ TT bikes are still over $10k USD. I do agree that the cost of some of these aerobars is going that direction. Ironically, a few seasons ago Ditlev was using duct tape and yoga mat to make his aerobars monocoque style.

I do agree that Skipper's setup was just becoming a bit too silly. Why not make the rule more specific instead of banning a bunch of other stuff.

 

what would happen if they let athlete A race with something that is clearly in violation of the rules but IM didn't enforce, then athlete B protests that A won the race ?

Probably won't happen but does B have a case ?

By making such vague rules doesn't IM open itself up to this type of problem ?

Well if it's *clearly* in violation of the rules then the offender should be DQ'd in accordance with the rules. Jersey bottle, duct taping round tubes into airfoil tubes, etc. Whether you agree with the rules or not they should at least be enforced and enforced consistently. Having rules enforced sometimes just gives officials the power to pick and choose winners and losers.

The real problem is when someone wins who is *maybe* in violation of the rules and someone protests. What about a Felt IA whose nose cone piece broke, and since they're not in stock anywhere anymore the athlete made a new one out of plastic. Was the original okay and the replacement not? Neither are allowable by a strict interpretation.

Likewise for someone taping Di2 cables to their round aero extensions. That doesn't have the intent of "reducing air penetration", but surely has that effect. The rule says intent OR effect. By the strict interpretation Di2 cables need to hang freely and cannot be taped/glued for any reason, regardless of the intent. Surely this wouldn't be enforced, see above for why that's an issue.

Assuming that a referee saw the bike beforehand and declared it OK, under 3.06(b) there is no right to protest.

And ultimately my guess is that they'll determine this definition of the equipment rules as a "judgment call" by an official, of which there is no right to protest, either.

It's going to be like the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity -- we're gonna know it when we see it.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Let’s just all go back to UCI approved road bikes!

Soapbox here, but Can I just say that there feels like a disproportionate burden placed on pro athletes (specifically by Ironman). If you want to race you have to travel far distances, have to book accommodations with no assistance, attend a pro meeting typically early in the day prior, leave your bike overnight for 12+ hrs, abide by a bunch of obscure rules. We could/will get DQ’d if we don’t abide by these requirements but Ironman doesn’t seem to have any accountability in what they are providing back to pro athletes. The race experience is almost no different than an AGer: Same on course nutrition, same extremely tight T1 racking, same on course SAG, same medal/shirt/post-race food and ultimately nothing provided to pro families to spectate.

Most importantly there is no accountability for safety concerns - cars still get on the road, pedestrians, bad road surfaces etc. In other words I ask, how can we “DQ” Ironman when a car hits an athlete or impedes a racer? Or if they choose to not enforce drafting penalties for the front group?

We saw it

Consider me an advocate for outlawing that.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Ironman doesn't give half a flying expletive about pro athletes except for Kona/Nice. >20% of events even have pro races, at those races pros are outranked by AG's 100 to 1. Pros aren't buying swag at the races. Pros aren't as inspirational to Instagram folks who see a mom just like them doing an IM. Pros aren't paying $1000 per race.

Put simply, IM makes it's money on AG's. They view pros as a necessary evil to legitimize their events and draw in more AG's. If they could go full invitational and invite the most marketable 5 pros they'd surely much rather deal with that than the loss leader of 4th-last place pros.

Agreed - Pro racing is part of the marketing budget and all of these new rules align to maintaining the “Marketability” of the sport. Shirtless men and duct taped bikes isn’t part of their brand mission supposedly.

I’m no Magnus, Lionel, Sam Long etc. but if I were someone who actually mattered I’d love to have a rebuttal to them basically saying and what are YOU doing to make the sport safer, fair, and with higher exposure?

Ideally, swim follows FINA rules,bike UCI, run WA.

I've seen triathletes show up to time trials to be told their bike is not legal. For growth of all sport, the ability to cross over should be with our question

You'd have to roll it out over many years. Too many non-UCI bikes in use at the moment.

It's also not in the interest of IM to go to UCI rules. People finding out you can do a TT for $40 is a net negative to their $1000 TTs.

I agree, I did not want to have to resort to bicep fairings to do a triathlon, but that was clearly where this was headed. One question though, how does this new rule disqualify Skipper's bottles? Like if he actually used those bottles for drinking, it seems like it might still be allowed, no? I feel people on this thread are being dramatic, but if they do plan to rule out some actually functional add-ons like Skipper's bottles or the aero bottle(s) behind the saddle, then it will get very tricky to understand where the line is drawn. If it's just no duct tape and no bottles or fairings down your kit, simple enough.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Yeah, I agree. The rule definitely needs a re-write and I hope they provide specific guidance about specific things that are and are not illegal (plus a catch all that any weird new things need approval). Hopefully that list has the skipper bottle set up on there.

