Lorri Lee Lown
Ron's got one end of the height spectrum covered, I've got the other end. The morph exception for the distance from the BB to the end of the aerobars is insignificant for somebody my height (6'9").
Why insignificant? An additional 5cm from 75cm to 80cm sounds like a significant extension at the front of the bike but for guys my size it's not. My current setup is over 80cm and in violation, however, the angle at my elbows is at 90* and I'm not in violation of any "superman"-like positions that are illegal.
If I did cut down my bars to 80cm, I actually wouldn't be able to grab my extensions in the aero position. Essentially I would be in the aero position and only able to steer with my elbows. For me I see this as a significant issue with the existing morph rule as it pertains to really tall riders.
It comes down to safety and the ability of the tall rider to adequately hold onto the aero extensions while in the tucked position. Put me in an unsafe position and I'll be one unhappy rider.
As a short person I am really glad that there is a "morphological exception". Even my road bike is not 5cm behind the center of BB.
There were two proposed rule changes concerning UCI bike regulations - both involving masters. One was to drop all application of UCI bike rules for Masters Nats; the other was to make a specific exception and not apply the 3:1 rule. Neither passed, so the rulebook is unchanged.
Note that there were *two* major changes from the UCI in the interpretation of bike regs: the 3:1 application to components and the change in "morphological exceptions ("morphs"). There are two aspects of the bike regs that can be modified based on body type - the saddle can be less than 5cm behind the BB, and the bars can be up to 80cm forward of the BB, rather than 75cm, based on applying a morph. The change in interpretation is that a rider may only get *one* morph. This is consistent with the saddle exception being for short people, and the handlebar for tall people.
I expect that the USAC Technical Director will issue one or more updates through the year, clarifying how we will apply the UCI rules in domestic events. My own *personal* guess - not speaking for USAC or the USCF Trustees - is that generally available equipment that was okay this year will probably be okay in 2010 for Masters Nats.
Tom Simonson (Tom@tsimonson.com)
USCF Board of Trustees, Legislative Chair
TomS wrote:Other items passed. The one that wore out the electrons on this board passed as proposed concerning numbers: pins required, and riders with big hair have to manage it.
I was really surprised by that proposal generating all the heat, given that there was a proposal that would have removed the 75 rider field limit from fields with categories that included cat.5. That proposal didn't get a peep out of the forum. Happily, it did not pass.
If you see a "new" rule about OTB riders in a crit working with riders off the front, it is not really a new rule. We have had something on the books that said that riders on different laps could work together in a crit, but that riders could not drop back to help riders off the front. This rule replaces that one, removing the issue of determining *why* a rider has gone off the back.
I didn't see anything mentioned about the proposal to not enforce the 3 : 1 aspect ratio for seat posts and aero bars for Masters Nationals. Did this not pass, i.e. will the 3 : 1 rule be enforced for seat posts and aero bars next year ??
Other items passed. The one that wore out the electrons on this board passed as proposed concerning numbers: pins required, and riders with big hair have to manage it.