UCI to trial disc brakes?

[carolina]

then you would need more cars. there are always several groups of cyclists, you can't have a car for everyone of them.

The number of motos can be reduced and the safety distances between motos and cyclists should increase. They should also include heavy fines to the moto drivers if they don't follow the rules, but removing all motos from the race makes no sense.

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

then you would need more cars. there are always several groups of cyclists, you can't have a car for everyone of them.

The number of motos can be reduced and the safety distances between motos and cyclists should increase. They should also include heavy fines to the moto drivers if they don't follow the rules, but removing all motos from the race makes no sense.

Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.

MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

then you would need more cars. there are always several groups of cyclists, you can't have a car for everyone of them.

The number of motos can be reduced and the safety distances between motos and cyclists should increase. They should also include heavy fines to the moto drivers if they don't follow the rules, but removing all motos from the race makes no sense.

Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.

MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

You fail to make a convincing case about the motos and have shifted your ground, obviously because your first suggestion was impractical, but with regard to the disc brakes, in what way is the UCI exhibiting "inconstancy" i.e. fickleness? If however it's inconsistency that you mean, do explain in what way. Only trying to understand your point!

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

then you would need more cars. there are always several groups of cyclists, you can't have a car for everyone of them.

The number of motos can be reduced and the safety distances between motos and cyclists should increase. They should also include heavy fines to the moto drivers if they don't follow the rules, but removing all motos from the race makes no sense.

Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.

MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

You fail to make a convincing case about the motos HELLO, this isn't my point and have shifted your groundzero shift, obviously because your first suggestion was impracticalwhy is taking action about the moto issue impractical?, but with regard to the disc brakes, in what way is the UCI exhibiting "inconstancy" i.e. fickleness? If however it's inconsistency that you mean, do tell what you meanread post below. Only trying to understand your point!

1st post: So the UCI stopped the disc brake test. One leg wound and there's action, yet motos continue to cause worse injuries, and crickets...HMMM?! Same as it ever was...same as it ever was.

2nd post: Yes you can completely remove motos from racing (in reply to other post), but that's not the point I was making with my post. My point was about action and/or lack of action from the UCI. While the disc brake gash is bad, Taylor P's injury is much worse.

3rd post: Again, my point is that motos have been causing more and more problems (injuries, etc...) over the last few years, yet the UCI has done nothing. One guy gets gashed by a disc brake and poof, no more disc brakes in the pro platoon.

4th post: AGAIN, the point is that the UCI has dragged their feet on one issue and stomped their feet on another.

5th post: Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.
MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

I don't know how much more clear that can be.

 

[wrinklyvet]

Re: Re:

then you would need more cars. there are always several groups of cyclists, you can't have a car for everyone of them.

The number of motos can be reduced and the safety distances between motos and cyclists should increase. They should also include heavy fines to the moto drivers if they don't follow the rules, but removing all motos from the race makes no sense.

Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.

MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

You fail to make a convincing case about the motos and have shifted your ground, obviously because your first suggestion was impractical, but with regard to the disc brakes, in what way is the UCI exhibiting "inconstancy" i.e. fickleness? If however it's inconsistency that you mean, do tell what you mean. Only trying to understand your point!

Go back and read my first post about this...no shift. They have done nothing about motos causing many injuries, but they dumped disc brakes over one injury, that is inconstant.

So you say, "Yes you can completely remove motos from racing" and then admit it can't be done. There will always need to be motos for the reasons that others have explained. Not only those concerned with the race itself but the TV bikes and many of the other press bikes, or the professional sport would not be seen by anyone except those standing by the road where, as you know, the riders flash by for an exciting moment or two but the full race cannot be seen by so many. One can see that there may be room for improvement but how do you expect the UCI to have a magic wand and the ability to sort out what motos are to be culled? And when they are culled and another mishap happens you could say what a bad job was made of it.

But in the case of the disc brake risks, they can be stopped at a stroke by suspending the trial of them and it was the right thing to do. Historically nobody has needed them. Tell us why you are so upset about it.

Motos have been part of the sport (albeit possibly not so many) almost since its inception. They have been needed. I don't know how you would know, for example, that nothing is being done to consider the motos question.

 

[wrinklyvet]

I am out of it. I spend some time with your post and when I reply and look again look it is entirely different.

 

[ray j willings]

Re:

I find it odd that most riders are now saying on Twitter that they knew it was gonna be a disaster and they all were against disc brakes.
I don't recall many riders complaining about disc brakes when UCI first introduced them.

It was split. Some riders were against them " did not see the point and usual arguments" some riders said they were keen to see how they would work and some were most likely obligated to say how great they will be.
Look at the slow take up. Most teams in all reality don't really want them or see a need for them. It's about marketing a new product to make money. Look how many riders are using Q rings , hardly any because they are not now obligated to use them. Only a couple of seasons ago they were prolific in the peloton.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

then you would need more cars. there are always several groups of cyclists, you can't have a car for everyone of them.

