2024 Pro thread

[ave]

Technical sports are full with innovations that are legal then, but get banned soon.
Formula-1 is full of stuff like this. The famous fan car, active suspension, etc. (I'm not a F1 expert)
Rally was the same, group B got just too dangerous, so they changed the rules. Simple as that.

There is nothing wrong with the UCI reacting to stupid innovations with new rules. Like Obree's bikes. It was fun, but just stupid, both his positions were unsafe. Same with the supertuck. It wasn't safe. Ok, maybe there were no spectacular crashes, but anyone tried it knows it's not the same as riding in the saddle.
Even the "stupid" sock length is a good rule. There is no point using knee tall socks just to be a tiny bit faster. Everybody has the same sock length, so no disadvantage to anybody. There is nothing wrong with that.
How about a rule that was regarded as stupid 10-15 years ago, and now seems reasonable. That 6.8 kg limit.

[TobinHatesYou]

F1 doesn't ban previously approved designs for being ugly. They didn't ban stepped noses or the BMW walrus tusks. They didn't ban the asymmetric Lotus nose. They do ban features like F-ducts which clearly violate the spirit of the rules. So does an "ugly helmet" violate the the unwritten rules, and if so, why did they approve it in the first place?

So yes, they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean their actions are just.

[Lina]

F1 doesn't ban previously approved designs for being ugly. They didn't ban stepped noses or the BMW walrus tusks. They didn't ban the asymmetric Lotus nose. They do ban features like F-ducts which clearly violate the spirit of the rules. So does an "ugly helmet" violate the the unwritten rules, and if so, why did they approve it in the first place?

So yes, they can do whatever they want, but that doesn't mean their actions are just.

But F1 bans previously approved designs for others reasons all the time. Almost every season there's something that was specifically approved by the FIA and was within the rules and then gets banned within a couple of races of a team introducing it. If the UCI doesn't want all TT helmets to become like these helmets then it's in their prerogative to change the rules. And we know that unless there's a change all TT helmets will move towards a design that will direct the airflow past the riders shoulders. It's exactly as the sock height rule. You'll either have knee high socks/this style helmets on everyone, or you regulate against them so that no one can have them.

[TobinHatesYou]

But F1 bans previously approved designs for others reasons all the time. Almost every season there's something that was specifically approved by the FIA and was within the rules and then gets banned within a couple of races of a team introducing it. If the UCI doesn't want all TT helmets to become like these helmets then it's in their prerogative to change the rules. And we know that unless there's a change all TT helmets will move towards a design that will direct the airflow past the riders shoulders. It's exactly as the sock height rule. You'll either have knee high socks/this style helmets on everyone, or you regulate against them so that no one can have them.

1) Most of the F1 equipment in question does not go through an individual approval process. I at least provided examples, can you provide some examples in F1 that have been banned after initially having been directly approved?
2) The UCI does not consistently enforce the sock height rules and they don’t do it mid-race, so nothing stops Remco from pulling his socks up (which he does.)
3) And what about the aesthetics of a TT helmet that allows riders to see in a turtled position? Isn’t rider safety a bigger consideration than looks?

[MichaelK]

1) Mercedes' DAS system was approved for use for one season by the FIA. Was deemed outside the spirit of the rulebook but didn't inherently break the rules.

...back to cycling, I think one thing this TT helmet fiasco highlights for me is the actual lack of TT miles. There are no TTTs in the 3 GTs this year and ITT kms only add up to 160km for all 3 GTs combined. Taking 2x €15+k bikes for each rider around Europe isn't sustainable.

[TriJoeri]

...back to cycling, I think one thing this TT helmet fiasco highlights for me is the actual lack of TT miles. There are no TTTs in the 3 GTs this year and ITT kms only add up to 160km for all 3 GTs combined. Taking 2x €15+k bikes for each rider around Europe isn't sustainable.

I hope you're saying we need more (T)TTs in GTs and so on and not that we should ban TT'ing, bikes and equipment because next to track cycling, that's where innovation happens that (sometimes) trickles down to road bikes.

[tymon_tm]

this helmet is absurd. let's not forget stuff pros use in competition some amateurs do use in real world conditions - so it has to be safe, period.

the notion UCI can't change rules cause someone had spent some money to develop a piece of gear is absurd as well. rules aren't written in stone for eternity, sometimes they're just wrong and need to be corrected (doh), sometimes they do need to be reviewed when teams show up with funky gear that, although in theory is *within the rules*, isn't quite within the spirit of them (and also might not really be safe to use).

Would the UCI not have been able to determine if the Giro helmet was within the spirit of UCI rules when Giro presented it to them for approval, and gained that approval, back in December?

come on, you speak as if you had the full knowledge of Giro's proceedings over creating and 'legalizing' the helmet...

In the world i live in companies always blame *the goverment* or any regulatory institution if things go south for them. and as was said before, sometimes something needs to happen in order to see a need to change a given rule or law. some say it's counter progress, but then many people would love testing new drugs straight on humans, cause why not. most of regulatkons are there to keep this progress safe and beneficiary to as many as possible. and yes, we should expect rules to be 'good'; fair and smart, but people who make em often don't know better, and learn with experience. hence situations like this are learning moments when rules outta be adjusted.

[tymon_tm]

UCI has never been a great leading body.
But some action has to be taken from time to time in order to not drain the resources of pro cycling into a tech race.
Money is scarce as it is for things like, say, safety barriers.

But how to better integrate the timing of regulation and the equipment investments?
The answer lies with other sports that rely on tech.
In other words, the UCI just needs to look around at how other sports avoid messes like this.
The rules need to be set for each season, or maybe even half season, with new tech appearing at the TdF and in January.