---

Coach of TriForce Triathlon Team

Well, we moved away from that. My old Speedmax only needed to take off the drink system and toolbox and it was TT ready. Actually, I went the other way round. It was nice and easy, but not a great solution. Later I changed seat and seatpost to be more in favour of triathlon. On the example of the Speedmax they moved more and more away from TT (UCI) to Triathlon to cater more for the needs of triathletes. Personally, I like the idea of seeing triathlon as triathlon and not as a swim, a bike ride and a run. Or on the example of the Shiv that was very early a pure triathlon bike. That was an amazing bike for its time with its fully integrated drink system, There is a reason modern bikes have assumed similar shapes (the new speedmax, Scott, Felt, etc...). It makes sense.

I cannot believe some people are actually advocating for triathlon to be controlled by the UCI….

In my opinion things are not as bad as it seems to some regarding section 5.01 (m). If you go to the link the OP posted, you will see that only the text highlited in green is new. The rest is all the same as 2023 and earlier.

This means that from section 5.01 (m) only the last sentence is new. That is the clarification on bottles under the suit. This was controversial and now there is clarity. I don't think we should expect to see things that were common and not controversial in 2023, suddenly being banned. And it refers to 5.02 (b) (helmets) just like the 2023 rules did because they allowed and still allow aero helmets. I say this because I saw someone in the thread question if aero helmets are now also banned.

Section 5.03 b is not completely new. I think this section should have been under 5.02 ("equipment") and not 5.03 ("bike specifications") but that's OT.

The 2023 rule was "Fairings are prohibited. Any device added or blended into the structure that may decrease, or that has the effect of decreasing, resistance to air penetration, or that may artificially accelerate propulsion, such as a protective screen, fuselage form fairing or the like, is prohibited;"

Also here the new text looks more like a clarification than anything else. I don't know what they tried to clarify here. Was there anything controversial? It is my understanding that this section deals with changes to the structure, the frame of the bike. The new text seems to specifically target nose cones (Tririg?).

Section 5.03 (b) is unclear imo as indicated by the questions I asked. Would you say tool boxes, bento boxes and drinking systems remain legal without a doubt?
Also I just tried to find out what you meant by tririg nose cones. Do you mind sharing a link? I couldn't find it on their website.

btw in the meantime EZ gains sent around an email that at least their disc wheel conversion and crankarm cover appear to remain legal. They are the only firm (at least of all newsletters that I have) that reached out to customers proactively.

I re-read EZ Gains Newsletter and my interoperation is different on the chainring covers, they didn't seem too confident on it being a definite yes, whereas the wheel cover is called out specifically under a different rule as being allowed.

---

IG: NCGregory8778

This is the TriRig product: https://tririg.com/...cts/delta-aero-cover

There are other bikes that have this type of brake cover as part of the original design though. Most notably several (all except the newest?) versions of the Trek Speed Concept.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

They sent one yesterday and a follow up today. In the follow up today my interpretation was confident/positive. Well, this is exactly why we need more clarification. It is quite a mission to take the crank cover off...

Thanks for sharing! That also looks very similar to the old speedmax or felt (and others ofc) that covered the rim brakes like that. Wow, what a tricky call to make if that is illegal or not.

Didn't realize Felt and Canyon had these, but Dimond and Cube also used a cover in this fashion. You could almost claim conspiracy to force people holding their rim brake bikes to upgrade to disc if all these covers are suddenly illegal.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Yep - read that one also. The "we don't believe" is not confidence inducing IMO.

For those not receiving the EZ gains e-mails...this is what we are referring to (around the chainring covers:
"Both the chainring cover and the front derailleur guard have been used many times at multiple Ironman races. The chainring cover has even been used by professional athletes at the 2023 Ironman World Championships. This was while the existing rule was in place. We don't believe the changes to the rules will make a difference to this."

The disc wheel cover excerpt from the newsletter,

"On March 13th we received written confirmation from Global Operations, Rules and Special Projects at the IRONMAN Group that IRONMAN permits wheel covers in all IRONMAN events.

Wheel covers are also explicitly defined in the 2024 competition rules as being allowed: "section 5.02 EQUIPMENT (a) Wheels (i) The front wheel must be of spoke construction (aero rim with spokes is permitted) and must not be solid; (DSQ) (ii) The rear wheel may be either spoke or solid construction (disc wheel). Wheel covers are permitted only on the rear wheel. For reasons of safety, solid (disc) rear wheels are prohibited at the IRONMAN World Championship"

---

IG: NCGregory8778

I was just about to buy a delta cover. Rule 5.03 seems to take direct aim at tririg.

Yeah I'm still riding a 2012 nosecone Shiv. I didn't modify anything. These rules will need to be clarified.

Same with P5-6 with nose and brake cover fairings. When I raced SCCA the rules in the GCR stated - “Unless installed as original factory equipment”…. If you had a part number you were good.

I've asked for a thumbs up or down from Jimmy R on the delta cover. Will keep this thread posted.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

What really stings is that nosecone saves maybe 1 minute? And I'm a 6 hour IM rider. Really am not a fan of ripping apart the cockpit and redoing everything for some dumb rule that may see me turned away at bike check-in unexpectedly.

