Make the Fairing Rules Make Sense Again

Originally published at: Make the Fairing Rules Make Sense Again - Slowtwitch News

Look, I get it. I’m tired of writing about the World Triathlon hydration and fairing rules. You’re tired of trying to figure out how it all makes sense, when some race organizers will be following these rules, some will only be enforcing them for professional athletes for the time being, and some will ignore pieces of the rules. And heaven forbid you’re an athlete racing in multiple countries this year.

This is madness — especially in the context of our sport deciding to give a collective shoulder shrug towards other pieces of cycling equipment that seemingly blatantly violate these rules.

The Background

In case you have either emerged from a Captain America esque frozen coma or been living without triathlon internet for the last four months, here’s the brief version of how we got here.

World Triathlon, and to a lesser extent, IRONMAN updated their collective rulebooks in the off-season, as is the norm. As part of these rules, there was more language added to the rules regarding water bottle placement, the maximum allowable volume of bottles carried, etc. All somewhat straightforward.

The German national triathlon federation, the DTU, decided to then take matters into its own hands. It further restricted the placement of bottles, expanding the scope of the rules above and beyond the previous definitions. All the rulemakers got together in April to start to suss this all out, and eventually came to the World Triathlon interpretation documents that we wrote about before.

That document gives us the infamous 30cm x 30cm box that both a rear hydration carrier and a frame storage box needs to fit into, which means far more bikes than previously anticipated were now subject to additional scrutiny. IRONMAN has decided only to enforce this subset of rules for professionals (for the time being), and Challenge Roth has decided not to enforce this rule at that event only.

Whew. OK. Now you’re caught up.

Yet We’re Still Missing the Point

All of this handwringing about water bottles is namely about keeping the spirit and integrity of the fairing rules in tact. What’s the fairing rule, you might ask? Let’s go to the IRONMAN rulebook for a brief moment:

Protective screens, fuselages, fairings, or any other devices or materials (including
duct tape) added or blended into the structure with the intent to reduce (or having
the effect of reducing) resistance to air penetration are prohibited.

Seems reasonable enough, right? Especially when you take the common English definition of the word fairing, which is “a member or structure whose primary function is to produce a smooth outline and to reduce drag.” So let’s take the so-called draft box, which is impacted by the 30 x 30 rule. Its primary function is to store things, such as a spare tube, an air cartridge, or tools. It also just so happens to be functional within the frame.

Contrast that with some of the most recent cockpits we’ve seen evolve and, well, it sure seems like we’re over the line on the fairing rule. Take, for instance, Lucy Charles-Barclay’s bike from this weekend at Eagleman, and looking specifically at the aerobar on her Cube. (To be clear, I am not blaming the athlete here…this is a matter of our officials.)

From a plain language perspective, this is the exact definition of a fairing. The primary purpose of that bar is not to support the aero position; it’s to reduce drag. It just also happens to have a secondary function of being for her arms.

But this is also the exact same type of thing that Joe Skipper was attempting with water bottles on the top sides of his arms. Yet only one of those was determined to violate the fairing rule.

I can only ask: why?

We are fast approaching a point where equipment rule clarity, and the associated cost of chasing those more than marginal gains, are going to cost us athletes from the sport. We all know what a fairing is and isn’t. Let’s get back to arguing something useful, like tire pressure on hookless wheels, instead of ignoring the fairing rules for cockpits and then going gung-ho on water bottles.

This isn’t hard: maximum two bottles / two liters in front and back, each. Allow the draft box. Allow aero shaping of extensions and pads for the cockpit, but ban blatant examples of fairings. Make it simple.

Yet now we’re on month four of this topic. And if I’ve learned anything about these rules thus far, we’re probably far from done having to write about it.

5 Likes

Preach :raised_hands:

1 Like

In my nearly fifteen years in triathlon, this might be the dumbest ongoing saga I’ve ever had to cover.

And that’s saying something, given we’ve lived through Zippergate, The Bro exception to the shoulder coverings rule, Daniela wearing a prohibited wetsuit, etc.

I also fear we’re not far away from a halo bike costing more than the average transaction cost of a new car in the US. That’s not a healthy place to be for a mass participation sport.

1 Like

A lot of dumb shit going on, add this to the chaos and confusion all around us.
Hang in there appreciate what you’re doing here, keep with the thick skin, it’s like you’re the whipping post for something you have no control or say in.

1 Like

I get what you’re saying but I don’t agree the mono bars primary purpose is to reduce to drag. Its primary purpose is to support riders in the aero position. In a very close second, it’s function is to reduce drag. But has anyone actually shown these mono bars reduce drag compared to some of the extensions from drag2zero, wattshop, fasttt, etc? I’ve yet to see any data that actually says so.

The benefit of the mono bars that I see is that you can create a complete custom solution to your specific needs. Pad x, extension length, pad width, bta/computer mount, etc. You aren’t stuck with something off the shelf that isn’t fully adjustable.

Was just joking about this yesterday.

I dont think that is the issue . the issue is that we allow expensive fairings but prevent the duct tape fairings. we basically say if it is expensive it’s ok ,if it’s free cant do it mate.
lets face it magnus’s camping mattress and duct tape fairing likely was not much slower than Lucys aero snow shovel and neither was it less save …
but the 2 euro solution is illegal and the 5000 euro solution is “legal”

4 Likes

Having the two sides actually connected adds to the strength and the stiffness of the system. Adding duct tape does not.

