New UCI Legislation banning Mantis and other bike innovations

the Dauphine ended on the 17th whilst that ‘memo’ was dated June 25th. I figure Levi’s position is in question.

Depends on where the ‘extension’ ends and the ‘hand support’ begins by my dumbass reading of that memo and attached 'grams.

I figure as long as the extension leaves the basebar horizontally (for xx xm) it can adopt any angle or shape before morphing into a hand support … as long as the hands don’t end up higher than the seat.

Or maybe that’s too simple for the UCI?

It sounds to me (from Gerard’s statements) that there were 2 “clarifications”. The first “clarification” required DZ to change his bars, but not LL. The second “clarification” has a so far unknown effect on LL since he hasn’t done a UCI TT since then.

OK…if that’s the explanation…how (in the rules) is “horizontal” defined? And what the heck does controlling the shape of the extensions as they attach to the base bar have anything to do with defining how the elbows and hands are placed in the defined “design space”???

I agree it is a really bad clarification, but I think the it makes sense if they had just said, and everyone would just read: “Article 1.3.023 is not modified. The diagram which illustrates article 1.3.023 is very clear.” and just take a full-stop.

Indeed it is clear.

Guys try to get past the 75cm (±5) restriction from BB to end of extension by radically pointing the bars up so the tip doesn’t break the length rule. Pointing the bars radically up can break the provision that the end of the bars cannot be above the point of support at the saddle, as described in 1.3.022 (B) and repeated as a restriction in the diagram 1b and in 1.3.023. So there are clear limits on how far forward and up the bars can be positioned, and there is no verbiage about how it gets there. At least, not in the rulebook. The clarifier makes the mistake of trying to give verbiage beyond the book. Should just stfu.

All the nonsense about points of support is clear in the rule book in 1.3.022 and 1.3.023.

Shoulda just said “read the book again, it is correct.”

At least that’s all I get from it.

Paul

Horizontal is clearly parallel to the horizon I honestly think that’s clear: horizontal is parallel to the ground and vertical is at 90 degrees. Anything else and you have to specify the angle.

Umm…saying it’ “horizontal” IS specifying an angle. If you do that, you have to either give limits on that angle or a tolerance. NO bars will ever be “perfectly” level.

Let’s say I happen to have some bars that ARE “perfectly” level. Then I loosen the clamps and ever so slightly change the angle. Are they still horizontal? How do you check this? If I keep doing this again and again, at what point do they become NOT horizontal?

It’s the old “bald man” argument…

This ‘clarification’ is one of most stupid things I’ve heard of or read in a while.

I guess you haven’t read any of the LNDD lab tech testimony from the Landis case recently, huh?

Again, another example of how the UCI is an innovation killer and will end up making people not watch the sport anymore.

there is a picture on the weight weenies website from the uci that gives and example of a “legal” bike.

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/download.php?id=20930

looks like we may see a return by some riders to upturned extensions in order to bring them up higher. it seems you can have your handrests high, but you cant have your bars higher than parallel?

as gerard comments the rules seem to be very unclear and i am glad they dont affect me!

kevin

Tom,
okay you win. My bad. Horizontal and vertical are words and ANGLES

Thank you

what is this tolerance thing about anyway? I deal in binary ;-0)

This is starting to sound like an argument between a mechanical engineer and a software developer…

Maybe i’m responding to rmur or Tom, I’m confused…but it addresses the tolerance issue.

There is nothing in the rulebook that requires the extensions to extend horizontally at all. The “clarifier” says only that in the diagram, they are shown horizontal…not that it is required.

Again, the clarifier…didn’t. He should slap his hands over his mouth and point to the rulebook, and STFU. It is VERY clear.

The rules only limit the height of the hand position that results, and is “path independent” as long as there is no possible hand position above the point of support of the saddle.

WRT to tolerance: On the 75cm, there is 5 cm tolerance if a person can prove for “morphological reasons”. In this case, they stipluate that the forearm angle cannot exceed 120 degrees.

There is no requirement for horizontal forearms.

Follow the link given very early in the thread to see the book with pictures. http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/1gene-E.pdf

1.3.022 d) Structure
In competitions other than those covered by article 1.3.023, only the traditional type of handlebars
(see diagram «structure 1») may be used. The point of support for the hands must be positioned in
an area defined as follows: above, by the horizontal plane of the point of support of the saddle (B);
below, by the horizontal line passing through the highest point of the two wheels (these being of
equal diameter) (C); at the rear by the axis of the steerer tube (D) and at the front by a vertical line
passing through the front wheel spindle with a 5 cm tolerance (see diagram «Structure (1A)»). The
distance referred to in point (A) is not applicable to the bicycle of a rider who takes part in a sprint,
keirin or olympic sprint race, but must not exceed 10 cm in relation to the vertical line passing
through the front wheel spindle.
The brake controls attached to the handlebars shall consist of two supports with levers. It must be
possible to operate the brakes by pulling on the levers with the hands on the lever supports. Any
extension to or reconfiguration of the supports to enable an alternative use is prohibited. A combined
system of brake and gear controls is authorised.

1.3.023 For road time trial competitions and for the following track competitions: individual and team pursuit,
kilometre and 500 m, an extension may be added to the steering system. The distance
between the vertical line passing through the bottom bracket axle and the extremity of the handlebar
may not exceed 75 cm, with the other limits set in article 1.3.022 (B,C,D) remaining
unchanged. A support for the elbows or forearms is permitted (see diagram «Structure (1B)»).
For road time trial competitions, controls or levers fixed to the handlebar extension may extend
beyond the 75 cm limit as long as they do not constitute a change of use, particularly that of providing
an alternative hand position beyond the 75 cm mark.

For the track and road competitions covered by the first paragraph, the distance of 75 cm may be
increased to 80 cm to the extent that this is required for morphological reasons; «morphological reasons
» should be taken as meaning anything regarding the size or length of the rider’s body parts. A
rider who, for this reason, considers that he needs to make use of a distance between 75 and 80
cm must inform the commissaires’ panel at the moment that he presents his licence. In such cases
the commissaires’ panel may carry out the following test: ensuring that the angle between the forearm
and upper arm does not exceed 120° when the rider is in a racing position.

I’m confused…

Paul, if you read Gerard’s post in this thread you’ll see that you’re not the only one

Everything you say about what is/isn’t in the rules is absolutely correct. However, none of that prevented UCI commissaires from requiring DZ and Cancellara to make their aero extension “level” instead of how they had them earlier in the year…Which, according to any reasonable interpretation of the rules (such as yours) was perfectly fine.

The odd thing is that this “clarification” was issued as backup for why these riders had to change the orientation of their equipment.

So, in the end, it’s really the UCI and it’s commissaires who are the ones who are confused (by their own doing), and their confusion is causing confusion on the part of the riders and teams since they have no way to predict what’s “legal” and what’s not.

Clear??

Yes now I do!