okay maybe I've missed it in the discussion and the article for that matter but what about the UCI 75cm horizontal measurement rule from c of b-b to tip of aerobar extensions?

I agree 100% that the -5cm rule discriminates against short riders ... but the 75cm rule has a very similar effect for tall riders or for those simply who have long arms.

I'm only 6' and need to ride close to 80cm extension (with -5cm saddle tip) to obtain a close to optimal position. I know one guy who's 6'6" with long arms and 75-80cm is quite limiting for him.

I believe it's incorrect to focus on just one of the UCI limits here. Both ends of the spectrum are disadvantaged.

Just noticed the forward wire passes (nearly) through the pedal spindle. Makes sense, since most cranks are close to 17 cm in length. If a "double wire" harp is a sticking point, maybe plan B could be a singe wire harp, with the rule re-written using the pedal as the reference point? For example:

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

Just a suggestion. Might open up debate about crank arm length too...

---

Damon Rinard
Engineering Manager,
CSG Road Engineering Department
Cannondale & GT Bicycles
(ex-Cervelo, ex-Trek, ex-Velomax, ex-Kestrel)

"the 17cm dimension should be horizontal"

i thought about that, and i'm frankly ambivalent. i drew it as i did because, if you want to keep the rule as simple as possible, and as it is now written (by you and me), the distance expressed in the drawing matches the current intended rule wording.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"what about the UCI 75cm horizontal measurement rule from c of b-b to tip of aerobar extensions?"

we're getting to that ;-) one thing at a time. 1.3.023 and 1.3002 also need to be reconsidered.

for that matter, triathlon's rule needs to be reconsidered. it's more forgiving than the UCI's rule, but it's also X/Y. i proposed the current front/center rule for USAT, and Bob Langan, Charlie Crawford and i wrote the text for that rule (which is a much better rule than the UCI uses in rule 1.3.016). it ties front/center to saddle height, and it's gauged to work in tandem with the max seat angle rule.

the thing is, 1.3.016, 1.3.023 must be considered together. you're right. if they were considered together, and a decent rule was constructed that would make sense, then there could be a convergence of cycling and triathlon rules. but as long as cycling digs its heels in and prefers to remain obstinate, that won't happen.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"maybe plan B could be a singe wire harp, with the rule re-written using the pedal as the reference point?"

at first blush, yes, it would seem to make things simpler. it would slightly penalize those who are shorter and/or who for whatever reason choose to ride shorter cranks. but we're only talking about a cm or two. it might slightly penalize those who use drop-center cranks or center-mount pedals.

but none of that is of significant consequence. i'm not against it. show of hands? who thinks this is a cleaner rule?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

fair enough.

FWIW, I'd propose using elbow angle in lieu of the 75cm rule -- as IIRC it's there to eliminate the Superman position or "excessive reach".

They already dictate a 120 degree angle or less before one can gain the extension to 80cm for example. Why not just simplify it to arm angle xx? A protactor isn't hard to build is it? ;)

(I figure bringing torso angle into things is asking for trouble but that measuring simple elbow angle is easy enough)

When it's all said and done, what are the true reasons behind this clutch of rules? I know we want a bike to look like a bike and not a reverse or forward recumbent but other than that ... why restrict it so much?

Hmm...the reason I pointed it out is that in my reading it doesn't match the wording you proposed (bold added):



Now, in my reading, "forward" is in the horizontal plane and is a closer in spirit to the current rule (which possibly may make it more palatable to the powers that be).

The only reason I'm pointing this out is that as we were made painfully aware last summer, the folks at the UCI sometimes take what's in a drawing as literal, even if the text of the rule doesn't support it. The clearer and more specific the rule and drawing are, the better IMHO. Simple is good...but clear and unambiguous is better.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Personally, I think it adds an unneeded layer of complexity by bringing in the variations on crankarm length and also having to determine if the crankarms are level (or at least parallel to the base) when making the "check".