“Protective screens, fuselages, fairings, or any other devices or materials . . added or blended into the structure with the intent to reduce (or having the effect of reducing) resistance to air penetration are prohibited.”
Excellent article @rrheisler
@stevej
A ‘solid’ tray below the arms is imho a fairing blended into the arm support function and its design is clearly “inten[ded] to reduce resistance to air penetration”. This goes for the Canyon editions (Philipp, Lange, Laidlow, Matthews et al) as well as LCB’s sleek one-off (we’ve seen imaged in the main thread) and many others.
Primary and secondary purposes are thus peripheral to this.
You ask “has anyone actually shown these mono bars reduce drag”. This is irrelevant: the intent is clear as day: and ‘intent’ is enough (see rule text): it doesn’t actually need to “hav[e] the effect of reducing”.
These monocoques offer structural advantage but the integration (both bars) is not necessary and adds extraordinary expense (which generates unfairness or the perception thereof).
See the UCI rules which address this - two separate bars/arm rests (super complicated though: wouldn’t be UCI if it wasn’t) - to be clear I’m not advocating adoption but can be used for inspiration.
As far as “you can create a complete custom solution”: absolutely. But you are then “stuck with something that isn’t adjustable” let alone “fully”.

2 Likes

yes but there is enough strength if done proper. and if you wanted you could add 2 bridges for 10 euro , so then its 12 euro vs 5000.

image

2 Likes

Yeah the notion that two independent extensions have suddenly become unsafe and need a solution is absurd.

2 Likes

The could copy/paste the paragraph from UCI rules and problem solved

This from the Wattshop site

  • Armrests must be two pieces. Each individual piece must be no greater than 125mm x 125mm x 85mm in size.
  • Armrest angle must be no greater than 30 degrees.
  • Measured horizontally the distance from the leading edge of your armrest to your extension tip must be a minimum of 180mm.
  • If the extensions are joined by part the maximum cross section can be no greater than 80mm. This is either a bridge piece used in a dual riser stack system or the bridge piece upon which the two extensions are mounted in a mono riser stack system.
  • Basebars must be a minimum of 350mm measured from outside edge to outside edge.
1 Like

Yeah. I mean ultimately I don’t love using the UCI rubric as, well, that brings its own versions of hell.

But that is way more straight forward (and I’d bet the Germans would love putting together a plastic measuring tool for it).

1 Like

I hate many of the UCI rules. I ommitted all the BS …if you are less than 178cm…then…else if you are more than 186cm then that…total BS

I was curious “how did UCI do this” and I was pleasantly surprised on this specific topic

2 Likes

Are draft boxes illegal now? WTF… I’ve had a draft box on my speed concept since 2015.

They might be. Follow the below rubric:

1.) Are you racing as a professional athlete? If yes: you need to follow the 30 x 30 box rule, which likely rules it out if you also have rear hydration – you now need to pick. If no, continue.
2.) Are you racing in Germany and it isn’t Roth or an IM branded event? If yes: you need to follow the rubric from #1. If no, continue.
3.) Are you racing any other event that isn’t IRONMAN? If yes: then you probably should be in the rubric, although it will likely depend on which RD or officials show up.
4.) Are you racing an IRONMAN branded event? If yes, then no: these rules do not apply. Yet.

I think I got that right…

6 Likes

Agree ref UCI ‘rubric’ and ‘hell’ - as a template/starter though, significant merit.
It’s not just a “paragraph” though!

ARTICLE 1.3.023 CLARIFICATION GUIDE
OF THE UCI TECHNICAL REGULATION pp43-51 of 78

“For road time trials . . . a fixed time trial extension handlebar (consisting of 2 extensions with sections for each hand to hold and two forearm supports) may be added or integrated to either the traditional handlebar or the base bar steering system . . .

. . all fixed time trial extension handlebars and forearm supports must conform to the following:

  • Forearm supports must be made up of two parts (one part for each forearm) . ;
  • The maximum width of each forearm support is 125 mm ;
  • The max/min length of each forearm support is 125 mm / 60mm;
  • The maximum height of each forearm support is 85 mm ;
  • The maximum inclination of each elbow rest forearm support (measured on the support surface of the arm) is 30 degrees;
  • The maximum dimension of the cross section of each extension is 50 mm ;
  • If both sections of the fixed time trial extension handlebar are joined by part, the maximum dimension of the cross section 80 mm ;

The maximum inclination of each forearm support should be measured in relation to the reference plane [horizontal]. The regulation regarding the 30 degrees as well as the 125mm and 50mm aim to avoid any fairing by using large extensions or a too big inclination.

[So]. . . the extension can be of a 50mm maximal section [and] . . the “forearm support” can can go up to 125mm wide (projected surface) [and] . . be max 125mm in length.

You should work for UCI on the definition of “what is a paragraph”.

1 Like

First, what problem are we trying to solve? What’s the problem statement with these mono bars?

I would argue the one piece systems are not added or blended. They are part of a singular system necessary for arm support. Now if you had 2 extension poles and pads and then added a tray to it, then I would agree with you. It may not make any sense in reality but that’s how I would argue against the current wording of the rules.

As @Nick_wovebike pointed out in another thread, costs have come down with so many competitors being out there. One of evolve’s mono bars is about the same costs as a drag2zero 2 pole solution. So the cost argument isn’t really there.

If an athlete wants a full custom solution with no adjustability, that’s their prerogative. Why does it matter to anyone else if it’s not adjustable?

There’s an innovation piece to this as well. Do we want to stifle innovation in triathlon? Tri has typically been ahead of cycling in trying new things. And to go back to my first sentence…. What are we trying to solve?

2 Likes