Bike Doping II - Martin's illegal saddle

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Exactly.

The UCI rules now require that wheels be either 650 or 700.

What is wrong with the 650/700 combo that was commonly used on TT bikes in the 1990s (e.g. Indurain)?

Another stupid, meaningless UCI rule.

Dave.

No, the rule requires two wheels of equal diameter and they can be between 55cm and 70cm in diameter.

Manufacturers have set a market standards wrt to offering 650c and 700c models, not the UCI.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The Darwin Theory of Bicycle Evolution, if it's daft, dangerous, or doesn't work it will die out.

Those who run races have a duty of care to all involved (officials, competitors, spectators, public), and that includes having some reasonable rules relating to safety aspects, as well as taking reasonable care to enforce safety requirements.

If something is considered to be a danger, then it is entirely reasonable that regulations will come into force if it's an aspect of the sport that is persistently an issue.

The question then is whether such regulation change has been made on the basis of good information.

Such regulation change is normal in all sports that involve equipment. I don't see why we should expect cycling to be any different.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

For those that don't remember:

http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-020/

 

[Hawkwood]

Those who run races have a duty of care to all involved (officials, competitors, spectators, public), and that includes having some reasonable rules relating to safety aspects, as well as taking reasonable care to enforce safety requirements.

If something is considered to be a danger, then it is entirely reasonable that regulations will come into force if it's an aspect of the sport that is persistently an issue.

The question then is whether such regulation change has been made on the basis of good information.

Such regulation change is normal in all sports that involve equipment. I don't see why we should expect cycling to be any different.

Okay so how about this from page one of the regs:

`Modifying equipment used in competition in relation to products supplied by the manufacturer is prohibited for obvious safety reasons. Whether it is a matter of modifying the length of the saddle, adapting approved wheels, filing off fork drop-out safety lugs, meeting the 3:1 rule by adding tape to handlebars or adding a nonslip system on the saddle, no modification of equipment that is not conducted by the manufacturer is authorised by the UCI without prior approval.'

Note it states `for obvious safety reasons', there is no obvious safety reason behind banning adding a non-slip system to a saddle. There is in fact no obvious safety reason for banning the removal of so called `safety lugs', it's been done for years with no example at all of this causing any safety issue in pro races. I would argue that having safety lugs can compromise the proper adjustment setting up of the quick release, I refer you to Campagnolo's instructions:

`WARNING: it is important to remember that just a half turn of the nut can make the difference between correct and incorrect closing force of the Quick Release.'

Now you might argue that with safety lugs if the quick release fails the wheel won't fall out, however the steering will be compromised.

Maybe this is a separate issue, but it surprises me that when I first started racing back in the 1970s there was a bike safety check at every road race I took part in, however when I last raced in 1999 there was no such check. If safety is at the core of these regs why did the safety checks disappear, or was this British Cycling simply going its own way?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

The obvious safety reasons of adding a tape to make up a few mm to meet a 3:1 ratio on equipment are so obvious as to be completely transparent as to be unseeable.

Remind me again why it's unsafe?

 

[Hawkwood]

The obvious safety reasons of adding a tape to make up a few mm to meet a 3:1 ratio on equipment are so obvious as to be completely transparent as to be unseeable.

Remind me again why it's unsafe?

So obvious I'm surprised you didn't spot it, the tape has to be crash tested to earn a UCI sticker.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So obvious I'm surprised you didn't spot it, the tape has to be crash tested to earn a UCI sticker.

But I'm protecting the tape in the event of a crash with my head. All good, right?

 

[Hawkwood]

But I'm protecting the tape in the event of a crash with my head. All good, right?

Just you be careful, make sure it's all been checked out using this:

http://www.hexagonmetrology.com/thumbs/originals/SILB_3944.jpg

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Okay so how about this from page one of the regs:

`Modifying equipment used in competition in relation to products supplied by the manufacturer is prohibited for obvious safety reasons. Whether it is a matter of modifying the length of the saddle, adapting approved wheels, filing off fork drop-out safety lugs, meeting the 3:1 rule by adding tape to handlebars or adding a nonslip system on the saddle, no modification of equipment that is not conducted by the manufacturer is authorised by the UCI without prior approval.'

Note it states `for obvious safety reasons', there is no obvious safety reason behind banning adding a non-slip system to a saddle. There is in fact no obvious safety reason for banning the removal of so called `safety lugs', it's been done for years with no example at all of this causing any safety issue in pro races. I would argue that having safety lugs can compromise the proper adjustment setting up of the quick release, I refer you to Campagnolo's instructions:

`WARNING: it is important to remember that just a half turn of the nut can make the difference between correct and incorrect closing force of the Quick Release.'

