I agree with this and I see the other side. I think the reality is, whenever someone feels outgunned, some have a sense of the deck being stacked against them, so why play.
I’m not sure how many people feel that way at an expensive Ironman race. I suppose as these rules apply to more than Ironman, we want to be concerned with the local sprint/oly distance triathlete who shows up and through their own athleticism manages to grind out a podium, or near podium finish in their AG and thinks, “I want to keep doing this”.
But if they look at the top 3 on the podium all racing space bikes, they get turned off. That’s the story we can tell ourselves.
We can also see the gear addiction, endless upgrade, let’s drop some cash on this story. We have a hyper consumer culture in most of the world, and it’s not just the USA at the tip of the spear. The Germans love to geek out on this stuff (as evidenced).
So while we can be saddened by the cash for watts focus, we also have to recognize that cash is going to into industry that has a vested interest in keeping the sport alive and likewise invests in all kinds of things.
More cash in athletes pockets, not industry will go into more races! you might reply. To which I will reply that the limiter on races is PTO (no, not the T100, but paid time off) for most of us. Even if many of us can race the local event on the weekend without taking a day off, we are still using that valuable weekend time on that activity and foregoing the other demands on our time. And the other side of the coin is that almost anyone who geeks out upgrades on their bike is going to — race it more. Tell them they can’t use it? What then?
All things being equal, since pandora is already out of her box, we ought to dance with the devil we know rather than tell several hundred (or nearly a thousand?) of the best, most committed customers in triathlon that their expensive piece of gear is now illegal to allegedly help make it more attractive for the local sprint distance newbie to have a shot at the podium.
I think you and I are probably closer on this than you might think:
Shred the 30 x 30 rule, and just move to the two bottle limit, standard H20 bottles in the rear.
Get rid of the mono bar up front, limit it to a max of two bottles up front -or- one aero bottle (with certain dimensions).
That allows everyone who bought a bike with a draft box in the last 10+ years to continue to use it with a water bottle out back. And then we also limit the likelihood that one of these fairings / air shovels actually tests XXX faster and then it’s the next element of the arms race that is triathlon.
(Yes, I also understand I am saying this as someone who relies on bike and component manufacturers to advertise with us. But I also think there are far more compelling stories to tell than just “we’re 3 watts faster than the last time around.” The first brand to truly put together a compelling fitting story, and ease of shopping story? That’ll be the day.)
Isn’t there a bit of risk asking for this though? Like, the same people that are going to write the rules to ban the fairings in plain sight are the ones who are responsible for the ongoing bottle-gate shit show.
We tested it in a velodrome. Individually bent conventional 22.2 aluminium extensions against 3D printed extensions right at the UCI limits. Otherwise same TT positions. There were no significant aero differences. End of July we will test mono extension setups for races out of the UCI bounds.
However, I would like some rules, also from the triathlon side, which can be enforced and which prevent the journey to recumbents.
As an organizer of a TT race I am confronted with problems coming from these innovations. MOPs come to my race imitating the heroes but crashing into other riders. Happened twice in the last two years.
That is, disc wheels, aero frame tubing, aero helmets and deep wheels are all fairings. But, those cats have long been out of the bag.
We can’t pretend these mono aerobars are somehow better fairings than the aforementioned cats, but for some reason, the above article shows discomfort with new cats out of the bag but not with old cats. Is this cat age discrimination?!
What this is, is poor logic/analytics.
Aero frame tubing, disc wheels and aero helmets are far superior fairings than these bars in terms of reduced CdA. Should we have CdA reduction limits? No, that’s silly. But actually less silly than old vs new cats out of bags.
And the price as a complaint when basic economics shows prices come down is akin to throwing these new cats at a wall to see what sticks… let’s stop reaching for straws.
The question is: do we want a Paternalistic or Libertarian approach to aerodynamics? If the prior, you can’t logically ban mono aerobars while allowing for disc wheels, aero helmets, or aero frame tubing. Creating tube ratios or imaginary boxes is not an answer. Let these new cats on your lawn.
I think there’s plenty of logic in drawing a line in the sand of where things violate the plain text of the rule book.
Words matter. Either we have a fairing rule or we don’t. And then we get what we get and don’t get upset when somebody 3D prints their own cover for a bar. (minus the whole part of the rulebook governing components that passed safety testing but who’s counting).
Disc wheels, helmets, etc. are all covered by separate sections of the rulebook. We’re specifically talking about the rules regarding fairings and how it extrapolates to the frame and cockpit.
