The no feeding rule is there for safety. The idea is that within the last 20kms the race is going too quickly to safely jettison bidons and take on food or drinks from the side of the road with riders fighting for position and simply riding too fast.
I thought it was pretty obvious why the no supplies in the last 20Km rule was there - safety. You don't want (additional) jockying for position by riders to get to the edge or soigners moving into the road in the last 20Km when peleton speeds are going to be high - and the fact that the rule also includes the bit before and after intermediate sprints surely shows its about rider safety....
I can also see there being an issue if you are in the race but out of contention, and maybe riding for your own PR, and your best friend is on another team and he goes down right beside you, it removes any expectation or assumption that you should give up your wheel. It would also likely reduce controversy from your own team (provided they weren't acting as one, as you stated above) if you gave that wheel to a friend willingly, likely could lead to dismissal from a rival team.
Taking a feed in the last 20km is For-BIDON. Some stages have a shorter distance to the finish and it is supposed to be for rider safety so Bidons are not flying around when the race speeds up to the finish (sometimes sprint finish).
Damn it man. I watched that wheel change from the thumbnail LIVE on the telly. So frustrated by that stupid decision. It was the most fair play thing to do in that situation. Richie may have lost minutes but he won out hearts
The teams are supposed to be competing and most professional sports to have rules against them cooperating except for mutual benefit. Imagine it's the last day of the football season and Team A needs to win by three goals to get into the play-offs on goal difference. Their opponents, Team B, don't care what the result is because they're in the middle of the table, so they agree before the match that B will concede three goals. People would be outraged. The wheel swap is just the same thing on a smaller scale: Porte needed to save time to make a significant difference to his position, Clarke didn't care about the negative effect on his own position, which was largely irrelevant, so they agreed that Clarke would concede a wheel.
@@beeble2003 Perfectly OK until you read about the "Not attacking when riders are down" bit. You don't take advantage of other's bad luck. ie you are cooperating without mutual benefit. There are still some elements of sportsmanship left.
@@KandiKlover All rich? You have no understanding and need to educate yourself. in 2019 Ineos' budget was 25 million USD. Astana was second with 14 millions. CCC and QuickStep with 12.5 million. And if you think that team isn't above buying victories, LOL This year Ineos budget might be twice as large as the next biggest. That means an unscrupulous team (ahem) might have extra wheels/feeding/assistance from all over the peloton.
beeble2003 sometimes it is just sportsmanship. in the 2006 Winter Olympics during a cross country race, a Canadian skier broke her pole. The Norwegian coach handed her his pole. The Canadians got silver and the Norwegians finished fourth.
Way back when I began racing as a junior, the then US cyclyng governing body, American Bicycle League which morphed in the USCF and today USA Cycling decided to enforce a dress code to "europeanize" American cycling. One new rule was white only just above ankle socks which at first didn't go over very well cos going sock-less was popular then. Some riders took it upon themselves to paint socks on their ankles. That was funny for a while until at some point weren't allowed to race. The best part was that tube socks with stripes too were banned. Ugly! Within a year, major US races looked like europe.
The UCI should keep the weight limit rule because this forces manufacturers to make advancements in other areas such as braking for example where ABS for bikes is now on the cards but if if you removed the weight limits all the focus will be on lightweight again which will hamper development in other areas of the overall bicycle package. Imagine a 6.8kg bike with ABS disc brakes, aero frame, comfortable padded saddle and some form of vertical compliance like intelligent electronic suspension etc...IMHO weight savings is picking low hanging fruit, lets get the bike builders working harder for our money...
Can't argue with your logic there mate. Good point :) not keen on the idea of all the computerising bikes, I like the purity of cycling. Just man and bike but an extremely comfortable lightweight saddle would be a grand thing!
@@connorsmith7804 I somewhat agree. "Raw" bikes are certainly fun, but ABS could prevent many crashes, even just in the pro peloton. The same thing started happening in cars in the 80s and 90s. Cars are safer, but in many motorsports, ABS and other advancements are still banned, to make the racing interesting.
