Proposed time trial rules to outlaw modified & older bikes & parts

ficklewhippet wrote:

The limit's exactly that, the pros would be racing on 5kg bikes if the manufacturers were permitted to provide them. Remember that they're able to equip bikes with power meters and still have to add ballast to the frame to make the minimum weight.
Anecdotally I heard that the bikes of the 70's were pretty whippy, but I can't confirm that.
A bike with a stoved in dent on a steel down tube, or a crimp in an aluminium handlebar is as dangerous as a carbon bike with a crack in it IMO. The upside of a steel frame is that theoretically you could get it repaired. I'd still be tempted to relegate it to the turbo though...
Personal experience for me is that I'm still racing on my Chinese TT frame which has some topcoat chips in it from a couple of topples and a crash, and it's rock solid.
But hey, each to their own. I don't care what you ride, as long as you're riding

Modern frames are stiffer, for sure, but I'm no expert. I have ridden carbon, and my steel frames feel more comfy on rough roads. I'm sure carbon frames are more efficient at transferring power through the cranks, at least that's what I read, but I can't personally feel the difference.

I guess the thing that makes me worried, and I promise I'm not getting at you, is that you say you've had "a couple of topples and a crash" on your (presumably) carbon frame, and carried on using that frame even though the advice from many sources is not to, because of the risk of some weakness in the frame or components.

I'm sure most riders would be happy to accept the small risk of catastrophic failure, but the problem is, and again, I promise this isn't aimed directly at you, is that when you ride on a public road you have a duty to not knowingly ride a bike that may have a defect, in the same way that we would all expect car drivers, who have a prang in their cars, to not drive on the road until they had had their car checked out. If you're by yourself, fine, but in the peloton, or time trialing on a road where there are cars, other cyclists and pedestrians, I would say that it's perhaps unfair to include those other people in your self assessment of your own potentially damaged machine, which you are presumably still riding in order to save buying a replacement. And even if you are on your own, you are risking the already squeezed resources of the NHS, just so you can save a bit of cash.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, to get people thinking about the whole issue of risk, and how we should be applying a duty of care to others when participating in a high tech sport.

Neil753 wrote:

I'm sure most riders would be happy to accept the small risk of catastrophic failure

That's highly debatable, I've been on a bike that failed and if I was going any faster there's a good chance the resulting accident would have killed me. The last thing you want is your frame failing whilst your cycling at 25mph, the thought of coming off in an uncontrolled manner at that speed is cringe-worthy.

Of course there's always an element of risk, personally I'd like to know how much more likely to fail carbon frames are.

kie7077 wrote:

Of course there's always an element of risk, personally I'd like to know how much more likely to fail carbon frames are.

My favourite video of some serious carbon frame abuse:

http://www.pinkbike.com/video/243228/

The best bit...skip to 5:02

velocibob wrote:

In order to make things fairer, especially with regard to hill climbing events. All competitors should have weights added to their steeds, so that they all weigh as much as the heaviest competitor. As is the case, in horse racing. Other events should have weight categories. Where the weight of the rider and his steed combined, determines within which category he competes. This must be the fairest way. Although, you would have to be vigilant, for the discarding of weight, especially on the longer events, just to replace them, nearer it's conclusion.

That is just ridiculous.

velocibob wrote:

In order to make things fairer, especially with regard to hill climbing events. All competitors should have weights added to their steeds, so that they all weigh as much as the heaviest competitor. As is the case, in horse racing. Other events should have weight categories. Where the weight of the rider and his steed combined, determines within which category he competes. This must be the fairest way. Although, you would have to be vigilant, for the discarding of weight, especially on the longer events, just to replace them, nearer it's conclusion.

That doesnt make it fairer, though. In horse racing, you are not weighing the horse - you are weighing the additional weight it carries. So a handicap horse race means that each horse carries the same weight, not that each horse plus rider weighs the same.

