Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
X/Y Rules in an Angular World
Quote | Reply
FWIW, Dan and I have never discussed this (in fact have not yet met). One minor nit to pick, as I understand it UCI regs won't apply to every racer in every race, but only to NRC calendar events and some other high level races, admittedly a large chunk of races, but strictly speaking technically not "all". With that out of the way, here's one opinion on his latest front page article.

The concept of regulating saddle setback (or “setforward” as the case may be) using an angular instead of a horizontal measurement is rational and in my opinion would provide a more level playing field for riders with different seat heights. Not to put words in Dan’s mouth, but here is a proposed new version of UCI rule 1.3.013, worded along the lines Dan might suggest, with a few blanks to be filled in after someone gets out a CAD program or works out a little trig:

"The center of the straight portion of the saddle’s rail shall lie on or behind a line passing through the bottom bracket spindle and inclined rearward at an angle of [choose an angle, e.g. 77, 79, etc.] from the horizontal. This restriction shall not be applied to the bicycle ridden by a rider in a track sprint event, keirin, 500 metres or 1 kilometre time trials; in that case the angle shall be [chose an angle, e.g. 80, 82, etc.]."

The second sentence about exceptions with a different limit might even be removed if the angles chosen are lenient enough.

However, and here's the only beef I see at this time: It's not unforeseeable that saddles without traditional rails (maybe SDG's I-Beam or a new concept from another company) might potentially be excluded from UCI competition. (That’s how one-legged forks are excluded; UCI regulation 1.3.017 says in part “The distance between the internal extremities of the front forks shall not exceed 10.5 cm...” Note the plural “extremities”.) So as to avoid this potential complication, a slightly different wording that I feel still captures Dan's main intent might read as follows:

"The center of the length of the saddle shall lie on or behind a line passing through the bottom bracket spindle and inclined rearward at an angle of [choose an angle, e.g. 77, 79, etc.] from the horizontal. This restriction shall not be applied to the bicycle ridden by a rider in a track sprint event, keirin, 500 metres or 1 kilometre time trials; in that case the angle shall be [chose an angle, e.g. 80, 82, etc.]."

Notice the changed phrase “center of the length of the saddle” instead of “center of the straight portion of the saddle’s rail”. Likewise, other wording or other “landmarks” of the saddle could reasonably be proposed and considered.

What do you think?

For reference, the current (December 2007) UCI regulation 1.3.013 reads:
The peak of the saddle shall be a minimum of 5 cm to the rear of a vertical plane passing through the bottom bracket spindle (1). This restriction shall not be applied to the bicycle ridden by a rider in a track sprint event, keirin, 500 metres or 1 kilometre time trials; however, in no circumstances shall the peak of the saddle extend in front of a vertical line passing through the bottom bracket spindle.
(1) The distances mentioned in footnote (1) to articles 1.3.013 and 1.3.016 above may be reduced where that is necessary for morphological reasons. By morphological reasons should be understood everything to do with the size and limb length of the rider.

Any rider who, for these reasons, considers that he needs to use a bicycle of lesser dimensions than those given shall inform the commissaires’ panel to that effect when presenting his licence. In that case, the panel may conduct the following test. Using a plumb-line, they shall check to see whether, when pedaling, the point of the rider’s knee when at its foremost position passes beyond a vertical line passing through the pedal spindle (see diagram «Measurements (2)»).

Source: http://www.uci.ch/...LE&id=34033& , page 58.

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [damon_rinard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
FWIW, Dan and I have never discussed this (in fact have not yet met). One minor nit to pick, as I understand it UCI regs won't apply to every racer in every race, but only to NRC calendar events and some other high level races, admittedly a large chunk of races, but strictly speaking technically not "all". With that out of the way, here's one opinion on his latest front page article.

Yes Damon, you are correct, and Dan's article is mistaken in that for the vast majority of races that a USA Cycling rider will partake in 2008, the UCI rules will NOT be in effect.