@@kelvinyonger8885 I see where you're coming from too but how many electrical problems do modern cars have now? Mechanics need so many extra tools, computers and software to just diagnose problems. A 50 year old car could still be on the road but today's cars in 50 years will have been recycled 3 times. I don't want bikes to go the same way :)
High tech bikes are only for beginners. In the 80s I raced pro on a custom steel bike with downtube friction shifters, caliper brakes, and tubular rims/tires. 6 speed freewheel and double 52/42 chainrings. Campagnolo bearing surfaces. I NEVER wanted or needed anything more. The more we have today makes bikes insanely expensive (rich kids sport now) and insanely stupid for stupid riders who will not take the time to learn the skills of riding/shifting, braking.
The weight limit changed focus of bike development from weight reduction to sturdy and reliable components. Had a huge positive effect. You could reduce it by a kilo but you should set a limit somewhere. Note that bikes are getting heavier, larger tires and disk brakes have added on a good 500g. Ewan's bike, for one of the smallest riders in the peloton, is well above the weight limit.
I would prefer to hear the stories behind those rules, since they were usually introduced after some ridiculous event. I love the old stories, from taking a train to driving in the wrong direction or takig shortcuts, although I don't like the current mode of racing - a whole support team, different bikes for different days? Nope, one reason why I hope to see more of gravel races...
The stocking rule ends up with logic. There is a similarity to what happened in the 2008 Olympics, in which swimmers wore a suit with anti drag technology, this can happen here and again the budget gap between the teams would increase.
1. No feeding before 20km of the finish - I disagree. This is a good rule as the speed usually picks up towards the end and there is usually a bit more struggling for positions. The 20km limit is completely arbitrary and could be replaced by one at 15km instead. But it's a good thing that the rule is there. That said, I think the 20 second penalty was too harsh. Make the penalty gradual instead and rely more on fines. Only fines between 15-20km with higher fines beyond 15km with time penalties added as well. A bit of tolerance at the limit would be a good idea. 2. No offering of bikes - I agree that this seems ridiculous. However, I can somewhat see the meaning behind it. If a leader lost his bike then you'd imagine that the team would order any teammates to give up their bike for their leader. Is that fair? I don't know, but I don't think it's that straightforward. 3. Minimum weight for bikes - I disagree. This rule is crucial. It's not just about safety. It's also about costs. Remember the swimming suits getting banned after world records were broken left and right? It was the swimmers who wanted them banned because they were too expensive. It would be the same for extremely light bikes made from ultra-light exotic materials. It would just be a waste with no benefit. 4. Maximum sock length - This again appears like a ridiculous rule. But again, you end up in a situation where having no rules would result in higher costs for the teams as they'd design very long socks out of expensive materials to reduce air resistance. That, and they'd probably be less comfortable for the riders, so the rule makes everyone happy, even if it seems ridiculous. 5. No running - No, this is again a reasonable rule. If riders were allowed to jump off their bicycles and run, then what do you think would happen at all the climbs going above 15-20%? It would be faster to jump off your bike and run up the climb with your bicycle in your hands. That would be a ridiculous scenario, but it would be reality if not for this rule. Chris Froome got a pass because he literally lost his bike. But if that had been at a much steeper climb and he ran faster than the rest could ride and win because of that, there'd be an outrage, and rightly so. 6. No attacking after a crash - This is an interesting one, and I'm glad you brought it up. It's a tough one to evaluate, and I don't think there's as clear of an answer as in the others. 7. Fines for wrong clothes - I agree with you here. This one is silly. I imagine that it's for economic reasons for the sponsors to get more exposure? Not sure, but seems like it. A stupid rule indeed.
Your 4th point about costs being higher for taller socks doesn't make much sense. You can go to the store and buy a pair of full length running tights for $30. If someone wants to wear a full body speedsuit, like Flo Jo did in 87, they should be allowed to.
@@karsonkevin2 Try making that argument in favour of the now banned swimsuits from 10 years ago that almost every professional swimmer complained about.
