Call it fairing…. So what?? What’s the actual problem?
I could argue our tririg ultimate SL scoops are fairings.
Why isn’t that a valid reason, if we all are basically in agreement- that’s a fucking fairing…but it’s allowed because it’s able to skirt the rules on basic technicality?
Again I’m not even saying ban it, but if your telling me that’s not a fairing or whatever, come on. So again if we want to make it free for all…fine…if we want to tighten the rules to correct these “fairings” I’d be fine iwth it too. So I’m not really saying what is or isn’t the correct ruling, just don’t tell me that’s not a fairing. Which I think is important because that just seems to be trying to obviously skirt the rules. But again if they are saying that’s not a fairing…I’ll just throw my hands up then, cool story bro.
The whole Joe Skipper aero setup, come on. We all know what that was, but what they were trying to claim it as a “hydration system” (I think that has all been banned and/or now corrected). So I think I’m more like, dude don’t try to pull wool over our eyes, don’t act like we are idiots here.
2 Likes
Because there exists a hierarchy of egregious violations of the rules. The draft box/BTS/30cm box is what the kids call a nothing burger in regard to providing any meaningful advantage. If rules are meant to dissuade creating bespoke products like what Lucy has whacked together then start with that, where the violation is so absurdly obvious. It’s the contradiction in what this new rule has created that’s the problem. It makes the governing bodies look incredibly stupid.
2 Likes
Cause I’m trying to take a broader approach to the subject. Put the current rules aside. What is the problem with mono bars? No one has yet to come with a valid answer. The only answer I get is “it’s a fairing”. Yet there’s many other things that could be considered fairings that people have pointed out (and I) yet we have allowed them for years. So again, what is the problem with mono bars?
Excellently and clearly put.
@stevej “And “it’s a fairing” is not a valid reason.”
Disagree: it’s THE reason: you have failed to explain why it’s not valid but instead reach for whataboutery other tiny items.
1 Like
My guess is that because it’s part of the front end cockpit and “in your face” about it, vs say the brake covers that more or less “blend” into the bike, it’s much more “obvious”. Please note that for the most part I basically said, I accepted the mono bar is really no different than the brake cover, so ban them all (if we are going with the fairing ruling, or just throw out the book and go full in on “fairings”). But I also recognize/understand that there is sorta an common sense line here. Why the hell would we allow disc wheels if we are claiming fairing. So that line of thinking may not make sense, which is kinda why I went with the layman…look that “looks” like a complete fairing that we are trying to keep out of the sport. So in that “sportsmanship” viewpoint, this would be a bridge too far.
There’s a line of what we accept and don’t accept. We see that in swimming, we allow wetsuits, but fins are step too far. I think some of the super shoes are banned now (or maybe only for running), so like we accept that technology is useful and progressive, we also sorta have a common sense approach to it *i think. Which is again why I said, I don’t think anyone is saying this isn’t a fairing, we are just debating should it or shouldn’t it be allowed.
2 Likes
So the 30x30cm rule shouldn’t include draft boxes. If we get rid of the draft box being included, what is the problem with the 30x30 rule? And does that change your opinion of monobars? Personally, I think the 30x30 rule is there to prevent people from creating rear spoilers and was shortsighted when considering draft boxes.
I just don’t see why everyone is so upset about monobars. Are they unsafe? Do they provide an unfair advantage? I’ve yet to see data that says so.
Now I admit that it doesn’t make any sense to limit solutions on the rear of the bike but not the front. But just because they wrote a stupid rule for the rear, doesn’t mean they should write ANOTHER stupid rule for the front. Just fix the original stupid rule in the first place.
Let’s also kill the wheel whataboutism: Rule 5.02(a) specifically governs wheels, and allows for aero construction that may or may not be structural.
The overall point is that we have all of this handwringing about bottles and boxes and their locations when we have arguably one of the greatest examples of a full-blown fairing staring us in the face and rulemakers are giving it the shruggie. It’s dumb.
And no, sorry, a $1,000+ aerobar is a classic example of a pricing issue for a sport that is chronically convincing its athletes that you need to have this product to be competitive. It does not help our sport become more accessible / build the pipelines necessary to have the next generation of athletes. Especially when the “cheaper” solution would immediately be outlawed.
2 Likes
Essentially coat that tape in epoxy and you get carbon fiber. If Solveig’s bars had tape in the middle of them they likely wouldn’t have been dragging as she was biking. Not saying it’s a major structural weight bearing thing (without the epoxy at least) but the tape does hold things together at least.
Aside from that, I’ve seen aluminum parts snap, break, cages fly off, etc. It’s not as if these rules are creating ride-proof bikes that don’t get damage from potholes and railroad tracks.