Here's the relevant USACycling rule for USCF events:


Quote:
1J1(e) Bicycles must meet current UCI technical
regulations at events that select 17-18, U23 and elite
riders for international competition or national
teams. As of January 1, 2008, all bicycles used in
Federation National Championship (for age 17 and older
riders) and NRC races must comply with the current UCI
regulations.

If it's not one of those cases above, you're good to go. In other words, if you're not riding in an event to be selected for a national team, an NRC event, or Nationals (including Master's Nats), only the USCF rules apply, not UCI. That's going to be 95% of the TT events in the US....and that's not including events that aren't held under USCF auspices (such as CBR in SoCal, or OBRA in Oregon).
Oh yeah...if you set a TT record, it needs to be on a UCI legal bike with a UCI legal position.

The USCF rules for what constitutes a bicycle are pretty wide open. You basically just can't use a recumbent. Heck, you don't even have to have equal size wheels. Break out the funny bike! :-)



On the angle idea...I'm happy to see Slowman listened to my suggestion last summer while he was fitting Jens ;-)

Needless to say, I'm all for it...then again, I'm fearful that it's inherent logic may not make it acceptable as a UCI rule :-)




http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [damon_rinard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i don't particularly like center of the saddle, because then you're going to find guys riding downhill saddles, or other saddles that are more than 30cm long. i could see a person using a point 17cm back from the nost of the saddle, but then i'm afraid the UCI would punt based on the difficulty of measuring.

my first go-round on this was actually a nose of the saddle measure: 5cm behind the bb at, say, 76cm of saddle height (bb to saddle top), then a 1cm variance for every 2cm increment in which the saddle height decreases (4cm at 74cm of saddle height or shorter, 3cm at 72cm, 2cm at 70cm, 1cm at 68cm, nose of the saddle even with the BB at 66cm or shorter). i also designed a fixture to measure this, but it was somewhat more complicated and i thought the UCI might opt out due to the difficulty in measuring.

i think i'd rather see the rule just at "thru the midpoint of fore/aft adjustability" and then let the commissaires, at their option, choose a point 17cm or 18cm behind the saddle nose if it's more sensible in certain exceptional cases. this is a reasonable way to measure, since one element of the rule is this distance from the center of the rails to the nose.

i think, for us to have any chance of the UCI assenting to this, the measuring has to be easy, foolproof, intuitive, quick, and cheap. i did, btw, send a note today off to jean wauthier, with whom i've corresponded in the past.

as to which athletes and which races this will refer to, i'll have to check that out better. i do know that i've got some pure masters TTers who're coming to me already to be set up @ 5cm behind the bb, because they see this as impacting their racing here in the US, such as at state champs, etc.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
i don't particularly like center of the saddle, because then you're going to find guys riding downhill saddles, or other saddles that are more than 30cm long. i could see a person using a point 17cm back from the nost of the saddle, but then i'm afraid the UCI would punt based on the difficulty of measuring.

my first go-round on this was actually a nose of the saddle measure: 5cm behind the bb at, say, 76cm of saddle height (bb to saddle top), then a 1cm variance for every 2cm increment in which the saddle height decreases (4cm at 74cm of saddle height or shorter, 3cm at 72cm, 2cm at 70cm, 1cm at 68cm, nose of the saddle even with the BB at 66cm or shorter). i also designed a fixture to measure this, but it was somewhat more complicated and i thought the UCI might opt out due to the difficulty in measuring.

What's wrong with the "harp" measuring method but using the tip of the saddle instead? It'll just be a steeper angle and it takes the extra measurement out of the equation. The current seat length rules can stay the same.



In Reply To:

as to which athletes and which races this will refer to, i'll have to check that out better. i do know that i've got some pure masters TTers who're coming to me already to be set up @ 5cm behind the bb, because they see this as impacting their racing here in the US, such as at state champs, etc.

