would you support getting rid of aero frames for the individual time trial?
2255
Member
702 days
TriSooner posted 28 weeks ago.
I'm not surprised at all. We are talking about a European organization which emphasizes tradition. I knew Graeme Obree was the precedent, too. If you read the article . . . hell, I'll just copy and paste the part I need: British cyclists Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree broke the distance record for one hour — the sport’s gold standard — using bicycles with unusual designs and exceptionally aerodynamic riding positions. Obree broke the record twice, on two different bicycles which he built himself (one used bearings from a washing machine) only to have his designs subsequently banned by the cycling union.
Obree first rode his bike like this (note - no top tube, one-sided fork):
Then the ICU said, "Nah, that's no bueno. You can't ride like that." So he tried this next (which he creatively called the Praying Mantis).
Then the ICU said, "Fine, we're tired of your crap. The rule now is you have to ride the same style of bike ridden by Merckx." (Details and dialogue may be fuzzy, but the general concept is apt.)
Anyway, the ICU is like that. Not only will they change rules mid-stream, they will change rules retroactively (ie, Obree's case). I bet they look at the 6:1 ratio downtube on the Cervelo and say, "Air foil!" You very well could see the end of the TT bike in the Big Three (Tour, Giro, Vuelta) which could then slow the progress of technology trickling down to tri. Just like aero bars that started with LeMond in The Tour and made it's way down to tri, much of the technology we see came first from TT bike. Disk wheels, aero helmets, all started in Euro mutli-day stage races (or track). The point is that bike fabricators and pro bike teams don’t look to Penticton for technology for the Pro Peloton. If the big fabricators stop making TT bikes and researching aerodynamics etc., tri could reach a plateau in technology.
2766
Member
1444 days
tri-ac posted 28 weeks ago.
TriSooner wrote:
I'm not surprised at all. We are talking about a European organization which emphasizes tradition.
ICU, sure...but the athletes? with a subtle nod to performance enhancing "tools" (like nutrition, supplements, oxygen tents, and periodization...oh, OK, and those PED's for some), it seems the athletes want any advantage they can get.
are they feeling like they don't play on a level field?
obree built his own (first one anyway)...no big budget corporation involved there
i do see logic and fairness in arguing for the purity of competition, but with ANY standard in place, even one that allows aero frames, there is going to be a relatively level playing field
the UCI wants to separate the point at which a bicycle stops being a bicycle
IMHO, i don't feel like state of the art TT frames are over that line yet
reading up on the Little 500 from a week or so ago, the bikes seem so quaint locked in time as they are...makes an exciting race, but also a little odd
333
Member
662 days
chekmarks posted 28 weeks ago.
tri-ac wrote:
reading up on the Little 500 from a week or so ago, the bikes seem so quaint locked in time as they are...makes an exciting race, but also a little odd
they are old school bikes, but they only cost 200 bucks (+ or - $50, I really don't remember). the reason for that makes a lot of sense, college students are cash strapped as it is. participants are free to train on any bike they want (and boy, do some students out here have ridiculous bikes) but for the sake of fairness each team has to ride the same bike in the race. this year the organizers wanted each rider to use the same HELMET. that went over well....
i guess that is what ICU is trying to do by banning TT bikes, on a vastly different price scale.
2807
Member
1685 days
Triguy98 posted 28 weeks ago.
My favorite parts of the tours are the time trials. I love to see the teams and individuals busting out the cool bikes and gear. It breaks up the monotony of the weeks.
I could see the advantage to eliminating all the aero toys, but positioning trumps all. Maybe the bikes would lose their cool shapes, but geometries would still vary and there are some fast bikes with round tubes. QR/ Litespeed used to make a ti tri bike with round tubes and tri geometry. I actually really like the bike and if I could find one in my size at at reasonable price, I would jump all over it.
Life is short. Play hard and get dirty doing it.
370
Member
427 days
Gsal posted 28 weeks ago.
+1 to triguy about the time trials in the tours. William wordsworth (british poet) wrote a poem describing how his heart leaps up when he sees a rainbow. Thats how i feel when i see a ridiculous TT bike. I love checking out all the latest aero gear and top of the line bikes. Take the aero bikes and gear out of tours and you take out the sex appeal, at least for me.
"You can never be too rich or too skinny."
-My doctor
370
Member
427 days
Gsal posted 28 weeks ago.
and yes, i did just refer to sex appeal while talking about bikes. i'm a triathlete, gimme a break
"You can never be too rich or too skinny."
-My doctor
264
Member
712 days
dollfin04 posted 28 weeks ago.
Gsal wrote:
and yes, i did just refer to sex appeal while talking about bikes. i'm a triathlete, gimme a break
+1 to sexy bikes!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/sports/othersports/06cycling.html?_r=1...
i was a little surprised that there are athletes who want to eliminate aerodynamics from the time trial bikes
despite the argument about large budget teams having an advantage, there's nothing mysterious about the method of getting aero or the benefits. the true advantage of the money/research spent is probably eeking out a fraction of a percentage point of improvement AGAINST THE ICU STANDARDS. And that effort will continue however they write up a revised code for bicycles. so the "advantage" seems somewhat moot; or it is, at least, not avoided by eliminating TT bikes. teams will still test for new tweaks of whatever frame they must ride. NASCAR teams already do this with their standard "car of the future," or whatever it is they call it