Actually, you might have point. Reading the quote again in your posting makes we wonder. If they received written confirmation for the disc covers, I would be surprised if they did not request the same approval of their crank covers, etc.

Playing the "conspiracy" game a bit more. What if in the future brands have to pay for a "approved by Ironman" sticker. Otherwise it is ruled illegal. Could be the ultimate money grab. And I hope I am not giving anyone ideas here (and if I did, please pay me royalties).

Reading this part makes it sound like a cover would be allowed at the WC while only solid rear diacs are prohibited.

Email from Ironman pro services possibly clarifying. The rule also appears to have an extra sentence that clarifies a lot. Although it doesn't align with WTC rules to the same degree as the original rule.





It seems like all of the changes made are solely about duct tape? Not sure why the protuberance bit was added then. There is also no mention of duct tape fairing in World Triathlon rules.

There

So, If I want to add a system to hold two bottles on the front and rise it a bit on my Plasma 5, its OK as long as I don't use tape ?

I never read it that way before, but I can see where you got that. Whether a full structural disc like the Super 9 or a disc cover, the "full" is specific to the covering/depth of the wheel.

I do find it interesting though that they don't call out Kona, as the Men's WC in Nice allowed them. Such odd times - take me back to pre-2017 triathlon.

---

IG: NCGregory8778

Go after pros first, most get free bikes. If you can lower barrier of entry for amatures, that is more profit overall for ironman rather than targeting the few rich who can afford tri specific equipment

As much as I hate the fact that my frozen hydration bladder down the front of the race suit is being taken away. I understand. If at some point 50% of the athletes are racing around with bottles or whatever down the front of their chest there's actually a real safety issue. Either from athletes messing with gear inside their suit while riding or from getting in an accident and potentially having hard plastic or rock hard ice crush your chest. The concerns over it looking silly or benefiting aero dynamically are outrageous when you consider the reality that TT bars are inherently less stable than regular drop bars.

It's a shame though.

I have read this thread and may have missed it but does this prohibit aerojacket disc covers?

No

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

well, probably not.
technically it does prohibit any additional equipment that reduces aero drag which includes disc covers but in practice it is unlikely they will apply the rule that way

I don't think it's just rim brake models. .

So I can no longer use electrical tape to keep my front brake cover in place on my premier bike and the top of my rear storage box? Wow. Sounds like a lot of stupid policing

"Provided that
the use of adhesive tape (including duct tape) does not fundamentally alter or enlarge the
general shape of the structure, adhesive tape may be afixed to the bike (e.g., to cover valve
cutout of the rear disc wheel, to cover bolts access, etc.)"

So in your case then yes to the top of the storage box. And as the cover is OE then I believe that is also legit.

Thank god for this and hope they clarify it’s a uniform ban on fairings. It’s not going to work if rich kids can still buy speed with an ‘official design’ bike setup that’s designed to flout the rules by creating structural dependency on cones & covers, while others can’t DIY with a little tape

Replying to the thread generally, but we had Jimmy from IM on the podcast to talk about this -- https://www.slowtwitch.com/...Riccitello_8921.html

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Just replying to let you know that I listened to it. Thoughts: 1. Jimmy doesn't make a great spokesman for defending the rules changes. 2. There is an element of mild disdain for the general ST community coming from the hosts. It might not be fair for me to say that as I'm not bringing receipts to this conversation. That was just the impression I felt from the interview, but it's not like I took notes.

I wish there was a bit of pushback on the bottle or bladder issue from a functionality standpoint. It's directly acknowledged in the rules (or at least was) that fairing shaped hydration systems were ok. Once the bottle gets placed on the rider and they become the fairing, somehow it's not ok. That's pretty glaring. Fairing on helmet that has nothing to do with safety? OK! Fairing on wheel that has nothing to do with safety? OK! Bizarre aerodynamic improvement if you drink from a camelbak down your jersey? HELL NO, that's a fairing!

I also had the impression that Ironman presents itself as being deferential to world triathlon and their rules and just politely requests for adaptations to their races. That at least was not how I perceived the relationship, but that's how Jimmy came across to me at least.

And in that case, it seems like WT was planning to kill the bottle thing next year across the board anyway, and IM just jumped the gun and got it out of the way this year.

Did you receive a reply?

I'm not a podcast person. Tried to listen, very boring, fast forwarded a coulple times and then backed out. Hoping for cliff notes in this thread.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

What about boxes that mount behind the frame like the ones I sell? Or the bottom bracket box?

---

http://www.custombikexcessories.com
Instagram
Facebook

We’ll eventually have a transcript for podcasts. It’s on my list.

But until then…

1.) General reminder that the IM rule book is mostly a World Tri one, with some minor exceptions. If IM is silent on a topic, it falls to World Tri. If it is silent on a topic, it then goes to the governing body of the discipline at hand.

2.) we reviewed the zipper policy changes — Jimmy admitting how asinine it was to try and judge how far down a zipper was, and that the modification to the penalty was driven by Matt Sharpe’s DQ last year.

