The man with the crazy handlebars has done it again. Jan-Willem van Schip was disqualified from the Tour of Holland this week for riding a seat post the UCI deemed illegal, marking his fourth fine or DQ, by our count, for equipment-related issues. The seat post in question exits the frame and then kinks forward, placing his saddle in a legal position (5 cm behind the bottom bracket) but doing so in a way that the UCI is no fan of.
It’s the latest in a long line of disputes between the Dutch rider and cycling’s rulebook. His bikes always look slightly wrong — handlebars too narrow and tilted skyward, geometry that bends the eye, positions that seem just outside the laws of physics, but, in reality, probably inhabit those laws better than a standard setup. In the battle between the sport's technical innovators and the guardians of tradition, Van Schip is arguably the foremost combatant pushing the limits. He’s been fined before, disqualified before, and was even part of the reason the UCI controversially rewrote its equipment regulations this season.
Iain Treloar
He doesn’t seem to care. And that makes him a useful stress test. Van Schip experiments to the edge of reason, sometimes beyond it, and not everyone enjoys the view. But his repeated clashes with the UCI raise a legitimate question larger than one eccentric rider: where should innovation end and tradition begin? Amid much discussion of the legal ramifications of SRAM’s UCI lawsuit, and the general public's distrust toward the UCI as an effective regulator, it feels like that question is sometimes lost.
What do we actually want?
It’s hard to watch Van Schip and not think of Graeme Obree.
There’s a meme you’ve probably seen, two men (British comedy duo Mitchell and Webb) in military uniforms realize mid-conversation that they might be the villains. “Are we the baddies?” one asks. Lately I’ve found myself wondering the same thing about horrible aero helmets and stupid handlebars.
Did we do a good job with this story?
