gummibear Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Who cares if the Camelbak is worn on your back or front. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/frank-schleck-facing-uci-investigation-after-criterium-international-tt Edited April 3, 2011 by gummibear
TheSaint Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 (edited) Who cares if the Camelbak is worn on your back or front. +1 Edited April 3, 2011 by CC307
Grebel Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 That's ridiculous! I don't see a Camelbak as a non essential piece of equipment!!! He has to drink from somewhere... Nobody said anything about Armstrong's "dimpled" timetrial suit and that assisted the airflow across his lower back reducing turbulance!
Christie Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 uci = useless bunch of old farts. They go ape about things like 3:1 ratios on TT bars & Camelbak in the front, but turn a blind eye to blood doping etc
onetrackmind Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 uci = useless bunch of old farts. They go ape about things like 3:1 ratios on TT bars & Camelbak in the front, but turn a blind eye to blood doping etc A Camelbak for a nine-minute time trial? Sounds like essential equipment to me. They must nail any rider, for breaking any rule. No this-is-worse-than-that. You breaka da rule, dey break your ball. Sorry, balls. My bad.
Klaus Posted April 3, 2011 Posted April 3, 2011 Agreed - a little petty ! Some might say that glasses and even gloves are non essential. I'm sure a good set of either may affect performance !
gummibear Posted April 3, 2011 Author Posted April 3, 2011 Booties are non essential and no one ever complained...... except maybe if you are on a Mtb
Christie Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Wearing it on your back is completely legal according to uci regs. Why should wearing it on your chest be illegal?
kosmonooit Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 UCI rule 1.3.033 which says “it is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider.” More on cyclenews
andydude Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Are the UCI to petty? I don't know. In the extreme case, you can't use a motor in your bicycle - everybody would agree and this is obviously banned. If the camelbak really gave Frank an advantage of two seconds per kilometre then it means he won because of it (8km x 2s = 16s > winning margin). I do somewhat sympathise with the UCI in trying to hold a standard in a sport where everybody is trying to push the limits, legally or not. Think about it some more instead of just throwing in random comments.
Slowbee Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 how would having the pack on your stomach giev you an advantage ?
andydude Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 how would having the pack on your stomach giev you an advantage ? Think of wind blowing onto a rectangle (chest stomach area) and onto the top end of a triangle (camelbak creates a triangle on the chest stomach area). The rectangle will catch more wind whereas the wind is better deflected of a triangle. Go check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_resistance - some nice pictures as well!
nuge Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 how would having the pack on your stomach giev you an advantage ?slowbee, you've got a point. taking it one step further - i was always told that in aerodynamics it's more important to smooth the air on the trailing edge rather than the leading edge as this is where turbulence has more of an effect - so surely having a camleback on his back (or, in tt mode, perhaps behind his arse!) would make more sense?! has the "camelstomach" effect been tested in a wind tunnel? i mean, how do they know it's 2s over 1km anyway? sounds like a lot of rubbish - hey, when last did he pee in a cup?
Klaus Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 how would having the pack on your stomach giev you an advantage ? If its full of water then its added weight. I dont see the advantage. Shouldn't be to comfy either and that would have a performance disadvantage as well IMO.
andydude Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Obviously the 2sec/1km is only a guess at this stage. I think smooth air on the trailing edge is secondary. We can't really debate the point as we only throw around opinions while nobody has exact science to prove their opinions. So lets not debate the ways, but rather the result. If rider A does/change/adds something that will result in him saving 2sec/1km (proven in a lab) should that be allowed? 4sec? 10sec? 0.5sec? Where do you draw the line? I guess in the end you have to juggle a type of standard for all and advances in technology. Think of sports like F1 where it is about the most money, best car and where driver skill has unfortunately been bumped lower down. Imagine the headline in 2030: Maxwell Edward Armstrong wins TdF with space age $26.5 million "bicycle"
Christie Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Camelbaks are legal. They used to be banned for a couple of years, but the ban was lifted a while ago. If he wore it on his back, there would be no issue. I can't see how it can be legal if worn on your back but illlegal if worn under your chest.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now