this has come up on the photo gallery (on the slowtwitch home page) of ricky ledesma’s bike.
we’ve got a lot of smarty pantses here, and i thought we could have a fruitful discussion. we call it bike porn and where there is a real life intersection between bike and actual porn is how we’ve treated it in terms of legality. fairings in triathlon have been adjudicated like obscenity, officials often employing the i know it when i see it doctrine.
i have always felt that triathlon is different from cycling and we ought to have a different standard for what is allowable. i’ve always argued for a more liberal interpretation for what is a fairing. i do have a doctrine that i think ought to bring more rigor to the question. the slowman doctrine is:
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
but nothing on ricky’s bike meets that standard, that i can see. i therefore would find nothing illegal about that bike.
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
the one thing that is legal today in both tri and bike racing that my doctrine would bring into question is the shoe cover. i think there’s a legitimate case that can be made that this is an illegal fairing.
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
The second half of this in particular is, albeit worded differently, pretty much what I’ve heard back from Charlie Crawford when I’ve brought the topic up with him.
Most of the rest of your post doesn’t involve the bike (unless you want to define “on a bikes” pretty broadly).
it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
Based on the above quote Dan, how do you feel about TJ Tollakson’s aerobar position? I understand that TJ does it because he finds it comfortable, but he also claims aero gains too.
the position is fine. if you want to configure your body to make it more aero, fine. but there was a bike back in the late 80s or early 90s, it never made it to market, i’ll wrack my brian to remember the guy who build it, it was a terrifically aero bike. more aero than any bike ever at that time. but the bike wouldn’t pass my test, because the forearms fit inside what amounted to a bit aerobar fairing, and it was tilted up, levi style. the position wouldn’t be illegal, but a fairing that shielded either the forearms, or the body, from the wind would be.
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
Standard excuse: It’s not a Fairing per se. It doubles as storage for Nutrition, Flat Kit etc …
On a more serious note, I rigged up a small bladder in the tail of my old Giro A2 & ran a hose with an L-Shaped Bite Valve under the straps to my mouth. It was very small but the extra weight drove me nuts.
If the fairing is an add-on that is functional, I’m ok with it
in my opinion, it can’t just “double as”. if a significant part of its effect is to fair the body - either as a front fairing or as a trailing edge - it’s not legal. do these rear hydration systems meet that test? i would say that if the hydration system is built to fair itself via a trailing edge, fine. but if it’s built to fair the saddle as well, fine. if it’s built to fair the body, not fine.
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
…
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
.
If the below helmet contained an airbag that substantially protected the rider during a crash, would it be illegal?
well, that opened the door for someone to mention the (still delayed) 2-pack, so I might as well get out in front of it…
There’s a (variable, by body position, pedaling effects, and wind conditions, but otherwise conceptually “constant”) low-pressure region immediately aft of the rider where you can place storage and/or hydration with little or no drag penalty. Under certain circumstances it may even result in a net drag benefit. Either way you’re taking advantage of the location to reduce system drag.
If anything which confers a benefit by being in that low pressure zone is deemed improper, then pretty much every aft-mounted hydration/storage solution in the general vicinity of the saddle plane goes byebye. It doesn’t have to be a 2-pack to work, either…it just takes more effort to get a similar result from carefully arranging your stuff on a Flatwing.
i was careful not simply to write “confers benefit.” it can confer benefit. but if it’s primary job is to confer benefit then that’s a problem.
let me put it this way. if speed box-like appendages start showing up on a lot of bikes, and they don’t have anything much of value to the rider in them, then i think they’re illegal fairings. but behind the saddle, behind the seat post, is a very convenient place to put stuff. i don’t think we should be foreclosed from putting stuff there. and it can fair itself. and it can have, as a side benefit, a modest positive effect on the overall.
the problem is when you start enhancing and enhancing the shape to have a greater effect on the overall. when a significant part of the benefit of the “thing” is to improve the system rather than just optimize its own shape.
it’s too bad that you feel that way, because if a storage or hydrartion system can also be aero, then it’s just good design.
