- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Downhill Positions - via Swiss side"Clear, quantifiable and undeniable": Swiss Side data shows UCI ban on super tuck and TT position "will increase aerodynamic drag"
Following on from the UCI's controversial ban of descending while sat on the top tube and riding in the time trial position recently, experts at Swiss Side have released data from the wind tunnel to show that both rule changes could significantly decrease speed and increase drag. Swiss Side goes so far as to claim the changes will make professional road racing "less exciting and thereby less entertaining".
> Live Blog: use of forearms as support banned by UCI
The amendments that will come into effect on 1st April (we're pretty sure it's not a joke) now say: "Sitting on the bicycle’s top tube is prohibited. Furthermore, using the forearms as a point of support on the handlebar is prohibited except in time trials"; and it's divided the public and pro peloton alike, with some saying it's a wise move to make racing safer, and others denouncing the UCI for showing too much constraint.
Swiss Side says it is not making judgements on whether this is a good or bad decision, but claims that its data is "clear, quantifiable and undeniable" in showing that the 'super tuck' and TT positions are faster when used appropriately.
The chart above shows the results from Swiss Side's testing of arm positions, giving a CdA measurement (the aim is to get it as low as possible) and how many watts are needed to hold speeds of 40, 50 and 60km/h. Swiss Side then calculated how much time a rider could save in a breakaway over a 10km effort riding in the TT position, assuming the leader of the chasing group is not.
"The difference in the achievable time or distance which resultant from a rider (or
riders) no longer being allowed to use the TT position, compared to the drops, over a
10km effort with a typical overpower, would be around 13 seconds, or 180m", says Swiss Side. "This means that the gap they could build out would be reduced by these amounts, purely due to the increase in aerodynamic drag."
> Why riders like you need to get more aero
When our own Dave Atkinson visited the wind tunnel at the Boardman Performance Centre back in 2019, we found the same was true for non-pros. Boardman's experts found that Dave was almost 100 watts more efficient at 45km/h in the TT position compared to riding on the hoods.
To compare descending in the saddle and descending on the top tube, Swiss Side simulated an 8% descent and again expressed how may watts and how much time a rider could save over 10km. It claims that for a rider descending at 70km/h on the top tube, the aero drag difference is as high as 135 watts, and they could build up to a 30 second gap over a chasing pack descending in the saddle over a distance of 10km.
Cast your minds back to Chris Froome's epic descent on stage 8 of the 2016 Tour de France that bagged him the stage and the leader's jersey, and we can see that the super tuck was deployed successfully for Froome to build a lead over his rivals. In the end he finished 13 seconds up on the chasing pack... so if Swiss Side's results are to be taken at face value, is it possible that Froome might not have been able to break away at all if the super tuck was banned five years ago?
Swiss Side concludes: "Tactically, it [the rule changes] simply reduces the tools the riders and teams have in their bag to plan and execute attacks.
"Certainly there is an element of risk involved in riding either position, because the level of control on the bicycle is reduced. It could be argued that professional cycle racing is not just about the physical abilities of the riders but their technical skill and abilities to ride their bike. This certainly is the case in mountain bike and cyclocross racing, why should it be any different in road racing?
"Furthermore the excitement in road racing also inarguably comes from the tactics
and the breakaways. Take this away and the racing will be less exciting and thereby
less entertaining."
Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story).
Latest Comments
- slc 2 sec ago
Joking aside, governments could require new cars to be fitted with smart ignition systems that operate only for a licensed driver. No doubt there...
- slc 11 min 31 sec ago
It sounds like a question from Ian Walker's motornormativity paper. Is it OK to dismember a (car|bike) when it is left in an inconvenient location?
- chrisonabike 7 hours 7 min ago
I have a visual memory from childhood of one of this species of bricks popping loose from a bracket on a downhill section and flying away to smash ...
- wtjs 7 hours 56 min ago
There is an increasing 'disconnect' between comments in this topic and reality. Cords are either all cotton or mostly cotton and are going to last...
- ktache 8 hours 27 min ago
There are people out there who will make you the belt out of your old tyre.
- chrisonabike 8 hours 28 min ago
Furry dice and an air freshener for your helmet.
- Simon E 9 hours 17 min ago
Ah yes, those are hopefully not the 'master craftsmen' that has constructed a wide range of shoddy Italian cars and motorbikes over the years with...
