• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. 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!

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.
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 :)
 
I see that the Perico Delgado position is also banned. Now will be plain and simple.



Posiciones-UCI.jpg
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
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 website says these are designed within UCI rules

 
  • Wow
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
The website says these are designed within UCI rules

Graeme Obree says hi.
 
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.
 
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan

TRENDING THREADS