Lesser known races 2025 edition

[Cycling111]

Since Remco announced his departure, Soudal hasn´t stopped winning races .

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Final

1	HAYTER Ethan		16.56,0	16.55,96	53.2
2	SÖDERQVIST Jakob		0.03,9	16.59,83	53.0
3	LAPORTE Christophe		0.15,5	17.11,50	52.4
4	SEGAERT Alec		0.16,5	17.12,41	52.4
5	HOOLE Daan		0.18,4	17.14,35	52.3
6	TRATNIK Jan		0.25,1	17.21,07	51.9
7	LAMPAERT Yves		0.25,6	17.21,54	51.9
8	LEMMEN Bart		0.27,1	17.23,09	51.8
9	FRISON Frederik		0.37,5	17.33,44	51.3
10	TEUTENBERG Tim Torn		0.39,5	17.35,43	51.2

Hayter with a negative split.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Did hayter personally design the route for this race ?

 

[Tim Cahill]

Did hayter personally design the route for this race ?

They're doing the omnium stage tomorrow, elimination race perfect for *** around at the back the entire time.

6 wins for Ethan this season, matching the total of the Golden Helmet himself. The team is in good hands.

 

[staubsauger]

This was actually a thrilling TT to watch. Nice course over small roads. Lots of twists and turns. Decent coverage which made you follow a race rather than just seeing random shots of riders on a TT bike.

Already was surprised to see Laporte beating the strong time of Hoole. Then Hayter against Söderqvist was thrilling till the end.

Now the strongest team on paper is in pursuit with Lidl. Let's hope that guarantees some exciting racing in Limburg & Drenthe before the final around Arnhem!

 

[Squire]

Since Remco announced his departure, Soudal hasn´t stopped winning races .

#FreeWolfpack!

 

[Red Rick]

Surprised to see people backing the UCI over DQ'ing Van 't Schip, considering the team is claiming the saddle was UCI approved before and now they're backtracking.

But ofcourse it's a horrendous offense to have an ugly looking bike so playing by thy own rules shall not matter.

 

[tobydawq]

Surprised to see people backing the UCI over DQ'ing Van 't Schip, considering the team is claiming the saddle was UCI approved before and now they're backtracking.

But ofcourse it's a horrendous offense to have an ugly looking bike so playing by thy own rules shall not matter.

Surprised to see you take the opposing opinion of the majority.

That bike was ridiculous, there's no way it was not breaking rules.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

So does the rider's forward pressure make that flap drop, or is the countdown to the release of the flap mechanism? If the latter, then is the release triggered by the official reaching zero, or is he trying to synchronise with a mechanism beyond his control (he looked to be looking at a clock or other gadget)?

Either way, seemed quite naff.

 

[Red Rick]

Surprised to see you take the opposing opinion of the majority.

That bike was ridiculous, there's no way it was not breaking rules.

That's like a combination of 3 fallacies in one go, almost a jackpot.

Ad hominem, ad populum, and ignoratio elenchi. Most here are arguing the 2nd one.

Looking ridiculous is not cause for disqualification, as Visma's TT helmets are still a thing. So what I implied was the suggestion that people actually cite the specific reason for a DQ, rather than give in to echochamber rhetoric.

 

[staubsauger]

Surprised to see people backing the UCI over DQ'ing Van 't Schip, considering the team is claiming the saddle was UCI approved before and now they're backtracking.

But ofcourse it's a horrendous offense to have an ugly looking bike so playing by thy own rules shall not matter.

I agree with everything Bobbie Traksel said about it at the start of the Eurosport coverage!

Wouldn't even surprise me if later on the disqualification gets declared unjustified, because Van Schip indeed can show that his setup has been given okay by the UCI before. But by that time of course the / his Tour of Holland is already over.

 

[Brullnux]

Surprised to see people backing the UCI over DQ'ing Van 't Schip, considering the team is claiming the saddle was UCI approved before and now they're backtracking.

But ofcourse it's a horrendous offense to have an ugly looking bike so playing by thy own rules shall not matter.

The bike is clearly unsafe.

We don't have bike measurements but I'd be shocked if the handlebars are within 100mm of the front wheel axis, and that's without getting into the angle of the hoods etc.