3.) Bike rule changes — most of the language was trying to ban, well, everything Joe Skipper did last year—from bottles/Camelbaks to the arm mounted hydration.

4.) For those of you wanting to 3D print stuff—Jimmy put the kibosh on that. Don’t shoot the messenger—but basically they file that under the safety bucket.

5.) If you think something might be questionable, especially in terms of bike equipment, send it in to IM, it gets routed to Jimmy, he’ll bless it or reject it and copy in the head ref of the race(s) you’re doing so you don’t get a different answer at bike check in.

6.) Affirmed the protest process—so if you see someone, say, wearing illegal shoes, you can protest and go thru that system.

Those are the main points.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

I have a feeling the shoe thing is going to be an issue in the AG ranks just due to the number of high stack super trainers like the new Hoka Skyward X or even older shoes like the Bondi. Then you have things like the Mizuno Wave Rebellion which Running Warehouse lists as having a 48mm stack but according to World Athletics it only measures 40mm due to the bevel.

Like where are we measuring the stack from and how is this going to be adjudicated at a local race?

Few things I wish you guys touched on. What is a fairing? Duct tape. And when does JR feel the need to increase the draft zone from 12m to 20m

While I love podcasts and listen to a number of them regularly, it's not something everyone should do. ST falls into this. The podcast dragged and it seemed no one knew Jimmy's wit and sarcasm, so many things fell flat. I've tried to listen to a number of them, but IMO the ST voices do not lend themselves to podcasting and the sound modulation was horrific. Comments will start out so loud so as hard to listen to, then drop off, and the pacing is not there. I appreciate the attempt, but stick to what one does best after failures. The site has fallen and needs attention; that's where the efforts should be.

---

Kiwami Racing Team

So I didn't get a yes or no, but kind of a vague "it should be fine as it was designed and manufactured by a real company".

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

Rules follow WA, not some online shop. Lol. If it's on the list, you're good to go. It's pretty straight forward whether you can wear a shoe or not. The method of measuring is also clearly documented, but you don't need to worry about that part anyway.

So front ends like the prints4watts are illegal?

If it is legal, we need something more specific than “you can’t 3d print things”. That seems a bit too vague.

https://www.slowtwitch.com/...ona_Was..._8558.html

---

blog

Someone doing it professionally is fine.

Someone doing it in their garage is not.

That's the line they drew.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Doesn’t SLF motion do most of his work out his garage or at least used to?

---

blog

It would be smart of them, anybody who makes parts, to send their product lines to Ironman/JR and get approval. Then give customers confidence by applying an approved sticker or small card in the box or....or...or....

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

It would be smart if anybody who makes decals does some artwork now; ready for orders, to "give customers confidence by applying" a 'recognisable' sticker.

This "clarification" from IM raises a lot more questions and provides no real answers. Sloppy language being used where clarity is needed.

3d printing is out now too? At the extreme end Ganna's hour record bike is printed. At the other end there's 3d printed parts that have zero safety grounds and are not fairings. Computer mounts, for example. What's gonna happen with edge cases like 3d printed bottle cages, stem caps, bar end shifters, tool boxes? Does it need to be a fairing AND 3d printed to be disallowed, or is anything that is either 3d printer OR a fairing disallowed?

It's okay if made by a company? Has this guy seen the quality of some Amazon/Alibaba products? Being manufactured in someone else's garage is not the marker of quality he thinks it is.

The grounds for the rule change is safety? It irks me when people hide behind this shield. Closed courses, or at least volunteers at more corners, getting rid of double loop courses, the road quality at some of the races. There's low hanging fruit for safety improvements and this is not it. But $$

I'm not buying any of this. IM is embarrassed by the new look of some DIY aerodynamic bodges. Duct tape, jersey bottle, sloppy 3d printed fairings, and are pulling a UCI to get their image back to what they think is cool. Additionally, as has been said many times, this forces anyone who wants to be competitive into incredibly expensive cockpit products, on top of everything else.

Let's be honest, images of Joe Skipper with the wing bottles and kitchen sink stuffed down his jersey isn't exactly inspirational to Instagram users being advertised triathlon stuff. Not as much so as someone like Ditlev looking incredible on what's basically UCI legal setups. Subpar parts and ugly setups are not getting new entrants. $$$

I wouldn't be overly surprised if this is the first move towards having "IRONMAN (tm) APPROVED" products. If you want to race an IM, it needs to be on an either a UCI bike or an IM approved bike. And of course to get IM approval would require a small licensing fee paid to Ironman. Again, $$$.

I swear every time IM does something curious the answer is always money.

That was my loose interpretation of where things are headed -- that we're going to see a move to eliminate a lot of "homegrown" engineering (anybody remember TJ Tollakson's use of cups as aerobar pads almost 15 years ago?) and there'll be things that are approved / not approved for use. I doubt it means IM doing its own safety testing, but you get the general picture.

I doubt that means dollars in the way you might think it is... But if we're thinking creatively, it might be a page in IM's store of "approved" aero hydration / storage options, with X brands and IM receiving some part of the drop ship fee.