@@DirtyPoul I think your point was good. They would be hyper engineered, body hugging, and due to weight etc probably single use. If some teams can afford them then it's unfair, if all teams can afford them it's the status quo with more waste
I think the weight rule still has value. Even with it in place we see frames snap in small knocks and bumps (not all on TV, teams sneak them away if they can). That said, it should be modernised: max weight per element (front wheel, frame, saddle etc) and same elements such as the frame, should be on a sliding scale.
It is good they did. I didn't know about this rule although it now makes perfect sense as to way. However, rules are put in place based on meaningful events that happened. It is good for someone to inform others so they don't make stupid assumption like the once here. It is not a rule geared towards Alaphillippe only but to everyone.
The sky wheel change at number 1, "with no team mates around" when you can see at least one team mates arm in the picture, maybe check before putting it up or saying something that's obviously wrong at 1 min 18 seconds. From what I remember there was 2 or 3 that stopped with him. Doesn't stop the rule being stupid but it does make me wonder why he used a different teams wheel?
Bike weight rule gave us deeper section wheels (and even non tubular ones are apparently viable for racing), disc brakes, aero tube shapes, and, frankly, stronger built bikes. Component and bike manufacturers gave us extra functionality instead of just making bikes lighter.
The sock rule is stupid and as a licensed professional engineer, I will explain: 1) longer socks = more weight 2) for true aerodynamic advantage one would wear no socks, was their legs, and apply some type of exfoliating tool to make skin abnormally smooth 3) water bottles still impact bike ride more than anything else outside of rider weight.
La Vuelta 2019 stage 19 Movistar was riding hard already before the crash. Just re-watch. They stopped riding by the urging of the referees and the media. It was Roglič's fault that he was not at the head of the peloton. (He destroyed his own team, which was supposed to take care of him, a few days before that.) At the time of crash, they were coming out of the town - crosswind, chaos and falls were expected. But there were riders who did not stop when there was the crash and gained a great time advantage. One of them was the winner of this stage - Rémi CAVAGNA.
One might argue whether the 6.8kg bike weight rule is the "right" figure, but some minimum weight restriction is prudent for the safety of riders. I recall when the effort to minimize the hull weight of America's Cup contenders reached such extremes that races had to be canceled if wave heights reached a level that would be ok for my little 18' sailboat, because these multi-million dollar 80' long yachts could literally break apart...as actually happened in 1995 to the vessel "One Australia" during a race off of San Diego. The seduction of gaining an advantage by means of weight reduction can lead to foolish and dangerous compromises.
It is. So test instead frame and component strength instead of this silly proxy. I don't think a bike is any stronger by adding 400 grams of chain inside the frame.
You've mischaracterized the Froome running incident. The race jury didn't let him off anything in that incident--he didn't violate the rules in running part of the course without a bike. The rules at the time of the incident said that you must cross the finish line with a bike. They didn't say that you must traverse the entire course with a bike. I don't know if the rule has been updated since then. One area where the race juries persist in letting off Froome and other riders is sitting on the top tube and doing the phantom TT bars position in a road race. That is prohibited by the rules that specify the allowed load bearing points between the rider (hands, feet and butt), and the bike (handlebar/hoods, pedals and saddle). Where aero bars are allowed, the forearms/elbows and arm rests on the handlebar are added to the allowed lists. IIRC, the rules don't specify or require matchups though, so riding out the saddle, riding no handed, stretching with one foot on the saddle, etc. are not prohibited, at least not by those particular rules.
I remember stories of Bernard Hinoute, forgive my spelling if I got it wrong . Of Bernard spraying Gatoraid on over zealous new pros for attacking so early in super long stages , my point being if young riders don't know the unwritten etiquette they get taught .
That's fair, but fining the team for the infraction makes no difference to anyone, so teams will just keep doing it, knowing they can just pay the fine to help their rider. The only punishment that might act as a deterrent is one that affects the rider's time/position in the race so doing it would actually hinder their rider not help them. There is also the distinct possibility that it wasn't a mistake, the team just expected to get away with a fine.
Their team head said there was a long downhill stretch before, so this place seemed the only safe place for them to feed and they simply forgot the 20 km rule. He also said that rules have to apply equally to everybody and Ala would hopefully come back.