Besides, the purpose of these technical regulations is safety. If van Schip thinks he's found a loophole then he should talk to the UCI directly, not race on a bike that endangers everyone else around him. It's a selfish gimmick. There's some justification to DQ-ing plainly unsafe bikes that fall outside of the remit of the regs, frankly.

 

[ChasingPotatoes]

The bike is clearly unsafe.

We don't have bike measurements but I'd be shocked if the handlebars are within 100mm of the front wheel axis, and that's without getting into the angle of the hoods etc.

Besides, the purpose of these technical regulations is safety. If van Schip thinks he's found a loophole then he should talk to the UCI directly, not race on a bike that endangers everyone else around him. It's a selfish gimmick. There's some justification to DQ-ing plainly unsafe bikes that fall outside of the remit of the regs, frankly.

There is no evidence it’s unsafe, as these kind of setups have been raced by van schip for years.
And he has written approval from the uci so it must be that the measurements are ok (in his case he can probably get exemptions as well, with his 1.94m height).

So in short, what exactly was your point and arguments?

It seems everybody agrees the bike is not safe. I personally think (but not sure if he breaks any current rule with that) his handlebars are simply to narrow. That’s subjective though:

Simply having an ugly bike with a very narrow handlebar, a kink in the seatpost and the endless stem doesn’t make it necessarily dangerous nor illegal, especially given his DS explicitly said they have all the approvals (after earlier UCI scrutiny) from the past few years.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

UCI better shut down these homegrown innovation attempts as soon as they come along. The sport has a horrible history of this stuff making headlines. Recall Moser back in 1988 beating the 1h record on the track:

 

[Brullnux]

There is no evidence it’s unsafe, as these kind of setups have been raced by van schip for years.
And he has written approval from the uci so it must be that the measurements are ok (in his case he can probably get exemptions as well, with his 1.94m height).

So in short, what exactly was your point and arguments?

It seems everybody agrees the bike is not safe. I personally think (but not sure if he breaks any current rule with that) his handlebars are simply to narrow. That’s subjective though:

Simply having an ugly bike with a very narrow handlebar, a kink in the seatpost and the endless stem doesn’t make it necessarily dangerous nor illegal, especially given his DS explicitly said they have all the approvals (after earlier UCI scrutiny) from the past few years.

The bike is unsafe as van Schip in that position has limited control over the bike. It's the same reason why TT bars are banned, even the triathlon ones which have brake levers. It's hard to manoeuvre that bike, especially within a peloton and with corners. It's really quite simple.

As to the claims 'he has written approval for the bike' – we have no proof of this. For all we know, van Schip got approval for a bike with different measurements to the one he used. Given his record and penchant for these stunts, this wouldn't exactly be surprising.

Just looking at the photos posted of the bike on X and here, there are obviously questions regarding the flare of the handlebars, the width between the brake hoods and whether the most forward tip of the handlebars is within 100mm of the front wheel axis.

I don't understand why people are rushing to defend him. He's used a barely maneuverable bike in a mass start race, and attacked to get TV coverage for it. If someone turned up to a crit with that bike people would be annoyed, and rightly so.

 

[Brullnux]

Apparently it was the seatpost they got him for, no sense of humour at all!

Are you really telling me there's less than 10cm between the front wheel axis and the very front of the handlebars? Assuming the wheel is 700c, then that looks like 15cm+

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Apparently it was the seatpost they got him for, no sense of humour at all!

My god what on earth is this absolute monstrosity.

 

[Mayomaniac]

I mean, he could just go for a negative/forward offset seatpost and a more reasonable stem length like a normal person, but he always tries to game the system somehow.
Also funny to use such an big upwards angle stem with a bikeframe that is known for it's rather low stack height (like many bikes mainly designed for the Asian market) and with no spacers.

 

[Red Rick]

The bike is clearly unsafe.

We don't have bike measurements but I'd be shocked if the handlebars are within 100mm of the front wheel axis, and that's without getting into the angle of the hoods etc.