Now you might argue that with safety lugs if the quick release fails the wheel won't fall out, however the steering will be compromised.

Maybe this is a separate issue, but it surprises me that when I first started racing back in the 1970s there was a bike safety check at every road race I took part in, however when I last raced in 1999 there was no such check. If safety is at the core of these regs why did the safety checks disappear, or was this British Cycling simply going its own way?

Which is why I said this:

The question then is whether such regulation change has been made on the basis of good information.

IOW I'm not saying all the regs make sense, just that having safety regs are a necessary part of any sport. I also not saying that all regs are solely to do with safety concerns.

The requirements to run road races has changed dramatically over the past 10-20 years. This has in part been driven by insurance demands, as well as stronger legislation around health and safety matters. I can't comment specifically on road racing in the UK and how such events are run. Perhaps there are fewer volunteers now days to do bike checks.

The issue of equipment modification isn't straightforward. Like I said, come up with an alternative where a comm can readily say yes/no and not feel they are making a bad call wrt to safety. When you see a modification has been made, how can you expect all comms to be able to make a choice as to what is/is not safe? Manufacturers make products to certain standards, presumably altering their product might affect its performance in ways unknown.

Again, people make lots of criticism without making viable alternatives. No regulation just isn't viable as races won't receive approval from relevant authorities (police, govt authorities etc).

 

[Hawkwood]

Which is why I said this:


IOW I'm not saying all the regs make sense, just that having safety regs are a necessary part of any sport. I also not saying that all regs are solely to do with safety concerns.

The requirements to run road races has changed dramatically over the past 10-20 years. This has in part been driven by insurance demands, as well as stronger legislation around health and safety matters. I can't comment specifically on road racing in the UK and how such events are run. Perhaps there are fewer volunteers now days to do bike checks.

The issue of equipment modification isn't straightforward. Like I said, come up with an alternative where a comm can readily say yes/no and not feel they are making a bad call wrt to safety. When you see a modification has been made, how can you expect all comms to be able to make a choice as to what is/is not safe? Manufacturers make products to certain standards, presumably altering their product might affect its performance in ways unknown.

Again, people make lots of criticism without making viable alternatives. No regulation just isn't viable as races won't receive approval from relevant authorities (police, govt authorities etc).

I've just taken a look at the British Cycling regs and the bike check does appear to have disappeared. It must have been in the regs at some point as I raced in Merseyside, Cheshire, Kent and Surrey and remember the checks taking place cetainly in the 70s and 80s. What I do notice in the regs is that British Cycling has obviously adopted the UCI equipment regs, and in these the UCI states that it is not liable for anything that might go wrong due to equipment failing. So there are no safety checks, and if anything goes wrong it's up to the rider.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I've just taken a look at the British Cycling regs and the bike check does appear to have disappeared. It must have been in the regs at some point as I raced in Merseyside, Cheshire, Kent and Surrey and remember the checks taking place cetainly in the 70s and 80s. What I do notice in the regs is that British Cycling has obviously adopted the UCI equipment regs, and in these the UCI states that it is not liable for anything that might go wrong due to equipment failing. So there are no safety checks, and if anything goes wrong it's up to the rider.

It's tricky. An official might not be able to save someone from themselves, but there are others involved in a race too. If a field came down when a comm knew a rider had potentially unsafe equipment and did nothing, that's still a failure of duty of care, and it's more than just the rider that's in strife.

Bike checks tend to happen here based on available commissaire resources. It's a lower priority task than others, so gets done only where resources permit. Sometimes only obvious things are picked up by starter or clerk right before start time.

 

[Hawkwood]

It's tricky. An official might not be able to save someone from themselves, but there are others involved in a race too. If a field came down when a comm knew a rider had potentially unsafe equipment and did nothing, that's still a failure of duty of care, and it's more than just the rider that's in strife.

Bike checks tend to happen here based on available commissaire resources. It's a lower priority task than others, so gets done only where resources permit. Sometimes only obvious things are picked up by starter or clerk right before start time.

I agree it's tricky. I guess in today's world the person, or persons doing any such check would have to have some sort of technical competence. I suppose BC by not running the checks, but saying that it is the rider's responsibility to check his/her own equipment, is trying to avoid any liability. I suppose the lawyers have looked at this one and have said do not do anything that might suggest you have cleared a bicycle as being safe.

