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
225
44
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 *** 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
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.
 
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.
 
thanks! it was not my thought to favour either.......just a logical response to a '1 size fits ALL
ruling'

Mark L
The current rule does help heavier riders yet somehow we haven't had a TDF winner over 70kg since the 90s. Do we need to skew this sport even more towards the anorexics?

I'm not really sure what the true motivation for the rule is. If it's safety, that still doesn't mean Ganna needs a heavier bike than a climber. I've never seen anyone break a flyweight bike by pedaling it too hard. Bikes generally only break if you crash them. Riders hop back on their bikes and take off down mountain passes without so much as a cursory check for damage. So some minimal standard of sturdiness makes sense. But does a bike crashed by Ganna break measurably more often than a bike crashed by Pozzovivo?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
city17 Professional Road Racing 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY