The current UCI rules are complicated and bigger and smaller businesses, for example the mentioned wattshop, do all to still design the extensions as fairings for the arms. For triathletes they often have fully faired versions. The UCI better had restricted the extensions to 22.2 mm circular cross section years ago before the journey to fairings began. But hey, this approach is here usually applauded as innovative.
“We” are trying to prohibit ‘fairings’, front and rear.
Dressing these up as “one piece systems . . .a singular system necessary for arm support” or “innovation” is just that: dressing up, and costs,
[color=hotpink] money that could be advantageously spent on an 180mm rimmed ‘Not-a-Disc’ wheel for Kona. [/color]
Are they actually faster though? Yes, there’s the debate as to whether they actually are fairings or not, but if they’re not confirmed faster, it doesn’t matter as much - since you can find cheaper solutions that do the same thing
Doesn’t matter whether or not they are faster. It matters whether or not they violate this specific language: 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. (Emphasis added).
That’s the issue with some of these cockpits. It’s clear that if you happened to add something after the fact to a “regular” bar that it would be considered a fairing. But somehow this one piece bar isn’t one, when it’s simply had additional carbon “blended into the structure with the intent to reduce resistance to air penetration.”
Either enforce the rulebook in its entirety, or let cycling equipment be a free for all.
So let me preface I’m less tech savy than others on this thread. So I’m’ kinda giving more of a layman’s view point. Have you ever been “bullshitted” and you know it’s bullshit, but that person will turn blue in the face telling you it’s not bullshit.
That to me is what that 1 piece is. It would seem if your setting up rules to prevent fairing, that setup completely flys in the face of a fairing rule.
4 Likes
Isn’t this the same discussion we had (or didn’t) have about integrated brakes? Design your bike so the brakes are shielded and you go faster, but the principle is the same.
As the rule is written, if the design makes what you’re calling a fairing a structural component, then it isn’t a fairing. So what’s the issue then? (Same as integrated vs non integrated brakes). Just because you can design something so that it’s slower doesn’t mean that the faster design (or the faster looking design ) is automatically a fairing.
If the issue then is cost and these aren’t faster (hence my point) then it doesn’t matter. But if they are verified to be faster and you’re creating a haves vs have nots scenario, then that’s a problem for the sport - but one which shouldn’t necessarily be tied to the “is this a fairing?” debate
Objectively they have ceased to be aero extensions and have become the very definition of a fairing. There is no debate, it’s so patently obvious it boggles the mind.
So if the one piece monobars are fairing, then why aren’t these fairings? You can design a slower brake that’s also centre pull - the difference here is that the way it was designed is to minimize air flow around the braking system. You don’t actually need the cover part to make the brakes work, but they way they’re designed, you can’t operate the brakes without it.
You can design aerobars however you want - make the critical parts structural and its primary purpose isn’t aerodynamics
If “structural allowances” essentially make it a run around for what we all think/agree is a fairing, then basically take out any fairing rules. Like if your winning the argument on a technicality saying that piece of equipment (and the brakes you mention) are legal and thus not considered a “fairing” then your fairing rule kinda sucks.
The sport has always operated on the “if its structural, then fine” principle. Its only now that we’re seeing equipment where it may actually count for something other than marginal gains. And maybe not even at that - it just looks like its faster and unfair.
Is there a solution other than mandating specific shapes like we’re the UCI or F1?
Personally, I’d like to keep the “sport of innovation” moniker, rather than going down the path of overspecific regulations.
As an add/example, if you say that your aerobars need to be 2-piece, then we’re going to get solutions that come as close as possible without being 2 piece solutions. LCB’s setup, but with a thin stripe down the middle for rule purposes.
1 Like
I don’t know what the solution is, it just seems like afar, we are kidding ourselves if an piece of equipment like that isn’t a fairing. So again if it’s allowed because it is allowed in the rules, cool. But then open the fairing playbook even more then. Again if those type of equipment pieces are allowed.
(So I’m not necessarily on making it free for all or more limited in development, but those type of equipment pieces being legal cus they aren’t classifed as a “fairing” doesn’t pass the common sense test).
1 Like
Oh, I agree - this is designed with a wink at the rules - absolutely. But I’m not sure there’s a solution here that doesn’t mandate specific shapes and measurements, which is a whole other can of worms. We may think this is a problem now, but if the solution is to start mandating boxes and shapes, its going to be a bigger headache for the average age grouper. (as we’re seeing now with the 30x30 issues)
Because whatever rules are designed to supplant this, will be easily skirted by LCB and the Canyon athetes - but joe age grouper may get hit not being able to carry a speedbox, or whatever the fallout is on the age grouper side.
ETA: Which is why IM rules are probably better for hydration than the German federation or World Triathlon - 2L front and 2L back. Its easy to understand and doesn’t limit creativity. The top athletes will min/max the setups but that’s probably fine.
Maybe the solution is this- 3D printed fairing to attach to the outside/underside of some regular bars, but wrap it in carbon fiber vinyl/skin. It looks expensive and like it’s meant to be there, so nobody will question me
C’mon, let’s keep this real. The original Cervelo P5-six was introduced ~15 years ago. It has been raced and used with obvious fairings since the very beginning and no one in the tri rule-making world even blinked an eye.
See head tube & brake covers highlighted with the yellow arrows: these are 100% non-structural and fully removable aerodynamic fairings.
1 Like
you forgot the front wheel is also a fairing … there is 0 structure in the carbon part.
1 Like
While we’re on the topic, what percentage of disc wheels do we reckon are properly fairings (regular wheel with spokes with a shaped cover) as opposed to structural carbon?
more than 50%?
How are air deflectors like this allowed but a duct tape between the bars forbidden? It’s obvious rules don’t make sense right now.
I’ve addressed the cost issue. I don’t see the problem
Potentially unpopular opinion:
These new extension designs have only appeared because athletes are moving to positions with more reach and higher arm angle way out over the front wheel. This might be OK for a professional athlete on a closed course, but your average age grouper trains on open roads with potholes, pedestrians, and cars. I think World Triathlon needs to regulate bike positioning to increase bike handling and rider safety. Get rid of the 30deg extensions and the fairing argument becomes irrelevant.
Flame away…
I don’t disagree with you. The monobar appears to be a loophole with the current rules. Though people have been slapping on “covers” over their bars for several years and nothing has been done about it.
If we want to change the rules to outlaw monobars, we can have that conversation, but I first want to ask why? What is the problem with monobars specifically? And “it’s a fairing” is not a valid reason. I could argue lots of things are fairings these days that people run all the time (eg; extensions like drag2zero, wattshop, speedbar, tririg, etc).