The "no running" rule seems like 100% a safety thing. It seems like it shouldn't be a rule, even though I fully understand why it makes sense to be there. If you're running, something's already gone wrong, it's not going to help that much or could even create a less safe situation.
0:46 there are alaways high speeds in the last 20km and it's very risky to get food and you can cause a crash , this rule is not dumb at all and i think is very important for the safety of the riders
In 2010 RadioShack signed-in in their team kit and then changed into non-team jerseys (Livestrong) and rode to the start line. Not only were they not fined but they were allowed to change the their original jersey (or be DQed) after the race had been stopped to address their illegal jersey change. I know this was a Lance thing, but it honestly sounds like something Rock Racing would have pulled.
The existence of a minimum mass rule is certainly not stupid, and exactly the same technical argument is still as valid now as it was when the rule was introduced: if there is no lower weight limit, human nature will mean that *some* teams will likely end up (consciously or otherwise) favoring performance over safety. Materials and design techniques aren't "infintely" stronger now than 23 years ago - the factor is most definitely a finite number! Physics hasn't changed, neither has human nature. The actual mass limit can sensibly be revised as time and technology advances, but there does need to be a limit
Feeding zones are dangerous even when the peloton self neutralizes. I'm sure you've noticed in races like the Tour de France where riders go off early, are allowed to dangle off the front and the last 20 or so kilometers all hell breaks lose when teams step up for the catch for their own finish strategies. Grabbing at water bottles at 40mph is very dangerous to everyone and having that rule in place is very sound.
Imagine that second rule didnt exist. imagine you could just help anyone on another team. Now what is stopping a wealthy team from (under the table) paying of a smaller poorer team to ride for them whenever possible, essentially making it a 16 man team instead of 8. That is a HUGE advantage that only the wealthier teams could get. and even if you dont get money involved, that incident with porte and clarke wasnt sportsmanship its them being friends. Imagine this same scenario but its, idk, valverde that got the puncture instead of Porte. Clarke probably wouldnt have given him his wheel. Its favouritism, not sportsmanship, and that has no place in a fair competition. This rule is essential for fair play
Regarding accepting assistance from other teams: In 2019 Ineos' budget was 25 million USD. Astana was second with 14 millions. CCC and QuickStep with 12.5 million. Teams like Direct Energie had 4.25 million and Arkea only had 2.5 million. And if you think Sky/Ineos are above buying victories, well. This year Ineos budget might be twice as large as the next biggest. That means an unscrupulous team (ahem) might have extra wheels/feeding/assistance from all over the peloton.
The "Alaphillipe" rule is their because the pace is Higher and the intensity in the peloton is Higher when nearing the end. This making it dangerous to get stuff from the roadside
And the socks and bike weight ones may seem silly but you have to draw the line somewhere and half way up your calf makes sense. Otherwise you'll have everyone cycling in full body suits cycling ultra light (and expensive) bikes. Aside from looking ridiculous, they'd want to prevent technology from taking over the sport. You want it to be a competition of who's the best cyclist, not who has the most advanced equipment. Also to inspire youths and non-pros it's better to make the higher levels seem somewhat achievable and not like something out of a cheesy 1970s scifi
The sock rule is about compression socks more than aerodynamics. The UCI does not want the over use of compression socks as it might give some sort of advantage.
According to Lance Armstrong, the sock lenght rule got introduced at the behest of Jean-Marie Leblanc when the US Postal team did notice that riding with compression socks did wonders for their performance, endurance and recovery... ;) The idea being that keeping the socks short prohibits the compression effect.
They were obsessively performance enhancing across the spectrum, which is what made them win, as others before and since. Some means were legal, some much less so.
No feeding in the last 20Km is a mystery? Really? Maybe because that's about when everybody goes NUTS for the fininshing position & sprints? High risk for timing issues, running over a waterbottle etc...causing a crash?
I get the no running up hill one... there may be some hills that are steep enough that it might be faster to run than cycle.... you'd have everyone hopping off their bikes to climb these.
