• 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!

Team Ineos Discussion thread

Page 46 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

A little guerilla marketing at the Tour de France? Castelli has been there, done that and are selling the t-shirt! :surprised:
Like Pinarello, Kask, Rapha, etc. etc. have found out ... "controversy" is free advertising and helps sell product,
and like it or not, my friends, that is what pro cycling is all about.
66547.jpg
 
Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

oldcrank said:
A little guerilla marketing at the Tour de France? Castelli has been there, done that and are selling the t-shirt! :surprised:
Like Pinarello, Kask, Rapha, etc. etc. have found out ... "controversy" is free advertising and helps sell product,
and like it or not, my friends, that is what pro cycling is all about.
66547.jpg
Could it be true that Team Sky themselves created the Skinsuit controversy? :lol: :lol:
Just kidding...
Cool Tees!
 
Re:

Brullnux said:
Grappe: “The rule is very clear. Any aerodynamic addition to the jersey is banned. Sky have clearly infringed.”

UCI/Race Jury: The pellets are “an actual part of the jersey”

Not the most convincing line of argument there
It is clear from the pictures that the patches were added. They may be stuck to the jersey in some way but they are not part of the fabric.
464cb520-5e7d-11e7-b60f-5909ede154f7_web_scale_0.0810185_0.0810185__.jpg

with the jury's argument, you could sew a CamelBak into the jersey or aerodynamic fins or wings and they'd be "part of the jersey".
 
Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

What is the exact wording of the rule?
BBC phrase it like this: International Cycling Union (UCI) regulations state that garments must not be adapted in any way beyond their use purely as clothing. The addition of any non-essential element or device to clothing is
prohibited.
Does anyone have the exact wording?

Grappe said: "According to studies, the estimated gain is about four to seven percent. It's huge."
I know he's not known to be the most reliable of sources, but is this true?

In any event, Nicolas Portal said other teams have been using it and "everybody knows" it is legal. "Everything has been validated. We would not take the risk to cheat and lose everything on the first day."
And Marien, race jury president, says it is an actual part of the jersey.

From the picture it isn't so clear if it is an actual part of the jersey or not.
And it is even unclear what "an actual part of the jersey" means.

So, basically, I am confused.
 
Re: Re:

LaFlorecita said:
Brullnux said:
Grappe: “The rule is very clear. Any aerodynamic addition to the jersey is banned. Sky have clearly infringed.”

UCI/Race Jury: The pellets are “an actual part of the jersey”

Not the most convincing line of argument there
It is clear from the pictures that the patches were added. They may be stuck to the jersey in some way but they are not part of the fabric.
464cb520-5e7d-11e7-b60f-5909ede154f7_web_scale_0.0810185_0.0810185__.jpg

with the jury's argument, you could sew a CamelBak into the jersey or aerodynamic fins or wings and they'd be "part of the jersey".

Flo, it was used by G.THoms and Kiry during the Giro 1st TT.
did anyone notice and asked questions?
it was used by Froome during the Dauphiné TT.

why people are asking about it just now?

doesnt it show a lack of attention?

are there more "July fans" than we thought?

where was Grappe when his FDJ riders raced alonside Thomas Kiry and Froome when they used it in May and June?
 
Re: Re:

TommyGun said:
jmdirt said:
So there is some question about Sky's vortex skin suits. I wonder if rain on the surface has any effect on the vortex or any fabric texture for that matter. I'm OK with dimples in the fabric, but the vortex generator appears to be added under the fabric (which is against the rules that have been posted so far).

EDIT: I'm not Sky hating here, this isn't their bad, they are just developing things to shave seconds. The UCI just needs to be very clear about rules and enforcement...oh wait, what am I saying?!

OK I have to ask: what is the problem exactly with 'Sky hating' ? Have they become so powerful that it is now politically incorrect to hate on Sky !!?? Jeeesus
This team is absolutely destroying cycling bit by bit, with their petty circumvolutions around the rules, and no one seems to give a damn. I am so over this ****.

Who said there is anything wrong with SKY hating? Who said he was being politically correct?
What on earth has this got to do with being politically correct. You are trying to conflate two independent narratives - that of jmdirt's opinion and political correctness. There is no evidence of a connection.