My vote is for keeping the reference at the BB.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"They already dictate a 120 degree angle or less before one can gain the extension to 80cm for example. Why not just simplify it to arm angle xx? A protractor isn't hard to build is it?"

because you can game the rule based on where you sit on the saddle. in order for the rule to satisfy me, it ought to just be a measure on the bike. in order for it to satisfy the UCI, it must be easy, quick and cheap to measure, adjudicated by commissaires with an IQ of 80 or above. unless the rule satisfies all those requirements, the UCI probably won't change.

of course, it probably won't change anyway.

in terms of the psychology and tactics of how you get the rule changed, this is the harder question. monty and i discovered our own "french paradox." we were over racing in europe for a summer, and we needed to get from nice to marseilles. each time a train came by, and we asked the railway conductors to put the bike cases on the train, the answer was, "no bikes on that train. bikes go on another train." train after train went by. same result. finally, we stopped asking. we just loaded our bike cases on the luggage car of the next train. a conductor immediately came over and started yelling at us. "not that train!" "fine," we answered, "you take the bikes off." he argued even harder -- but he didn't take the bikes off. we stayed calm, but we didn't budge either. at the end, he threw up his hands and walked away. we boarded the train and went to marseilles.

our lesson from this is that you aren't going to get anywhere if it involves other people taking an affirmative act. you must take the affirmative act, and make it so that they have to take an affirmative act to undo what you did. it's the idea behind "opt in" versus "opt out."

not that this described the french only, or that the UCI is all french, only that this paradigm described above seemed particularly apt when dealing with the french service sector ;-) it brings to mind the dorothy parkerism: you can lead a whore-to-culture [horticulture], but you can't make her think.

there needs to be an appeal to the UCI that causes it to realize that the road of greatest ease is the road that contains these rule changes.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"in my reading, "forward" is in the horizontal plane"

i confess i didn't go back and read the rule text i myself wrote. in my mind's eye i *thought* i had written 17cm between the two lines, but the way this text is constructed you're absolutely right.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Agreed. Keep the reference at the BB. Looks simple enough to conduct the measurements.

This is a fantastic idea. My two-cents would be to make the harp taller (and, unfortunately, wider by default). It would be a pain in the neck to roll your bike up to the commisaire and have the seat be higher than the harp frame...as would be the case at 110cm for some of us freakishly long-legged spider-people. Make it an even 150cm and go well beyond what would be needed for the 99th percentile of human height.

Koz

One problem with an "arm angle" rule is that you will then need to specify the orientation of one of the arm sections. In other words, would this mean that the forearms would be required to be horizontal?

I think Dan is on the right track here. Whatever is proposed should have a very simple method of application (no extra measuring of the rider, etc.) to allow for simple and clear application "in the field". Once you start opening things up for even the potential of a subjective application, then the problems begin...such as Jens being told at Master's Worlds "We don't do that for masters" when he asked about morphological exception measuring.

To be honest, I actually think the "box" rule for the aerobars as currently written in the UCI rules isn't that bad of a rule. Perhaps instead of a hard vertical line at the forward edge, there should be an angled line? Maybe tied to where on the seat line "harp" the saddle is positioned?

Oh wait, how about this? Maybe just another 2 wire harp going in the forward direction with the forward-most wire defining the front edge of the "box" and the other bike landmarks ( top of wheel, head tube, and top of saddle) defining the other edges as currently defined in the UCI rules?

That's it! Just have two 2-wire harps attached to the same base plate with the forward harp on a sliding track. Wheel the bike up to the measuring "jig" and line up the wire on the "seat harp" with the BB. Then, slide the "bar harp" back until it's BB wire also intersects the BB and look to see if the tips of the bars are behind the wire. The upper, rear, and lower limits are the same as currently defined.

Or...even simpler, make the harp frame large enough to accommodate both pairs of wires. One rearward slanted set for the seat measurment, and one forward slanted set for the bars. Then, just line up the BB with the appropriate BB wire when making either the seat or bar measurements. Voila! (That's french for "check it out!")

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

"My two-cents would be to make the harp taller"

i chose 110cm because if you subtract, oh, 24cm, for bb drop, this makes the max angular saddle height measurable about 90cm. not many of you guys with saddles taller than that. the only guy i ever measured that hit or exceeded that was ryan trebon (natl cyclocross champ).

