2021 PRO thread

[TobinHatesYou]

The entire rest of the peloton is still using the sphinx position and still resting their forearms on the bars, so I'm wondering where the UCI draws that line. Some team should test incrementally longer reach bars until they get DQ.

[bikewithnoname]

EDIT: Looks like the UCI updated their guidance on motors so my point is completely wrong.

[UpFromOne]

The entire rest of the peloton is still using the sphinx position and still resting their forearms on the bars, so I'm wondering where the UCI draws that line. Some team should test incrementally longer reach bars until they get DQ.

The bars themselves were not illegal, hence allowed to start.
It was the rider's use of them that was in violation. So no inconsistency at all.

IMHO the problem was the officials in the morning not clarifying this, i.e. that the bars are not illegal,
but if you put your forearms on it, there will be consequences.

Certainly the use of bars were intended for rules violations, but that's a matter for the rider,
not the manufacturer to defend the actions of the rider.

I'm the last one to say "rules are rules" becuase of inconsistent enforcement.
But here the rider gave himself the penalty, not the bars.

[bikewithnoname]

The DH in Leogang was great today, Brosnan on fire!

[blaugrana]

The entire rest of the peloton is still using the sphinx position and still resting their forearms on the bars, so I'm wondering where the UCI draws that line. Some team should test incrementally longer reach bars until they get DQ.

The bars themselves were not illegal, hence allowed to start.
It was the rider's use of them that was in violation. So no inconsistency at all.

IMHO the problem was the officials in the morning not clarifying this, i.e. that the bars are not illegal,
but if you put your forearms on it, there will be consequences.

Certainly the use of bars were intended for rules violations, but that's a matter for the rider,
not the manufacturer to defend the actions of the rider.

I'm the last one to say "rules are rules" becuase of inconsistent enforcement.
But here the rider gave himself the penalty, not the bars.

That's also how I see it, and I think in both cases the decision was a correct interpretation of the rules. There's nothing stopping you from riding these bars in a normal hoods, drops or tops position, and that would be fine. Sure, they are not designed with that intention, but that's not for the UCI to decide. But as soon as you use them in an illegal way, you get penalized.

However, I do think that for small infractions like these (and where people still aren't 100% sure on what's legal and what's not), a warning to the rider before the DQ would be the more reasonable solution, and only DQ them if they continue to do it afterwards.

[Dan Gerous]

The entire rest of the peloton is still using the sphinx position and still resting their forearms on the bars, so I'm wondering where the UCI draws that line. Some team should test incrementally longer reach bars until they get DQ.

The bars themselves were not illegal, hence allowed to start.
It was the rider's use of them that was in violation. So no inconsistency at all.

IMHO the problem was the officials in the morning not clarifying this, i.e. that the bars are not illegal,
but if you put your forearms on it, there will be consequences.

Certainly the use of bars were intended for rules violations, but that's a matter for the rider,
not the manufacturer to defend the actions of the rider.

I'm the last one to say "rules are rules" becuase of inconsistent enforcement.
But here the rider gave himself the penalty, not the bars.

That's also how I see it, and I think in both cases the decision was a correct interpretation of the rules. There's nothing stopping you from riding these bars in a normal hoods, drops or tops position, and that would be fine. Sure, they are not designed with that intention, but that's not for the UCI to decide. But as soon as you use them in an illegal way, you get penalized.

However, I do think that for small infractions like these (and where people still aren't 100% sure on what's legal and what's not), a warning to the rider before the DQ would be the more reasonable solution, and only DQ them if they continue to do it afterwards.

We were right, DQ was for how he rode supporting himself on his forearms, but it seems the bars are not legal either and the manufacturer knew so in typical UCI fashion, the UCI official who gave van Schip the okay to ride them was wrong to do so, not the first time that the UCI have problems applying their rules predictably and with consistency...

