UCI to ban supertuck descending starting April 1st.

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 26, 2017
220
42
3,080
Sagan on supertuck...
Inexact quote (I heard it on TV(.

"What can I say. Nobody (from UCI) asked me for my opinion.
I think it was a safe position. Now we will have to invent something else (another position) so that they (UCI) have something they can ban again. "
He was clearly not impressed by UCI :)
 
The point is probably to have the hands in the handlebar. If that fits the purpose I don't see a problem. So some good designs might come out from this.
Except they also banned tt style aero extensions, which would be the obvious design that allows you to keep your hands on the bar. The alternative would be super narrow hoods a la Van Schip, but those look brilliant and are less safe rather than more.
 
The UCI aren't stupid (whatever we may think of this decision). If people try and engineer around the issue they'll just ban it. They've done it many times before. I wouldn't even put it past them to ban riding on the tops and insist riders are always able to reach the brakes.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Oct 4, 2020
13
16
60
The website says these are designed within UCI rules

Within the current rules they appear to ok because they are not a clip on like the old spinach types were.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
No more drafting behind other riders. Minimum 2.5 meters of distance between the backwheel of the rider on the front and the frontwheel of the rider behind. This should be inspected by a UCI marshall in a motorcycle (sidecar, which must be at least 1.5 meter away from the moto driver) who must keep 3 meters away from the bunch at all times.
 
long ago i recall drop in bars being banned....once gone thry were nnever missed...

will be the same with the super-tuck...

forgive me if i'm making this up but i'm sure the UCI once banned raising hands in victory...
and no-one took ANY notice.......

forgive me if i'm again making this up but was the UCI not going to relax lower weight limit rule
with safer lightweight bikes being available....

surely there should be variable weight limit dependent upon frame size? obviously a beast like
ganna requires a stronger bike than a gnat sized climber?

Mark L
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The UCI aren't stupid (whatever we may think of this decision). If people try and engineer around the issue they'll just ban it. They've done it many times before. I wouldn't even put it past them to ban riding on the tops and insist riders are always able to reach the brakes.
The fact that they'll obviously ban any workarounds doesn't mean they're not stupid
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
surely there should be variable weight limit dependent upon frame size? obviously a beast like
ganna requires a stronger bike than a gnat sized climber?
That would be even more in the advantage of the light guys, and from your tone i get the idea you would rather have it the other way around (could be me).
I don't think there is any rule keeping Ganna from using a sturdier, heavier bike. But i'm sure his bike is sturdy enough. Having variable (minimum) weight limit, would enable the 55kg guys to ride with a lighter (since smaller) frame and even climb faster.
 
That would be even more in the advantage of the light guys, and from your tone i get the idea you would rather have it the other way around (could be me).
I don't think there is any rule keeping Ganna from using a sturdier, heavier bike. But i'm sure his bike is sturdy enough. Having variable (minimum) weight limit, would enable the 55kg guys to ride with a lighter (since smaller) frame and even climb faster.
thanks! it was not my thought to favour either.......just a logical response to a '1 size fits ALL
ruling'

Mark L
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS