Braveheart Cycling Fund Chat Rooms
Braveheart Cycling Fund Chat Rooms
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
 All Forums
 Braveheart Cycling Fund Forums
 General Discussion (Time Trialing)
 SCOTTISH NATIONAL TIME TRIALS 2012 and 2013

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:
UserName:
Password:
Message:

* HTML is ON
* Forum Code is OFF
Smilies
Smile [:)] Big Smile [:D] Cool [8D] Blush [:I]
Tongue [:P] Evil [):] Wink [;)] Clown [:o)]
Black Eye [B)] Eight Ball [8] Frown [:(] Shy [8)]
Shocked [:0] Angry [:(!] Dead [xx(] Sleepy [|)]
Kisses [:X] Approve [^] Disapprove [V] Question [?]

 
   

T O P I C    R E V I E W
Jinty H Posted - 14 Mar 2012 : 20:36:48
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/scotland/article/sc-20120314-scottish-cycling-news-NATIONAL-TIME-TRIALS-0

Apologies for the delay in announcing these dates and that we have had to change some of the original dates which were shown on the draft calendar.

Janette Hazlett
National Events Officer - Scottish Cycling



Janette Hazlett
Ivy Cycling Club
25   L A T E S T    R E P L I E S    (Newest First)
doc Posted - 05 Apr 2012 : 16:13:50
Aye but would it pass the 1: 3 ratio??
grantus Posted - 05 Apr 2012 : 16:08:54
Hmm, that contest would definitely involve some 'unnatural positions' Mr Sharp and I fully expect morphological expemtions could well be required from one (or both?) participants??

ian sharp Posted - 05 Apr 2012 : 15:55:34
This is getting too serious!
I want to see JJ in action against PBPB,the barrel concept fascinates me!
Come on,Big Jim,(BAR 1964,I think),sell tickets ,all proceeds to the Vets!
This could be a sell-out!
All we need now is a decent fotographer.
Anyone free?
CarlosFerreiro Posted - 05 Apr 2012 : 13:28:25
quote:
Originally posted by Fiona W
I asked for an exemption but was not allowed. Not quite sure what exactly I need to do to get one.

This pdf shows the UCI position measurements and morphological exemption stuff.
http://www.usacycling.org/forms/uci/UCIBicycleRegulations.pdf

For you to have the saddle less than 5cm behind the BB, the front of your knee must be behind the pedal spindle with the cranks at 3 o'clock. Be sure and sit back in the saddle when they are measuring that ;-)
grantus Posted - 05 Apr 2012 : 09:50:58
[/quote]

...I don't think I'll be taking up bigjim on his offer anytime soon!...
[/quote]

Not sure it was an offer, as such, Ian
Fiona W Posted - 05 Apr 2012 : 08:49:36
I asked for an exemption but was not allowed. Not quite sure what exactly I need to do to get one. My bike has passed the bike check at British masters at Newport, yet it failed at the World masters in Manchester (despite no adjustments) so I worry about how standardised the checks are. A rider can be told their bike is fine at one event and then go on to another and fail

www.realworldfitnesstraining.co.uk
Steve McGinty Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 21:42:57
Obree's positions also required additional support for the upper body as he rested his shoulders on his hands/bars in the original, and needed arm-rests to assume the "superman." He most recently tried an extra-long position to meet the regs for the "athlete's" hour, but couldn't maintain the aero-position on the track.

Fiona - I thought people in your situation could get an exemption? There has to be some definition otherwise recumbents/prone positions/fairings etc would be fair game, but I doubt there would have been an issue around your bike before tri-bars.
Fiona W Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 21:01:16
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Steve McGinty[/i]
[br]For clarity, the reason I'm against tri-bars is mainly due to the arm-rests that are allowed with them. Without that artificial support riders couldn't achieve and hold the radical positions that make such a difference to performance and fundamentally changed the sport.

TT-specific bikes are needed too achieve the ultra-low, unnatural positions that tri-bars allow when used with arm-rests. Most of the current issues over TT bike regulations are related to tri-bars and the arm-rests their use requires. Position over the bracket becomes a non-issue if you can't artificially support your upper body on arm-rests. Why would you want your saddle pointing down on a bike without arm-rests and tri-bars to support your weight? The pressure on your hands would be too great otherwise.