Still, van Schip and his team should have known better IMO and the punishement for his riding position was predictable, seems especially dumb on their part with the UCI documentation on the rule even having a picture of himself riding those bars in that position with a clean 'NOT ALLOWED' mention.

UCI's statement on the DQ.

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) would like to clarify its position concerning the disqualification of Dutch rider Jan-Willem Van Schip of BEAT Cycling after stage 3 of the UCI ProSeries stage race, Baloise Belgium Tour.

Mr Van Schip was disqualified for violating article 2.2.025 of the UCI regulations, which specifies “…using the forearms as a point of support on the handlebar is prohibited except in time trials”. The position adopted by the rider on his handlebars did not conform to this regulation, which aims to protect rider safety.

The UCI clarifies that the handlebar in question that led to the disqualification of Mr Van Schip had been presented by its manufacturers to the UCI Equipment Commission earlier in the season. The manufacturers were informed that the handlebar in its current design contradicted the UCI Regulations, and the Commission prohibited the use of the handlebar in UCI sanctioned events until further assessments had been conducted.

Furthermore, in March, all UCI Road Teams were given a presentation and explanation of the UCI’s safety measures, including article 2.2.025, with visual examples of forbidden positions.

Finally, the UCI specifies that since the decision of the UCI Technical Commission, the UCI was never contacted by BEAT Cycling regarding this handlebar until stage 3 of the Belgian race.

[TobinHatesYou]

The bars themselves were not illegal, hence allowed to start.
It was the rider's use of them that was in violation. So no inconsistency at all.

IMHO the problem was the officials in the morning not clarifying this, i.e. that the bars are not illegal,
but if you put your forearms on it, there will be consequences.

Certainly the use of bars were intended for rules violations, but that's a matter for the rider,
not the manufacturer to defend the actions of the rider.

I'm the last one to say "rules are rules" becuase of inconsistent enforcement.
But here the rider gave himself the penalty, not the bars.

I know precisely what happened, that's not the point I'm making.

My point is the sphinx position should be illegal and the whole peloton should be DQ'd for it. If you look at anyone in the sphinx position, their arms are resting on the bars, but since conventional bars don't stand out, nothing is done about it. So what happens if the brands start playing chicken with the UCI...110mm reach bars...120mm, 130mm. At some point the visuals trigger the DQ.

e: Also I noticed this morning that some reports are now saying the bars were officially banned during the race.

[UpFromOne]

Yes, saw that too. I was just trying to say that the bigger issue seems to be rider positioning rather than an equipment violation.
Forearms are just one of the many contact points that have lately found their way into the rules.
UCI still wants everyone to ride like Merckx, not just use his equipment.

[Kjetil]

At least they don’t have to heave their bikes up the passes like Merckx had to. Gearing has come a long way in 50 years.

[Dan Gerous]

Nice one by Cav, unlike his four wins in Turkey, he beat some of the best sprinters today.

[Miller]

Just saw Cav's result, that's quite the stacked field of sprinters in the top 10.

[flying]

Nice one by Cav, unlike his four wins in Turkey, he beat some of the best sprinters today.

Lefevere said the TDF is possibly too hard for Mark Cavendish
Mark said..."Hold My Beer"

[maquisard]

It is good to see the Cavendish back, as much for his mental health and happiness as his palmarès.

However I think Lefevere is concerned that he can remain competitive in sprints in the second and third week and make it through the mountains. This still remains a question as his comebacks have been in one week stage races.

For nostalgia it would be great to see him in the Tour de France and get some more wins.

[UpFromOne]

Aging stars vs. the promise of youth, always a tough call.

Hopefully Mr. L. will start him anyway. If he fades, then he should have the grace to bow out of racing still a star.

[bikewithnoname]

Tricky for QS this year, I assume they'll have a bit more of a tilt at GC with Alaphilipe, Almeida, Evenepol in the team, which cuts down the sprint side of the pack. Certainly if Bennett is fit you'd expect him to go but Cav has done all he can to be considered