There wil be lot of angry people at the checkin.
But the rules are clear, i like it, it is known way before the race. I will have to make some changes but i prefer than fearing the checkin.
Because last year check in was a shame, a lottery, with their rules modified 2 days before
Specialized SHIV Tri is also not legal anymore.
More than 1 Liter behind the saddle.
Specialized Shiv Tri rear hydration is now illegal, but not exclusively in races under DTU. Letâs not confuse everyone.
This rear hydration system is now illegal in all World Triathlon and IM races, as the capacity of the Hydration Fuelcell capacity is 1.5l while a single max capacity is now 1l.
Yes, sorry. You are right.
How are your thoughts, when it is empty?
It wonât matter if filled or empty - only 1l bottles allowed in the back, max 2 bottles in the back.
I donât know the design of the Hydration Fuelcell, but a potentially feasible fix would be to limit the container to 1l (e.g. through inserting into it an additional hydration pack of 1l). However, the bike isnât supported by Specialized anymore (itâs not produced - you know what I mean) and itâs not popular enough for having multiple 3d custom-made solutions.
Thank you for your opinion.
I do not use the fuel cell at all. It is empty (so no bladder inside) I do have a 3d printed bottle holder with one bottle on top.
Some of these rules look designed specifically against the KU Cycle. I wonder if this entered into Rico Bogenâs calculus when switching to Canyon.
Are you sure as the bta bottle on the Ku does not acceeds the steering axes, right?
Jeroen
Hmmm, I guess I was just thinking the âchest restâ bento box or whatever that is would run afoul of the top tube rule.
Replying to the thread in general-does anyone know if these DTU rules will be applied at a World Triathlon event in Germany? Or would it be just World Triathlon rules?
The cage would have to be flipped for a compliant design (probably more likely to launch bottles though). Something akin to this, but attached to the seatpost.
Could argue that the vertical height of the existing canyon bracket is less than the height of the cage if it were angled vertically. IMO the existing bracket is within the spirit of the rule, whereas the large fin version is not. That being said, arguing rule nuances with German race commissars has a low batting average.
If the BTA riser cannot exceed the height of the forearms, and the bottle cage must be attached directly to the riser presumably that outrules stacking bottles as the second bottle wouldnât be directly attached.
Also, now that I think of it an adaptor to use a second bottle cage back to back also wouldnât be allowed. I think.
Either way, how exactly does anyone manage to fit the maximum 2 litres up front without 2 x 1 litre bottles? Unless you go with a bottle beneath the bars maybe?!
If I try to go back to back, 2x1 litre bottles would extend back past the elbows and therefore the steering column.
Not replying to you specifically but the thread in general.
The question here is what is needed for carrying hydration. The spirit of the rule is the bike should not have any non essential fairings that are not part of the function of the bike. Now we can argue that entire frames and bike wheels are glorified fairings, but letâs hold that thought.
Elsewhere in this sport we had the entire debate about neoprene and wetsuits. In theory the wetsuits are there to keep us warm, but we all know that they allow us to make the swim leg âshorterâ. So eventually Emilio DeSoto comes up with the 10mm thick water rover. Not only did it position the body way high in the water like you are paddling on a paddle board, but the forearms added 2cm of pulling surface (1cm thinkness on each side).
That suit and suits thicker than 5mm were seen as way outside of the spirit of the sport.
So letâs look at what the DTU is trying to do here.
Letâs be honest about what everyone is trying to achieve here, which is to get more aero with a variety of fairing approaches built around the excuse of hydration when we have downtube and seat tube bottles that can carry hydration. Any other placement is to reduce aerodynamic resistance and thus the effort on the bike leg.
So essentially this falls into the exact same category as the water rover. The water rover was reducing the length of one of the legs in triathlon and doing nothing more than what existing approaches accomplished.
So here we are. Everyone is obsessed with all these fairing approches, but if World Triathlon/Ironman/DTU just say, "weâre done folks, put yout bottles back on your frame in cylindrical bottles and it is the same for everyone.
I do get that many bikes you can no longer carry two bottles, so thatâs why DTU is having to go through this mess !!!
But weâre having the same water rover discussion on the bike leg here.
Numbers talk. Boycott German races, when the numbers are low enough the federation will change the ridiculous rule. Itâs called progress and it will always happen. Glad I donât or want to race in Germanyâwe may as well just ban all running shoes and go barefoot or use straight leather solesâbecause foam just is there to protect our feet right? Nope, itâs also improved times of runs. Lots of examplesâŚelastic lacesâŚheck, letâs ban carbon bottom cycling shoesâyou donât really need carbon to bike right? Sorry but DTU sounds like a clown car.
Not to nicpick, because you make an excellent point in your post, but the reason I got my between-the-arms setup was the convenience of drinking from it.
In terms of aerodynamics (a secondary consideration), I definitely wasnât trying to fill the space between the bars and my body, but rather avoid getting out of position.
well, the easiest way would be to force people to ride on dutch cruisers onlyâŚno aero at all.
Yes, we all try to achieve aero gains and nobody complains about rules which protect the athlete. But this rule set eliminates my rear box (too big, more than one liter) my bta which is 5 mm to high and no chance to make it lower without investingâŚmy arm rest are also at a critical high (they are slightly higher at the sides than my armsâŚ) this IS a major safety feature for me, as i feel comfortable having high arem cups to lean atâŚso, as an average joe, i need to rethink my whole concept and check if there is a possibility to achieve thisâŚthey also claim, and this is not mentioned (all products which are mounted must not be made of a fragile material? (so carbon will break, aluminium will breakâŚall the carbon 3d printed parts will break) i have only contact to one company who claims, their parts are within this not fragile limitsâŚ)so at the end, they can dismiss your start anywayâŚor how do i proof the correct material was used?
Is there a clear statement on what is allowed for ironman races?
I donât know man, people are going to go crazy on the basket vs transport rack benefits. Not to mention the pump on frame or below the rear rack or the gains from a hub dynamo vs on wheel dynamo.
but on ironman events, the bta rules only limit it to 2 liters, correct, there is no dimensional limits on size (width and height) , correctâŚ
so i would just not start on german ground anymore, but at least i could ride my now fitted setup legally?
As far as I know, IM events in Germany are run according to World Triathlon rules, not DTU. Itâs only local races, World Cups plus Challenge Roth that will be organised under DTU rules.
As result, in IM Frankfurt you would be able to ride Ku Cycles tri bike, but cannot run in the >40mm stack height Adidas shoes. In Challenge Roth the other way around 
well, the judges are all DTU onesâŚi know that because every german club has to provide clubmembers/judgesâŚand the dtu provides the official courses which the club members have to participate and pass the testâŚ
we have seen major problems on ironman events last year, because some of the rules which are now valid, were already processed by the judges with the reason not safeâŚ
