UCI rules/tall guy issues

Triathlon Forum
1

I’m a road racer who may need a UCI compliant bike for certain events, stage races and time trials. I’m just about done building my new bike, a Cervelo P# Carbon in size 61. I’m a little over 6’,3". I was fitted this morning and feel pretty good on it. Here’s the issue. I comply with the saddle 5 cm back from the vertical line from the center of the bb, partly because I’m now using one of those snub nosed Adama saddles. So, that is good.

The issue for me will be getting within the parameters for the distance from the verticle line/center of bb to the tip of the aero extensions. Since I’m tall, I should easily qualify for the morphological exemption to go from 75 to 80 cm from that imaginary center of bb/vertical line.

Right now, I’m pretty dialed in fit wise but I’m at about 83 cm. So, 3 cm too long. Plus, I have the aero bar extensions that curve upward. My fitter told me I also have to watch out about being disqualified if I’m too close to the “praying mantis” type position that Floyd Landis used to use before it was outlawed, i.e., the one where the arms are tilted way up so that they almost touch the chest. My arms are fairly flat as compared to the praying mantis so I’m not too concerned about that but my fitter said I would be better off going with straight aero extensions.

Anyway, I could use a much shorter stem than my current 110. Maybe go to an 80? Or get straight extensions and cut them shorter. Either way, I have a feeling that I’m going to feel cramped.

Any tall guys out there that have suggestions for dealing with all this bureaucratic UCI hassle? I’m hoping that if I finally get this dialed in and compliant, it will be somewhat comfortable. If I’m going to the hassle of buying new bars, rather than just getting straight extensions, I might as well get bars that comply with the UCI 3/1 rule.

PS - I have a feeling my older Oval bars are non-compliant as to 3/1 and I’ve also heard some rumors that stock Cervelo seatposts also violate the 3/1 rule. That’s another headache.

2

U nbelievably
C onfused
I diots

Good luck with that…I’m sure they will do everything in their seemingly endless power to foul up your day at the last possible moment.

3

I agree about the UCI - I can see outlawing unsafe and crazy extended positions like the Graham Obree superman where your arms are sticking straight out, way, way over the front wheel and we’d all probably crash or scare ourselves to death riding in that position on the road, but to quibble over relatively small variations in normal positions is absurd. Seems like those on the tall or short end of the spectrum maybe have the most problems. I’m not too concerned about being tested at my next two events but if I want to race nationals, and I might, I have to deal with this and who wants to even worry about getting dq’d from any event if your bike in non-compliant. Not to mention that training and racing is hard enough when also balancing family and work responsbilities.

But, any advice is appreciated.

4

Stick with the “ski bend” extensions since they will allow your hands to be higher when in actual use as opposed to being slightly pointed down if you went with straight extensions. Besides, if you went with straight extensions your hands would end up even further in front of the BB, so I have a hard time seeing what your “fitter” is trying to accomplish.

Use the ski bend extensions but make sure that the portion of the extensions that comes into the basebar is level and not tilted up. That way, when you grab the bars for the morphological test, you can just grab them slightly lower AND rotate your hands inward a bit…that will give the impression that your arms are “level” :wink:

I would shorten the extensions by the 3cm necessary (don’t forget that the measurement is to the center of the shifter pivot) and then consider flipping the shifter “upside down” so that the levers point upwards instead of forwards. Then, get used to grabbing the shifters in your hands to keep your hands where you prefer.

Oh yeah…are you SURE that you need to be UCI compliant? Where do you live and what events are you going to be doing?

5

I live in Connecticut. Killington Stage Race, Connecticut Stage Race, Sutton, Canada stage race. Green Mountain Stage Race. Catskills Stage Race. For all of those events, I doubt that I will be asked to submit to a rules check. Masters category. Still, it is a bit never-wracking. Nationals are in Louisville, Kentucky this year. USA cycling said it would not enforce the 3/1 rule this year. But, I think it will still enforce the 5 cm back for the seat and the 80cm forward for the extensions.

So, unless I do Nats, I may not have to sweat it too much.

I would, generally, like to have a UCI compliant bike so I don’t have to even worry about it ever.

As to the ski bend extensions, I do like them. My fitter said that for aero purposes, the praying mantis is aero and creates a clean flow of air and that the position with straight extensions is aero too for different reasons but the ski bend extension that have the rider in an in-between position is a little less aero. So, that is what he said.

My main concern for now is getting on the bike, making sure it works right and that I get used to it! I do want to dial it in so that it compliant too but first things first.

6

I live in Connecticut. Killington Stage Race, Connecticut Stage Race, Sutton, Canada stage race. Green Mountain Stage Race. Catskills Stage Race. For all of those events, I doubt that I will be asked to submit to a rules check. Masters category.

Nope…from what I can tell, you’re right…no issues for those events (except for perhaps the Canadian event - but even that says it’s under a USAC permit?)…in fact, I think the Green Mt. race even outlaws TT bikes anyway.

Still, it is a bit never-wracking. Nationals are in Louisville, Kentucky this year. USA cycling said it would not enforce the 3/1 rule this year. But, I think it will still enforce the 5 cm back for the seat and the 80cm forward for the extensions.

So, unless I do Nats, I may not have to sweat it too much.

Right…and I think that you’re more likely to meet the 80cm exception with some creative holding of the ski bends than with any straight bar configuration.