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

what's this harp business about anyway? where I come from, a harp is a seal (and a hood is just a bigger, nastier seal) :-)

But seriously, if the extension rule is there to ban the Superman .. then doesn't it make sense to focus on what makes Superman "fly"? And isn't that primarily captured in elbow angle?

Re measuring elbow angle, as Slowman said, sliding forward on the seat would lessen the angle but that could be negated by forcing one to sit on the back of the seat for the measurement.

Dan, have you already tried to "educate" the UCI about this, or do we have the "primeur" on slowtwitch ?
If not, do you mind if someone else tries to do so by somehow bring this article on a certain desk at the UCI headquarters (no promise of results though) ?

"have you already tried to "educate" the UCI about this"

i have established a casual, and ongoing, rapport with jean wauthier, the UCI's technical liaison. that established, yes, i'd be happy to have you also deposit the idea on the desk of his, or any other, UCI official.

i suspect i will also pass around the idea to those in the manufacturing community, as well as those involved with fitting the professional cyclists to their TT bikes, in the hope that a proposal backed by many in the cycling world will help move the UCI toward a more rational approach to bike rules.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

The problem I see with an elbow angle measurement is the subjectivity of the measurement and the potential for "gaming it" as Dan says. I say "measure the bike, not the rider" ;-)

IMO, the true "superman" position (as originally done by Mr. Obree) is pretty effectively eliminated by the hand height limitation (i.e. below the top of the seat) and a reasonable forward extension limit.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

okay then what's the reasonable extension limit to cover the extremes? I figure the tallest folks would want 85-90cm. How much "Super room" would that allow say a 5' normally proportioned person?

"what's the reasonable extension limit to cover the extremes?"

let's make this easy: your forward protrusion is 75cm, or your seat height (measured BB to the top of the saddle), whatever is longer.

when we rewrote the front/center rule for USA triathlon, we used 7/8 of the seat height, measured BB to the top of the saddle. the fraction you use (.875, .8, .75) should be a function of the max seat angle you choose if you allow up to, say, 81° or 82°, you need .875. if the UCI decides to ratchet this back to, say 77° or 78°, then .75 or .8 would be plenty.

in the same way, it seems to me that the extension limit should be a function of seat height or, to put it another way, there would be some reasonable arbitrary max, with the ME a function of saddle height. you establish a max only to make it easy on the commissaires. if the bike doesn't exceed the max (75cm let us say) you don't need to worry about the ME. if it exceeds the max, then it's a function of seat height. the commissaire measures the saddle right along the "rearward wire" line, and the forward protrusion line must be no more than the seat height.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

what morphological data (and how many std. deviations from the mean) were used to establish that 75cm in the first place? And the same for 'extension <= saddle height'?

Honestly, it still seems if they wish to stop the Superman(ish) positions, limit the arm angle to say <= 135 degrees and simply forget about what distance it takes to achieve that. it's an easy angle isn't it? :)

totally n=1, my saddle height measured from c of b-b up middle of the seatpost to saddle top is 76cm. My 'close to optimal' extensions are set at 79.5cm fwd of c of b-b. My position is in NO way Supermanish. More like Pedestrian-manish. At the Can. Natz, I've had no trouble getting the exemption to 80cm as my arm angle is closer to 100 than 120 degrees when sitting normally on the bike. UCI Masters? Darned good question!!

OTOH, my 6'6" friend is all legs. His 90cm saddle height would cover his extensions off just about right I'd say. 80cm is a big limiter for him.

"my saddle height measured from c of b-b up middle of the seatpost to saddle top is 76cm. My 'close to optimal' extensions are set at 79.5cm fwd of c of b-b."

you've left out a big element of the equation: your seat angle. what is is, and measured how? or if you prefer, what is your saddle to nose plumb line?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

okay saddle nose to c of b-b plumb line is -5cm or a shade further back(std. UCI setback).

The seat angle well it's a p3C in the rear positions so I figure 75? Shamefully, I'll admit I don't think about seak angles much at all!