…a scene in which our heroine faces a challenge put forth from The Man*.
*The Man, who in this case, is the USA Cycling Official responsible for Time Trial Bike checks
The time trial – what was in the past Stage 1 of the venerable classic has now become Stage 3 – because it cost less to have the TT on Sunday, which was a weekend and holiday, and cops cost more on holiday weekends. Can’t say I blame them really, and it did create somewhat of an element of surprise for the GC results. In reality, most people find that their GC is highly affected by their placing in the Road Race stage, but the Time Trial still had the potential to shake things up a little.
Because this race is part of the NRC series, it means it is run under UCI rules for bike fit, which meant that all Pro-1-2 riders had to present their bikes for an official check prior to the start. They were nice enough to have the frame jig available for riders earlier in the day, to avoid any last minute adjustments to make said bikes legal. Yours truly was there bright and early before the first race of the day. My fiance was racing Cat 4, and I was sick of driving myself to races, so I tagged along with him and figured this would allow me ample time to check my bike – which was 100% totally legal by my calculations.
Despite my knowledge that my bike was 100% legal, I still ambled over to the start ramp and proceeded to check my bike on their jig at approximately 9:37am, even though my start time was officially 1:16:30pm. I lined my bike up and really couldn’t tell one way or the other if it passed their test, but I knew that my bike doesn’t pass the frame jig test anyway, because it is too small and the stupid UCI dimensions cannot be applied to a bike with a 50cm top tube. For people with bikes that do not fit the jig, the rule states that the rider’s position on the bike can be assessed to determine the legality of the position. The “legal” position must involve the rider’s knee being aligned with the pedal spindle when the foot is in the horizontal foreward (3:00) position. That is the rule. The UCI rule specifically states that the nose of the saddle must be a minimum of 5cm behind the center of the bottom bracket, but riders with unusual size bikes/bodies can request a ‘morphological’ (sic) exception, and I believe I meet that exception. (Note to the UCI – ‘morphological’ is not the correct word. Morphology generally refers to the structure of a living organism – I think what the really meant was ‘anthropometric’, which is the study of human body measurements. But whatever…I am not going to argue semantics (yet).
I know for a fact that my bike is ‘legal’ because as part of my research, I assessed the body segment lengths of 25 female cyclists and triathletes, and then measured their knee position at different seat tube angles on the bike and I know for a fact that body segment lengths (particularly the femur and the torso, and the relationship between them) are highly correlated to the likelihood that the knee position will not pass their rule. And I know that MY body segment lengths have a favorable proportion, and I also happen to carry a plumb bob with me just in case any one wants to debate that. So even though my time trial bike features a modified seatpost that enables me to ride an effective 78º seat tube angle on a 50cm top tube, it is entirely legal.
Except according to the officials, it isn’t. When I presented my bike for ‘official’ courtesy check about 15 minutes before my start time, they flat out said “No. Fail.”
I explained that of course it would fail, I rode a 50cm top tube and a bike with a top tube that short is not going to pass their stupid jig test, but if they would simply check my knee position they would see it was completely legal, and they looked at me and said “No. We cannot test that.”
I was fuming. I was fuming because I know that rule, I can recite rule 1.3.024 from memory, because it was an integral part of my masters thesis research. And no where does it state that you can simply flat out reject a frame set up based solely on the saddle position. In fact, the specific wording in the Technical Guide states the following:
The rider’s position for time trial on the road and for the pursuit on the track is defined by two measurements
of the bicycle: the position of the tip of the saddle behind the bottom bracket (- 5 cm minimum) and the
advanced position using the extension (+ 75 cm maximum). These measurements are verified by commis-
saires using a checking device. The checks are conducted in the time trial start area. Once a bicycle has been
checked, it cannot be removed from the start enclosure. If it is removed, a second check will be required.
The saddle position is measured from the tip of the saddle to the vertical plane passing through the centre
of the bottom bracket axle. The advanced position is measured along the handlebar extension (overall length)
from the vertical plane passing through the centre of the bottom bracket axle. If the handlebar extension
is fitted with gear levers, the distance is taken from the axis point of the gear lever. The gear lever beyond
the axis point is allowed to extend beyond 75 cm provided that it does not offer an alternative use (e.g. a
lever modified such that the hand contact point is beyond 75 cm). In the case of an electrical gear change
system operated by a push button, the distance is measured to the end of the extension (overall length).