The pretty clear message was that if it came from a bike brand, or Profile, or XLAB...carry on.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Would love for you to expound upon the idea of "the site has fallen." What are we not doing that you think we should?

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

JR has introduced very noisy standards that have the punitive outcome of low-noise rules. See Kahneman, rules vs standards.

Garage vs legit company is very noisy. How many companies began in garages as side hustles? example of a low noise rule: parts must pass ISO and that ISO certification can be provided.

Aero fairings would benefit from a similar low noise rule that honors the spirit of innovation in triathlon that makes it better than UCI burdened sports.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

So the boxes for each bike model/size I sell would need to get certified? Who pays for that?

---

http://www.custombikexcessories.com
Instagram
Facebook

Tell you what -- DM me, I'll get you in contact with Jimmy, and go from there.

The rules aren't going to be re-written for 2024 -- but perhaps your expertise could be useful in helping craft clearer ones for the 2025 rulebook.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Outside of IRONMAN rules, consumer facing products need to/should face basic safety tests. Testing is rather cheap. For example, a full battery of tests for our saddles, including one where a machine runs overnight for 200,000 cycles, costs a mere $300.

This seems like a pretty low bar to clear for storage parts that could break off and land in the road where other people are trying to race. And this example of a suggestion has low noise compared to garage vs. legitimate company.

This is just one example for how to reduce noise in rules. Shoe height is a very low error/noise rule (but that doesn’t make it a sensible rule). High error (noise or bias) rules are hard to enforce and threaten to be so ambiguous that they’re annoying and deter race participation. What’s homemade vs a legitimate company? Home based LLC vs office-based LLC? Is that form of error a bias?

There’s a reason good rules are the result of people familiar with what it takes to create low noise rules meeting with stakeholders, in this case race participants and manufacturers, to understand what is the fairness and safety being sought and where do poorly designed rules hurt the sport and the brand. But seriously #FreeSkipper

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

I’m with laseranimal here. Yes, it’s easy enough to search for what shoes are legal or not but that means the athlete even knows such a rule exists or that their shoe might be out of compliance. That responsibility 100% falls onto the athlete and I won’t argue that. My guess is the majority of folks lining up at a marathon or Ironman or 70.3 pay zero attention to the specs or legality of their running shoes. I think the Hoka Skyward X is going to be a problem child at races. Yes, the responsibility of the athlete but doesn’t mean it isn’t going to be an issue. Look at how many people show up at the airport with guns and knives on them and EVERYONE knows you can’t do that. What percentage of athletes read the IM competition rules or the athlete guide cover to cover? My guess is the minority.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

I've been selling boxes for 5 years, and have sold over 2200 of them for a variety of bike models. I've had 2 customers whose boxes broke in that time, both were manufacturing defect. Would I need to have each box tested on each bike? I sell 90+ different boxes, as they are not one size fits all, each box is designed to fit a specific bike model and size. The Cervelo line of bikes, P5, P5 Disc, P series and P2/P3 each require a different box for each size, given that, for those bikes alone I have 42 boxes between the rear boxes and bottom bracket boxes.

---

http://www.custombikexcessories.com
Instagram
Facebook

Hear hear!

Jimmy’s responses were a bit vague and a bit evasive, but I got the impression that he believes all those bodges were not legal last season at all and Ironman has now only made the wording more precise to remove all doubt.

If my understanding is correct… where are all the DQs in 2023 races?

Also, I struggle to believe that the said aero bodges violate “the spirit of the rules” - and that the essence of said spirit is that you’re only supposed to install products “made by a company”.

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

Could you imagine several officials at races telling people oh you can't use that 3d printed extension bc it's not from a company we've heard of yet you can use that same looking 3D printed part bc we've heard of X company.

Could be quite the CF and several pissed off people

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

If safety is the ultimate concern, maybe Ironman just needs companies to have a certificate product liability insurance. Of course, in a global market, that gets tricky.

I doubt the bento box people are actually buying product liability insurance. I also doubt they are getting CE certified, if they are European, and that's a real pain for a lot of products.

At some point it's better to simply say buyer/user beware. I've noticed once you actually go down the legal liability route, and if you take that as a principled stand, you really end up wasting a lot of money paying other people to hand you papers that still don't make your products any safer. I'm involved in this professionally on multiple levels and it's really just something that adds on costs to the consumer without increasing safety.

IDGAF if a piece of equipment violates the "spirit of the rules". It's either fits within the rules or it does not, full stop. It's too subjective to have rules words like "fairing" and "made by a company" as part of equipment rules. What if I form an LLC and hand sign every piece of plastic crap I build in my garage? That's "made by a company".

"Spirit of the rules" is for conduct, not equipment.

On the safety front, is that actually a concern for non-draft races? Let's say some hooligan 3d prints a disc wheel that breaks on course and he crashes. Does that actually impact anyone around him who's not in the draft zone? Bike safety is a self-enforcing rule, you're not gonna ride something that isn't gonna make it to the finish.

