Not sure if you have all seen this yeat but read below.
To: UCI Teams
National Federations
Road International Commissaries
Aigle, 25 June 2007
Ref: Road Department / JW / vs
Remarks concerning the technical rules of the UCI –
Two points of the technical rules were specified but without modifying the regulations which exist since
the year 2000. It deals with both the following articles:
Article 1.3.002 refers to the quality standards for the race bicycles, what means that the equipment
which is used was subjected to a series of resistance and safety tests. The norm suggests that the
standardized and identified equipment cannot be modified later on. The actions which consist of,
among other things and for example, sawing the peaks of the saddles or filing the safety catches out
of the forks are irresponsible acts in terms of safety. By referring to the standards, the UCI wishes to
put all the people interested in front of their responsibilities.
Article 1.3.023 is not modified. The diagram which illustrates article 1.3.023 is very clear. The article
says that an extension may be added (the diagram - structure 1b – shows that the extension is in the
horizontal plane) and that a support for the elbows or forearms is permitted.
When the extension is raised, the elbows (or forearms) become points of support, which is never
permitted and which is justified by safety ergonomic considerations.
On the other hand, the hand position (the point of support, not to be confused with the extension itself
– see diagram - structure 1b -) can be flat (on the extension), raised or even straight depending on the
technique used provided that it remains under the horizontal line B in the diagram structure 1b.
To illustrate this explanation, we enclose a picture of a time trial bicycle which complies with the
regulation: the extension is in the horizontal plane; if the extension was raised, the elbows (or
forearms) would give the rider an extra point of support, which is not permitted. On the other hand, the
position of the handles (for hand position) is free.
If you have any question or doubt about those points, don’t hesitate to ask me and I will try to help
you.
Interesting - no one seems to work harder at preventing innovation than the UCI. OK, well maybe NASCAR…
As a possible benefit, though, given that teams can no longer file the drop out tabs off of their forks, what are the chances that the fork suppliers to these teams will begin to manufacture forks without tabs on them so the front quick releases still work as quick releases?
Hmmm…that doesn’t seem to make any sense. How can you allow something to be a support for elbows or forearms and yet not let elbow forearms be points of support?
Article 1.3.023 …The article says that an extension may be added…and that a support for the elbows or forearms is permitted.
When the extension is raised, the elbows (or forearms) become points of support, which is never permitted and which is justified by safety ergonomic considerations.
Hmmm…that doesn’t seem to make any sense. How can you allow something to be a support for elbows or forearms and yet not let elbow forearms be points of support?
Welcome to our world. BTW, now everybody also knows why Zabriskie’s position changed in the Dauphine. I don’t think any of the 200 posts of that thread got it right (as this is not a new rule, they announced this before, but it was unclear so they sent out another unclear clarification).
Well now…in typical UCI fashion, that’s just downright SILLY!
These guys clearly demonstrate not only their inability to read and interpret their own rules, but they also show they are clueless at specifying effective and meaningful rules (not that THAT’S a big surprise).
Somebody explain to me how keeping the extension “horizontal” (is there an angle spec on that?) changes how the ALLOWED elbow support is loaded? Are they trying to say that when the extensions are horizontal, the point of support is actually the hands? BS.
Just because a diagram shows the extension as horizontal, that doesn’t mean it has to be. Diagrams are for ILLUSTRATIVE purposes. If it’s not written in the rules that it has to be “horizontal”, or an anglular dimension given in the diagram, it’s not IN the rules. To claim otherwise means that you don’t know how to interpret and/or write rules.
So, the extensions need to be horizontal, but the “hand rest” can be anywhere within the lines on the diagram (i.e. bounded by top of saddle, top of tire, head tube and the 75cm in front of BB line). What keeps one from maintaining the same arm angle as with a tilted extension but just making an extension that goes out straight and then angles way up? Isn’t that how Levi’s extensions are? Is that OK?
Looks to me like this so-called “clarification” just opened up a shitload of more questions.
Way to go, ya bunch of dorks. Two weeks before the tour and you’re screwing with rider’s TT positions.
Hmmm…that doesn’t seem to make any sense. How can you allow something to be a support for elbows or forearms and yet not let elbow forearms be points of support?
Welcome to our world. BTW, now everybody also knows why Zabriskie’s position changed in the Dauphine. I don’t think any of the 200 posts of that thread got it right (as this is not a new rule, they announced this before, but it was unclear so they sent out another unclear clarification).
Well, to be fair to all of us, I guess we were operating under the assumption that the rules were “understood”
Shoot, why don’t they just say “We’ll tell you when it’s wrong when we see it.”? Seems that would be just as effective and save a LOT of paper and time.
Could DZ have used a horizontal extension with a huge upturn at the end and kept his arms in the same position? It seems that would fit into the “clarification” wouldn’t it? They seem fixated on making the extensions horizontal, but you’d think they’d be more concerned about the arm angle. Downright comical.
Well, the real problem is that every commissaire has a different opinion. There were riders who rode the prologue of the Tour de Suisse no problem, and then the same bike was deemed “illegal” eight days later in the closing time trial. Some were told the extensions had to be flat, others that they had to be below the saddle, yet another that his extensions were illegal because not just his elbows but also his forearms touched them. It would seem that your analysis is correct if you just go by the rules, I had come to the same conclusion, but of course that’s not how it works.
Well, the real problem is that every commissaire has a different opinion. There were riders who rode the prologue of the Tour de Suisse no problem, and then the same bike was deemed “illegal” eight days later in the closing time trial. Some were told the extensions had to be flat, others that they had to be below the saddle, yet another that his extensions were illegal because not just his elbows but also his forearms touched them. It would seem that your analysis is correct if you just go by the rules, I had come to the same conclusion, but of course that’s not how it works.
OK…like I said, the simplest clarification would be for them to just say “Our commissaires will determine legality based upon personal whim”. Piece of cake
Is there any procedure available to appeal these “snap judgements” at the races, or even after?
Why don’t they just come out and say that they don’t want to see anyone even REMOTELY resembling Floyd in a TT?
That was because there needs to be some semblance of style and panache. But banning things like different sized front and rear wheels, the Lotus superbike, and other cool stuff like that, they crossed the line there.
