Is this the future of time trials?

ugo.santalucia

I hope so...
I can't wait to see the end of time trial bikes and tribars, which hopefully will filter down to the domestic time trials scene one day...

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/aero-gains-take-over-the-tour-down-under-prologue/?utm_content=cyclingnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR1SEkx5Rur9FW_i7sk-wQcfPIdklbe990V3qY7gw0WgTGV3zQywMQRAhhE

rick_chasey

They do it for the far flung races to cut down on what they need to fly out.

ugo.santalucia

rick_chasey said:

They do it for the far flung races to cut down on what they need to fly out.

makes sense... they should do it for all races

MattFalle

exactly what chasey said (and its in the article).

its been done for years.

all about reducing transport costs, carbon footprint, etc.

dannbodge

There's something cool about aero road bikes (with drops) with disc wheels.

That system six looks bloody brilliant.

joeyhalloran

What have you got against TT bars?

I don't see the point of doing it for all races. You'd still have "TT" bikes and "Road" bikes, just within the rules. You'd see the return of bikes like the Specialized venge which would become the "TT" bike and the Tarmac would be the "road" bike, they'd still look different and handle differently.

singleton

Maybe the bike manufacturers would complain, but I agree - these look cool and are so much more relatable to most of us regular riders.

First.Aspect

The UCI will ban it, outside of tts at least.

I also wouldn't be surprised if some bar manufacturers will be worried about the unexpected forced being applied, as well.

ugo.santalucia

joeyhalloran said:

What have you got against TT bars?

I don't see the point of doing it for all races. You'd still have "TT" bikes and "Road" bikes, just within the rules. You'd see the return of bikes like the Specialized venge which would become the "TT" bike and the Tarmac would be the "road" bike, they'd still look different and handle differently.

TT bars are the single biggest improvement in a time trial, they are really transformative and if used well, at amateur level, they grant you almost a minute in a 10 mile time trial without having to do anything else. As a non TT bars user, I would prefer them being phased out... in my books you have to earn an aero position with hard work, rather than just leaning your forearms on some pads.
If TT bars are allowed, then why not a recumbent position? Why has the line been drawn there and not elsewhere? One would argue that a recumbent bike is safer to ride than a TT bike, where your hands are miles away from the brakes.
Personally, I think the UCI should have only one bike standard, regardless of whether it is a bunch race or a time trial... and puppy paws should be banned regardless.

DeVlaeminck

Difficult one. I like the idea but the unintended consequence might be bikes which were so different to actual road racing bikes in terms of fit, geometry etc that you'd still need a second bike to compete on a level playing field. I suppose this could be got round with strict UCI rules which no doubt would generate more complaints about the UCI constraining innovation.

Actually the more I think about it they should go for it - and insist on steel bikes while they are at it get back to local frame makers having a chance to compete.

ugo.santalucia

DeVlaeminck said:

Difficult one. I like the idea but the unintended consequence might be bikes which were so different to actual road racing bikes in terms of fit, geometry etc that you'd still need a second bike to compete on a level playing field. I suppose this could be got round with strict UCI rules which no doubt would generate more complaints about the UCI constraining innovation.

Actually the more I think about it they should go for it - and insist on steel bikes while they are at it get back to local frame makers having a chance to compete.

Tribars are not innovation, they have been around for 30 + years and they are a lazy way to get into an aero position.
The reality is that the bicycle industry is not exactly innovative and it’s not solely the UCI fault… maybe it’s a case of not there being very much to innovate in the first place, since the most important part of the assembly, the engine, is subject to very very slow evolution

joeyhalloran

Carbon bikes save a huge amount of time, as a steel bike rider I think they should be banned.

In an ideal world I like the idea that the tour de France is raced on the same bike frame and wheels throughout, on every stage. In practice though it will never happen, wherever there is a competition that will be people pushing the line as hard as possible. In a few years the road 'TT' bike would look unrecognisable to the road bike and it'll also save you a minute over 10 miles, and all you'd have to do is spend some cash.

ugo.santalucia

joeyhalloran said:

Carbon bikes save a huge amount of time, as a steel bike rider I think they should be banned.

In an ideal world I like the idea that the tour de France is raced on the same bike frame and wheels throughout, on every stage. In practice though it will never happen, wherever there is a competition that will be people pushing the line as hard as possible. In a few years the road 'TT' bike would look unrecognisable to the road bike and it'll also save you a minute over 10 miles, and all you'd have to do is spend some cash.

What saves time is not the bike but the riding position… a TT bike allows you to ride for a prolonged period of time in a good position. If you can keep that position on a road bike, then the cda is very similar to that of a TT bike. I am not for limiting bike geometry, material or else, but for limiting means to make easy to ride in such a position… tribars and aero extensions for instance

pblakeney

Not a proposal but I am against anything that makes cycling a moneyball sport.
While recognising that it already is.

ugo.santalucia

pblakeney said:

Not a proposal but I am against anything that makes cycling a moneyball sport.
While recognising that it already is.

It's still within reason moneywise... the biggest starts in the sport earn around 10% of the equivalent stars in football... if you then look at the average riders, they earn a lot less than 10% of the average footballers.
The budget of an entire top flight PRO team (around £ 20M) would barely pay a month worth of wages in a top flight football team.
Races are still free to watch roadside and you can get access to TV coverage for reasonable money, compared to football.

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia said:

pblakeney said:

Not a proposal but I am against anything that makes cycling a moneyball sport.
While recognising that it already is.