My submission to Ironman, you can have this for free and change it as you like, but I promise it captures what you're trying to do more predictably than the current rule:


Any hydration, nutrition, tool storage, or other non-OEM storage on a bicycle may be located either within the existing frameset (including the seatpost, fork, handlebars, and aero bar extension) or in one of 2 areas:

1) Behind the hands, in an area extending vertically from the top of the stem to the rider's chest and extending horizontally from the rider's hands to a vertical line drawn through the center of the crankset, not extending laterally further than the width of the handlebars. No part will be allowed in the area above the rider's forearms, except in the area between the arms, covering not more than half the forearm width on either side when viewed from above. A computer may be mounted in this area so long as it's dimensions do not exceed 4"x3"x2".

2) Behind the seat, in an area extending horizontally from a vertical line drawn through the crankset and ending at a vertical line drawn through the rear wheel axle, with no part extending laterally further than the width of the handlebars.

Yes, people will find loopholes and make bespoke solutions to maximize this, but at least they're not doing in a such a way where the limit of legality is the mood of the official on race morning. Open to improvements from the community

I'd argue that ISO testing does help ensure safety, and passing these tests could be an easy requirement by Ironman.

Though, I I thought this article and podcast with Ronan of Escape Collective and Rob of Factor was great: https://escapecollective.com/...-bikes-so-expensive/

Especially when Rob said that they can create a bike that passes ISO, but that has tubes that can be crushed with your thumbs...

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

Getting a certificate and putting a stamp on a product doesn't do you any good if you aren't following the exact process using the same quality raw materials, etc. The point being just because a government OK'd something 10 years or 10 days ago, has no bearing on what's coming out of that production line right now. If you don't trust companies to do their best to make their products safe, unless you have a government agent watching production it means nothing. And even then, once you have that government agent watching production, they are subject to the same basic problem as the assembly line. Human error, asymmetrical information between material and component suppliers, etc, etc.

As you point out, a product can be deemed "safe" by a testing agency and be completely unsafe. Take helmet chin straps (not talking bike helmets, although it might be the same), one area I have direct knowledge with. The only test they do is to hang a little weight from the chin strap and see how much it stretches. And they do that once. A decade or more ago. No checking on the buckle strength. No checking on the location where the strap actually sits to make sure the thing is actually being retained. Not checking on the attachment points of the strap to see how weak they are, prone to wear etc. Oh, and of course you realize plastics have a shelf life that gets more brittle and fragile over time, not just from sun and air exposure, but the mere scent vapors of commonly found chemicals in your house or garage? The CE and ASTM stuff has good guidelines. But as an arbiter of safety, it's illusion or theater is the main point.

That doesn't mean I don't think there should be any standards, but equally, it's manifestly obvious the standards are flawed and what really keeps people safe is companies wanting to put out a product that does it's job as well as they can make it with the various cost and product constraints, etc.

Experienced and reputable companies will stress test their products beyond the safety requirements.

To connect the problem to cycling, lets look at those Shimano cranks that have been delaminating for what, a decade? Tens of thousands of "bad" cranks on the market, that all go through some degree of CE or ASTM certs and ISO standards. A lot of box checking, paperwork filed, everyone says it's safe, and the biggest potential safety problem on Ironman's course has nothing to do with a bottle down the shirt or a 3d box behind the seat. And it came with a stamp and certificate no doubt, right?

So, it requires taking a step back and getting out of the weeds (forest for the trees) and accepting what rate of error is best for the sport. Currently, Homemade vs Company-made is so noisy and biased that it doesn't accomplish the intended goals: fairness and safety.

ISO already exists. It's affordable and widely accessible. It has error, but a whole lost less than Homemade vs Company-made. It's not "theater". The tests done on forks, frames, wheels and saddles do in fact ensure consumers are safer.

If Jimmy and Ironman feel their races need to be made more fair and more safe, they need rules that are easy to implement, that lack ambiguity and that actually make the sport fair and safe.

The UCI bans things it doesn't like the look of - their decisions are gut-based and not logical. It would be good, in my opinion, for Ironman to use a more relaxed logic and contrast themselves with the UCI. This would include IM not giving a care about shoe height, not caring what Skipper does as long as it's safe, and putting more attention on draft zones, safe passing on courses, anti-doping and having adequate nutrition on courses. Let IM be a place where safe innovation is fostered.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

The problem for IM is that they don't enforce their rules at races. Technical Officials from the local NSO (which runs under World Tri rules) are the ones that apply the rules. Which is why IM wants to be broadly aligned to WT rules.
Of course, that seems odd to the rest of us who don't see what relevance WT has to long course racing in comparison to IM, but IM don't really want to be an enforcement body.

There is a conversation going on between WT, IM and PTO about rules alignment and clarifying the wording. It may not be amended in the short term but WT revises their rules every two years, so it won't be far away.

Jimmy R certainly recognises the impact of the unclear wording that allows for TO interpretation.