This may not be the answer, but there certainly are easy answers if a little forethought is accorded.

well said. there's just too much innovation in cycling going on these days just to "go along" and see what happens. the process of developing new gear but also reviewing the rules should be more open, and possibly a 2- or even 3-way street, where the concerns of UCI, CPA and manufacturers could be met.

[spokenwords]

Companies have often times developed products that will get banned. There is a certain willingness to do so. Giro was never going to sell that helmet to the road market nearly as much as the tri market. If it gets banned by the UCI, and gets all this press and owns room in everyones brain, then they will sell even better to the tri peeps. However, for me, the more this stuff happens the more I wish time trials had to be done on standard road equipment.

[Lina]

But F1 bans previously approved designs for others reasons all the time. Almost every season there's something that was specifically approved by the FIA and was within the rules and then gets banned within a couple of races of a team introducing it. If the UCI doesn't want all TT helmets to become like these helmets then it's in their prerogative to change the rules. And we know that unless there's a change all TT helmets will move towards a design that will direct the airflow past the riders shoulders. It's exactly as the sock height rule. You'll either have knee high socks/this style helmets on everyone, or you regulate against them so that no one can have them.

1) Most of the F1 equipment in question does not go through an individual approval process. I at least provided examples, can you provide some examples in F1 that have been banned after initially having been directly approved?
2) The UCI does not consistently enforce the sock height rules and they don’t do it mid-race, so nothing stops Remco from pulling his socks up (which he does.)
3) And what about the aesthetics of a TT helmet that allows riders to see in a turtled position? Isn’t rider safety a bigger consideration than looks?

1) As mentioned Merc's DAS system was first given the go ahead from FIA and then subsequently banned. A lot of the systems and innovations that get banned mid season or between seasons are also things that the FIA has approved before.
2) I'm aware, and it's not the only rule they don't enforce. Both supertuck and puppy paws had been against the rules for ages but UCI just didn't enforce the rules. This is actually one of my biggest issues with the UCI, they don't consistently enforce all their rules.
3) Yes, rider safety, and visibility out of TT helmets is important. And I agree, the new Giro design is probably one of the better in terms of visibility. And I'm not really worried about the safety of the helmet, I trust Giro to produce a helmet that is safe.

...back to cycling, I think one thing this TT helmet fiasco highlights for me is the actual lack of TT miles. There are no TTTs in the 3 GTs this year and ITT kms only add up to 160km for all 3 GTs combined. Taking 2x €15+k bikes for each rider around Europe isn't sustainable.

I hope you're saying we need more (T)TTs in GTs and so on and not that we should ban TT'ing, bikes and equipment because next to track cycling, that's where innovation happens that (sometimes) trickles down to road bikes.

I'd like to see both more TT mileage and no TT bikes or even extensions on the World Tour, allow disc wheels if you want to. I don't think TT bikes add anything to the sport and they add a massive increase in cost to be competitive for both the pro teams and amateurs in races where you have TTs and TT bikes are used. And I say this as someone that has a very fast TT setup and benefits from the current state of things. The innovation and R&D would be much more useful for the average cyclist if they were riding road bikes on the TTs instead of specialty machines that are only ridden by a handful of people. It would also most likely be better for all the brands, they could have an allrounder and aero road bikes and then a tri bike that doesn't have to comply to UCI rules if they want to be on that market. They could just drop the UCI TT bike, which have like no sales but they need to sponsor a WT team, and focus fully on the Tri version.

[CarlosFerreiro]

The UCIs previous try in that direction, with the Merckx hour athletes hour, ended up with aerodynamics pushing riders towards things like Boardman's frame geometry, which was like a 54cm frame, but with the reach of a 61cm frame. That would obviously just be a different kind of one-off frame with limited other use and an extra cost to manufacturers/teams, so some pretty careful rules needed with no future loopholes left open).....

[ms6073]

1) Mercedes' DAS system was approved for use for one season by the FIA. Was deemed outside the spirit of the rulebook but didn't inherently break the rules.

Lets not forget:
• F1's 'Party mode' ban
• Clampdown on flexi-wings
• FIA FORMALLY OUTLAWS MERCEDES SLOT-GAP SEPARATOR TRICK
• Mercedes and Aston Martin tech innovations banned for F1 2023

[smartyiak]

Companies have often times developed products that will get banned. There is a certain willingness to do so. Giro was never going to sell that helmet to the road market nearly as much as the tri market. If it gets banned by the UCI, and gets all this press and owns room in everyones brain, then they will sell even better to the tri peeps. However, for me, the more this stuff happens the more I wish time trials had to be done on standard road equipment.

This reminds me of the Cannondale Supersix with weights added. It was an "intentional violation"...and they got a TON of press out of it. I know other mfg's have done made sub-6.8 bikes...but that's the one I actually remember.

[justkeepedaling]

1) Mercedes' DAS system was approved for use for one season by the FIA. Was deemed outside the spirit of the rulebook but didn't inherently break the rules.

Lets not forget:
• F1's 'Party mode' ban
• Clampdown on flexi-wings
• FIA FORMALLY OUTLAWS MERCEDES SLOT-GAP SEPARATOR TRICK
• Mercedes and Aston Martin tech innovations banned for F1 2023

All things banned to limit dominance, especially since they were things that were hard to copy from other teams. Something like a TT helmet is NOT difficult to implement and multiple teams are already doing it.

See F1 Brawn double diffuser.

[spokenwords]

VingeGOOOOOOOOOOO! has been very impressive so far. There seems to be an extra confidence that is confirming he is more than just a Tour rider.
I keep thinking that cycling has a real spoil of riches right now. MVP, Remco, Pogi, Vingegoooo, Primo, WVA, and a number of others that are more than capable of taking advantage when the big names tactics dont pan out. Like today with Aleksandr BlastOff. What a time to be a fan.