Besides, the purpose of these technical regulations is safety. If van Schip thinks he's found a loophole then he should talk to the UCI directly, not race on a bike that endangers everyone else around him. It's a selfish gimmick. There's some justification to DQ-ing plainly unsafe bikes that fall outside of the remit of the regs, frankly.

Well even if it's unsafe and you DQ it, you need to be able to cite a specific rule it violates. If an organisation cannot be relied upon to follow it's own rules, then the rules don't matter anymore.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

China, stage 4 tomorrow:

Can't believe noon is able to drop Magnier along this route.

 

[ChasingPotatoes]

The bike is unsafe as van Schip in that position has limited control over the bike. It's the same reason why TT bars are banned, even the triathlon ones which have brake levers. It's hard to manoeuvre that bike, especially within a peloton and with corners. It's really quite simple.

As to the claims 'he has written approval for the bike' – we have no proof of this. For all we know, van Schip got approval for a bike with different measurements to the one he used. Given his record and penchant for these stunts, this wouldn't exactly be surprising.

Just looking at the photos posted of the bike on X and here, there are obviously questions regarding the flare of the handlebars, the width between the brake hoods and whether the most forward tip of the handlebars is within 100mm of the front wheel axis.

I don't understand why people are rushing to defend him. He's used a barely maneuverable bike in a mass start race, and attacked to get TV coverage for it. If someone turned up to a crit with that bike people would be annoyed, and rightly so.

I know first hand some riders weren't happy with Van Schip, but more so because they find it an unfair advantage (and it is, for sure, an advantage, whether it's unfair, see below).

There are some points here I would like to separate:
1. It's ugly. I think we all agree. But that's not the reason for allowing / not allowing this blasphemy of a bike setup.

2. It's dangerous. I said there is no evidence it's unsafe, but I admit that's just based on the fact Van Schip himself hasn't crashed (that we know off) with this set up / because of this set up. So we simply don't know, we only know that there hasn't been an incident. Would this be different if Van Schip raced more on the road (he isn't very active in road racing)? Or if the whole peloton raced with this set up? Or is it truly dangerous and would an accident just be around the corner waiting (and now prevented by his DSQ)? We don't know. But one cannot claim, at the moment, it is dangerous. One can only suspect it doesn't improve safety and will likely decrease safety. Whether that's a decrease that's unacceptable... I leave that out there. I know from own experience that narrow bars (I ride one bike with a 38cm and one with a 36cm, coming from 40 and 42cm before) hasn't changed anything for me in terms of handling the bike.

3. It's forbidden. That's the thing... His DS (mr. Tabak) says, and I quote from wielerflits: "His seatpost is deemed not to meet UCI requirements, but he's been riding with it for a number of years and has documentation that it is permitted." https://www.wielerflits.be/nieuws/v...ificatie-hij-heeft-goedgekeurde-documentatie/
So according to his DS, the race jury was fine with Van Schip. The order to DSQ, came directly from Switzerland / the head office. Once can ask himself if it was Lappartient himself who choked in his afternoon tea when he saw Van Schip attacking, live, on TV, and ordered an immediate ban, even though his own UCI approved jury in the race admitted Van Schip. So is it forbidden? Or is it allowed, but is the UCI re-interpreting rules on the fly, and how fair is that towards a rider in a stage race?

Am I sympathising? Yes, sort of: I think Van Schip is a lone wolf, an outlaw, who tries to stretch the boundaries of the rules. I sympathise with these kind of guys. But I'm OK with banning these kind of set ups, because I'm sure it gives him an (unfair) advantage. But let's not forget that Van Schip is very, very tall, for a cyclist. I don't know the details, but I have read somewhere that extremely small or big riders get exceptions from certain rules. So I would think Van Schip used that to his advantage. But he maybe went a bit too far.

 

[KZD]

Hayter finding some good legs in this last part of the season, good TT from Söderqvist too but not enough to keep the lead.

 

[GenericBoonenFan]

I agree with the fact that the bike is "interesting" since I don't think it's ugly.
But it's completely *** ridiculous that you can ride around on a legal bike and at any point the UCI can use their absolute power to disqualify someone because they use a legal innovation they don't *** like.

Absolute autocratic power hungry organisation.

And if they were really that worried about safety, Furrer would still be alive
Hypocrits

/end rant