Calling on all the old timers who I am sure remember when the profile bullet bar was made illegal and resulted in a change to TriFed rules that components had to be certain dimensions and fit through a hoop of a certain diameter….When did the rule change to allow the current crop of aerobar farings? I kind of drifted away from things when I got into MTBing (which is way more fun than road biking), and must have missed this sometime in the last 15 years or so. ChatGPT was not terribly helpful, as it kept hallucinating.
2 Likes
Good question
Well, if data ever reveals an advantage and monobars become the norm, Profile Design was well ahead of its time. TBH, people calling these devices ‘fairings’ is stretching the definition of what a fairing is, and don’t agree that monobars should be banned in any triathlon. They should be more rigid structurally, and that’s more important to me than the couple of theoretical watts that may be gained. The more I ride on the poor road surfaces in my area, the more I wish my extensions were a one-piece construction.
The potential problem I visualize is limited adjustability, but I’ve never seen one of these products in person to critique a potential fitting limitation. If there’s a model that provides the same or similar adjustment that separate bars provide and isn’t priced astronomically high, I’d be very interested in it, even though the aero gains might be insignificant.
I’m likely missing a few steps, but here’s my recollection
Ditlev, before his big Scott contract in 2022, Macgyvered his own out of yoga mat. https://www.tri247.com/triathlon-gear/bike-gear/pro-bike-felt-ia-frd-magnus-ditlev
Then Laidlow (again before his big Canyon contract) taped the space between his aerobars on his Trek speed concept - this was Kona 2022. The gear that helped Sam Laidlow set a new bike course record in Kona - Triathlon Magazine
Then, when the big brands didn’t see that there was a penalty for doing so, Canyon built out a 1 piece system that created a shovel between the arms. Cube did the same for LCB.
1 Like
They are a secondary structure added to the bike to reduce aerodynamic drag. How is that not exactly what a fairing is?
3 Likes
I know there is an intent to gain an advantage aerodynamically. I am not contesting the objective of monobar manufacturers in producing these products. That said, if monobars also grant more storage, or a more elegant storage/cockpit solution, as well as a more solid platform, I think these features outweigh whatever gains a narrow strip of carbon bridging two extensions could possibly provide.
Regarding what I consider a ‘fairing’ to be, something added to the bike that serves no other function other than an aerodynamic purpose. Monobars obviously serve multiple functions. They should not be considered illegal aerodynamic devices from a regulations standpoint, nor fairings at all from a semantics perspective. That’s just my opinion. I’m aware there are divergent viewpoints about this topic.
There have been various components in the past that could have been considered fairings and were either permitted from a structural basis or were outright ignored to this day. I don’t see a reason why monobars would be singled out for infringing on regulations in light of past exemptions, particularly when the theoretical gains are tiny yet avail the rider of other benefits that aren’t illegal in any way.
Ya it’s totally a fairing. But the fact is for the first time tri front ends are start to look like a clean integrated part of the bike and not a pile of bolts and bars. I still think they can look clean as two piece and I’m inclined to say that really should be the simple rule if they are going to police stuff like boxes and bottles etc. It’s a joke to ignore this loophole.
But what well see is pushing the limit with a two piece that basically bumps up against the other one to “fit” the athlete properly. So I can see why pandora’s gift is difficult to put back in the box.
Still look like shit - top heavy! Like longhorns on a Cadillac
You see, that is the question that Im getting at…there was no need for an opinion about this kind of thing. There was a rule based on a definition. These devices would have been ruled illegal based on those definitions. That rule is obviously not in place any more. When did this happen?
You are definitely missing some steps. This kind of thing started shortly after aerobars were a thing back around 1989. It kept creeping closer and closer to a straight-up fairing (which were well known prior to aerobars) and the rules kept on being modified to address those. The trigger to the rules/definitions that lasted for a couple decades was the profile bullet bar that tried to disguise a fairing in the form of a hydration vessel in accordance with the rules at the time. This led to a set of dimensions and specifications that had to be maintained to be allowed in a race.
the only solution is what tri did with super shoes, go with the single sports governing body rules (world athletics). Here tri should go with UCI rules. This would be a benefit to tri, so people can use bikes that are not banned in other races other than tri (time trials)
1 Like
I would really like to add the Drag2Zero cockpit to by bike. However, last year’s confusion over hydration rules (at one point I couldn’t get a definite answer on whether my Scott Plasma 6 rear storage was actually legal) has me hesitant. It seems to take the triathlon authorities a few years to implement rules, then the rules seem to wipe out a lot of the latest innovations. These cockpits are just to expensive to risk that.
Speaking of the inane hydration rules the Germans tried to foist on the bike industry, funny how they were Johnny on the Spot for that but now Canyon makes an OEM fairing and it’s crickets.
2 Likes
German engineers can do no wrong…..
1 Like
Well.there was diesel gate …
Fun fact: VW market cap is worth less today than during diesel gate.
Well, pretty well all legacy automakers have been caught flat footed by the transition that Tesla and now BYD are rolling out. Peak Internal Combustion Engine shipments were in 2017 and have been declining annually since, so generally their market caps reflect their long term trajectory. I bought the Dieselgate penance VW also known as the eGolf, which was better than a GTI but it was already behind Tesla when they retrofitted the GTI. The rest is unit volume trailing decade history (and VWs over reliance on the China market where consumers are now going to their superior eCars).
Here is market cap with VW sitting at $62 B vs Tesla at >$2T and also BYD at 2.5x VW
Last year BYD sold 2M units globally which is eating into Toyoto and VW sales and reflective in the market caps . Literally German and Japanese software engineers are a decade behind in functionality (coming back to the topic of German engineers, but technically software development is NOT engineering….it’s more like logic design or as we say in French “logiciel”).
Back to the thread, I wish they would just ban the integrated carbon front ends and say you can have two circualar cross section extensions with a cup of X cm by Y cm dimentions (like 10cm long and 7 cm wide) and call it done and just ban all the hydration towers and hydration fairings on the front end that protrude ahead of the centerline of the head tube.
I was talking to a few younger 20-29 athetes this weekend and they were complaining about cost of equipment. I told them they can just get a 15 year old P3 second hand for $1000 and do just fine (I was second in my age group off the bike with said equipment and there is no shortage of guys in may age group buying speed). We’re just adding to the perception that alll these gadgets are needed “to compete” making the perception of the sport as being less accessible.
Out of curiosity, if you know they have 0 advantage, do you still want them banned ?
Some would say yes because they look stupid.
I mean, that’s how the UCI operates
2 Likes
My main reason for simplify front end rules is to reduce the perceived costs and barriers to entry as a result of said perception. If you just had circular cross section extensions cups of say 7x10 and no hydration and other materials in front of the head tube centerline, it would just take away some perceived costs and arms race syndrome. It won’t change the postion we can get the rider into. Kind of like banning speedsuits by FINA. It does not change who Summer MacIntosh does the 200 fly, it reduces a cost for all age group swimmers whose parents feel they need to get the $500-$1000 speedsuit and if it removes a bit of free speed so be it. In any case Summer’s got the 200 fly record all time including speedsuits now. All these front ends are in the same category. They don’t change the position/technique of the rider, they just change some fluid dynamics (and even if they don’t change the fluid dynamics, they change costs)