If they're only worried about state or district championships, they don't need to be at 5cm behind (See my post above with the relevant USA Cycling rule.) However, if they are also shooting for Nats, they may want to get set up that way anyway since they'll need to conform to the UCI rules there and may want to have just one position for accomodation reasons.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i will alter the article to appropriately reflect the races in the U.S. that these new rules apply to.

measuring to the saddle nose: i can see instances where, for the shortest of riders, the nose is at 90°, and even beyond. so i don't see how that can be easily workable.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
i edited my piece. see if it more properly reflects the ramifications of the rule on U.S. athletes.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
i edited my piece. see if it more properly reflects the ramifications of the rule on U.S. athletes.

Very nice. Looks good.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
As any high-level triathlete knows, fore-aft placement of the saddle is exceedingly critical,...[/quote]
dan, an interesting article, but you need to do more edits. you know better than anyone that this statement above is not at all correct. the big fore-aft range that very, very fast triathletes place their saddles shows beyond any doubt that fore-aft placement of the saddle is not critical.

to be very fast, what is critical is to generate a lot of power in an aero postition. for some, a forward position is best for this, for others, a more rearward position seems to be best. or at least this is what years of race results in the real world shows us time and time again.





Where would you want to swim ?
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [GregX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thank you for your opinion.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
i will alter the article to appropriately reflect the races in the U.S. that these new rules apply to.

measuring to the saddle nose: i can see instances where, for the shortest of riders, the nose is at 90°, and even beyond. so i don't see how that can be easily workable.

Hmm...how about a "harp" with 2 parallel wires? One of the wires would be offset rearward in the horizontal plane by your proposed 18cm (or any other distance determined to be "right"). Line the rearward wire up with the center of the BB and then the nose of the saddle can't be in front of the forward wire.

Voila! A simple device with no extra measuring needed and no concern about "saddle rails".

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
no, no, thank you for thanking me for my opinion.

but my opinion is directly based on the observation of a very experienced FIST fitter that posts here frequently that recently wrote: "over the years, it's about a 75% to 25% split. the split is often along country lines, and it's also along tenure lines..." (he was referring to the 75% of fast triathlon pro's that ride steep, and the 25% of fast pro's that ride slack).

that is a pretty significant no. of athletes for which fore-aft positioning appears to be not so critical at all. now, i couldn't just disregard this fellow's astute observations, could i ?

well, it's not exactly my style, but i guess i could have just ignored his experience, but i should've at least formally thanked him for his opinion ...

:)





Where would you want to swim ?
Last edited by: GregX: Dec 1, 07 8:54
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [damon_rinard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
What do you think?[/quote]

what do i think? well, i think you are fortunate to work at one of the most advanced and influential bicycle companies on the planet.

but with this privilege comes responsibility:

how about you get the folks that run your company to band together with the CEOs of other top bike companies to put some serious pressure on the UCI to dispose of this truly ridiculous and archaic rule, whether based on angle or x/y coordinates, a rule which accomplishes absolutely nothing except for purposefully stagnating the development of racing bicycles on both technical and ergonomic fronts.

if you and trek, with it's power and influence, can't take the initiative to get this ball rolling, then who in the heck can?





Where would you want to swim ?
Last edited by: GregX: Dec 1, 07 11:26
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [GregX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
What do you think?[/quote]

what do i think? well, i think you are fortunate to work at one of the most advanced and influential bicycle companies on the planet.

but with this privilege comes responsibility:

how about you get the folks that run your company to band together with the CEOs of other top bike companies to put some serious pressure on the UCI to dispose of this truly ridiculous and archaic rule, whether based on angle or x/y coordinates, a rule which accomplishes absolutely nothing except for purposefully stagnating the development of racing bicycles on both technical and ergonomic fronts.

if you and trek, with it's power and influence, can't take the initiative to get this ball rolling, then who in the heck can?

Well said, Greg, and I agree. I've got a great job, that's for sure!