The shaped shovels that are being mounted to the front of the bikes are indeed stronger though. To say they need to be separate is a little bizarre because once you go tall enough you essentially need a bridge to connect the system and add rigidity anyway. So it’s pretty lame to ban the shovel but allow the bridge, but ban the tape. They just need to rewrite the rules that allow that area between the arms to be filled.
They just need to rewrite the rules to limit the max dimension of the two bars to 50mm, to prohibit the area between the arms being filled except with a single bridge max dimension 50mm not more than 80mm from the bar ends.
So just let me make sure I have it all correct. In the past year sport governing bodies and individual federations have started to crack down on front cock pit “fairings” right? So I think if your doing that and then you show me a pic of that monobar, I don’t know how you don’t come up with…wait how/why is that legal and other things on a front cockpit are now illegal?
Again if it’s legal, cool. That I dont think makes it immune from common sense “that’s a fairing”, that now other similiar parts are being picked apart as now illegal.
So I think that’s part of the problem as well right?
If the issue is that the sport is cost prohibitive, or creating a class of haves vs have nots, lets have that conversation elsewhere. But if the issue is that these monobars are ruining the sport for some other reason (fairing beyond brake covers or discs), then let’s discuss that here.
Because if you outlaw the monobars, or regulate them away, it may just create an advantage somewhere else. LCB and the other high paid athletes will always have teams of people making high end slippery gear for them. But if you specify length, girth, etc, then you’re just shifting the unfair advantage to within an F1 or UCI box - the haves will continue to have and the have-nots will continue not to have, just within different specs. F1 is highly regulated int his way, and the teams with money always manage to outshine the teams without money over the long run.
If you’re allowing shaped individual arms with a hacky bridge in between, why not allow the full setup that can then have clean mounting for a computer, water, etc? Because it’s expensive for new commers? Weak sauce.
Because it saves some watts? So does a disc.
What I am arguing is not going to throw away likely hundreds of thousands of development and product cost that many have paid. What you’re arguing will do so, when it’s expressly already been tolerated.
Update the rule to conform where the market has already headed and the officials have permitted.
But isn’t part of the issue that who essentially is the provider of the aerobar determines if it’s legal or not. IE like the brake cover, because the company says it’s part of the integrity of the part, it’s legal (bullshit that the cover has to be a part of the brake for it to work, you know i, i know it, they know it…but that’s the technical runaway, etc). But if you build it up yourself into basically the exact same configuration that’s illegal.
IE if you “add” devices to then make it essentially a single unit, that is illegal. But if it comes by the manufactor because they say it’s part of the design, that’s legal? As the kids say these days- make that make sense.
Mind you I am not talking about a complete frakenstein type of setup, that can actually be an “safety” concern, like putting 300mm of stack or whatever on 2 tiny ass bolts. But if you essentially replicated the exact mono-bar but like welded a front “fairing” plate between the 2 aerobars or whatever, that’s illegal, but the monobar isn’t?
Yes, part of the issue is that if you or I MacGyver something in our garage (or even if Ditlev does), then it doesn’t pass the test, but if Canyon molds something structural in the same shape then its fine. And so, yes, it does add extra cost to the sport. But a few of us in this thread have asked whether these things are actually faster and haven’t gotten an answer out of the usual aero experts, so its not like they’re have vs have not yet - we might get there at some point though so I’m not discounting it.
The other side though is safety. Canyon doing this is going to be safer than you or I doing it.
My reply to that is yes I recognize the safety aspect, but if your tellling me your brake pad only works when the full fairing is part of the structure…get the F out of here, lol. So if your telling me the full monobar needs all of that from a structural integrity standpoint…thumbs up, as I roll my eyes.
Again, don’t act like we are stupid here. Just admit your building a fairing into the structure.
Sorta. They have limited extensions from going past the center of the front hub. And have limited the total amount of liquids on the steering axis (2L) and provided a window those bottles must reside in.
The rear has been limited to a 30x30cm window for the bts mounting hardware plus any storage boxes.
Also, there’s been lots of hating on LCB’s setup. But let’s not forget who the first was to run a monobar….
So let me finally add, and then i’ll step aside. I think there is always going to be an “look” to the rules as well. Why do the pro’s have to have their uniform a certain way, cus it presents a professionalism for the sport. So when you got people out there doing all kinds of wild concepts, I think it starts to get goofy looking. Was it Joe Skipper’s setup where he was riding with the water bottles on top of his arms. We all knew why.
So if they are cracking down on the “fairing” setups, I just would think this one would have to fall in as well. But because it’s some “structural” component of it, allows it to pass the “not fairing” test…thumbs up emoji.