Time Trial Bikes

[Big GMaC]

There has been debate in a number of threads whether or not specialised TT bikes should be allowed for use in stage races, because of technological differences amounting to equipment 'doping', cost limitations for smaller manufacturers and teams meaning an unleveling of the playing field and a host of other variables

This thread to get all of the disscussion in one place and to see different member's opinions.

(maybe this should be in the Gear section, but I have put it here due to the current issue in the subject b/c UCI ruling on the Shiv and debate in other Pro-Cyling threads)

I HAVE REALISED OPTIONS 1 & 4 ARE BASICALLY THE SAME. CAN A MODERATOR FIX THIS BY DELETING OPTION 1?

 

[Ripper]

I am split. On one side, I really like the innovations of the TT bike, seeing the top pros use top technology, and the trickle down effect it can have for everyone else.

On the other side, I really find the use of high end TT bikes in non-pro events to be a bit of a shame. While most decent riders can remember blasting past at least one person on a fancy TT rig, I have seen numerous stage races decided because the top 2 riders had $10k machines, and the 3rd place rider (who had been leading prior to the TT) was riding a standard road bike with clip on bars (the time differences were pretty tight).

It can be a hard line to draw, you do not want to stifle innovation, but you don't just want people to buy 2-4 minutes on a TT either.

As a side note, the UCI tech group should take some of their rules, such as no upward tilt to the handlebars, saddle 5 cm behind the bb, etc, and stuff them up their a**es.

 

[craig1985]

Keep it the way it is. Otherwise why not just go back to the bike that Rene Pottier used to win the TdF.

 

[rgmerk]

Keep it the way it is. Otherwise why not just go back to the bike that Rene Pottier used to win the TdF.

Well, why not make it open slather and allow faired recumbents in TTs?

The situation at the moment is that bike companies are spending millions of dollars every year to try to subvert the intentions of the regulations, to a) sell more very expensive TT bikes, and b) give the riders of their pro teams an advantage over the rest of the field. Personally, I find this kind of game annoying and wasteful.

On another point, if there was a decision to ban TT bikes, you'd also have to impose a regulation requiring riders to use same frame design on all stages of a race (with discretion allowed if the rider cannot obtain an identical replacement, a possibility for smaller races). Otherwise, riders and teams with sufficient resources would do TTs on "road bikes" that meet the road bike regs, but have been optimized for fitting with aero bars and being used in TTs and wouldn't make a good general-purpose road bike for mass start racing.

The upshot of these regulations would likely be that aero road bikes would become standard issue for stage races with TTs, at least for the GC contenders.

 

[aermet]

I feel that the UCI is like a good ole boy network of relics stuck in the stone ages with regards to some of the rules in place trying to keep things "the way they were".
While the intent of the rules was understandable at a certain point in time, they have failed to adapt and accept that technology changes and at this point, they are enforcing outdated rules for the sake of the rules without a vision of the potential positives brought on by new technology/shapes/bikes. Competition encourages innovation and new design, usually resulting in improvements that affect the industry and eventually trickle down to what is available to consumers. Imagine if there were a rule 20 years ago stating that integrated brake/shifters were an aid or advantage, everyone has been shifting the good ole' way for 30 years and.....-well no kidding, but everyone gets to use them and it's a level playing field because of that.
I say maintain rules and perform destructive testing of components to ensure that the chase for a 200g wheelset, for example, does not result in unsafe wheels. But a person pedals a bike, and body position accounts for the majority of aero drag. The fairing in contention surely must be behind body position, wheels, helmet, how low one can turtle their neck, etc, etc with regards to aerodynamic drag. Surely one could argue that skinsuits with dimples are an aerodynamic aid, or that the integrated eye shields on helmets are an aid versus regular sunglasses. Turning tt bikes into faired recumbents? Maybe that's a little too relaxed, but get on with the times.

I for one like the system in formula 1 where it seems that sensible evaluation and changes are implemented on a yearly basis and where the racing has been the most exciting in years.
I must admit that I do personally enjoy the technology and that prices for bikes and components could become even more expensive than the already ridiculous prices that are already out there, but the consumer will dictate what they are ready and willing to spend and thus will ultimately impact just how much of the expensive technology is available to the public. I rode my first several tt's on a road bike with borrowed bolt on aero bars. Would it have really mattered if I was on the new specialized tt bike? Not nearly as much as how smartly I rode the previous road race stage, or how smart or how much I'd trained. Let it run.

 

[fatandfast]

Because an ITT is a non mass start I think the UCI should drop the weight limit down to 10 pounds and drop all areo restrictions. Pro racers and their teams should be able to "risk" them selves for the sake of pure speed

 

[pedaling squares]

I like the idea of road bikes w/ aero bars, but I voted to let things stay the way they are. Innovation in the road bikes and and the TT bikes is good for the sport. It's up to the UCI to keep things within reasonable limits, although to be honest some of their rules seem reasonable, and some seem archaic.

 

[BroDeal]

I for one like the system in formula 1 where it seems that sensible evaluation and changes are implemented on a yearly basis and where the racing has been the most exciting in years.

Are you on crack? Formula 1 is a non-stop battle to prevent technology from overwhelming the racing. The FIA has failed completely as evidenced by last season, which was won by, perhaps, the worst driver to ever win the driver's championship simply because his car was overwhelmingly superior at the beginning of the season. Traction control is gone. Launch control is gone. Turbos are gone. Displacements continue to shrink. The rule changes are often arbitrary. Formula has suffered from mind numbingly boring races for years and years. The FIA continues to try to find the magic set of restrictions that will produce consistently exciting racing.