- Simon E 9 hours 39 min ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- chrisonabike 10 hours 31 min ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
Add new comment
22 comments
At least UCI is historically consistent. They officially don't care about drag. It was their ban of recumbents in the 1930s that cemented the diamond frame as the standard, even though 'bents were clearly more efficient. If they hadn't tried to hold back progress like that, arguably the world would now be riding recumbents to the shops and wouldn't regard cycling as such hard work.
I don't know about safety, but in my experience, sitting on the top tube and going over a bump at speed can seriously ruin my week, not to mention the wife's!
The rule on discarding gel wrappers makes me laugh... the fact is, the modern peloton is full of waste. How many frames do you think a World Tour rider goes though in a year? I have been told by pro mechanics it is between 10 and 30, depending on how many crashes. Not to mention all the batteries riders now use- radios, computers, heart rate straps, shifting... how big is that carbon foot print? Everyone likes to curse the "big oil" companies for global warming, while they fly on jets, drive cars and consume way too much plastic. So funny...
It's not about waste, though, is it? It's about despoilment. It's not like they're telling them they can't use gels - just that they need to dispose of them where they can be tidied up and taken away. I imagine if a rider broke their frame and just left it dumped on the side of the road, they'd get fined for that too.
No rider is going to lose a race because he has a wrapper in his rear pocket, lets not cover the countryside in rubbish.
I don't get this, I really don't. I don't recall seeing a crash caused by having forearms on the bars or sitting on the top tube. I've experimented - forearms on the bars works for me, but only when the road is smooth and I find it both comfortble and efficient. I suppose I'd pretty much mastered it within a week or two, with a few variations on the theme for stupid hot & sweaty and all dressed-up against the cold. If I feel that that, god knows what the difference will be for a breakaway grinding though 100 miles of pan-flat countryside.
As far as the top-tube is concerned. Same ting - works on one bike and not on the others and I can't pedal at the same time. Tuck in and go sailing past everyone else. Sit up if a bend is coming up - not difficult.
It smacks of a knee-jerk reaction to safety atht will have 4/5 of f-all impact on safety. But tey might want to watch that knee jerk - it could cause a nasty injury if they catch it on something.
For the avoidance of doubt, I fully appreciate that I don't need to use either of those positions. The top-tune one I rarely use anyway, but I can. They are also far from the most hazardous thing on the roads. That would be the shocking state of the roads themselves and the incompetence, malice or negligence of other road users
So you had a quick pedal along a quiet street at 10mph and the forearms position is fine. Supertuck could be signed off as safe if you could just go fast enough to hold the position. Yeah, and my mum navigating a car park in her first ever auto gearbox car last year recommends that all F1 drivers should have the same technology as it's obviously the way forward.
Supertuck looks a bit stupid. That and the 'puppy paws' hand position may not be the biggest issues facing pro cycling but I don't see a problem with addressing these two issues. These 2 positions won't affect the result of a race if both the escapee and pursuer(s) use them, that would surely cancel out their supposed effectiveness. Those curly things attached to the stem are called 'handlebars' for a reason. I'm OK with them being banned, maybe now TV commentators will stop yabbering about them and find something new to say.
If you want to tuck into a really low position with your hands out front then perhaps take up skiing or maybe figure skating.
There's lots more to the new UCI rules than these 2 ephemeral items. There are significant time penalties for riders littering, which makes total sense as gel wrappers are the most evil thing ever invented, thousands of French cows die slow, painful premature deaths by ingesting them in July. The UCI obviously care more about cows than cyclists' nutritional requirements!
No-one is fussed about the idea that a Grand Tour stage or overall result could be decided because a rider who is spotted on video casually tossing a bottle over a rail or dropping their wrapper while rounding a bend. I'm all for taking your litter home but time penalties? Really?!?
For the avoidance of doubt, your drivel does not warrant a considered answer
Awww, go on, you know you want to. Pretty please!
Or perhaps you can't summon one. Ah well, no great loss...
Sorry but I think that's actually great. There is no justifiable reason for cyclists to litter when they're racing - if you've got time to take a gel, you've got time to stuff the wrapper back in your pocket - and it is important for some sort of example to be set. I'm disgusted and embarrassed in equal meaure when I see the proliferation of gel and energy bar wrappers littering popular training routes near me; if someone got in trouble in a GT for littering at least the weekend warriors might think about it instead of thinking it makes them look racier if they suck in a gel and toss the wrapper.
On a technical note I think riders are still going to be allowed to toss bottles - for some years now they've been using biodegradable bidons - the sanctions there are to be levied on those who toss them in a way that could endanger the peleton, which, given the injuries several riders, most notably G in the Giro last year, have suffered from rogue bottles, again makes perfect sense.