But let me explain my position a little: Often, dealing with the UCI isn't easy. Many times it "costs" us some favors. "Spending" favors to change or eliminate (!) this rule would have to be balanced against what other things could be accomplished (for Trek) by "spending" said favors. I guess what I'm getting at, is for us (Trek), there needs to be a priority and order, and it's a matter of judgment to determine where on our list the 5 cm rule falls. I won't (publicly) ask others' opinions on that because I can't tell them what else is on our list. ;-)

On the other hand, if a revised rule were developed that
(1) makes sense to the UCI,
(2) is written for them ahead of time (that's why I wrote out a "proposed" text of a potential new version of the rule, although I hope it gets modified to suit all parties and is adopted in some better, final form)
and
(3) implementing it is as *easy* as it can possibly be (just voting),

...then the UCI might adopt a version of it without us having to spend favors. I think this might be possible, since Dan puts the argument quite clearly (makes sense, #1 above), and if a carefully-written proposed text can reach consensus (written ahead of time, #2), and if Dan can supply a few dozen "harps" (makes it easy, #3), then perhaps all it would need is a passing vote and a shipping address to deliver the harps.

On the other hand, for the UCI, this rule is hardly the crisis that it is for some others (many fitters, Masters and AG racers, etc.), and it wouldn't surprise me if they completely ignored it in order to focus on other aspects of pro bicycle racing. I imagine most of us can think of one or two things that could use a little more UCI attention these days.

What do you think?

P.S. Several inches of snow on the ground here and it's still falling... :-( -DGR

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [GregX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
[snip]

i didn't say that it's important that all athletes ride in the same way... just that they all are allowed an equal opportunity. i wrote that fore-aft saddle placement for time trialers is exceedingly critical -- as it is for road cyclists. i cannot imagine any polished rider taking seriously the view that "fore-aft placement of the saddle is not critical." but, that is your view, and i respect your right to believe it.

my view -- which differs from yours -- is that athletes are very picky about where the fore/aft placement of their saddles, just as they are picky about saddles positioned too high or too low. accordingly, a rule which disallows a road rider the ability to place his saddle where he'd like it to go on his road bike, just because of the accident of his height, is as nonsensical as the current time trial rule which discriminates on the basis of a rider's stature.

my article to which you refer does not contend for steep seat angles. if you read the article carefully, you'll see that i don't advocate for a particular angle. that's up to the UCI. if it wants all athletes the ability to time trial at 80 degrees, or 77, or 75, or 73, that's for them to decide. i'm simply offering an alternative to current practice of allowing tall riders to ride at 77 or 78 degrees yet mandating that short riders cannot ride steeper than 74 or 75 degrees.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [GregX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not quite sure I understand your opinion. Dan said that fore /aft placement is critical, and you say different riders ride with different placements. Surely both the riders that ride steep and the riders that ride slack consider the palcement to be critcal.

Styrrell
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"how about a "harp" with 2 parallel wires?"

i think that's a brilliant solution. in this case, the rule ought to be written differently. starting with damon's language, i would amend it as follows:

"The nose of the saddle shall protrude no further forward than 17 centimeters in front of a line passing through the bottom bracket spindle and inclined rearward at an angle of [choose an angle, e.g. 77, 79, etc.] from the horizontal."

personally, i think this also ought to apply to track events as well. i think it's silly that the kilo and the pursuit are subject to different rules.

there would be two ways you could measure this. one, with the two-string harp you describe. if you didn't have one, a properly calibrated $95 smarttool from sears, plus a metal rule, gets the job done.

the measuring harp's protocol: you simply line up the harp's rearward string with the BB axle, and the nose of the saddle can't protrude past the forward string. am i missing something?






Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dan, i am ALL FOR the change (or better yet, the removal) of the truly dumb rule the uci has regarding the limitation on fore-aft saddle postition. that said, i do think seat postion is not nearly as critical as we are all led to believe, and i am referring to fore-aft position and height. it clearly has a bearing on performance, but i would not call it critical.

(an aside: is it not odd to you that the same folks that think that seat position is "critical" are often the same ones that say crank length does not matter much? but yet both of these are dimensions directly related to the pedal cycle, but one is "critical", and the other is unimportant. i believe our opinions are all highly influenced by cycling's "traditions", nearly none of which has done so well when put under serious scientific scrutiny.)

then there have been many account of elite, world-class riders who rode for years (and kicked butt) on very improperly positioned seats (sometimes many cm off). then a knowledgeable coach set their seat correctly, and the riders proceeded to kick butt as before. an example of this that comes to mind?: connie carpenter.





