Following a slate of recent UCI rule updates, CyclingSpy filed this story to try to answer the big question: can changing equipment regulations actually make cycling safer?
There has been a lot of discussion about the recently announced UCI rule changes and as an owner of a keyboard, I thought I would add to the noise on this topic by talking about how different equipment design regulations could contribute to rider safety.
I’m not going to talk about other ways to improve safety (course design, marshalling, vehicles on course etc.) as there are already great pieces on different ways the UCI could quickly improve safety and these are topics are already pointed out often by riders and fans alike (when the UCI would like to take notice of this is another matter). What I’m hoping to do is offer an in-depth view into how different equipment regulations could impact road racing, both from a safety and fairness perspective (and expanding some points Ronan made at the end of last year) while also suggesting how the announced changes could be implemented while trying not to repeat too much of what’s been said already.
Why would equipment changes make racing safer?
Essentially, for the same reason that speed limits exist on most public roads.
The recent UCI rule changes are partly trying to reduce speeds by increasing, or preventing the further reduction of, the aerodynamic drag of the riders. If you crash at a lower speed, the energy involved in the crash is lower and that usually means less significant injuries. Although clumsy, low-speed crashes can still cause injury (ask anyone who’s broken a wrist after failing to unclip at traffic lights).
In bike racing, riders also usually ride a fixed distance away from each other in a peloton or paceline. At a lower speed this gives riders behind slightly more time to react to any incident in front of them and could potentially reduce the likelihood of mass pileups. It’s a small difference of a few hundredths of a second extra reaction time, but that could be the difference in being swept up in someone else’s crash or having the chance to try and avoid it.
Ronan Mc Laughlin
It should also be said that it is the job of the teams and riders to try and win. That means getting to the finish line faster than your competitors (a Will Buxton-ism for you Drive to Survive fans). As such, they are constantly trying to find ways to make the riders faster and undo any speed-reducing rules brought in for safety. Most of this innovation in recent years has happened around aerodynamics and because of this, a lot of equipment rules changes will be intended to slow down the ‘aero arms race.'
What changes have been made already (and why)?
The most recent changes, have limited wheel rim depth, made a distinction between road and TT helmets, bike fork and seat stay geometry and handlebar setups.
Starting with the wheels: generally, a deeper wheel will produce less drag. Historically, this has come with some problems in handling in crosswinds, but modern designs have made a lot of progress in solving this. However, the drag reductions do reach diminishing returns at larger depths. When combining weight and other characteristics, most brands have settled in the region of 50-70 mm as their deepest offering for road racing. There wasn’t a sign this area was going to get crazy for road racing with 100 mm+ rim depths, but I don’t think it's necessarily unfair to draw a line somewhere, and the UCI has decided 65 mm is where that line is.
Making a distinction between road and TT helmets was mentioned in the UCI statement, but with no description of how this would be done. Helmets offer significant potential for drag reduction (3%+ between good and bad options isn’t unusual) and could therefore be regulated in a way that could lower speeds. One way it could be possible to regulate this is by having a minimum open area when viewed from the front or rear with the helmet bisected (chopped in half). Essentially, mandating a lot of draggy vents. Minimum radius of curvature over certain parts of the helmet could also be specified to prevent teardrop-shaped helmets. It goes without saying that helmets should still offer as much protection (both from impact and rotational damage) as possible.
I’m not personally convinced of wide forks and seatstays in road racing, save for a couple of specific conditions, but the UCI has decided to put a limit here to prevent more Hope HB.T-style designs coming onto the road. Whether this is for aesthetics, slowing down the aero frame design progress, or whether the UCI is concerned about wider designs having an impact on the dynamics of a crash, I’m not sure, but this is the rule moving forward.
Now on to the handlebar rules. A lot of good stuff has already been said on this so I won’t go on about it too long. Body position is the biggest factor in determining aerodynamic drag and changing the setup of the front end often makes the most difference to drag. The UCI also seems to believe that narrow handlebars are too difficult for racers to handle. While I agree that there probably is a point where a bar that’s too narrow might impact a rider’s ability to handle responsibly in a peloton, I think the measurements they’ve decided on are wrong. Wider bars will increase a rider’s drag, lower speeds, and improve safety from that side of things, but forcing some (read: a lot of) riders into dysfunctional positions will harm safety. Whether this rule is scrapped altogether and we keep the current system, or whether allowances are made based on a rider’s height/shoulder width/whatever, I’m not sure, but I agree with a lot of others that this needs changing.
So what other changes could be made?
If the goal is to slow down the peloton, there are options beyond what's already been proposed.
Clothing
One thing I see mentioned a lot is clothing. This makes sense because, after body position, clothing has probably the next biggest effect on drag. If we were to force riders to use slower clothing, we could significantly reduce race speeds. To achieve this, I’ve seen standardised skinsuits mentioned (like in Japanese domestic Kierin racing) or limiting manufacturers to a range of fabrics to select from when making clothing. The idea is that if the ‘aero-ness’ of the fabric on every rider is the same, no one will have an advantage over the other, right?
Did we do a good job with this story?
