TT bikes are dumb

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for every
kind of race or stage.

thanks,

-RJ

Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's hour'
to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
Colnagos.

That'd be fun.

S.

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for every
kind of race or stage.

thanks,

-RJ

Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's hour'
to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
Colnagos.

Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Tom Kunich said:

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ronaldo_jeremiah said:

Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for every
kind of race or stage.

thanks,

-RJ

Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's hour'
to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
Colnagos.

Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

-RJ

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

Aside from aero bars, what else would be changed?

Carl Sundquist said:

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

Aside from aero bars, what else would be changed?

I for one miss the neato looking carbon monocoque machines. I thought
the Hotta that Chris Boardman rode in prologues was a cool looking
ride. I would suggest that any type of human powered wheeled machine be
legal for the prologue. Teams that are interested in innovation can
spring the big bucks for futuristic bikes and the results in such a
short TT won't be all that different from the usual times. The race
isn't won or lost in a prologue (unless you crash out of course).

Andy

in message <[email hidden]>,

ronaldo_jeremiah (') said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
> Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for
> every kind of race or stage.
>
Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's
hour'
to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
Colnagos.

Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

That's how we got the bikes we've got. Ooooh, there's an innovation.
Ooooh, it makes people faster. Can't have that. Ban it. That's been the
UCI's modus operandi for a hundred years, they're not going to change
now.

What the /hell/ was that stupidity with Landis' aerobars? Was his
position less safe? How had they established that? If they weren't less
safe, what was the point of banning them? I can understand banning
aerobars for mass start racing, they /are/ more dangerous in the
peloton. But in ITT?

Oh, we have rules. Oh, the rules have to be followed. Ours not to reason
why. Must follow rules. Must follow rules. Must follow...

It ain't the bikes that are dumb.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
> Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for every
> kind of race or stage.
>
> thanks,
>
> -RJ

Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's hour'
to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
Colnagos.

Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

Of course they're silly and they shouldn't have been allowed in the first
place. The problem is that once they allowed Moser to set a record, every
promoter wanted aero TT bikes since they would set new records and new
headlines.

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:GtWrg.331256$5Z.177601@dukeread02...

Quoted message said:

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

Aside from aero bars, what else would be changed?

No disks or wheels with less than 18 spokes. No aero bars. Only the frames
used on the regular road bikes. I know that modern bikes are so close to the
TT frames that there's little difference but we're trying to limit the
variances from what you and I can buy and what they're racing. Presently it
is just to silly.

The aero TT bikes are good for the sport. They help to insipire a sense
of excitement and imagination for the public and the sport. I was
really disappointed the UCI decided to impose min weight limitations
and restrictions on bike designs.

Quoted message said:

Carl Sundquist said:

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

Aside from aero bars, what else would be changed?

I for one miss the neato looking carbon monocoque machines. I thought
the Hotta that Chris Boardman rode in prologues was a cool looking
ride. I would suggest that any type of human powered wheeled machine be
legal for the prologue. Teams that are interested in innovation can
spring the big bucks for futuristic bikes and the results in such a
short TT won't be all that different from the usual times. The race
isn't won or lost in a prologue (unless you crash out of course).

Andy

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

The aero TT bikes are good for the sport. They help to insipire a sense
of excitement and imagination for the public and the sport. I was
really disappointed the UCI decided to impose min weight limitations
and restrictions on bike designs.

The UCI needs to be seen to be doing something to prevent
a frame breaking in the middle of a bunch. An unlimited
weight classification would leave carnage on the highway.

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

The aero TT bikes are good for the sport. <snip>

Dumbass -

Wrong. They are bad for the sport. They make the sport unnecesarily
more expensive, and somewhat more complicated, while accomplishing
nothing at all.

You know which sport has the equipment problem figured out? Golf. If
I understand correctly, in golf a manufacturer submits his new
equipment to the organizing body first. They decide if it will be
legal or not, and if they say that it is, it's approved for everyone's
use. Everyone knows what they are allowed to use ahead of time, as it
should be.

