Cycling: Last week it was announced that the UCI would like to ban the Supertuck and the laying on of arms in the future. On April 1, the new rules and bans will come into force. We took a closer look at the topic and let the pros have their say.
Prohibited from April 1st: Supertuck & laying on of arms
No, it's not an April Fool's joke. From April 1, the UCI no longer wants to see a professional who heats down the descents in the Supertuck seating position or puts his arms on the handlebars in the time trial position. The World Cycling Federation justifies this with the argument of safety. The letter clearly states: “It is forbidden to sit on the top tube.” This sitting position – known as the Supertuck – has become popular in recent years, above all thanks to Chris Froome. On the 8th stage of the 2016 Tour de France, he launched such an attack over a hilltop and gained a 13-second lead over his opponents.
On the flat, we see many pros resting their forearms on the handlebars, especially in breakaway groups. Why? Because the air resistance becomes less and the position is more comfortable. Not really a problem if the UCI would also allow time trial handlebars in road races. But the use of these was banned years ago. Since then, the pros have put their arms on the handlebars in the same way - only without the corresponding attachment. This, too, will now be banned from April 1st.
What are the benefits of these two sitting positions anyway?
Of course, the pure effect of the new bans was also scientifically analyzed and questioned, because there is hardly anything in cycling that has not been researched. The aerodynamics specialists at SwissSide took a closer look at everything. Here everything should be viewed completely neutrally and only the data should be referred to.
What does the Supertuck bring?
The Supertuck has long been a tried and tested means of gaining a head start on a fast descent. In order to be able to break away from a larger group or the peloton, you have to show a significantly higher speed. It is not without reason that the Supertuck has not only become a downhill position, but has almost become a tactical variant. But how much faster is it really?
The aero test showed that the difference in air resistance at a realistic downhill speed of around 70 km/h is a whopping 135 watts. On a descent with an 8% gradient, you assume a 5km/h higher top speed if you choose the Supertuck position. This saves around 10 seconds on a 30 kilometer descent.
In other words: A rider gets about a 30-second advantage on the descent if he chooses the Supertuck position and his opponent stays in the saddle. If this position is no longer allowed, this tactic falls away. However, one must of course also say that so far both escapees and pursuers have taken the position and therefore this advantage should probably have canceled itself. It will probably still be much more the driving line, the acceleration after the corners and the willingness to take risks that make the difference on descents - Supertuck or not.
What brings “Lay on your arms/time trial position”?
The second controversial rule is the ban on the laying on of arms. Especially breakaways or sprint preparers have often made use of it on the flat to save energy through the time trial-like position. This position also allows a large aero advantage to be achieved compared to the lower link. At a real speed of 50 to 60 km/h, the difference is between position in the lower link with arms half bent or "Time Trial Position" between 24 and 41 watts.
Over a 10km course with typical road racing power, this is about 13 seconds. Assuming everyone is riding in the same position, i.e. both the leader of the breakaway and that of the pursuers, there would be no difference. In reality, the chasing group has rarely been as disciplined as the breakaways and has not always taken the best aero position compared to them. Especially in the final, this certainly caused a lot more excitement and gave the breakaways a little more chance to drive home the win.
Many professionals criticize the bans of the UCI
Chris Froome loves him, Lance Armstrong hates him. The Supertuck divides even the pros. However, one thing is clear: This aerodynamic seating position brings with it a speed advantage and therefore also a time advantage. The drivers still feel safe. That is why many professionals see the bans critically.
Rick Zabel:
"Now it's getting ridiculous."
Iljo Keisse:
“We will decide for ourselves how we cycle and downhill. At the UCI, they should first make sure that everything that they are responsible for is in order..."
Matteo Trentino:
"I'm sorry to say this, but all you had to do was check your email and download the suggested rules. Now tweeting that they weren't informed is easy. But emails were sent to over 800 drivers and I can tell you that only 16 drivers downloaded the information.”
Simon Geschke:
"And what about the downhill sprints, like the one at the Tour of Poland last year that almost killed someone?
What about downhill sprints like the one in the @Tour_de_Pologne last year that nearly killed someone @UCI_cycling ? https://t.co/x55A7dfHXs
— Simon Geschke (@simongeschke) February 4, 2021
Comment by Florian Nowak: "Were these positions really the biggest safety problem in cycling?!"
In principle, the two prohibitions must be assessed independently of one another. The super tuck is one thing, there is no real need to take this supposedly dangerous position here. Because to be honest: Anyone who has ever ridden like this will quickly notice that it doesn't really feel pleasant - in the sense of comfortable. Nevertheless, we are in professional or racing sports and unfortunately you now accept risks and push the limits. It is precisely here that the role model function of professional cyclists is quickly thrown into the ring to justify this ban. However, this role model function can be transferred to all other sports and areas of life. It doesn't matter whether it's motor racing, where drivers drive around a curve at over 300 km/h, or ski racers who throw themselves down the Streif in Kitzbühel at 140 km/h, every sport brings with it idols, heroes and role models who have a certain Bear responsibility. Nevertheless, these are still perfectly trained athletes who do nothing other than cycling in this case. You wouldn't recommend young people or amateur drivers to tackle 0 kilometers at 200 degrees and pouring rain, but people often turn a blind eye or explain why "They're professionals" worked. Nevertheless, this ban can be justified at least in part.
The second innovation – the ban on the laying on of arms - but shoots off the bird for many and raises considerable questions as to whether this is actually such a big safety problem in professional cycling. From this point at the latest, the demands of the pros to first try to find better safety concepts and to take the real danger out of the race through improved barriers or routes seem more than justified. In my view, there is another point of criticism that is not exactly insignificant. Because it is precisely the laying on of arms that brings at least some variety to the very restricted seating positions for every cyclist. Here I sometimes ask myself whether those responsible have ever driven 200 kilometers even several days in a row. From time to time you just have to take the strain off your palms and move a few meters or kilometers in a different position. I, too, often ride with my arms on the handlebars for a long time during training and it's really not about speed advantages or anything like that.
Finally, I just want to ask an open question:
Is there currently only one active professional who publicly endorses the new rules
and campaigning for the Supertuck to be banned?