OK, if we're going to ask them to act as if they actually care about spoiling the countryside let's do it properly.
1. A rider taken by helicopter from a mountain-top finish (when the plebs ride back down): 5 minute penalty.
2. Graduated time penalties based on total no. of litres of fuel used by team vehicles during stage races. To be announced on the final morning of a stage race.
3. Time penalties for all riders on a team when a team vehicle is found to have exceeded the speed limit or deliberately contravenes either a commissaire's instructions or race rules without a valid explanation.
4. Fines for teams where spectators wearing team replica clothing leave litter on the race route. (This one is not so serious, though I'm sure the litter they leave behind certainly is a major issue.)
Focussing on relatively minor matters like gel wrappers and bottles - and the bio-plastic ones are not really biodegradable, just try burying one in your garden - is really a distraction tool to avoid addressing any of the significant environmental destruction caused by pro races. The number of bottles used nowadays is huge but it's a small part of the team's overall impact. However, carelessly thrown bottles have caused any number of crashes and I'd be glad if that behaviour was reduced or eliminated.
What about the inconsistent application of rules about drafting behind vehicles - the clear benefit of riding behind cars and motorbikes, even at 20 metres ahead of the rider? Or the tow that riders returning from a mechanical get from a car in the convoy? Some are penalised, others are not.
Road racing is about so much more than the most aerodynamic tuck or hand position. Much as I admired Froome's daring move that day in 2016, I don't want a rider's willingness to rest his bollocks on the top tube at 70 km/h to be a factor in a result. But at least Swiss Side gets some nice PR and a chance to remind us of their aero credentials.
If aero bars are not allowed in group races, then putting the arms into the same position but with a lower degree of control should not be allowed either.
Aeor bars are fine for time trialling, but we don't want people in the bunch using them, and having hands away from bars and brakes in the bunch would be reckless.
Drafting rules that so it's ok to adopt that position ona solo breakaway but not while riding in the bunch seems awkward, where is the difference? waht if the breakway rider is caught? or only in another rider goes past him/her?
"that both rule changes could significantly decrease speed and increase drag. Swiss Side goes so far as to claim the changes will make professional road racing "less exciting and thereby less entertaining". "
I assume that female cyclists around the world are up in arms about this sexist comment.
Come on, people. For once the UCI introduces a sensible ban, let's not get drawn into the standard it's-the-UCI-they-must-be-wrong routine.
Remember that riders protested vehemently against helmets when they were made mandatory a generation ago.
What is daft here is the idea that the aerodynamic characteristics of the banned positions needed experimental confirmation. Silly wording, this article's title is.
*edited to fix a typo
Except they haven't - this was already banned.
Well spotted! I should have said 'enforces the ban'.
I'm all for banning the supertuck on the grounds of safety. I don't buy the "I'm more skillful than you, so why can't I get the benefit?" argument at all.
If SwissSide believed their own argument, they'd be advocating for the superman position because of their own research.
I find Swiss Sides research and data fascinating and well presented. None of this '18 watts faster at 50kmh' nonsense that other manufacturers trot out.
"...experts at Swiss Side has released data from its wind tunnel to show that both rule changes could significantly increase speed and reduce drag."
You might wanna swap the words 'increase' and 'reduce' here
I'm waiting to see the UCI flip its shit when the first team shows up at the start line with dropper posts installed and drop into a tucked aero position whilst still in the saddle.
GCN reviewed this and thought it worked really well from both an aero and control point of view. The bikes are under-weight anyway, so adding a dropper is a win for all parties.
Dropper posts, as you suggest make sense but having said that how many teams are riding bikes that can actually use them? Without detailed research I'm gonna say pretty much all of them have bikes with dedicated seatposts for the frames they ride. Off the top of my head, BMC, Pinnarello, Cannondale, Factor, Cervelo all use a proprietary seatpost - no chance of dropper seatpost there. In any case, the UCI in their infinite wisdom will ban them. Their rules get dafter and dafter.
Droppers make a huge amount of sense but the challenge for manufacturers is that they'll have to go back to round seat tubes - which will send the message that an aero seat tube makes naff all difference to drag in comparison to tucking the rider away from the wind flow.
Although, thinking about it, until recently most climbing bikes weren't using aero seat masts/tubes so maybe it's easy to adapt. I'm sure SRAM would love to be able to market their Reverb AXS to road riders
Pretty sure if Cannondale can make a square-section suspension post them some over those clever buggers at bike R&D departments can make a road-specific dropper.