They could actually start to enforce drafting in the Ag ranks to an effective degree

1000% agree with you there is better & lower hanging fruit IM could go after than this

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Here's another one that I've seen. Felt IA owners buying a Quintana Roo or Trek Speed Concept draftbox and attaching it to their bike. Is that legal? Not pointing at Felt IA owners, but just an example that comes to mind. The boxes I sell are not 3d printed on a consumer printer at my house but are printed by industrial 3d printers by a reputable 3d printing service.

---

http://www.custombikexcessories.com
Instagram
Facebook

Cannot understand the complaints that the rules should explicitly allow certain aero components. Unless you're the one premiering the bottle-down-the-top before anyone's realised it, the only reason fairings give you an advantage is because others can't afford them. Just don't try to buy your way to the podium (nor lobby for the ability to) and all is good...

Buying your way to the podium is exactly the system they're setting up though. Someone with a $2000 cockpit on a $15,000 bike always had an advantage over sometime on a stock setup from a few years ago. The ability to close that gap with ingenuity as opposed to dollars helped level the playing field.

The issue isn't allowing or disallowing certain components, it's allowing only components purchased or given by an established company. That may as well be the definition of a barrier to entry.

I agree with emceemanners and will go step further. Bring on more rules and restrictions! Perhaps a minority opinion on this site. Make it so that bikes—even so-called superbikes—are forced to be more basic. The proliferation of $2000 cockpits and $15,000 bikes is a turnoff to the sport. I don’t care if aero gains are sacrificed for more level playing field.

Along the same thought. What truly constitutes a legitimate company? If I buy a 3d printer and set up an LLC, does that fit the criteria?

---

IG: NCGregory8778

No, you have to get Jimmy to bless it. Just ask for Jimmy at the races, tell him I sent you.

---

What's your CdA?

But that isn't necessarily the case. Plenty of expensive bikes and cockpits are slower than older or more affordable options.
Even then, the margins in decent equipment are far outweighed by the benefits available from comprehensive testing (generalising obviously)
In my view the application of ingenuity is figuring out how to test robustly yourself (which usually requires choosing versatile components). If you have money you go to marcag or DD or Xav or any of the others that can take you through an optimisation process.
Yes, you may be disadvantaged if your robust testing did show that duct taping your extensions was faster at low cost, but I'm not convinced that would be the case very often.

I'm actually not fussed about duct tape. What worries me is untested components being added into bar assemblies. CNCed extenders, 3d printed wedges etc.

Everyone who makes a podium is buying their way one way or another, either with the ability to train longer or buying a nice bike. But everyone who is winning on a nice bike is still training a tone.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

That's what I'm saying. There are different paths to fast race times. You can spend money on the fastest stuff. You can spend time making the fastest stuff. You can spend time testing old stuff to maximize it's potential. They've taken away a pathway to be competitive for those who have more time than money.

It's kinda cool to see people achieve the same result in different ways. Like the Norwegians threshold training and others doing polarized training, both racing neck and neck. Ditto for Blu having a bespoke Cadex built around him losing to Laidlow on duct taped round extensions.

Well, i have seen dropped hydration systems made by official german companies claiming it indistructable on local events and on im events. How does a judge actually decide if it is safe or complies to the rules, i was told, in Germany, the judges are not allowed to touch the bike or the helmet ?
I only see problems with low quality 3d prints because of bad materials..i see alot of petg and other stuff around, just because the printer is not good enough the work high quality industrial materials...i just have gotten a part of a very very hard tpu and was told, destroy it if you can..free beer for a month..i was not able to...
I do see the problems they want to avoid but they cut off innovation triathlon is know for...

So, i will still show up with a 3d printed bta mount which includes my garminholder....at the end, they need us, the agegroupers and our money..i do not see them getting disqualified for having a garmin mount which is 3d printed while ignoring bad tires, bad brakes, bad material over all at the check in...

The problem is that ‘the level playing field’ is an ideology- it’s not a realistic destination. It wasn’t in Ancient Greece (when technology was broadly marginalised in sport) and it certainly won’t be now. I’ve written about this ad nausium in my research over the years but the bottom line is that you cannot normalise a society that sees huge variety in economy, sociology, beliefs, intelligence and priorities.

People need to remain focused on the safety and impact of new sports technology, not get hung up on trying to normalise an athletes investment.

I will make sure to get right on top of that :)

---

IG: NCGregory8778

Just got the reply of a judge which is also participating on Ironman events about this product:
https://www.rockerplates.de/BTA-Flaschenhalter-Basic-Mount-Canyon-SLX-CFR


According to him, this product '(BTA - Mounts), bottlemounts between the frame, will not be forbidden if the main purpose is the to carry the bottle...or carry tools (toolboxes) or rest the arms...so he told me, if tape is used to only minimizing aerodrag..dq or take it off, if the tape contents tools in between..it is kind of his own decision if it is safe or not..


So alot of interpretation possible, but all those toolboxes and 3d printed stuff should not be banned according to him...