In the good old days I remember big, burly bike inspectors attempting to lever my carefully glued on tubs off the rims!

Also if BC did require these checks to be operated again it would still try to cover itself

 

[zigmeister]

Don't get me started on `filing off fork drop-out safety lugs' it's the most stupid rule of all time. Seeing mechanics having to wind up quick release skewers makes me want to punch whichever official came out with this pathetic regulation! I don't care whether Martin had non-slip material on his saddle or not, tweaking bikes has been part of the sport from day one, please let's not go down the golf route to doom by regulation.

Yes, 3 extra turns of the skewer nut is causing all sorts of havoc in the Peloton...eyes roll.

TS, the modification was "no modification of equipment that is not conducted by the manufacturer is authorised ...""

....performed by the manufacturer...

So you just get Specialized at their HQ/facility to make some changes to anything, and it is technically modified by the manufacturer..see no problems at all!!

Shady, toeing the line etc...?? Yes...

 

[Hawkwood]

Yes, 3 extra turns of the skewer nut is causing all sorts of havoc in the Peloton...eyes roll.

`3 extra turns of the skewer nut....' try saying that to Geraint Thomas after today's Commonwealth Games road race, actually don't there might be a painful outcome

 

[Granville57]

`3 extra turns of the skewer nut....' try saying that to Geraint Thomas after today's Commonwealth Games road race, actually don't there might be a painful outcome

I was wondering exactly the same when watching that seemingly slow-motion wheel change.

"Every second counts," I believe is the expression.

 

[Hawkwood]

I was wondering exactly the same when watching that seemingly slow-motion wheel change.

"Every second counts," I believe is the expression.

Imagine a wheel change like this in a time trial where the outcome is crucial to the result of a tour.

 

[zigmeister]

`3 extra turns of the skewer nut....' try saying that to Geraint Thomas after today's Commonwealth Games road race, actually don't there might be a painful outcome

My original post was related to the 3 turns extra and the team's complaint that it takes 5-10 extra seconds to get a wheel changed due to that.

Furthermore, whether it takes a few extra turns of the skewer or not, a mechanic who incorrectly installs the wheel and doesn't close it properly has nothing to do with lawyer tabs. Filed off or not, you can still not correctly install a skewer and the wheel will fall off with or without them. 2mm of "tabs" isn't the problem here.

What is the method and procedure required for tightening seat posts/saddles/pedals/levers???? They should really ensure that all components that can cause risks/hazards to anybody then are implemented, then they of course need to examine, put the torque wrench on everything. Like NASCAR.

We can just apply the same logic/thought to any component arbitrarily that can cause a potential hazard.

 

[Hawkwood]

My original post was related to the 3 turns extra and the team's complaint that it takes 5-10 extra seconds to get a wheel changed due to that.

Furthermore, whether it takes a few extra turns of the skewer or not, a mechanic who incorrectly installs the wheel and doesn't close it properly has nothing to do with lawyer tabs. Filed off or not, you can still not correctly install a skewer and the wheel will fall off with or without them. 2mm of "tabs" isn't the problem here.

What is the method and procedure required for tightening seat posts/saddles/pedals/levers???? They should really ensure that all components that can cause risks/hazards to anybody then are implemented, then they of course need to examine, put the torque wrench on everything. Like NASCAR.

We can just apply the same logic/thought to any component arbitrarily that can cause a potential hazard.

What I'm getting at is that according to a UCI official there wasn't a problem with wheels dropping out to begin with, he had a vague idea that one might have come out once (I checked as far as I could and this example appeared to be the fork ends breaking off), so why legislate for a problem that doesn't exist? I would prefer the regulations to be based on risk assessments, and not on US and EU consumer legislation aimed mainly at people who have no mechanial expertise whatsoever.

 

[avanti]

.......... I would prefer the regulations to be based on risk assessments, and not on US and EU consumer legislation aimed mainly at people who have no mechanial expertise whatsoever.

Sadly I often see bikes with the QR installed incorrectly - mostly riders using the QR more like the old wing nuts or riding with the levers sticking out at an angle.

 

[Hawkwood]

Sadly I often see bikes with the QR installed incorrectly - mostly riders using the QR more like the old wing nuts or riding with the levers sticking out at an angle.

Me too, but I very much doubt you'd ever see this happening on a pro's bike. In an earlier post I wondered whether it would be possible to develop a quick release that had very clear indicators of locked and unlocked. And cycle safety lessons at school included demonstrations of how to use a quick release.