If the UCI had any brains at all, that is what they would do. It would
do at least the following seven things for them:

-Make the sport marginally safer, as the modern TT position is less
safe than riding a bike while connected at the feet, ass, and hands
-Eliminate problems caused by unanticipated tech advances
-Reduce the importance of equipment in the sport
-Reduce costs to current racers and teams
-Lower barriers (real or perceived) to entering the sport
-Increase an image of fairness and athleticism for fans
-Potentially make a *boatload* of money for the UCI by giving them the
authority to license equipment - I honestly can't believe they haven't
realized this.

-RJ

in message <[email hidden]>,

Michael Press (') said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

The aero TT bikes are good for the sport. They help to insipire a
sense of excitement and imagination for the public and the sport. I
was really disappointed the UCI decided to impose min weight
limitations and restrictions on bike designs.

The UCI needs to be seen to be doing something to prevent
a frame breaking in the middle of a bunch. An unlimited
weight classification would leave carnage on the highway.

Not in ITT, it wouldn't. ITT is a discipline in which it is reasonably
safe to be highly experimental with design and construction.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

in message <[email hidden]>,

ronaldo_jeremiah (') said:

If the UCI had any brains at all, that is what they would do. It would
do at least the following seven things for them:

-Make the sport marginally safer, as the modern TT position is less
safe than riding a bike while connected at the feet, ass, and hands
-Eliminate problems caused by unanticipated tech advances
-Reduce the importance of equipment in the sport
-Reduce costs to current racers and teams
-Lower barriers (real or perceived) to entering the sport
-Increase an image of fairness and athleticism for fans
-Potentially make a *boatload* of money for the UCI by giving them the
authority to license equipment - I honestly can't believe they haven't
realized this.

Tell you what, here's the bike that Kirkpatrick Macmillan built just up
the road from here back in 1839:
http://www.cycle-info.bpaj.or.jp/english/learn/img/r3.jpg
Let's have all the teams ride replicas of that next year. No? At what
date would you like to arrest history, then?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
There's nae Gods, an there's precious few heroes
but there's plenty on the dole in th Land o th Leal;
And it's time now, tae sweep the future clear o
th lies o a past that we know wis never real.

Quoted message said:

Tell you what, here's the bike that Kirkpatrick Macmillan built just up
the road from here back in 1839:
http://www.cycle-info.bpaj.or.jp/english/learn/img/r3.jpg
Let's have all the teams ride replicas of that next year. No? At what
date would you like to arrest history, then?

Dumbass -

Don't be absurd. That bike would never pass UCI inspection.

thanks,

-RJ

Tom Kunich said:

"ronaldo_jeremiah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>> Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for every
>> kind of race or stage.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> -RJ
>
> Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's hour'
> to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
> Colnagos.

Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

Of course they're silly and they shouldn't have been allowed in the first
place. The problem is that once they allowed Moser to set a record, every
promoter wanted aero TT bikes since they would set new records and new
headlines.

Tommy -

It's interesting and fun to see we agree on something, at least
broadly.

-RJ

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aside from aero bars, what else would be changed?

No disks or wheels with less than 18 spokes. No aero bars. Only the frames
used on the regular road bikes. I know that modern bikes are so close to
the TT frames that there's little difference but we're trying to limit the
variances from what you and I can buy and what they're racing. Presently
it is just to silly.