I would, generally, like to have a UCI compliant bike so I don’t have to even worry about it ever.

I would only worry about it if it’s applicable…otherwise, do what’s comfortable/fast.

As to the ski bend extensions, I do like them. My fitter said that for aero purposes, the praying mantis is aero and creates a clean flow of air and that the position with straight extensions is aero too for different reasons but the ski bend extension that have the rider in an in-between position is a little less aero. So, that is what he said.

Hmmm…sounds like your “fitter” doesn’t agree with folks with tons of wind tunnel experience such as John Cobb. First of all, the mantis position is actually one of those “either it works, or it doesn’t” things with people. It might be fast for you, or it might not. The rule of thumb on forearm position is to have the forearms level or slightly above level (as one would get with ski bends) but never below level (as what happens with straight extensions kept level with the ground). With straight, level extensions your pads are by definition above the level of the place where you grip the bar, thereby pointing your forearms down. Not good.

I think I’d get a second opinion on your fit options…

7

Thanks Tom. Interesting that you like the ski bend extensions. I had just assumed that the straight ones were faster since most guys some to be moving away from ski bend. But, as I said before, I do like them, not that I’ve tried the straight extensions yet. Take a look at page 7 of the uci rules. It is a little hard to understand what the UCI is saying but it states that arc shaped extensions are not allowed, and there is a picture with an x through it. But, in the picture above the banned one, there is an extension with a ski bend also, albeit not as radical as that in the banned example. I think my bar extensions are somewhere between the two examples. They are oval a700 I think. Probably about circa 2004-2006. I appreciate your insight - it’s obvious to me that you know more than I do in this area.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NTI0MDY&LangId=1

8

Just as a vent - I use a profile tri stryke and currently as it’s set up on my P2SL there is no way it complies with the ‘5cm back from the BB’ rule. This is just ridiculous IMO as I could use an Adamo and have EXACTLY the same position and yet with the saddle that I prefer, it’s not legal.

I don’t see the point of this rule at all, especially since my bike and position are hardly out of the ordinary.

9

Same deal for me today. My original “normal” time trial seat with the comfortable bulbous nose was too long but once the stubby Adamo went on, UCI compliant. You are right, my position is pretty much the same but the saddle is shorter. It is insane. Luckily, I got the saddle with the new bike so I didn’t just drop over $100 on a new saddle to resolve that UCI/saddle issue.

10

Even with the new seatpost your bike won’t be legal. 61cm Cervelo TT bikes have front centre of 659mm and the UCI limit is 650mm.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&LangId=1
part 1.03.016
So if you have to be legal then a 58 P2 would be worth considering.

And your fitter is trying to keep you in a tri position - the Adamo allows you to sit at 78deg and be stretched out. You’re going to have to crunch up or shift back and learn to bend or put the bars up to have a TT position. Straight extensions will make it more difficult to be comfortable within the rules.

11

Ugh! Thanks I guess for the added info about my 61 cm p3. When it rains, it pours. I guess the reality is that for a guy my size to be UCI compliant, I’m going to feel a little cramped, at least until I get used to it. I feel pretty good the way I am now and wouldn’t want to lose 3 cm of extension or of stem length but so it goes. As racers, I think we all tend to obsess a bit about our training and equipment but this UCI fiasco takes it to a new extreme. I don’t even particularly get all that excited about new bikes anymore because once I’m dialed in on a bike that I like, I don’t like to have to reinvent the wheel to get all dialed in a new bike. Just ranting a bit … Of course, I do get new bikes fairly often though.

12

I’m about the same height as you (a bit under 6’4") - my UCI legal position is much faster than my non legal (86cm reach) one was. The rules are stupid but that doesn’t mean you can’t find a silver lining. Just something to think about.

13

Im 6’3" and comfortably ride a 58 P2C. 290 extensions, 100mm/ 80 degree stem, 175 cranks, 83.3 saddle height to the adamo. Im very comfortable.

14

Thanks for all your replies. I do now realize that I could very easily ride a 58. I got a great deal on the 61. That said, I think I can get a very good fit on the 61 too. I think it I’m definitely well within a range to fit well on the 61. I’m 6’,3" but am more like a 6’,4" torso on 6’, 2" legs, so I tend to err on the side of a bike with a longer TT. I’ll get over the hump on this issue. Just stressing a little over trying to get ready for a stage race, get the bike working and deal with regular life issues like work and family.

What do you guys recommend for a UCI compliant aero bar?

15

I’m enjoying this thread merely for the opportunity to see the term ‘morphological exemption’ being thrown around.

16

I’m 6’2 and rode a QR Seduza last year in a couple of UCI sanctioned TTs. What a pain in the ass. Literally…I had to use an Adamo saddle as it was the only one I could get 5cm back of the BB. I usually ride an Arione, it was awful.

I also had to shorten the front end considerably. I usually ride a 120mm stem and the extensions were @ 85cm. I switched in a 90mm stem and hacked down an old pair of extensions to get to 80cm. I was amazed to find my power numbers not affected at all but I sure hurt in different places for a couple of days.

It was just after they started checking the 3:1 rule and the commies had tape, pipe insulation and tongue depressors that you could slap onto basebars that exceeded the ratio. My hed’s were OK but there were some rather unhappy and surprised people in the coral!

Have fun!