The point is that a large horse may produce more power, but will also be heavier. Just as a larger cyclist may also be able to produce more power, but will also be heavier. Weighing the bike (sort of) makes sense, if equipment weight is a key factor in the race, but making all the riders up to an equal weight means you are stripping out power-to-weight as a factor and instead making it based on absolute power and aerodynamics. No fairer, just different.

Gkam84 wrote:

The one thing I'm still surprised (but happy about) they still done require a rider to wear a helmet and leave that up to the rider.

I'm getting pissed of with their stance on recumbents lately though, I have been trying to find some TT's to do next year, but no-one will let me in because they run on CTT rules

^^ I remember you mentioning that on twitter it really sucks!! Half the time people's stance seems to be "why don't you just go to the human powered vehicle meets" but that doesn't seem fair. Cycling is cycling and should be available and accessible to all who wish to take it up.

It would be a real shame to see the wholesome, old school atmosphere of the CTT go down the pan in lieu of policy changes, it's already sh1t that folks get denied races based on what are often unavoidable or completely fair modifications.

While some of them are pretty respectable in the case of making it a fair sport (why should a super rich dude who's trained half as much get a better result than someone who's worked their arse off both on their body and bike?) - BUT I think they need to be very careful as to how this is going to be enforced.

CTT has a lot of responsibility as the main body for TT's here, either they want to be recognised as a more professional racing body like BC OR they just want to make sure folks don't take the piss.

There's always an element of give & take. I really hope they don't screw it up.

Al__S wrote:

Quote:

“With respect to technology in sport there is no such thing as a 'level playing field'... it cannot exist outside of 'one design' sports such as some sailing classes.”

Best laugh I've had all day.

Why?

monty dog wrote:

I except CTT may be trying to protect themselves from those "shed men" who make / modify parts that might fail catastrophically in an event with serious results e.g. takes-out another competitor who then takes out a suit against CTT.

I agree. Some of the riders you see in old pics, with drilled components, must have been barking.

But then again, parts from yesteryear were generally over engineered, compared to modern components, where weight and aerondynamics seem to now take precident over long term reliability. Modern chains sometimes snap under load, a single spoke breakage can now cause a catastrophic failure of the whole wheel, a pothole can cause fork blades to actually separate from the main fork column, and the whole issue of carbon component service life is still a bit of a grey area.

And there must be loads of riders out there, riding 2nd hand carbon stuff, who cannot be entirely sure that what they're riding on hasn't been compromised by the original owner.

Neil753 wrote:

Modern chains sometimes snap under load

You're forgetting we run 11 sprockets on the back now, in the same space as 6 or even less in years gone by.

Neil753 wrote:

There was a point, as a family man, where I simply could not compete anymore with riders who were able to afford equipment that created a substantial advantage, but I accepted it with good grace.

But if "vintage" bikes were banned, given that most time triallists are the wrong side of 40, it could sound the death knell for this peculiarly British branch of our beloved sport.

Don't see why personally. A TT bike can be built up pretty economically if you know where to look:- some good frames are available if you're not a fashion victim. Plenty of 2nd hand kit available as people with the cash (and there are plenty) off-load and/or trade up.

Neil753 wrote:

monty dog wrote:

I except CTT may be trying to protect themselves from those "shed men" who make / modify parts that might fail catastrophically in an event with serious results e.g. takes-out another competitor who then takes out a suit against CTT.

I agree. Some of the riders you see in old pics, with drilled components, must have been barking.

But then again, parts from yesteryear were generally over engineered, compared to modern components, where weight and aerondynamics seem to now take precident over long term reliability. Modern chains sometimes snap under load, a single spoke breakage can now cause a catastrophic failure of the whole wheel, a pothole can cause fork blades to actually separate from the main fork column, and the whole issue of carbon component service life is still a bit of a grey area.

And there must be loads of riders out there, riding 2nd hand carbon stuff, who cannot be entirely sure that what they're riding on hasn't been compromised by the original owner.

Catastrophic wheel failures if 1 spoke goes? Unlikely. The trend of reducing spoke counts has generally led to stronger rims. Manufacturers have to meet or exceed certain safety criteria.