Auto racing is a prime example of how technological development starts out as being interesting, then sucks the life out of a sport, and finally has to be reigned in.

 

[rgmerk]

Pro racers and their teams should be able to "risk" them selves for the sake of pure speed.

No.

Grand Tours should be decided on the basis of which contender is prepared to emulate Jens Voigt's guts and determination, not his high-speed faceplant into the tarmac (or worse).

Cycle races are risky, sure. But allowing competitors to choose equipment that increases risk for extra speed is not on.

Formula One's approach to regulation doesn't have a whole lot to recommend it. But one thing they've done right since the 1970s is treat the drivers' safety as one thing teams are not allowed to compromise on in the name of winning races.

 

[deadly wombat]

It isn't only in ITT that bike development makes a difference all of the small aero changes and improvements made to standard road race bikes over the last few years, must make as much an advantage in a break as in a time trial, those teams with large bike manufacture backing will always have an advantage in superior equipment. Without this it would be pointless for manufacturers to even be in the sport and investing millions in showing off what there bikes are capable of

 

[karlboss]

A few good points. On F1 remember that rules can be renewed annually and they only effect the teams, who build a new car every year anyway. Reviewing and adding a rule to make previously legal bikes illegal isn't fair to manufacturers who try to sell replicas to customers. Look at the SHIV. Investment has been made, engineers, research and design time, tunnel time, impact testing, fatigue testing, prototyping and tooling for mass production...the UCI give it a tick...and then later when it is finally available for customers to buy and for that cost to be recovered...not legal now. Specialized can probably deal with this, but what if it were a smaller company, or a company looking to get a start?

Most TT bikes are over 6.8kg/15lbs anyway so lowering to 10lbs wouldn't make a difference. For safety fatigue tests seem a good idea, but the weight is also, this should mean that manufacturers can aim for strength rather than low weight.

 

[unsheath]

If it aint broke...

 

[taiwan]

I think it's a good idea to only use road bikes, but without restrictions on bars, wheels. If a stage race is outside Europe It's less equipment for teams to carry (I guess the Tour of Oman barred TT bike for this reason). It leaves the playing field more level, of pro and pro continental/ continental teams are participating in a race. Manufacturers don't have to produce bikes for a small market of TTers, and can just make aero bikes for triathalon (I think there are small differences in regulations that mean these bikes aren't the same). Some succesful manufactuers of TT bikes may lose out, though.

 

[Potomac]

For a stage race, I think the same bike should be used for the entire race. If a rider needs to change bikes during a stage due to mechanicals or crash then the replacement should be the same model.

Furthermore, an entire team should be allocated a finite amount of hardware for the race to be shared among the team.

If you break too many chains, for example, then you start losing riders.
Rims, spokes, tires, frames, shoes, seats, water bottle cages, gears, you name it there should be a limit on the numbers.

 

[Oldman]

A few good points. On F1 remember that rules can be renewed annually and they only effect the teams, who build a new car every year anyway. Reviewing and adding a rule to make previously legal bikes illegal isn't fair to manufacturers who try to sell replicas to customers. Look at the SHIV. Investment has been made, engineers, research and design time, tunnel time, impact testing, fatigue testing, prototyping and tooling for mass production...the UCI give it a tick...and then later when it is finally available for customers to buy and for that cost to be recovered...not legal now. Specialized can probably deal with this, but what if it were a smaller company, or a company looking to get a start?

Most TT bikes are over 6.8kg/15lbs anyway so lowering to 10lbs wouldn't make a difference. For safety fatigue tests seem a good idea, but the weight is also, this should mean that manufacturers can aim for strength rather than low weight.

All good points and keeping in mind that our small market sport needs the bike sponsors. If there is a cap on innovation that will all go away. Personally I think the zenith of development may be a well handling tire that doesn't go flat.
As for 10 lb bikes...the pros don't pay for their rides but I'll bet the bulk of purchases are made by folks that would be better off losing 5 lbs and saving a few thousand bucks, too.

 

[BroDeal]

All good points and keeping in mind that our small market sport needs the bike sponsors. If there is a cap on innovation that will all go away.

No, it won't. Bike sponsors don't fund teams to do development. They fund teams for branding. Without the hype that a near useless innovation is superior to another maker's near useless innovation, branding and association with pro teams could become even more important. It could increase sponsorship.

 

[Oldman]

No, it won't. Bike sponsors don't fund teams to do development. They fund teams for branding. Without the hype that a near useless innovation is superior to another maker's near useless innovation, branding and association with pro teams could become even more important. It could increase sponsorship.

Current amateur teams in our region benefit from either direct bike allocations or subsidized pricing. This is vital to the local team's development particularly because most squads put the bikes in the hands of the rider's that have the least resource$. If you mean Product Development; that too occurs here as we have several component manufacturer's that desire real world testing before a new item is released. In some cases the technologies involved are brand new, as well. I wouldn't say bikes from major brands fall into the catagory for testing.
Not to say this condition exists everywhere but I think the SoCal market is vital on this count as well.

Are we talking about the same thing?

 

[ustabe]

I'm split. On one hand I'd like to see all this technical mumbo-jumbo take a back seat. I'm nostalgic for the good old days when a time trial bike was the team standard issue with 28-spoke wheels, 280 g rims, and track silks. On the other hand, it would be embarrassing that if pros were compelled to use this rig, they would be slower than most of the top triathletes.

So I'll reluctantly vote for progress.