But not riding at the front of the peloton while steering with your elbows? Safety first! 
1 Like
No more often than I’d see it used in a typical “road” application, the old school / original MTB option with the lever right on the post, under the saddle nose, makes the most sense to me. No cables, housing or battery issues, and about as light as possible for actuation at least.
4 Likes
I’m glad to see the supertuck being banned. Rec riders without the same skills as the pros copy it and use it when the risk / reward does not justify it. When I’m on a group ride and see someone supertuck, I know who I do not want to be riding close to.
Ban seems to be working well…from today’s stage of Etoille des Besseges.
3 Likes
I think that for this application that does make some sense, however as someone who had that old school lever-under-saddle option and thinking at the time it was all I needed (granted this is full on mountain biking), finally going to a remote was like a light switch, so I think that even though I’d actuate that post a whole lot less on a full on road bike, it’s really beneficial to have the remote. As far as bar clutter, I think there’s actually a case that on road bikes it could actually look better; think bar tape keeping things under wrap, and good cable routing options. Currently there’s not a good ergonomic option for a remote for drop bars with a 2X set up, but that’s gonna change.
Would be cool to see the peloton accept something like this but it’s probably going to be in the realm of “all road” and gravel bikes mainly. I understand the uphill challenge with tradition in WT culture.
1 Like
So how will they enforce it?
It’s like defining what a “sticky bottle” is. We all know what it is and recognize it when we see it, but at what point does it become a sticky bottle as opposed handing the bottle over? (<-- that’s rhetorical, don’t actually want debate that). It’s a judgement call by race officials in a sport that is notoriously bad and inconsistent at making judgement calls.
So rider is in the drops, inches forward, riding on the rivets, nose of saddle toward back of perineum. Legal (I guess). Rider inches forward just a smidge. Little bit more. Now nose of the saddle is still touching that area that isn’t the small of your back but isn’t your butt either. Still legal?
Now it’s touching the small of my back but my chamois isn’t actually touching the top bar (“gotta slam that stem, bro”). That’s close to a super tuck, right?
The other day in this race they didn’t even need the super tuck to crash twice in the last 2km. LOL.
But none those options would be sustainable for very long…at least not without tiring your legs out. So it largely regulates itself.
I think the dividing line is pretty clear…weight on the TT = supertuck and penalty will be assessed.
I think the ban goes into effect 4/1/21
I know that… It is more the blatant irony of seeing these guys in a supertuck literally the day after the UCI announcement.
1 Like
Maybe, maybe not. The super tuck itself isn’t sustainable for long. What I’m saying is the rider knows when he’s putting weight on the top tube. But how can you tell on television?
My first impression is that I’m in favor of the ban. I’m just asking what are the criteria that clearly define what it is.
There is a judgment aspect to almost every rule…no rule will ever be perfect. Hit the obvious cases and you’ll limit the ones who try adn skirt the rule.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the rule. As noted above, I can’t think of even a single crash that happened as a result of the supertuck. I also don’t subscribe the “but what about the children” line of logic…people will always do dumb things on a bike that they see pros do. Are we going to put speed limits on descents in order to prevent recreational riders form seeing if they can hit 40, 50 or even 60 mph on a descent?
UCI: laughs in custom engineered sock-length-measeuring-device
2 Likes
LOL…well played. 
1 Like
Agree, but it doesn’t mean they haven’t attempted to define the criteria. What I’m asking is where the rule is written down or documented?. I want to read it in order to get an idea of how it will be enforced. In other words, we can agree or disagree about whether or not it should be a rule in the first place.
I’m arguing that now there is one more thing for these guys to get wrong, even if I agree with the spirit of what they are trying to do. And if I can read the rule I might go “oh, that’s how they’ll do it…cool”. But I’m skeptical.
Yep, I agree wholeheartedly. Stupid things amateurs might do shouldn’t drive these decisions.
(sidenote: yes, I’m googling for my answer but if someone finds it first feel free to throw it at me)
All the rules are here https://www.uci.org/inside-uci/constitutions-regulations/regulations
It looks like they have not been update yet.
1 Like
one more reason to hate the UCI. fixing problems that dont exist, while failing to address issues that absolutely have resulted in rider safety issues.
3 Likes
1 Like
I wouldn’t put that past the UCI either. Probably they’ll need years of research like they did with disc brakes — are they safe? I mean really safe?
I think manufacturers have plenty of weight to spare when it comes to droppers. Plus, you may not need to add 700 g, many dropper posts are lighter. BMC makes an integrated dropper post, for example, so I reckon they could transplant that technology to the road if they wanted to. My saddles tend to be quite high (I have long legs), so I’d definitely like a dropper post. Could be useful also for out-of-the-saddle sprints.
1 Like
Maybe but I don’t think we need death and injury to justify ruling out dangerous behaviour. I think GCN raised that point.
Nor am I a fan of assuming things to be true, but if the super tuck significantly compromises the riders handling ability in high speed descents then it should be relatively easy to evidence as true, and write a rule on that basis.
Like all rules and laws though, single issue wording allow for workarounds. If they don’t want the riders to put themselves in danger, just say that and cover all future dangerous innovation.
1 Like