I get the distinction - and this isn't to you in particular. I hate the fact that if you can BUY speed - that's ok...like cockpits, but god forbid you apply duct tape for what is probably not as fast...but at least something. Like the bottle thing - let's eliminate something accessible to everyone equally - but allow all the things that cost a ton of money and divide the haves from the have nots.

Just a thought - I do the best with what I have - but the bottle thing is not a big deal, and shouldn't be a safety issue.

---

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

From the owner via FB Time Trail Positions Group

Hi all, I’m not an avid social media user so I’ll only post once - a friend bought this to my attention and as it’s sparked a debate I thought I’d add context.
Firstly - Don’t worry, my time was of no consequence to the vast majority - I was there to complete - not compete. Apologies if I’ve offended anyone, my intent wasn’t to cheat; I was always going to be at the back of the race - Q’d a while ago & my priorities have changed significantly… Close friends/family convinced me to go for the IM event experience and Finland is a beautiful country we’ve not visited.
Chapeau to everyone at the event, it was certainly a challenge!
Secondly - colour - I let my better half choose it (she hates black and this made it easier to get a pass to spend the time on it) - perhaps black would have gone unnoticed (but then I wasn’t trying to be underhanded or sneaky).
Third - why - well I’m a geek and it was a fun project to keep me interested while life threw me & my body some lemons… nothing was accurately tested for performance at all but it did save me carrying everything in jersey pockets! There would be more time to gain in my body position than these parts gave me for sure. Most parts are first-working iteration (they fit however have loads of flaws, definitely not aero optimised - but safe to ride/stay attached). I did read the IM rules and nothing was really original or unique - just took inspiration from pros bikes. Everything has a viable justification based on the full current wording of the IM rules. I know none of this is UCI legal, and some bits are on the limit even for IM - which didn’t go unnoticed btw; I was allowed to rack & take part with the knowledge that I could be protested - and I would have graciously accepted a penalty should someone have raised an issue. Maybe if I get time to iterate further and make a product or two that I’d be happy to low-scale sell to a wider audience to help fellow Trinity owners I will. Like many I’d love to have the budget for an amazing bike where all the integration etc is all done for me but alas… Btw the high end wheels were borrowed from a very generous friend, the frameset was a cheap FB find and everything else is second hand/eBay!
It started as a bit of fun, and it served its purpose; I really enjoyed this little project and it gave me a skill that’s helped me make parts quickly to get friends out of trouble in last minute situations. I’m not the first to do this and I certainly won’t be the last.
Sorry for the long message, don’t hate me, I just love building and riding bikes

Generally speaking, I agree. But - and it's a pretty big "but" - over the years working at more races than I can count, I have seen some genuinely terrifying modifications done to people's bikes in the pursuit of "cheap" speed.

I don't want to be anywhere near someone's bike when the plastic sheets they glued on to their derailleur cages come off and get sucked into the chain, or the paperboard fairing on their downtube jams the front wheel. Honestly, I've seen enough people screw up the installation of their disc wheel conversion kit that I'm not super sanguine about that exception to the rule; I'm pretty sure just about everyone who works as a mechanic at a couple/few IMs has had at least one of these come through their stand that absolutely would have jammed at some point in the race if it hadn't made a last second trip to the mech tent.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I don't agree. Can someone provide me the justification? I design composite fairings for aerospace vehicles and would 100% deem those items fairings (with the exception of the box near the chainring which I think you can argue is storage).



Claims to have read the rules but then thinks its only a penalty? its a disqualification. Correct me if I'm wrong.

correct me if iam wrong but i would say the only aero crank where the fairing is actually a structural part is the zipp vuma aero crank .

A bike tube is needed as it is a structural item. Its shape can be aerodynamic


I think this is a great question. The bike already has handlebars so aerobars aren't adding anything structural. If you took away the brake lever handles then you could probably argue the aerobars are structural as you need something to hang onto but that would be a safety issue IMO


same answer as above for aero tubes


same answer as above for aero tubes

Okay! You're wrong :)

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

I think it would be hard to make a call on this one without seeing the FEM (finite element model) of the crank under load. Its possible the manufacturer was able to reduce the wall thickness of the crank by adding the additional material to the center of the plate. If you removed the aero center the thing may fail as a result.

I kinda' don't think that's all that necessary...

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Above you said structural bike parts can have an aerodynamic shape, here you’re saying it needs to be examined closely to tell if it’s actual load bearing. So which is it?

well its kinda both right?

Lets take a downtube. All bikes need one and theyre always load bearing no matter the shape. Shape can vary to be more or less aerodynamic but they're all essentially a tube.

In the case of a chainring I agree its not always clear if the center section shape is for aero or structural reasons. I would like to err on the side that its closer to the analogy of a aero tube. Thanks for helping me clarify my thoughts.

Similar to my post above but confused how you’re separating aero bars from something like aero tubes. A bike already has round tubes but the shape is allowed to be aero? A bike already has handlebars but the shape of aero bars are just a more aerodynamic shape. Note I’m not referring to clip ons here but the full setup that’s standard these days.

I guess my thinking is like this. If you chopped off the aero bars the bike could still be ridin. If you removed an aero tube you cant. Does that make sense?

Ok I give you the metron but not the original one that was posted

https://shop.visiontechusa.com/...4be5547087ab2b32154/

I dunno, once again I don't think you really need any advanced scanning technology to figure out what's going to happen if you remove the piece that attaches the chainring (in this case, the small chainring) to the crank.

Edit to add: and yes, of course, you could replace the cover/standoff/bolt receptacle with something that just functioned as a bolt receptacle, but you'd *have* to replace it. So it's structural, IE: product won't function if it isn't in place.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

It's not interpreted as both. The most common interpretation of the word 'structural' (that is, the one used by officials/governing bodies) is that the piece in question is of one singular construction. A crankset where the spider is a large dished plate of carbon fiber extending out past the bolt holes is structural because it is of singular construction. A regular crankset with Bondo smoothed in between the spiders in the same shape is not structural.

The FEA is a weird road to go down. What if a frame is designed well enough that it can function without seatstays? Is it then not allowed because the seatstays are fairings? Also we would need a window of loads that every tested part would need to meet but not exceed.


There's only so many parts on a bicycle, the UCI has actually done a good job of defining boxes within which each portion must reside. That gets rid of a lot of the definitional silliness.

i have to disagree, that aero cover, as fsa calls it correctly, has nothing structural as it is a total add on the parts they give the number 11 in their drawing , you only need the standoff/bolt they correctly give the aero cover no number as it has no need to be there lol . its just like the dust cover off a tririg break.
if you really want to argue i would agree the fsa aero cover does have a bit more purpose than the tri rig dust cover but it is not structural i can cut off all the cover around the 4 standoff bolts and the product will work.


anyway just to be clear i have no problem with the fsa crank. i do use a tririg break, for me there is nothing illegal in this thread as nothing is more legal or illegal than a disc wheel cover or a front wheel that has a fairing glued to its rim .


so either all is good or nothing is good. consistency is key.

and then we have to ban spoked disc wheels as well not just the disc cover. and while i ride a foamed disc wheel i could not keep a straight face and argue that this is really more legal than a spoked disc wheel. as it would break the intend of the base rule.


i do see your point about safety of non commercially available products but i like to point out that we have 100 s of bottles being ejected during races of commercially available bottle cages and that would be the first thing we have to tackle in this case. we would have to say no bottle cage can be sold without and elastic device that holds the bottle in place when we hit a speed bump.