Hello,

As I am preparing for my first IM 140.6 I am a bit certain about these rule changes. Specifically I have clip on profile design bars and have a 40mm spacer printed from 3d printer, it works wonderfully and is made from good plastic but should I be worried that referees could tell me to not use it?

Having a hard time to find OEM ones in Europe.

Also I have mounted a bottle cage with zip ties between the bars, is it also not illegal?

General reply to this thread. I saw a bunch of pros put ice into the front of their jersey at T100 singapore. Arguably for cooling first, and until it melts, maybe some aero benefit.

What's stopping someone putting a frozen bottle in that spot, or a frozen camelback in that spot. The problem is no one knows when it goes from ice to liquid at which point it is liquid containing nutrition that is on the front at which point it is technically illegal. But frozen stuff and probably only OK if not in a container that could hold "unfrozen stuff"

Yes my thought was:

1.Freeze 1.5L water bottle.
2.Cut off bottle.
3.Place bottle shaped ice in t1 with other ice to help it stay cool.
4.Place down top and go. Eventually the ice melts and you're fine.

Although maybe not, because technically putting anything down the jersey is outlawed right? Odd that PTO allowed ice but not bottles.

We see racers holding a bottle in hand while steering the bike. Laidlow at one point was in the aero bars holding the bottle instead of the bars.

Both of those examples are demonstrably less safe than jamming it down your top and continuing to ride.

In the name of being annoyed at the goofy things triathletes do, we've got people riding less safe with bottles in their hands.

Maybe they could have bottles on the bike? Or even some sort of container with a straw to drink from?

I'll take this one step further (as seems to be my place with rules lately). Can I make an ice sculpture fairing that fits into the back of my sleeves in a teardrop shape? Ditto for my calf sleeves. Does the ice need to touch my body for an ostensible cooling effect? Can I store "spare ice" in a faring shape in front of my arms?

The obvious answer to all of these is no, but it's fascinating how the competitors continue to find gaps in the admittedly poorly-written rules. If we remember, the rule actually says "any bottles/hydration or any other insert located in the front of an athlete’s race suit and (ii) any insert in an athlete’s calf sleeves; (DSQ)." It seems obvious to a layman that ice is an "insert", def "something that is made to go inside something else". It just drives me up a wall when rules that should be purely technical are left to discretion.

I just had an idea. What if you mixed jello and sculpted into an ideal fairing so one side is flat and goes flush with you chest and the other side is triangular shape and builds to a point and fills in gap between belly and forearms.

Now freeze it.

Now you have an ideally shaped frozen fairing. When it melts, well now you have this semi liquid that just won't drain like pure ice, but its still ice/water and you did not put a bottle in there and it is a cooling insert that seems to be allowed.

well, i suppose it was just very hot and humid and in favour of the athletes they can allow it...why not?

I think in favor of the athletes they should allow it all the time.

The reasons in favor of allowing it: effective cooling, hydration storage, trash storage.

The reasons for disallowing it: Looks goofy and provides marginal aero helmet-like gains.

I think you guys are overthinking it. All you need really is a more extreme version of what Sam Long already has between the arms.



https://x.com/t100triathlon/status/1779422380181327901


Just move BTA hydration up and back to the same position it would have been had it been down his shirt. If you need to, get a longer/bigger bottle or an adapter that allows you to mount 2x bottles back to back. If you need the extra fluid, fill it up, but there's no reason (especially if you're worried about it structurally) it needs to be filled.

This comes with the caveat that this is obviously much less safe than just stuffing a bottle down your jersey (which is why I think the rule should be changed back), but there's nothing stopping us from just creatively using hydration bottles like Joe Skipper, only between/behind the arms, so long as it vaguely looks like a BTA setup that's already otherwise common.

Have you aero tested showing they are the same?

It is addressed in this video or the previous one

Did he use that bottle during the race?

Tririg is now selling a part to raise up the bottle.


You can see it here in their video.





I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a "why" for the banning of the bottle down the kit. This, along with the banning of taping aerobar extensions together can easily be viewed as a cash grab. I understand the safety part of things- has Ironman said we aren't allowing this because it is more dangerous?

---

http://www.savagesentiments.blogspot.com/
http://www.tricoachmartin.com/
https://www.facebook.com/teameverymanjack

Unfortunately that only works with their bikes I think? The spacing of the bottom holes don't line up with a normal bottle cage position. I can't remember the name of it, I believe it was made by profile design, but I ordered an extender piece I was able to add to mine and bring it up 80mm from the bottom of the bars. I wish it was bout 5-10mm taller. This is the perfect area where 3d printing something is ideal.

The Tri Rig BTA extension works on my 2nd Gen Speed Concept

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

Nice! Looks like you made it work by mounting it upside down compared to how they show it? Without that additional angle bracket I guess you couldn't attach a bottle cage to it when it's reverse. Looks great.

https://tririg.com/...n/products/bta-riser

these guys helped me out with a custom made riser...

https://www.rockerplates.de/


I also recommended them to an austrialian athlete and they were able to help very fast with a riser for him..