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...