It was crazy that the UCI and national authorities allowed such an aberration in the first place. Maybe they hoped to gain control of the emerging un-regulated tri-athlon movement at that time.




My track bike in its normal set up (without tri bars) does not comply with the saddle/bottom bracket rule. To make it compliant I am overly stetched out - verging on superman position

www.realworldfitnesstraining.co.uk
PBPB Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 20:18:09
quote:
[i]Originally posted by isobel smith[/i]
[br]Over the decades that I've been involved with the sport Ian,
many riders compete in both RRs and TTs.Some highly successful at both.




Good point Isobel, perhaps I over-generalised a bit...names that spring to mind are Davie Gibson, Davie Miller, Arthur Doyle, Willie Gibb...any more suggestions folks...I don't think I'll be taking up bigjim on his offer anytime soon!...
frenkmcginty Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 20:10:54
steve..i don't think we can be related even distantly because of your tendency to talk sense..however i'm not sure i'm with you on your unnatural positions bit...cycling is a kinda unnatural position to take to begin with and i'm a big fan of obrees playing about with it all and frenkly welcome new "positions"...frenkmcsquinty
Steve McGinty Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 20:01:02
For clarity, the reason I'm against tri-bars is mainly due to the arm-rests that are allowed with them. Without that artificial support riders couldn't achieve and hold the radical positions that make such a difference to performance and fundamentally changed the sport.

TT-specific bikes are needed too achieve the ultra-low, unnatural positions that tri-bars allow when used with arm-rests. Most of the current issues over TT bike regulations are related to tri-bars and the arm-rests their use requires. Position over the bracket becomes a non-issue if you can't artificially support your upper body on arm-rests. Why would you want your saddle pointing down on a bike without arm-rests and tri-bars to support your weight? The pressure on your hands would be too great otherwise.

It was crazy that the UCI and national authorities allowed such an aberration in the first place. Maybe they hoped to gain control of the emerging un-regulated tri-athlon movement at that time.

Graham McG Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 19:50:45
quote:
[i]Originally posted by bigjim[/i]
[br]on another subject.
Ian son I could have you
over a barrel and no space for your
camera.



Jeez, just so many possible retorts to this I will of course, refrain.
bigjim Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 19:25:15
on another subject.
Ian son I could have you
over a barrel and no space for your
camera.
Bill Aberdeen Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 17:36:08
doc. Please say why you support the introduction of UCI regulations when you yourself admit they can not be implemented? Although noticed you have never given a satisfactory reply to any point made, just enraged those who have actually read the regulations with comments like "debate on here is largely down to misinformation"
doc Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 16:28:50
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...............
Bill Aberdeen Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 15:57:17
doc. What is the point of introducing rules then not implementing them?

Lets say a road race takes place and the commissaire deems it not "appropriate" to check the bikes for UCI complience. Then the rider who finishes in 3rd place submits an official complaint saying the 2 who finished ahead of him did not have UCI ladels on there frames? The whole point of UCI labels is so frames do not require to be measured against a jig. Hence easier for the commissaire, i.e. no label no ride.

Or the UCI has another brainwave, changes the rules and the only competitor in the road race with the resources to obtain a complient bike in time comes 65th and last. He submits an official complaint about every other competitor having a none complient bike and wins the race. Just because a frame has a UCI label does not mean it complies. The UCI can issue a list of frames with labels that no longer comply. You may dismiss this scenario but they have done just that in the past and manufacturers would concentrate on providing complient bikes to their pro teams and international riders first before selling them to joe public. What then? Cancel all Road Races until complient bikes reach the market?
CarlosFerreiro Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 13:54:57
Ok, the commissaire would do the actual measuring, but the organisers would have to be there to provide the facilities for the bike checks, as well as starting signing the riders on early enough to allow enough time for all that?
doc Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 12:46:37
Carlos,