The the UCI needs to revise the rules regarding road racing bicycles, too:
http://www.uci.ch/imgArchive/Rules/1gene-E.pdf

1.3.018 For massed start competitions in the disciplines road and
cyclo-cross, only wheel designs granted prior approval by the UCI may be
used. Wheels shall have at least 12 spokes; spokes can be round, flattened
or oval, as far as no dimension of their sections exceeds 10 mm. In order to
be granted approval wheels must have passed a rupture test as prescribed by
the UCI in a laboratory approved by the UCI. The test results must show that
the rupture characteristics obtained are compatible with those resulting
from an impact sustained during normal use of the wheel. The following
criteria must be fulfilled:
.. On impact, no element of the wheel may become detached and be expelled
outwards.
.. The rupture must not present any shattered or broken off elements, or any
sharp or serrated surfaces that could harm the user, other riders and/or
third parties.
.. The rupture characteristics must not cause the hub to become separated
from the rim in such a way that the wheel becomes detached from the forks.
Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs,
standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to
above. A traditional wheel is deemed to be a wheel with at least 16 metal
spokes; the spokes may be round, flat or oval, provided that no dimension of
their cross sections exceeds 2.4 mm; the section of the rim must not exceed
2.5 cm on each side.

Carl's note: There is no specific mention of disk wheels. AFAIK disk wheels
can be ridden in mass start races. The down sides are that they supposedly
trasmit more road shock, are heavier, and risk the user being pummelled by
the peloton for the noise generated by them.

1.3.020 c) Configuration
For road competitions other than time trials and for cyclo-cross
competitions, the frame of the bicycle shall be of a traditional pattern,
i.e. built around a main triangle. It shall be constructed of straight or
tapered tubular elements (which may be round, oval, flattened, teardrop
shaped or otherwise in cross-section) such that the form of each element
encloses a straight line. The elements of the frame shall be laid out such
that the joining points shall follow the following pattern: the top tube (1)
connects the top of the head tube (2) to the top of the seat tube (4); the
seat tube (from which the seat post shall extend) shall connect to the
bottom bracket shell; the down tube (3) shall connect the bottom bracket
shell to the bottom of the head tube. The rear triangles shall be formed by
the chain stays (6), the seat stays (5) and the seat tube (4) with the seat
stays anchored to the seat tube at points falling within the limits laid
down for the slope of the top tube. The maximum height of the elements shall
be 8 cm and the minimum width 2.5 cm. The minimum width shall be reduced to
1 cm for the chain stays (6) and the seat stays (5). The minimum thickness
of the elements of the front fork shall be 1 cm; these may be straight or
curved (7). The top tube may slope, provided that this element fits within a
horizontal template defined by a maximum height of 16 cm and a minimum
thickness of 2.5 cm.

1.3.021 For road time trials and for track competitions, the elements of the
bicycle frame may be tubular or solid, assembled or cast in a single piece
in any form (including arches, cradles, beams or any other). These elements,
including the bottom bracket shell, shall fit within a template of the
«triangular form» defined in article 1.3.020.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

ronaldo_jeremiah (') said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
>> Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for
>> every kind of race or stage.
>>
> Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's
> hour'
> to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
> Colnagos.

Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

That's how we got the bikes we've got. Ooooh, there's an innovation.
Ooooh, it makes people faster. Can't have that. Ban it. That's been the
UCI's modus operandi for a hundred years, they're not going to change
now.

What the /hell/ was that stupidity with Landis' aerobars? Was his
position less safe? How had they established that? If they weren't less
safe, what was the point of banning them? I can understand banning
aerobars for mass start racing, they /are/ more dangerous in the
peloton. But in ITT?

It's not a safety rule, it's an evolved set of restrictions on
aerodynamic improvements, and it's kinda silly.

Skipping quickly from Mochet to Obree, what happened was that Grame set
an hour record on a freak-show bike in an impossible body position. At
about the same time, the rules on TT bikes are fairly loose: they
roughly say that the seat has to be somewhere high above the cranks, and
the bars have to be somewhere out front. The rules basically just banned
recumbents and left frame design alone.

Thanks to some cross-breeding with triathlon bikes, we got the weirdest
set of TT bikes imagineable: bikes with no seat tubes, bikes with no
seat setback, Trek Y-Foils, funny bikes, endless wacky track pursuit
bikes like the Lotus and that green Cervelo, etc.

All very interesting, and all freaking the UCI way out. They banned two
Obree positions in a row ("tuck" and "Superman", the latter also used by
Boardman), then they clamped down on TT bikes, basically mandating that
all bikes look like a normal double-diamond.

