The much needed UCI loller thread

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
So, should lips be allowed on the bike or should that be banned for safety reasons, the same as supertuck, for fans not to kiss their bikes while still riding it?
 
UCI has plenty of warning about planned protests according to CN story.. The Giro went off mostly trouble free, let's see if bigger events, bigger TV and media audiences create opportunities..
 
Wyndbrook said:
All sound reasonable to me.
Click to expand...

You believe that limiting the size of onboard computer is saftey related issue? How do F1 riders manage that?

Look, i have no problem if equipment must follow some technical guidelines, for whatever reasons involved. But citing safety is moot. If you do that then you at least need to provide some data, how many riders crashed due to cognitive load their onboard computer caused. Was it one, was it 10, how much? Where is the data. Without the data and being obvious, such measures are just mocking rider safety.

Netserk said:
ban the headunits in races
Click to expand...

In terms of cognitive load i am sure that indeed information over this channel exceeds cognitive load of an onboard computer by multiple times.
 
CyclistAbi said:
You believe that limiting the size of onboard computer is saftey related issue? How do F1 riders manage that?

Look, i have no problem if equipment must follow some technical guidelines, for whatever reasons involved. But citing safety is moot. If you do that then you at least need to provide some data, how many riders crashed due to cognitive load their onboard computer caused. Was it one, was it 10, how much? Where is the data. Without the data and being obvious, such measures are just mocking rider safety.



In terms of cognitive load i am sure that indeed information over this channel exceeds cognitive load of an onboard computer by multiple times.
Click to expand...
Calm down a bit, I said it sounds reasonable, I did not mention safely. Just hate the thought of bigger units on handlebars. Soon be 50" widescreens.
 
Netserk said:
ban the headunits in races
Click to expand...
Track style rules, you can put them at the back to gather data for further analysis after the race, bot not on the stem.
Also only a neutral race radio for safety communicatiobs and to communicate gaps/race situations.
 
Wyndbrook said:
Calm down a bit, I said it sounds reasonable, I did not mention safely. Just hate the thought of bigger units on handlebars. Soon be 50" widescreens.
Click to expand...

I mean why would i calm down. Nobody believes this are safety related measures and they constantly get pushed through like they are. And then on the road we see what the result in terms of safety is.

Time to calm down is way past due. That is likely on why parties involved now don't even bother any more they just go ahead and sue UCI. I guess time has now come to do that for damages and to seek liability, due to neglecting riders safety. Or what other options are there?
 
CyclistAbi said:
www.cyclingnews.com

New UCI rules require finishing straights of 'at least 200 meters' in bunch sprints

Governing body's rule change effective from July 1
www.cyclingnews.com www.cyclingnews.com

Finally a rule that could actually make some sense?
Click to expand...
What does it mean that the rule enters into effect on July 1? If a race route has already been designed and approved and does not comply to the new rule, do they need to change it?

And what does it mean bunch sprint stage? How hard and how far from the finish shall the last ramp be for the stage not to be a bunch sprint?

The article mentions that the finish at Napoli where rain on the cobbles created chaos would not be affected by this rule as the last turn was more than 300m away from the line, so this looks like a fake attempt at solving something.
 
ice&fire said:
And what does it mean bunch sprint stage? How hard and how far from the finish shall the last ramp be for the stage not to be a bunch sprint?
Click to expand...
i assume its about stages designated as expected to finish in a bunch sprint where the 3 " rule is in effect
 
Potomac said:
Not really loller material.
Click to expand...

I mean they deserve some slack, if getting something right. This time hence the lol is on us.

ice&fire said:
What does it mean that the rule enters into effect on July 1? If a race route has already been designed and approved and does not comply to the new rule, do they need to change it?

And what does it mean bunch sprint stage? How hard and how far from the finish shall the last ramp be for the stage not to be a bunch sprint?

The article mentions that the finish at Napoli where rain on the cobbles created chaos would not be affected by this rule as the last turn was more than 300m away from the line, so this looks like a fake attempt at solving something.
Click to expand...

I don't like it either, that is there always needs to be sensible transition time for adaptations to be made. So likely such changes should target next season. As for 200m or more. I guess you have to start somewhere. This can get extended in the future if data would back it up. So i wouldn't say it doesn't solve anything, what is currently does is it somewhat guarantees 200m of flat straight road in bunch sprint stages finales and that i guess is something. Organiser now has to take that into consideration. I don't feel this will be applied for MTF sprinting or similar.
 
yaco said:
Having races in any country could be bad if you want to do a deep dive.
Click to expand...
the way the wc was bad for the sport was in particular down to its host

if you think any host can be bad , then why single out a specific one and claim that it can only be good
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

Back
Top