The number of motos can be reduced and the safety distances between motos and cyclists should increase. They should also include heavy fines to the moto drivers if they don't follow the rules, but removing all motos from the race makes no sense.

Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.

MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

You fail to make a convincing case about the motos and have shifted your ground, obviously because your first suggestion was impractical, but with regard to the disc brakes, in what way is the UCI exhibiting "inconstancy" i.e. fickleness? If however it's inconsistency that you mean, do tell what you mean. Only trying to understand your point!

Go back and read my first post about this...no shift. They have done nothing about motos causing many injuries, but they dumped disc brakes over one injury, that is inconstant.

So you say, "Yes you can completely remove motos from racing" and then admit it can't be done. There will always need to be motos for the reasons that others have explained. Not only those concerned with the race itself but the TV bikes and many of the other press bikes, or the professional sport would not be seen by anyone except those standing by the road where, as you know, the riders flash by for an exciting moment or two but the full race cannot be seen by so many. One can see that there may be room for improvement but how do you expect the UCI to have a magic wand and the ability to sort out what motos are to be culled? And when they are culled and another mishap happens you could say what a bad job was made of it.

But in the case of the disc brake risks, they can be stopped at a stroke by suspending the trial of them and it was the right thing to do. Historically nobody has needed them. Tell us why you are so upset about it.

Motos have been part of the sport (albeit possibly not so many) almost since its inception. They have been needed. I don't know how you would know, for example, that nothing is being done to consider the motos question.

I said that you can race without motos in reply to someone else who said that you can't race without them. It is a fact that a race can happen without them. Obviously, as I already stated, that isn't going to happen, nor do I think that it should. BUT THIS ISN'T AND WASN'T MY POINT

 

[jmdirt]

Re:

I am out of it. I spend some time with your post and when I reply and look again look it is entirely different.

I changed my post to include all of my previous posts so that you could see them all in one place.

1st post: So the UCI stopped the disc brake test. One leg wound and there's action, yet motos continue to cause worse injuries, and crickets...HMMM?! Same as it ever was...same as it ever was.

2nd post: Yes you can completely remove motos from racing (in reply to other post), but that's not the point I was making with my post. My point was about action and/or lack of action from the UCI. While the disc brake gash is bad, Taylor P's injury is much worse.

3rd post: Again, my point is that motos have been causing more and more problems (injuries, etc...) over the last few years, yet the UCI has done nothing. One guy gets gashed by a disc brake and poof, no more disc brakes in the pro platoon.

4th post: AGAIN, the point is that the UCI has dragged their feet on one issue and stomped their feet on another.

5th post: Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.
MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I am out of it. I spend some time with your post and when I reply and look again look it is entirely different.

I changed my post to include all of my previous posts so that you could see them all in one place.

1st post: So the UCI stopped the disc brake test. One leg wound and there's action, yet motos continue to cause worse injuries, and crickets...HMMM?! Same as it ever was...same as it ever was.

2nd post: Yes you can completely remove motos from racing (in reply to other post), but that's not the point I was making with my post. My point was about action and/or lack of action from the UCI. While the disc brake gash is bad, Taylor P's injury is much worse.

3rd post: Again, my point is that motos have been causing more and more problems (injuries, etc...) over the last few years, yet the UCI has done nothing. One guy gets gashed by a disc brake and poof, no more disc brakes in the pro platoon.

4th post: AGAIN, the point is that the UCI has dragged their feet on one issue and stomped their feet on another.

5th post: Let me be clear: I don't want all motos gone. I do want them significantly reduced.
MY POINT IS THE INCONSTANCY ON THE PART OF THE UCI.

Of course there is inconsistency from the UCI, because they are completely different issues which can't be dealt with in a consistent manner. One is a new and unnecessary technology which is potentially dangerous. The other, while also potentially dangerous, is something integral to the existence of the sport at a professional level.

The problem with motos requires a far more complex solution, because there is no ready made alternative to getting rid of them all, like there is for getting rid of disc brakes. You can't just temporarily ban motos while safety precautions are taken - because they themselves are integral to the running of professional races.

A reduction in motos is obviously needed at some point, but a complete ban is impossible. So it's impossible for the UCI to act with consistency between the two issues.

 

[wrinklyvet]

@ jmdirt Look, I am not continuing after this. You are not making it any better. You can't seem to see that the point you say was not yours was nevertheless what you said and it wasn't true. You cannot run a professional, televised, photographed, protected race with no motos. Why would anyone start? No neutral service from motos, no protection at junctions and road furniture and to warn of approach, presumably no police or marshals, no TV, no photos, no info for riders, etc, etc. It's not a professional race with none of this. You exaggerated for effect and it was pointed out to you.