Quoted message said:

Oh, we have rules. Oh, the rules have to be followed. Ours not to reason
why. Must follow rules. Must follow rules. Must follow...

It ain't the bikes that are dumb.

Hey, with the ProTour and the Grand Tours on the verge of divorce, I
think this is the big chance:

I am amenable to the idea that the prologue should be run under libre
HPV rules: basically use the very lenient IHPVA TT rules (the HPV has to
fit in a box about 2m by 1m; human power only), and let 'em rip. Also, I
think requiring 190 bike racers to buy HPVs would triple the global
faired HPV market overnight.

And I don't mean the people who would buy one 'cause it was on TV,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

ronaldo_jeremiah (') said:

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
> >
> > ronaldo_jeremiah wrote:
> >> Dangerous, too. Road-race legal equipment should be required for
> >> every kind of race or stage.
> >>
> > Yeah, perhaps the UCI could broaden the rules for the 'athlete's
> > hour'
> > to apply to road racing, too. Everybody could ride replica Molteni
> > Colnagos.
>
> Careful, they don't understand sarcasm here.

Sarcastic or not, he's actually right. It'd be a better sport if
everyone rode similar equipment, and if everyone was prevented from
riding ridiculous special bikes in TTs. TT bikes are dumb.

That's how we got the bikes we've got. Ooooh, there's an innovation.
Ooooh, it makes people faster. Can't have that. Ban it. That's been the
UCI's modus operandi for a hundred years, they're not going to change
now.

What the /hell/ was that stupidity with Landis' aerobars? Was his
position less safe? How had they established that? If they weren't less
safe, what was the point of banning them? I can understand banning
aerobars for mass start racing, they /are/ more dangerous in the
peloton. But in ITT?

It's not a safety rule, it's an evolved set of restrictions on
aerodynamic improvements, and it's kinda silly.

Skipping quickly from Mochet to Obree, what happened was that Grame set
an hour record on a freak-show bike in an impossible body position. At
about the same time, the rules on TT bikes are fairly loose: they
roughly say that the seat has to be somewhere high above the cranks, and
the bars have to be somewhere out front. The rules basically just banned
recumbents and left frame design alone.

Thanks to some cross-breeding with triathlon bikes, we got the weirdest
set of TT bikes imagineable: bikes with no seat tubes, bikes with no
seat setback, Trek Y-Foils, funny bikes, endless wacky track pursuit
bikes like the Lotus and that green Cervelo, etc.

All very interesting, and all freaking the UCI way out. They banned two
Obree positions in a row ("tuck" and "Superman", the latter also used by
Boardman), then they clamped down on TT bikes, basically mandating that
all bikes look like a normal double-diamond.

Quoted message said:

Oh, we have rules. Oh, the rules have to be followed. Ours not to reason
why. Must follow rules. Must follow rules. Must follow...

It ain't the bikes that are dumb.

Hey, with the ProTour and the Grand Tours on the verge of divorce, I
think this is the big chance:

I am amenable to the idea that the prologue should be run under libre
HPV rules: basically use the very lenient IHPVA TT rules (the HPV has to
fit in a box about 2m by 1m; human power only), and let 'em rip. Also, I
think requiring 190 bike racers to buy HPVs would triple the global
faired HPV market overnight.

And I don't mean the people who would buy one 'cause it was on TV,

Thanks, you had me worried about you for a minute there.

Ron

If frame or component is a significant issue than UCI should require
testing of the frames and parts. This would help both consumers and
riders.

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

The aero TT bikes are good for the sport. They help to insipire a sense
of excitement and imagination for the public and the sport. I was
really disappointed the UCI decided to impose min weight limitations
and restrictions on bike designs.

The UCI needs to be seen to be doing something to prevent
a frame breaking in the middle of a bunch. An unlimited
weight classification would leave carnage on the highway.

--
Michael Press