It is the Commissaires who would check bikes for compliance not the organiser(s) whose job it is to put the event on. Most TTs in Scotland only have one Comm so the practicalities of doing this reveal themselves. Remember my views are personal, based on experience and not attributed to any organisation or group.
CarlosFerreiro Posted - 04 Apr 2012 : 11:45:03
[quote][i]Originally posted by doc[/i]
Carlos, I don't have any influence with SC and I'm fairly low down in the food chain. I don't think we need any more organisations to run cycling as it can all be run in a sensible manner with application of regs where it matters. I may be getting pedantic but there is no such thing as 'amateur' racers any more as all events are 'open'.[quote]

Yes, for sure I'm sure we all hope that things will go down a "sensible" route. :)
For my "amateur" comment I suppose I was thinking more in terms of the organisation rather than the riders - getting up before dawn and jigging 120 bikes and getting paid for it is one thing, but a different thing to ask a club/organiser to do....
isobel smith Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 22:27:07
Over the decades that I've been involved with the sport Ian,
many riders compete in both RRs and TTs.Some highly successful at both.
doc Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 22:16:16
Gee this is some thread and probably best to calm things down a bit. As JJ says we all enjoy this sport which is why we ride our bikes. Nobody has thought of how implementing the UCI regs would actually be carried out in Scotland. I for one have no intentions of getting up at 5am to go a race with a jig to measure bikes and look for stickers on frames - the regs were never designed with this in mind. You can do all the research you want and come up with costings over how much it would be to be fully compliant and the like but the bottom line is that SC does not have the resources to train Commissaires and buy jigs to account for every TT on the calender when the money could be better spent. Thus it would be unlikely that full compliance would be workable so let's forget that. More likely some form of compromise is reached, not to satisfy riders I may add but to ensure compliance where appropriate and that won't be on the Wobbly RC '10' on the Cambusbarron course any time soon.

Carlos, I don't have any influence with SC and I'm fairly low down in the food chain. I don't think we need any more organisations to run cycling as it can all be run in a sensible manner with application of regs where it matters. I may be getting pedantic but there is no such thing as 'amateur' racers any more as all events are 'open'. That is why you can get club riders competing with professionals - who is the current Scottish 10 and 25 mile champ? Any complaint about pros 'stealing' medals or money? No none and the best rider won on the day. I bet his bike is not half as good as some. SC could have been a bit more clearer but communication has never been one of their strong points in recent years. Let's wait and see. I'm sure this will all resolve itself in the next few months with a satisfactory outcome for all.
PBPB Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 20:36:47
TT's are for poofs!...real men ride road races........
bigjim Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 20:24:22
Gentlemen dont get hot under the collar.
we are all in a sport that we enjoy
both touring and racing. in my day we
enjoyed racing with a pair of wheels
fixed cog [some liked the gears] good
531 frame front brake and enjoyed our
racing. the rules were simple and adhered
to thats all we want. why should people
that are only interested in profesional
and international side of the sport dictate
rules to the common clubmember.\regards the
CTT. they will not entertain clubs from
Scotland as their constitution is for
England and Wales only. I have a letter
from 1988 [RTTC] refusing clubs from
Scotland. Bill from Aberdeen is correct
you dont need fancy bikes to race.
just give us back our old S.C.U.
frenkmcginty Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 19:28:18
i went to a party on saturday night which was themed specifically for the parochial interests of the few...i got off with a pair of tri-bars and had a great night...i wouldn't write off that parochial interst malarkey...and speaking as a person with a pb of 29.58 i would be happy to see tt's banned forever.....compliantmcgintycomplaint
CarlosFerreiro Posted - 03 Apr 2012 : 18:20:40
quote:
[i]Originally posted by doc[/i]The fact is Scottish riders and the sport in Scotland will be disadvantaged if we don't join the party rather then keeping to the parochial interests of the few.

How would you weigh up the advantages and disadvantages overall of a Scottish version of the English situation - with UCI rules under SC/BC for all events except TTs and a separate organisation (standalone or just a branch) running the TTs under either the current rules, or at least some variation which is more in tune with amateur TTs?

Braveheart Cycling Fund Chat Rooms © 2013 Braveheart Cycling Fund Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.69 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000