As I have said before, there is a touch of old man yelling at clouds when it comes to this. But at some point, the technological arms race no longer makes the sport seem nearly as fun, or as accessible, as it was before. I have zero problems with the shaping of other aerobars that had come out, as primarily it solved an ergonomic problem first, aero second. I see zero of that in a mono bar. Just a giant aero shovel. But I also see precisely zero benefit in the rear hydration rules when they prohibit frame parts that have been legal for over a decade. To each their own…
You know, I hear this from people a lot but I’ve yet to see anything other than anecdote to support it, and my anecdotal experience cuts in exactly the opposite direction; I’ve been the guy displaying the craziest bike in the expo more times than I can count, and it has always drawn the newbies like flies.
Triathlon is a gear sport. People are - as often as not - attracted to the sport because of the gear rather than in spite of it. End the “arms race”, freeze gear development, and you’re stultifying something that has traditionally been a distinct and appealing part of triathlon, and the foundation this very site was built on, by the guy who brought wetsuits and bikes that were designed around aero bars to the sport.
Triathlon has always leaned towards innovation and novel approaches towards making swim/bike/run faster, and the more old loud guys who have a problem with clouds mess with that, the faster triathlon calcifies and becomes a sport that increasingly appeals only to the cloud yelling contingent.
Let’s please not miss the giant flashing neon cautionary tale of the UCI and replicate their mistakes, just as they’re finally winding back the legislative overreach of the last 30 years.
I disagree that it’s a flagrant violation of the current rules. You can call it bs or a loophole, but it is what it is. If anything, the rule needs reworded as I don’t think monobars should be legal while putting duct tape or a cover across your extensions isn’t. Neither solution is hurting anyone.
If we go back to the intent of the fairing rule, I would assume it was written to prevent unsafe and/or unfair advantage solutions. No one has proven that monobars are either.
Mono-bars aren’t preventing people from getting into the sport. Neither are disc wheels, power meters, electronic shifting, or paying a coach. If it is, you are just looking for something to b*tch about and being a victim. How much did a Honda civic or Toyota Camry cost 15 years ago? What about tech suits or running shoes? It surely isn’t the same as today. Why would triathlon be any different?
It’s obvious you don’t like monobars. If you try to be objective, I don’t see any harm in them.
So where would you draw the line if, with every year this mono bar extends further and further towards a nose cone shape.
Extended the sides where it says Cube little by little. Eventually they extend back to the biceps. It’s pretty much a motorbike nose fairing at that point. Are we still ok with that?
There are logical limits, though, to where it stops being “innovation” and becomes something else entirely.
We’ve had reasonable limits on, say, the thickness of wetsuits. We don’t allow disc wheels in Kona. Recumbent bikes are banned. I think there are places where we can say “OK, this stretches beyond any reasonable interpretation of the spirit of our ruleset” and still be well within the innovative umbrella here.
I’m going to go ahead and age myself a fair amount now: I play golf. Golf technology has changed a fair bit. I think in part one of the things that has made that OK is that the aesthetics have, for the most part, stayed within reason. Granted, golf’s governing bodies are trying to roll back the golf ball…which makes no sense for most of us. But I think there is a somewhat aesthetic component to the rule restrictions we’re now undertaking. And there’s a somewhat reasonable undertaking as to understanding that, if we push too far in one direction, we’re no longer entirely the same sport. It’s something else.
To PK – the fundamental difference with a draft box, for instance, is that the primary purpose of that item is storage. It’s part of the frame. We’ve rarely, if ever, done anything about frames (the most extreme example might have been the Andean).
Again, I go back to: I think if we’re going to have this massive focus on water bottles (which, again, we’re regulating this the wrong way, make it simpler), we need to have a conversation about this type of bar, and how it fits into how we define what a fairing is or isn’t. And even when we get the bottle conversation right, we still need to ascertain, or better figure out, what is / is not a fairing.
My conspiracy theory: I think the original intent was probably to provide an exception for the Shiv Tri, but someone along the way misinterpreted the phrase “attached holders, containers, bottle holders, etc.” to include non-hydration storage containers. This section of the rule is clearly referring to mounting equipment for your hydration. Bottle cages, bottle cage mounts, rails, etc.
IMO the rule should read “attached hydration holders, containers, bottle holders, etc.”
Otherwise, why would they allow you to forego rear hydration for a storage box? You’re allowed to add a fairing if you skip the hydration? Why would you ever be allowed to have a fairing? Doesn’t really make sense…
Another Hot Take: I don’t really care at all about fairings. I get just about as much dopamine from optimizing my bike setup as I do actually racing the bike…
Do you really think the Shiv Tri entered the realm of anyone’s thoughts or decision making in this? The bike didn’t sell and was a massive failure. Formulating a rule around a bike nobody bought or wanted is just silly. They also went away from that stupid rear reservoir design and moved the hydration module to the triangle.
It’s just my conspiracy theory, but yeah I think that was the inspiration. The container in the image from the interpretation document looks just like the Shiv rear hydration container.
FWIW, when I first read the rules, my first thought was the hydration bladder sail in the back of the Shiv Tri, and not the Speed Box on the Trek SC or QR, etc.