Where would you want to swim ?
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brilliant, Dan and Tom!!

I move Dan propose the text to the UCI as written (no special exemption for different events), and act as agent to source the harps to supply to the UCI.

Seconded, anyone?

Or is there room for more improvement? What angle should be written in the proposed rule, allowing of course that the UCI might change it...?

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [damon_rinard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the tool, more or less:



Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [damon_rinard] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
thanks, excellent reply. you are an asset to Trek and to this forum.

and i fully grasp the concept of getting and calling in favors, of course neither are unlimited.

Trek alone probably could not do this. but we all know well that there is power in numbers. corporations band together for many reasons to lobby and influence. and a consortium of top bike manufacturers COULD collectively twist the arms of the fat old white men that run the uci. no doubt trek belongs to numerous trade groups that might get the ball rolling forcefully in this direction.

and this is a manufacturing, sales, and even environmental issue. if designers and riders could build and ride bikes that were unconstrained by arbitrary and baseless rules (even if the bikes were still somewhat traditional in design), then bikes would get better, riders would ride them faster and more comfortably, and more regular folks would want them and buy them and ride them. and the more people on fast and comfortable bikes, the less people in cars, SUVs, motorcycles, jet-skis, 4-wheelers, and other delightful motorized contraptions. the more that happens, the better chance we have for not destroying the remaining carrying capacity of the earth.

bikes might be our last chance. just take look mr. burke says and your company's efforts with the trek lime series ...

a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step ...

so if not now, when ?

let me know how this does at your monday meeting ... :)


(ps. i got some good snowfall here as well, so no worries.)





Where would you want to swim ?
Last edited by: GregX: Dec 1, 07 13:23
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
"how about a "harp" with 2 parallel wires?"

i think that's a brilliant solution.

Well...even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile ;-)


In Reply To:
the measuring harp's protocol: you simply line up the harp's rearward string with the BB axle, and the nose of the saddle can't protrude past the forward string.

Yep.


In Reply To:
am i missing something?

I don't think so...


http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
'Well...even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in awhile ;-)"

i sent earlier today to jean wauthier (UCI's technical chair) offering the proposed language, along with diagrams.




Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
the tool, more or less:



Looks good...alternatively, if it's not a big deal to make the harp taller, then just extend the vertical bar further and terminate both wires along the vertical member. No need to make the upper horizontal bar, and the tool is just 2 solid pieces and 2 wires (yeah...I realize it would be a LOT taller ;-)

Now then, the question is "What angle?" It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind the 5cm rule (if there is any) and what size rider that was intended to represent. Personally, I wouldn't mind it being on the steeper side. IMO, whatever is proposed should have some solid history/reasoning behind the angle selection to make it more "palatable" to the powers that be...perhaps a photo study/analysis of where top TT riders actually sit?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Last edited by: Tom A.: Dec 1, 07 17:20
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"alternatively, if it's not a big deal to make the harp taller, then just extend the vertical bar further and terminate both wires along the vertical member"

so far, the easiest, most portable thing i'd make is a rectangle, probably aluminum rectangular stock, and then i'd drill holes through at the appropriate places and route a continuous cable. then i'd just secure the cable with a turnbuckle and that's it. it would be roughly this size.



you'd have to make it out of fairly substantial stock, or tightening the cable would place the thing in torsion and cause it to twist.

i'd then drill a couple of holes in the bottom and just pass bolts through a plate on which i'd roll the bike, and attach it to that.

i'm sure there's better ways to build it, but this is the quick and dirty.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: X/Y Rules in an Angular World [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
I like it...just one "nit to pick" on your drawing though, the 17cm dimension should be horizontal (i.e. parallel to the 52cm dimension), not perpendicular to the wires.

BTW, what's your opinion on what the angle should be? Just curious.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply

Prev Next