It's still within reason moneywise... the biggest starts in the sport earn around 10% of the equivalent stars in football... if you then look at the average riders, they earn a lot less than 10% of the average footballers.
The budget of an entire top flight PRO team (around £ 20M) would barely pay a month worth of wages in a top flight football team.
Races are still free to watch roadside and you can get access to TV coverage for reasonable money, compared to football.

Numbers are lower but the principle still stands. The richest teams get the best equipment and the best riders. Poorer teams have to punch above their weight. No solution.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

pblakeney said:

Not a proposal but I am against anything that makes cycling a moneyball sport.
While recognising that it already is.

It's still within reason moneywise... the biggest starts in the sport earn around 10% of the equivalent stars in football... if you then look at the average riders, they earn a lot less than 10% of the average footballers.
The budget of an entire top flight PRO team (around £ 20M) would barely pay a month worth of wages in a top flight football team.
Races are still free to watch roadside and you can get access to TV coverage for reasonable money, compared to football.

Think it might have been a reference to moneyball tactics, which as I understand it is basically playing the percentages. Presumably it is an objection to cycle races being run via team radios based on tactics that a computer spits out based on probability of success, ultimately rendering cycling predictable.

Is that what you meant Pb?

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

pblakeney said:

Not a proposal but I am against anything that makes cycling a moneyball sport.
While recognising that it already is.

It's still within reason moneywise... the biggest starts in the sport earn around 10% of the equivalent stars in football... if you then look at the average riders, they earn a lot less than 10% of the average footballers.
The budget of an entire top flight PRO team (around £ 20M) would barely pay a month worth of wages in a top flight football team.
Races are still free to watch roadside and you can get access to TV coverage for reasonable money, compared to football.

Think it might have been a reference to moneyball tactics, which as I understand it is basically playing the percentages. Presumably it is an objection to cycle races being run via team radios based on tactics that a computer spits out based on probability of success, ultimately rendering cycling predictable.

Is that what you meant Pb?

More general that, money buys success. Refer to TT bikes and Ganna's hour bike.
Smaller/poorer teams need to use the percentages outlined above to compete.

Pross

The logical conclusion would be to state that riders have to use the same bike set up on all stages of a stage race (maybe allow some minor changes in saddle position or stem length) then perhaps allow a selection of 2 or 3 wheel types for the duration of the race.

I have to admit, I like seeing footage of old races where they are getting as aero as possible on a standard bike. However, in all the time I've watched bike racing specialist bikes have always been used for TTs whether that was low profiles with bull bars, the same with the aero bar extensions or the current TT bikes. The genie has been out of the bottle for too long to get it back in and trying to impose such restrictions would probably lead to a loss of sponsors which is no good for anyone.

First.Aspect

And the reality is that money for kit isn't what is winning or losing bike races, that's happening because of money to hire the best riders and so on.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

And the reality is that money for kit isn't what is winning or losing bike races, that's happening because of money to hire the best riders and so on.

I did say riders further up thread.
TT bikes do help in TTs though and the best don't come cheap.

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

And the reality is that money for kit isn't what is winning or losing bike races, that's happening because of money to hire the best riders and so on.

But that happens at any level... even in the murky Italian Granfondo scene, the "best" riders ride for the "richest" teams... and we are talking about 5 figure budgets, rather than 8.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

And the reality is that money for kit isn't what is winning or losing bike races, that's happening because of money to hire the best riders and so on.

But that happens at any level... even in the murky Italian Granfondo scene, the "best" riders ride for the "richest" teams... and we are talking about 5 figure budgets, rather than 8.

Yes but it's not about the bike, remember? More or less all the pro teams have kit that puts them on a level with each other. The difference in budget is largely being spent on the talent using it. Or nice mattresses, if you ride for ineos.

jimmythecuckoo

Back to the original question.. As my club is running a road bike TT series this spring i am gonig to say "yes".

ugo.santalucia

jimmythecuckoo said:

Back to the original question.. As my club is running a road bike TT series this spring i am gonig to say "yes".

I have changed club, one of the reasons is that the new club have a road bike league

singleton

ugo.santalucia said:

jimmythecuckoo said:

Back to the original question.. As my club is running a road bike TT series this spring i am gonig to say "yes".

I have changed club, one of the reasons is that the new club have a road bike league

Not intending to be funny, but what constitutes a road bike?
Is it only the bars, or are there rules about geometry, wheels etc?

ugo.santalucia

singleton said:

ugo.santalucia said:

jimmythecuckoo said:

Back to the original question.. As my club is running a road bike TT series this spring i am gonig to say "yes".

I have changed club, one of the reasons is that the new club have a road bike league

Not intending to be funny, but what constitutes a road bike?
Is it only the bars, or are there rules about geometry, wheels etc?

No bars or extensions and max 65 mm deep rims.
In addition, no TT helmets

MattFalle

So you have people on, say, S5s/that Ribble thing with 90s vs a CAAD 10 on shallows?

No restrictions on frame shapes, wheel depths, etc?

ugo.santalucia

MattFalle said:

So you have people on, say, S5s/that Ribble thing with 90s vs a CAAD 10 on shallows?

No restrictions on frame shapes, wheel depths, etc?

No restrictions on frames, only on rims, 65 mm max, basically the Zipp 404 are the limit.
I believe you could use a TT frame with road bars and road wheels and you would be legal

MattFalle

skin suits and aero socks, gloves etc all ok?

ugo.santalucia

MattFalle said:

skin suits and aero socks, gloves etc all ok?

Yes