New UCI legal bar from HED. Fully adjustable like the Blackdogs and out by June.
ok, does it sag in the middle like a F4 wing?
yes, it does have the “gullwing” design of the Corsairs of WWII!
Sold, sign me up
I love the old Corsairs
.
Wow, just like the Black Dogs…but slower so Pat McQuaid won’t get mad. I look forward to buying the faster bars on the cheap from the ProTour teams and wannabe roadies who will liquidate them on eBay this summer.
BTW, that’s really fast turn around (kudos to Steve & Co. at HED). They just got hit with the 3:1 thing at ToC in Feb.
I agree with you. However, it’s not just a copy of the Blackdog bar with a lesser aspect ratio. It has a few subtle design differences that make it a quite fast bar for UCI events. I will ask if I’m allowed to post a more full on pic of it tomorrow so it can be seen.
Got permission to post a full view of the Corsair bar which can be seen in the edited first post now.
Got permission to post a full view of the Corsair bar which can be seen in the edited first post now.
Thats pretty slick! now if i can just find a P3-sl in a 53cm id be set.
Looks like my next purchase! 
why, do you race uci races?
Not often, and those I do wouldn’t check anyway.
I just like the bar. Seems like you’re implying the bar has more drag than their other bars. I don’t think we’ve seen data yet. Even if it does, it’s not likely to be much worth getting worked up over. Astana seems to go quite well with their Bonty bars, which almost surely have Hed’s handiwork in them…and have about the same cross-section. If I were a betting man, I’d guess Steve took that design and morphed it a bit for these
What needed to be changed to conform to the UCI rules?
The UCI says that bike tubes have to have an aspect ratio of 3:1 or less (can’t have a depth that is more than 3X the thickness). This was only being applied to frames, but at the Tour of California, the UCI said this applied to everything (except wheels): bars, forks, seatposts, etc. Bars like the 3T Ventus and HED Black Dog are quite “winglike” and have long, thin profiles that exceed 3:1. To fix this they either needed to be shortened up or fattened up.
The core problem here is that manufacturers will make parts less aero so that a few hundred UCI pros can use them, and most of us will get the same less aero stuff in the bargain. It’s not economical for manufacturers to make two versions, and there is a paradigm that you can’t market it if it can’t be ridden in the TdF (witness the death of beam bikes, including Trek’s Y-foil…even though they test faster than “double diamond” frames). Why does the P4 have that lame water bottle instead of just using frame carbon down there…UCI rules.
that definitely would be my assumption.
I looked at that bike then punched a baby.
Got a pic from the front as well which can now also be seen in the first post.
Not a fan of those armrests! Are those the final product? Why not use the ones currently sold? Surely those aren’t affected by the same rulings.
I don’t know too much about the armrests but I imagine it wouldn’t be a problem getting the old ones with the clip on.