• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

New Jerseys - 2022 Season - TeamKits-Maillots-Tricots-Tenues

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sure, that'd work well enough for situations where a team's regular kit is similar to the leader's jersey in a race - like Jumbo-Visma in the Tour - but what about cases like the Great Beachy Fade Kerfuffle? (The people at CyclingTips came up with that, I can't claim credit) That's three teams, all with very similar design, that are frequently going to be racing against each other. Who should be allowed to wear the regular kit? Should they take turns?
And its not like soccer where it's 2 teams. Most likely the away kit would then clash with some other team in the race
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedheadDane
p1020513.jpeg
First kit of the year I have loved. Love that flamenco dancer pose too
 
  • Love
Reactions: noob
Sure, that'd work well enough for situations where a team's regular kit is similar to the leader's jersey in a race - like Jumbo-Visma in the Tour - but what about cases like the Great Beachy Fade Kerfuffle? (The people at CyclingTips came up with that, I can't claim credit) That's three teams, all with very similar design, that are frequently going to be racing against each other. Who should be allowed to wear the regular kit? Should they take turns?

They need a 'can do' attitude for it to work. Cycling is full of 'can't do' so nothing gets done. As I said, it needs a bit of thinking to come up with a solution, it's not rocket science. But of course, nothing will happen.......
 
They need a 'can do' attitude for it to work. Cycling is full of 'can't do' so nothing gets done. As I said, it needs a bit of thinking to come up with a solution, it's not rocket science. But of course, nothing will happen.......

1. If a team has a jersey that's very similar to the leader's jersey of a race, said team should be required to change their jersey for said race. This is already happening.

2. If four teams present almost identical jersey designs, the only team required to change should not be the team that first came up with the design. UCI needs to work on this one.

How would you determine "home" and "away" status anyway? Nationality? Then a team like Bahrain would never race in their home kit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and SHAD0W93
It shouldn't be beyond the wit of the UCI to require sketches by early November, so that they can say to 2 (or more) teams that are too similar "Sort this out between you, or we will tell you what colours you can feature." Still leaves time for kits to be made up for December reveals, and teams who have a late submission (change of sponsors or whatever) will be told what they must avoid.
Would require less than an afternoon's work for someone in Aigle to do this for all men's and women's teams in top 2 levels, and 15 minutes a week later to review any necessary resubmissions.
 
Luckily the Andy Schleck team succesfully managed to sell out their banned jerseys and 2021 kits, so hopefully the situation hasn't hurt them too much. But it's still a shame that the new kit looks quite bland in comparison, though black might stand out more now.

I think UAE and possibly SD Worx should have been forced to change their kits instead, because their 2020 kits looked less like their 2021 editions than AS and Rally/HPH's, although I know Boels-Dolmans had a sort of similar kit in the past. UAE or other teams that has sponsor/owner which is well known from the men's peloton should only get special treatment, if their proposed kit looks similar to their existing men's kit, which obviously wasn't the case here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noob and Sandisfan
I like this one so much better than the last two ones!!
It's not spectacular, but at least it's not that plain anymore.
But what's that? Are the lidl buttons gone?
I can only assume that Lidl is a too decent corporation to have enough of Lefevere's erratic behaviour and unpredictable public appearances which culminated this year with comments on Sam Bennett and so decided not to extend the partnership. Be it so or not, Lidl are gone as their sponsor...
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
Contract expired, that's it. Has nothing to do with PatLef so please keep your fantasies for yourself.
Current contract which expired was also an extension of the previous term, so its expiry this year does not mean it could not have been extended again. And it's clear that agreeing on an extension is always easier than a brand new contract. I'm sure the team would love to keep them, so the decision for not extending and discontinuing its association with team was Lidl's.

So while I have no evidence for my assumption, other then that it looked like someone powerful indeed did push Lefevere to correct his comments that one time, you know as little as I do about the reasoning in the background.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luthor