And your comment about 2nd hand carbon stuff is equally applicable to steel or ali.

ficklewhippet wrote:

And your comment about 2nd hand carbon stuff is equally applicable to steel or ali.

Maybe you're right, but there are many websites showing damaged carbon parts, even one that is completely dedicated to carbon failure.

One bike website says, "Carbon fiber cannot be visually inspected and many parts have only a one-season life span",
and goes on to say that the number one carbon failure is seatposts (ouch) and number two is the steering column (scary).

Ok, I've ridden carbon, although not racing, to be fair, but I'm a hefty bloke who's been regularly riding steel frames with aluminium components for nearly 40 years and I've never had any sort of failure whatsoever. In days gone by, I remember I was fearless in the bunch, down some really hairy decents, but I hear that even top pros feel a tad nervous on the plastic stuff nowadays, and they're not riding five year old frames bought second hand on Ebay from someone they don't know from Adam.

Ps - I'm always very careful in my truck, when overtaking you guys doing time trials.

Most people with any sense would consider writing off a bike that's had a major stack, or at least get it looked over properly (regardless of material).
I'm always sceptical of websites that make vague statements without data to back it up. I mean, everything everywhere that exists as an assembly has potential to fail, therefore it will have a no. 1 cause, as well as a no. 2, ad infinitum. Everything can be broken! Where are the data stating why and how they failed? Are comparisons with other materials available?
I think it's just scaremongering to be honest. Better not fly on a Dreamliner or an A350 XWB!
Ah wait a minute - I've just twigged from your name why you're a sceptic!

Back to the TT scene though, I think some of the issues regarding homebrew parts and validity could be overcome by introducing an appropriate homologation process, which would allow for suitable durability tests to be performed. Would weed out the oddball semi-dangerous stuff while allowing products which genuinely advanced the technology to be available to the market...allowing some natural selection in the market to happen. Could be costly though.

ficklewhippet wrote:

Most people with any sense would consider writing off a bike that's had a major stack, or at least get it looked over properly (regardless of material).
I'm always sceptical of websites that make vague statements without data to back it up. I mean, everything everywhere that exists as an assembly has potential to fail, therefore it will have a no. 1 cause, as well as a no. 2, ad infinitum. Everything can be broken! Where are the data stating why and how they failed? Are comparisons with other materials available?
I think it's just scaremongering to be honest. Better not fly on a Dreamliner or an A350 XWB!
Ah wait a minute - I've just twigged from your name why you're a sceptic!

Back to the TT scene though, I think some of the issues regarding homebrew parts and validity could be overcome by introducing an appropriate homologation process, which would allow for suitable durability tests to be performed. Would weed out the oddball semi-dangerous stuff while allowing products which genuinely advanced the technology to be available to the market...allowing some natural selection in the market to happen. Could be costly though.

Ah yes, I'm a big fan of steel frames as you've spotted.

Interestingly, I've just been watching the Open University series on bicycle design, and an expert on there says that the advantage of steel is that it provides protection against catastrophic failure, when compared to carbon. So that's all right then. I mean, at my age, catastrophic failure could be, er, catastrophic.

I guess like many cyclists who grew up in the pre-plastic (sorry, carbon) era, I'm alarmed when I see pics of broken frames, wheels, cranks, stems, seat posts, pedals.... hang on a sec, the list is endless! No, sorry, I just can't face that hurdle of swinging my leg over a carbon bike.

But what would I gain, if I did take the plunge? In the same Open University series you can see Bernard Hainault talking about riding on 531, with an all up weight of 9kg. So if the UCI limit is currently 6.8kg, thats only a 2.2kg difference. And I'm 110kg, so with my bike I'm perhaps 120kg, which would mean less than a 2 percent saving if I went the plastic route - hardly worth writing home about now, is it?
Not for this fat bloke anyway

Oh well, back to the cosy familiarity of 753. And, of course, I can always brag about minimising my carbon footprint.