Jmdirt was simply pointing out that he was not SKY hating.
He never said there is a problem with SKY hating.
He never indicated he was being politically correct.
So calm down and argue on logic and facts, not feelings.
 
Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

Ruby United said:
What is the exact wording of the rule?
BBC phrase it like this: International Cycling Union (UCI) regulations state that garments must not be adapted in any way beyond their use purely as clothing. The addition of any non-essential element or device to clothing is
prohibited.
Does anyone have the exact wording?

Grappe said: "According to studies, the estimated gain is about four to seven percent. It's huge."
I know he's not known to be the most reliable of sources, but is this true?


In any event, Nicolas Portal said other teams have been using it and "everybody knows" it is legal. "Everything has been validated. We would not take the risk to cheat and lose everything on the first day."
And Marien, race jury president, says it is an actual part of the jersey.

From the picture it isn't so clear if it is an actual part of the jersey or not.
And it is even unclear what "an actual part of the jersey" means.

So, basically, I am confused.
The rule most are quoting (sometimes incorrectly :) ) is 1.3.033 on page 74:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/95/1-GEN-20170701-EN_English.pdf

I wonder if Grappe has done the calculations to see how much Kwia, who finished 3 sec. behind Froomey
in his Polish National Champs skinsuit without the new fabric, would have won by if he had been wearing
a sexy new Castelli SuperSuit? :)
 
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
LaFlorecita said:
Brullnux said:
Grappe: “The rule is very clear. Any aerodynamic addition to the jersey is banned. Sky have clearly infringed.”

UCI/Race Jury: The pellets are “an actual part of the jersey”

Not the most convincing line of argument there
It is clear from the pictures that the patches were added. They may be stuck to the jersey in some way but they are not part of the fabric.
464cb520-5e7d-11e7-b60f-5909ede154f7_web_scale_0.0810185_0.0810185__.jpg

with the jury's argument, you could sew a CamelBak into the jersey or aerodynamic fins or wings and they'd be "part of the jersey".

Flo, it was used by G.THoms and Kiry during the Giro 1st TT.
did anyone notice and asked questions?
it was used by Froome during the Dauphiné TT.

why people are asking about it just now?

doesnt it show a lack of attention?

are there more "July fans" than we thought?

where was Grappe when his FDJ riders raced alonside Thomas Kiry and Froome when they used it in May and June?

Compared to Giro and Dauphine, the other teams have to find excuses why Sky suddenly wiped their asses in TT. Which is kinda strange as save to maybe Thomas, there wasn't anything extraordinary on those time gaps. Porte and Contador were slower than expected mainly due the lack of risk taking.
 
Re: Team Sky Discussion thread

oldcrank said:
Ruby United said:
What is the exact wording of the rule?
BBC phrase it like this: International Cycling Union (UCI) regulations state that garments must not be adapted in any way beyond their use purely as clothing. The addition of any non-essential element or device to clothing is
prohibited.
Does anyone have the exact wording?

Grappe said: "According to studies, the estimated gain is about four to seven percent. It's huge."
I know he's not known to be the most reliable of sources, but is this true?


In any event, Nicolas Portal said other teams have been using it and "everybody knows" it is legal. "Everything has been validated. We would not take the risk to cheat and lose everything on the first day."
And Marien, race jury president, says it is an actual part of the jersey.

From the picture it isn't so clear if it is an actual part of the jersey or not.
And it is even unclear what "an actual part of the jersey" means.

So, basically, I am confused.
The rule most are quoting (sometimes incorrectly :) ) is 1.3.033 on page 74:
http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/18/23/95/1-GEN-20170701-EN_English.pdf

I wonder if Grappe has done the calculations to see how much Kwia, who finished 3 sec. behind Froomey
in his Polish National Champs skinsuit without the new fabric, would have won by if he had been wearing
a sexy new Castelli SuperSuit? :)
It is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the
performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider
(compression, stretching, support).
Items of clothing or equipment may be considered essential where weather conditions
make them appropriate for the safety or the health of the rider. In this case, the nature
and texture of the clothing or equipment must be clearly and solely justified by the need
to protect the rider from bad weather conditions. Discretion in this respect is left to the
race commissaires.
The use of shoe covers is prohibited during events on a covered track.
Equipment (helmets, shoes, jerseys, shorts, etc.) worn by the rider may not be adapted
to serve any other purpose apart from that of clothing or safety by the addition or
incorporation of mechanical or electronic systems which are not approved as technical
innovations under article 1.3.004.
(text modified on 1.01.02; 1.01.04; 1.04.07; 1.10.10; 1.02.12)
 
