THIS IS NOT A FAIRING BY ANY OBJECTIVE MEASURE. They created a rule predicated on a false pretense. The only reason I have been on a crusade against the mon0-extensions is in direct response to this new rule. It demonstrated a complete lack of objectivity. Had this new rule not been created, I wouldn’t be arguing about Lucy’s and other pro’s bars, it’s hypocrisy that’s driving me to distraction.
I don’t think the any of the more popular mono bars from LCB, Canyon riders, or Evolve (Sam Long, skipper) are wild. They seem like pretty simple and standard setups. They don’t seem to present a safety issue. Aero benefit may be marginal but remains to be seen. Skippers setup from IMTX a few years ago was absolutely a safety issue. I see why a setup like that would be banned and it should be. But these monobars we are seeing now are not that.
Oh, I can assure you they provide a benefit and Lucy and Jan and Sam know it.
Yes, that’s obvious what they’re doing. Though at a certain point arms need support, and you might as well support them in a way that’s aerodynamic.
But what’s the alternative? Outside of F1 or UCI type rules which mandate certain shapes and lengths, we’re left with “things must be structural” which is an easy workaround but still leaves room for creativity and innovation. Right now we’re seeing the innovation side where previous boundaries are being pushed. Some people don’t like it, which is fair.
I’d rather the sport stay innovative and every once in a while have a Joe Skipper push too far. …rather than ‘locked’ UCI-style where the real winners are either those with a lot of money who can eek out the last 1% within the ruleset (see F1), or people who happen to fit the specific morphology mandated by the ruleset (see Remco).
If we bring it back to the age grouper - the last thing we want is for some new rule to come down from on high, which outlaws a bike that they’ve been using for ages, or to impose a regime which is overly complex that they can’t understand it or puts off new people from joining the sport.
Does any one else find it ironic that the 2 major brands ya’ll are referencing are German yet it’s the Germans who came up with this convoluted rule to limit what their own people are creating. Was the DTU ref who wrote it a disgruntled former employee at Cube or Canyon.
When you say what is the alternative…Can a front cockpit system that they used for what nearly 40 years before all this “fairing” bullshit that’s occurred over the last few years not be suitable enough?
IE- that suddenly they need a full carbon plate for your aerobar to be structural sound…like that’s laughable.
(sorry you asked for an alternative)
Like I know they know have the aerobar “cups” or whatever for your forearms, but I feel like we are reaching if we can’t come up with a fair system…like we did it for 40 years and now we suddenly can’t come up with rules on it?
No, it would be prohibited because it’s obviously egregious and bespoke. Draft boxes used with BTS carriers have been around for over a decade, are broadly manufactured, readily available, and provide a simple and obvious solution to a few common problems people need to manage. Having their nutrition and repair tools. There is precedent to allow these, there is nothing if the sort for these bars.
Listen, the draft box being included in the 30x30cm box is stupid. That we can agree on. But I believe the 30x30 rule was created to stop contraptions like I marked up in green (including draft boxes was short sighted). It was talked about that Magnus had something designed along the same lines. If we get rid of the draft boxes being included in the area, it solves the inconsistency.
And monobars have been around since at least 2019. Just like draft boxes did, it takes time for things to catch on. They are more readily available than they were a year ago. And It’s only a matter of time until a mfg offers a mono extension with their bike.
I’m not sure we want to go down the road of “aerobars cups may only protrude (distance) from base, and can be no bigger than (size), and must be (round?) in shape.” To me that’s a step backward for the sport, not just in innovation, but also for everyone who now has aerobars configurations which differ.
My point is that if you’re defining bike parts by some means other than structural integrity, then you need to then define them in terms of size/shape - which arguably is a worse road to follow.
Again, in principle I have no real issue with mono-bars. I do have a huge problem with the absurdity of the new rule and I’m using the mono-bars to highlight the wild contradiction and absurdity.
Then I would suggest we focus on fixing the rear hydration rules. And not trying to ban monobars.
So either get more consistent with their rule or just open it up completely. Seems they are sorta accepting some with “fairing” but it’s not fairing because apparently without that fairing piece it’s an unsafe piece. And if anyone adds any adds on its auto deemed illegal. Funny how that works out. Again shocking the aero brake only works if the aero piece is there. So as I said if that monbar is legal cus it needs that fairing piece in order to be safe….thumbs up, wink wink
I can’t fix the issue. I can say to the governing bodies that they should ban mono-bars before they impose these new rules based on their stated intent. If the end result is both are banned, fine, at least they are consistent. And the hydration rule impacts a HUGE number of race participants, the mono-bar does not in the slightest.
Fix the hydration rules and ban the stupid bar that is clearly a massive fairing hiding in plain sight. 
4 Likes
If we fix the rear hydration rules, why should we ban the monobar?
Because it’s a flagrant violation of the existing ruleset. And if words are gonna have any kind of meaning, let’s ban this shit.
I didn’t become a triathlete because I wanted to spend thousands of dollars on bikes. It’s because of the sense of adventure of carrying myself through my own power for miles on end, as fast as I could. I couldn’t break into the sport today the same way I did then, off of my run store salary and getting race entries / gear discounts through ExpertVoice, and spending a grand total of $1500 on my first true race bike and additional gear (a Felt B16 in carbon / lime green).
To me, that type of bar is just so clearly a violation of the spirit of the rule that it’s mind boggling it’s been allowed to this point.
4 Likes
4 Likes
Oh nice, that’s what I ride now and I bet Lucy’s bar costs at least 3x what I paid for the whole damn bike a couple of years ago.
Nothing’s stopping you today. If you want to get into the the sport, you’re free to do so on the rusted huffy in your garage. Seriously.
I think what you mean is at the top end of the spot. Though no one has confirmed yet that these monstrosities are in fact faster. If the 3w (or whatever) they supposedly save are stopping you from getting into the sport, there are other places where this matters more.