This is not ICU time trialing.
in my opinion, it can’t just “double as”. if a significant part of its effect is to fair the body - either as a front fairing or as a trailing edge - it’s not legal. do these rear hydration systems meet that test? i would say that if the hydration system is built to fair itself via a trailing edge, fine. but if it’s built to fair the saddle as well, fine. if it’s built to fair the body, not fine.
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
…
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
.
If the below helmet contained an airbag that substantially protected the rider during a crash, would it be illegal?
No matter how much I think about it, I still can’t justify long tailed helmets based on the rationale above.
“A helmet is necessary.” Gotcha
“A helmet has a “right” to be aero.” Agreed.
“Its an illegal fairing if a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider”. So what safety does the tail of a helmet provide? Is it even part of the “helmet” anymore? I would argue that it serves zero purpose other than to fair the rider. A helmet can be aero without a tail, and I would argue that any tail longer than that of something like the bambino is no longer a part of the head casing but an integrated fairing for the rider.
I’m not against long tailed helmets, I’m just trying to solidify our ideas of how to define what’s OK and what’s not.
“it’s too bad that you feel that way, because if a storage or hydrartion system can also be aero, then it’s just good design.”
it’s too bad that you misinterpret my statements so that they’re - for you - too bad. nowhere in my statements did i say that hydration systems can’t be aero.
in my opinion, it can’t just “double as”. if a significant part of its effect is to fair the body - either as a front fairing or as a trailing edge - it’s not legal. do these rear hydration systems meet that test? i would say that if the hydration system is built to fair itself via a trailing edge, fine. but if it’s built to fair the saddle as well, fine. if it’s built to fair the body, not fine.
What’s your opinion on a P4 bottle?
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
…
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
.
If the below helmet contained an airbag that substantially protected the rider during a crash, would it be illegal?
You should have changed the S-WORKS on the bike to SCHWARTZ.
your stated opinion was “it can’t double as”. That’s the sentiment I think is unfortunate, because it is disconnected from reality.
Speedfil
Specialized Shiv down tube
Torhans frame bottle
Torhans aero drink
Torhans bento
DSW bento
the various BTS hydration/storage solutions that actually decrease drag, ala Jordan Rapp
Trek speed box
Trek rear trunk
etc.
“it’s too bad that you feel that way, because if a storage or hydrartion system can also be aero, then it’s just good design.”
it’s too bad that you misinterpret my statements so that they’re - for you - too bad. nowhere in my statements did i say that hydration systems can’t be aero.
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
…
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
.
If the below helmet contained an airbag that substantially protected the rider during a crash, would it be illegal?
You should have changed the S-WORKS on the bike to SCHWARTZ.
if its overwhelming effect is to fair itself, or fairs another part of the bike, it’s okay. it’s only an illegal fairing if it a significant effect of the object is to fair the rider. accordingly, scrutiny has been paid in the past to front mount hydration systems. such scrutiny would be in keeping with the slowman doctrine.
…
my “doctrine” has to be explained/massaged when applied to clothing and helmets. my view on aero helmets and apparel is that they each are necessary, and so each has a “right” to be aerodynamic. what would not have been legal under my doctrine is a “helmet” (back in the pre-helmet days of bike racing) that really wasn’t really a helmet in the structural sense, but rather a head fairing.
.
If the below helmet contained an airbag that substantially protected the rider during a crash, would it be illegal?
You should have changed the S-WORKS on the bike to SCHWARTZ.
“your stated opinion was “it can’t double as”. That’s the sentiment I think is unfortunate, because it is disconnected from reality.”
you can’t make a body fairing and call it legal because it doubles as a hydration carrier, spare tire carrier, race number carrier, fingernail clipper carrier. none of the items you listed do that. all of the items you listed are aero, in and of themselves. items are allowed to be aero (under my interpretation). they can also fair inanimate objects proximate to them (a frame’s seat tube can fair the rear wheel). what they can’t do is fair the body in a significant way.
the one thing that is legal today in both tri and bike racing that my doctrine would bring into question is the shoe cover. i think there’s a legitimate case that can be made that this is an illegal fairing.
But shoe covers are necessary to keep your feet warm, hence legal.
IIRC, that is why they are banned by the UCI only in indoor track cycling.