The limit of 6.8 kg is because if not the pros will continue to go lower and lower untill it becomes dangerous........just look at crashes when the frames get destroyed
That's an issue though, bikes can easily go lower than 6.8 kg with modern technology, they aren't arguing for no weight minimum, their arguing for it to be lowered, because at this point pro riders are having to put weights on their bikes to achieve regulation weight
The rule should be about the forces the frame and other components can take instead of weight. A standardized set of laboratory stress and impact tests just like all respectable bike manufacturers are doing right now. You can build a terrible flimsy bike which is above 6,8kg and a perfectly safe one that is lower.
you're joking about calipers to measure socks but actually commisaires already have special devices that show the middle between two points (malleolus and fibular head in this case)
And they use standard I-Pads (with UCI stickers on it) and a Metal Detector app to search for technologic helps as motor assisted bikes... when you can have a thermal camera for the price of a smart phone today... ffs
Bike weight rule definitely should have been reviewed at least a decade ago. Any cyclist with several grand can walk into a bike shop and buy a bike that breaks the rule right off the salesfloor.
I could see the rule being lifted for the top level but the rules are the same across all UCI races. So they want to make sure the lower levels of the sport are accessible to those without a fat wallet.
@@kibbee890 they need not be the same. For example, 'cross has different tire width rules across different levels. For example, USA Masters was less restrictive (35 mm vs 33) to account for people using their tires in their new wider rims. If it's a UCI race you can argue it's not really a "lower" level of sport.
@Mr HOPKIRK Your analogy doesn't work. FIFA doesn't care what some bunch of kids on the street use as a football and the UCI doesn't care about what some bunch of kids on the street use in a bike race. And, much though one might hope otherwise, access to sport _is_ about money. Football is something of an exception because you just need a ball and some space and it's widely played in schools across the world. For almost any other sport, you need parents who are rich enough to buy you equipment, pay for coaching and transport you to events. In any case, the UCI weight limit does nothing whatsoever to make cycling more affordable. Only the well-off can afford 6.8kg bikes. If you're riding around on a 9kg bike because that's as light as you can afford, the UCI changing the weight limit to, say 6kg, isn't going to make much difference to you: if the weight difference is really a big factor, you're already being wiped out by the guys on 6.8kg bikes.
No offering of bikes to people on other teams is a really obviously correct rule. It stops teams basically paying off other teams to help them rather than sacrificing a domestique. The Porte-Clarke situation was a penalty because Clarke wouldn't have given his bike to, say, Aru or Nibali, so it's collusion.
The min bike weight rule? Seriously? The only group harmed by that rule are the bicycle manufacturers who don't get the reap the sales of the 'new, lightest frame.' Since GCN is essentially one long-format advertisement, we can guess which side of this argument they take. Amateurs not having to clear UCI tech inspection can already ride bicycles under the UCI rule. We know pro machines often have to add ballast to make weight. What cycling DOESN'T need is a lighter-bike-than-you arms race where only the richest teams can win.
Actually it has in componets compare a shimano dura ace groupset from just 10 years ago to one from today they have gotten lighter and stronger and I have seen plenty of broken in half steel and aluminum bikes
Given how far below the UCI minimum weight a bike can go, has anyone used that margin for comfort? I mean, if you get everything else as light as possible, you can have a leather saddle and still not make the weight minimum! Why not start from an ultralight build and add to it?
First rule you talk about... feeding within 20k of the finish.... you really cant figure that out? Its because of things like caffeine. A dose at that time will kick in just about the perfect time in the race to quite possibly give you the winning boost.
Good spot! Actually, it was mentioned in the media at the time. Taking Clarke's wheel meant that Sky had a full complement of domestiques available, rather than being down a man. www.theguardian.com/sport/100-tours-100-tales/2015/may/20/simon-clarke-richie-porte-gir-ditalia-cycling-penalty
Great video!!!!!Not agree with the Movistar comment about attack with the pelotón crash. The stage was already on a high level a very fast. No agree with that point
Seat tilt angle. No downward tilted saddles. Depending on the anatomy of the rider, seat tilt (angle) is extremely personal, but UCI will not allow the tilt.
Movistar had explained and proved to the organization that their plans were push after the village where the crush had been. Roglic apologized for his words to Valverde...Lopez never apologizes himself after saying Movistar team were idiots
