• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!

tour de luxembourg 18-22 september 2024

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
No: it is one of the three permitted "points of support": not all of them need to be maintained at all times. If someone chose to ride the entire race out of the saddle, the rules would not be broken. But torso on toptube is not a permitted point of support, and not is forearms/chest on handlebars.
So if he rode that descent in virtually the same position ( with butt contact) but used his arms and core to keep his chest a centimeter above the bars he’d be legal?
This is the trouble with creating rules that are so artificial and unjustified ( not based on data)—it puts officials in the ridiculous position of having to get out rulers to measure sock length.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmdirt
So if he rode that descent in virtually the same position ( with butt contact) but used his arms and core to keep his chest a centimeter above the bars he’d be legal?
This is the trouble with creating rules that are so artificial and unjustified (not based on data)—it puts officials in the ridiculous position of having to get out rulers to measure sock length.

Not my role to try to defend the UCI, but I cannot see how such a rule could be based on data. Specifying what are and are not permitted points of contact seems just about the only objective way to legislate on the matter.
 
So if he rode that descent in virtually the same position ( with butt contact) but used his arms and core to keep his chest a centimeter above the bars he’d be legal?
This is the trouble with creating rules that are so artificial and unjustified ( not based on data)—it puts officials in the ridiculous position of having to get out rulers to measure sock length.
Let's make cycling like figure skating and NBA foul calls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sciatic
Not my role to try to defend the UCI, but I cannot see how such a rule could be based on data. Specifying what are and are not permitted points of contact seems just about the only objective way to legislate on the matter.
The data would be statistics showing that descending position contributed to more, and more (% wise) injurious crashes on race descents than other descending positions used in the same circumstances. I think they just used the “eye test” to determine it’s more risky, without any other proofs.
Creating artificial rules, they can show they’re doing something about rider safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berniece

TRENDING THREADS