Any rider who considers, for morphological reasons, that he/she cannot respect the regulations concerning
the position of the saddle behind the bottom bracket or the handlebar extension may request a dispensation
from the commissaire when presenting his/her licence. The request for an exemption from the regula-
tions can only apply to one element, either the saddle position or the advanced handlebar position.
Experience has shown, and has been confirmed by models of positions, that requests for exemption for
the saddle position (less than – 5 cm) are usually presented by riders of a small build whereas requests for
exemption of the advanced position (in excess of +75 cm) are usually presented by riders of a large stature,
although there is no absolute rule. The technical commissaire considers the nature of the exemption requested by the rider. The commissaire notes the details in an «exemption report» that accompanies the final race
report. The commissaire can check the validity of the request in accordance with the methods defined in the
Technical Regulations.
The check of the bicycle at the start line consists of verifying that the exemption that has been granted has
been complied with. It is not desirable to carry out a physical check in the time trial start area, except in
suspicious cases.
I explained to the officials that my bike would not ‘pass’ their rule and I needed the exception, and they refused. At that point I completely lost it and I said “Look – my road bikes doesn’t even pass your rule, the nose of the saddle is way more than 5cm behind the center of the bottom bracket” and their response was “we are not checking road bikes.” To which I replied “I know – but my time trial bike is my road bike – it is the same frame.” They refused.
So I went back to my car, moved my saddle back to an effective seat tube angle of 76º, then presented my bike for a recheck, which they tested with my knee position when it appeared that it might not fit their jig, and they said my bike passed. Then they went and weighed it, and discovered that not only did it pass the minimum weight requirement, it was one of the heavier bikes there. Go me.
What makes this whole thing even more ridiculous is that the UCI weight limit rule is applied to road bikes…but they did not check our road bikes before any of the previous stages. And as it happened, the woman in line behind me actually was racing her road bike, with no modifications for the time trial. And her bike did not pass the weight rule, it was apparently slightly under. And they freaked out, and she was at a loss as to how she was supposed to make her bike .10 kg heavier minutes before the start of her time trial.
Technically, her bike was illegal for all other stages -you know, the HILLY ones where having a 14.8lb bike would be an advantage. But here in the flat time trial, where she shows up with a really light, non aero bike that won’t do her any favors – suddenly she’s not legal.
Yeah, makes sense.
The whole UCI time trial rule really, really pisses me off. For one thing, we all know that the ONLY reason the saddle position rule exists is because someone in the UCI did not like Graeme Obree. And believe me, if I had a hack saw and didn’t love my Terry Carbon Fly saddle so much, I would have hacked off the nose just to make a point. The officials from USA cycling who were The Official UCI Bike Check People were unusually suspect in their ability to truly ascertain whether or not a 4′11″ girl riding a 44cm bike should deserve a “morphological exception”, primarily because
a.) They were men
2.) They were tall, or at least average height
III.) From the looks of them, none of them had ever ridden a time trial bike
I wanted to ask them “Have you EVER had to assess a bike that is THIS SMALL?”
I find it hard to believe that my little Terry with a 50cm top tube is so completely illegal in it’s position, but the average Cervelo P4 is not. My guess is if I showed up with a P4 or a B2 or a DA or whatever time trial bike that features a steeper (>78º) seat tube angle, in my size (a 48-50 top tube), they would deem the bike illegal.
The moral of this story is that shorter people who ride smaller bikes cannot ride steeper (ie: more aerodynamic and more efficient) seat tube angles. And That.Is.Not.Fair.
(That does not explain my pathetic result in the time trial. My 60-somethingth place out of a field of 77 was primarily caused by my pathetic power output. What is sad is that I actually averaged 4.2 watts/kg during the TT, which is quite good. But when you only weight 41kg, the absolute wattage is quite bad.)
July 13th, 2010 | 