Mar 13, 2015
949
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
LaFlorecita said:
Brullnux said:
Grappe: “The rule is very clear. Any aerodynamic addition to the jersey is banned. Sky have clearly infringed.”

UCI/Race Jury: The pellets are “an actual part of the jersey”

Not the most convincing line of argument there
It is clear from the pictures that the patches were added. They may be stuck to the jersey in some way but they are not part of the fabric.
464cb520-5e7d-11e7-b60f-5909ede154f7_web_scale_0.0810185_0.0810185__.jpg

with the jury's argument, you could sew a CamelBak into the jersey or aerodynamic fins or wings and they'd be "part of the jersey".

Flo, it was used by G.THoms and Kiry during the Giro 1st TT.
did anyone notice and asked questions?
it was used by Froome during the Dauphiné TT.

why people are asking about it just now?

doesnt it show a lack of attention?

are there more "July fans" than we thought?

where was Grappe when his FDJ riders raced alonside Thomas Kiry and Froome when they used it in May and June?

Chris Boardman said it was technically against the rules on the ITV broadcast, so that could be a reason people are asking about it now
 
Re: Re:

deValtos said:
Leinster said:
Was Kwiatkowski wearing the black jersey yesterday (stage 2)? Any reason why he's kitted out different to the rest of the team?

Raincoat.
Had the rain jacket explanation in 2 places now, so I guess that's it. Surprised Sky didn't update the jacket with all their attention to detail, or does that suggest the whites are literally TdF-only, ONCE-style, and they'll be going back to black in August?
 
Re: Re:

Leinster said:
deValtos said:
Leinster said:
Was Kwiatkowski wearing the black jersey yesterday (stage 2)? Any reason why he's kitted out different to the rest of the team?

Raincoat.
Had the rain jacket explanation in 2 places now, so I guess that's it. Surprised Sky didn't update the jacket with all their attention to detail, or does that suggest the whites are literally TdF-only, ONCE-style, and they'll be going back to black in August?
Yes they are a Tour special edition
 
from Castelli :

from The UCI rule clearly states that non-essential items that improve aerodynamics cannot be added to clothing. But Smith says despite the appearance, the dimples are actually part of the fabric itself, not an addition. “The dimples are in the fabric, not on them,” he says. “The way the rules are written, we didn’t even think it would apply to what we were doing. The dimples do not fundamentally change the shape of the cyclist.” Smith wouldn’t reveal the process by which the dimples are formed.


Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2017/07/news/skys-skin-suit-illegal-probably-not-just-barely_442636#XXDMFIELIDStCw1A.99Castelli:
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

pastronef said:
LaFlorecita said:
Brullnux said:
Grappe: “The rule is very clear. Any aerodynamic addition to the jersey is banned. Sky have clearly infringed.”

UCI/Race Jury: The pellets are “an actual part of the jersey”

Not the most convincing line of argument there
It is clear from the pictures that the patches were added. They may be stuck to the jersey in some way but they are not part of the fabric.
464cb520-5e7d-11e7-b60f-5909ede154f7_web_scale_0.0810185_0.0810185__.jpg

with the jury's argument, you could sew a CamelBak into the jersey or aerodynamic fins or wings and they'd be "part of the jersey".

Flo, it was used by G.THoms and Kiry during the Giro 1st TT.
did anyone notice and asked questions?
it was used by Froome during the Dauphiné TT.

why people are asking about it just now?

doesnt it show a lack of attention?

are there more "July fans" than we thought?

where was Grappe when his FDJ riders raced alonside Thomas Kiry and Froome when they used it in May and June?

Good points.

But why, why, were there numbers for the supposed time gain these vortex generators could have created?

It makes zero sense for them to suddenly be pulled out of no where! Yet they were there.