So my point, which I will make for the last time and I am not going further, is that the question of reducing the number of motos is a more difficult one. Crashes have happened for years and every one is a bad thing. Improvements are always welcome. Better moto riding is something to aim for at least - There must be some work being put into this issue. If not, there ought to be. But the risk from discs has been removed at a stroke. You would have much to say if nothing had been done and another similar accident were to occur. It's not inconsistent. It's not inconstant.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

Rolling enclosures don't require 100 motos.

In Australia, it takes ~25-30 motos to manage a rolling enclosure with Police support for major intersections / town passage and these guys are stretched to the limit getting the job done. Quite often it's inadequate coverage, especially if the race is split with sizeable time gaps.

 

[SafeBet]

Re: Re:

Nibali might have, but in all honesty who asks them such questions.

Nibali was actually quite eager to try them if memory serves me right. And I remember other riders being asked about it, none of them was particularly vocal about their dangerousness.

Now I understand the concern about disc brakes, the Ventoso injury is severe and appalling and UCI absolutely needs to further evaluate the issue. But riders claiming they knew this was gonna happen? No effing way.

 

[Netserk]

Couldn't an accident like Ventoso's be prevented if there was some kind of shield around the rotor? Though, I guess it would be difficult to make one that wouldn't be a major hindrance when changing wheels.

 

[cnfdugo]

In marathon skating the blade ends at the back of the skates have to be rounded for safety. Maybe a similar ruling for disc edges would work.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

In marathon skating the blade ends at the back of the skates have to be rounded for safety. Maybe a similar ruling for disc edges would work.

As a kid playing football, our studs would be checked by the ref before every game to ensure no sharp edges.

 

[RedheadDane]

Re:

Couldn't an accident like Ventoso's be prevented if there was some kind of shield around the rotor? Though, I guess it would be difficult to make one that wouldn't be a major hindrance when changing wheels.

If all the clever "bike Building minds" got together I'm sure they could figure something out.

 

[CheckMyPecs]

Re: Re:

Couldn't an accident like Ventoso's be prevented if there was some kind of shield around the rotor? Though, I guess it would be difficult to make one that wouldn't be a major hindrance when changing wheels.

If all the clever "bike Building minds" got together I'm sure they could figure something out.

Sure. Where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[gerundium]

Re:

In marathon skating the blade ends at the back of the skates have to be rounded for safety. Maybe a similar ruling for disc edges would work.

As far as i understand it there is already a radius, so a blunt edge on the rotors. But the speed of impact on even a blunt steel edge spinning like that is enough to cause damage.

I think the solution will be found in some kind of shield around the rotors.

 

[Nick C.]

Re: Re:

Nibali might have, but in all honesty who asks them such questions.

Nibali was actually quite eager to try them if memory serves me right. And I remember other riders being asked about it, none of them was particularly vocal about their dangerousness.

Now I understand the concern about disc brakes, the Ventoso injury is severe and appalling and UCI absolutely needs to further evaluate the issue. But riders claiming they knew this was gonna happen? No effing way.

Here is Alex Dowsett: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dowsett-fears-disc-brakes-will-cause-serious-injury/

 

[cnfdugo]

Re: Re:

In marathon skating the blade ends at the back of the skates have to be rounded for safety. Maybe a similar ruling for disc edges would work.

As far as i understand it there is already a radius, so a blunt edge on the rotors. But the speed of impact on even a blunt steel edge spinning like that is enough to cause damage.

I think the solution will be found in some kind of shield around the rotors.

When looked at from behind I see sharp 90 degree edges:

|_|

Giving them a

U

shape would make them a lot safer. Now they are sharp like blades and as stupid as handlebars without end caps.

 

[kwikki]

I think we won't see discs again in the peloton.

It will be interesting to see how this affects the bike market. Discs are well established in the endurance end of the road bike market, but I wonder if this will spell the end for development of pure race machines.

 

[jmdirt]

Re: Re:

In marathon skating the blade ends at the back of the skates have to be rounded for safety. Maybe a similar ruling for disc edges would work.

As far as i understand it there is already a radius, so a blunt edge on the rotors. But the speed of impact on even a blunt steel edge spinning like that is enough to cause damage.

I think the solution will be found in some kind of shield around the rotors.

When looked at from behind I see sharp 90 degree edges:

|_|

Giving them a

U

shape would make them a lot safer. Now they are sharp like blades and as stupid as handlebars without end caps.

If you ride without bar plugs your bars siphon air and make the front of your bike lighter. When you stuff that open bar into your body, the plug of flesh that is removed makes you lighter.

 

[Tim B]

Well surprise, surprise. Forensic Doctor says Ventoso's injury most likely caused by a chain ring, disc brake trial back in racing again.
Perhaps next time they should investigate the claim of a rider that can't actually remember how he injured himself, with an improbable injury before they jump to false conclusions and ban something!

 

[jmdirt]

And they're back:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-reinstate-disc-brake-trial-in-the-professional-road-peloton-in-june/