USA Cycling Collegiate Rule Change Proposals Summer 2010
USA Cycling Collegiate Rule Change Proposals Summer 2010 1. Collegiate Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes (ECCC) A: 7B3b. Generally, the Board of Trustees enacts, interprets and clarifies the Rules by majority vote of disinterested Trustees. In instances where an interpretation or clarification of the rules by the entire Board of Trustees in a timely manner is not feasible, the Chairperson is authorized to act on behalf of the Board of Trustees. B: N/A C: The Board of Trustees shall maintain a public, web-accessible resource to which it will publish and archive monthly summaries of its discussions, areas of effort, and meeting minutes. D: As the number of engaged and informed riders, coaches, and volunteers continues to grow, it is increasingly important for the Board of Trustees to do everything possible to keep those riders in the loop. A critical component of that is regularly updating them on issues and changes being discussed. This could simply be adopted as practice, but there is much to be said for the forcing function of an actual rule to attempt to follow.
2. Nationals Allocations (WCCC) A/B: 7L2a.(iv) Each Conference qualifies a total number of Riders equal to (A) the percentage of the total number of Riders in that division that are recorded in USA Cycling’s membership files on December 31 of the previous year as being members of Teams that are members of that Conference, multiplied by (B) the field limit of such Race reduced by the number of Riders qualified pursuant to subsections (i)-(iii) of this Section. C: …the percentage of the total number of category A Riders in that division in that discipline that are recorded … D: The reasoning behind this is that only A riders points count toward nationals qualification as per 7L2b., so it seems only fair that the allocation of start slots is based upon the riders using those slots and not the number of B, C, D and E riders a conference possesses. Also I have noted that the start slots should be based on A riders in the discipline, this is based on the same line of thought. The number of A road, track and cross riders should not affect the allocation of nationals start spots for mountain bikers, and the same holds for each discipline.
3. Road And Mountain Bike Nationals Qualification (ECCC)
A/B: 7L6e. To compete in a Mass Start Road Race at a National Championship, a Rider must have either: (i) Competed in their conference championships as a category A Rider in the road race and criterium race and must have competed in at least one other Mass Start Road Race in the current conference season as a category A Rider; or (ii) Competed as a category A Rider in their final three conference Mass Start Road Races during the current season. A Rider may petition the Board of Trustees if their Conference schedule prohibits meeting these qualification requirements. 7L8j, 7L8k read similarly C: Remove the first clause of each, which require participation in conference championships D: Not a critical issue, but this is kind of weird. Except for the very rare cases where Conference Championships are not the last race of the season, the two parts of 7L6e don't actually say anything different. In fact, in those rare cases where conference championships aren't the last races, this actually allows presumably unintended behavior where riders could downgrade afterward and still go to Nationals. The two part format of this rule used to make sense when you had to do either conf champs (2 races) or 3 races throughout the season, but with the stronger requirement (which I'm all for), they're equivalent.
4. Mountain Bike Endurance Nationals Qualification (ECCC) A/B: 7L8j. To compete in an Endurance Race at a mountain bike National Championship, a Rider must have either: (i) Competed in the Endurance Race at their conference championships as a category A Rider and must have competed in at least one other Endurance Race in the current conference mountain bike season as a category A Rider; or (ii) Competed as a category A Rider in their final three conference Endurance Races during the current season. A Rider may petition the Board of Trustees if their Conference schedule prohibits meeting these qualification requirements. C: Part (i) should open with: “Competed in the Endurance Races...” D: This rule should be changed to make eligibility even between endurance and gravity-right now the gravity riders have to do both races at conf champs in conferences that have multiple gravity events, while the endurance racers only have to do one whether or not there are multiple events. I'm all for the former, but it should be equal for both.
5. DH and MX/DS Nationals Qualification (ECCC) A/B: 7L8k. To compete in a Gravity Race at a mountain bike National Championship, a Rider must have either: (i) Competed in the Gravity Races at their conference championships as a category A Rider and must have competed in at least one other Gravity Race in the current conference mountain bike season as a category A Rider, or (ii) Competed as a category A Rider in their final three conference Gravity Races during the current conference mountain bike season. C: Experience in A Downhill events is necessary and sufficient for entrance into the Downhill competition at Nationals. Experience in A Downhill events is sufficient for entrance into the Dual Slalom/MX/Duel and similar events at Nationals. Experience in A Dual Slalom/MX/Duel/etc. events is sufficient for entrance
into that class of events at Nationals. D: Downhill and Dual Slalom/Mountain 'Cross/Duel competition should perhaps be differentiated for purposes of Nationals eligibility. The equipment and skill sets required for Downhill versus Dual Slalom and similar competitions are very different. Most clearly, experience at Dual Slalom does not necessarily entail competence and sufficient safe riding skills for Downhill competition. Our experience in the ECCC also indicates that the reverse is true, although to a lesser extent. In our conference there is a large class of 'A' gravity riders largely competent at either venue, many strong slalom riders less experienced and comfortable with Downhill, and a small but noticeable number of riders with the opposite inclinations. It is probably not necessary at this point to make Dual Slalom/MX/Duel/etc. experience necessary as well as sufficient for that class of events. The biggest downside to this would be that the one or two conferences, if any, currently relying on Dual Slalom events for Gravity eligibility purposes would not be able to do so for the Downhill event. I believe this is currently the case in the SCCCC but that could be incorrect. To that point though, I would say that this is exactly the goal: Those races do not prepare riders for Nationals level Downhill competition, and should not be taken as tokens of sufficient experience to enter that event.
6. Cyclocross Nationals Eligibility (ECCC) A/B: 7K1a.(iii) [(Table) The championship eligibility period for CX Nationals is] Fall session or spring of the same or following calendar year. C: Fall session of the same calendar year or spring session of the following calendar year. D: The current wording suggests that riders could have raced in the 2009 CX National Championships by going to school in either Fall 2009, Spring 2010 or Spring 2009, or perhaps even Fall 2010.
7. Professional Cyclists (WCCC) A/B: 7G3. Current and former professional cyclists, who otherwise satisfy the eligibility requirements of these Rules, are allowed to compete in Collegiate Cycling Races. C: Bar current professional cyclists from racing in Collegiate Cycling Races. D: We disagree with this rule and feel that since collegiate racing is a "developmental" sport, professional riders have no reason to race in it. Exclusion of professionals from intercollegiate competition is standard in almost every sport and we do not see why cycling should be different in this respect. It should be noted that unlike in P/1/2 races, where fields are scored individually but race together to enable a sufficient number of entrants, A category racers are not scored according to their USCF racing categories. As it stands, most A riders have category 2 or 3 USCF licenses and have little chance of being competitive against professional level riders.
We have noticed that, as one might expect, professional riders are significantly stronger than other collegiate cyclists. As professionals they receive much more support in terms of equipment and training than do other collegiate cyclists and this advantage speaks for itself in races. In the WCCC it is not uncommon for there to be one or two professionals racing the As races who are capable of lapping the field in every criterium and who lead their teammates to sweeping victories in road races by being able to fully control how the races play out. The general effect is that a school with a pro rider tends to dominate the competition.
8. Mixed Category Races – Upgrade Points (ECCC) A/B: 7K2h. Categories that race combined races must be scored separately (i.e. the first Rider in each category gets first place points for that category) C: Categories that race combined races must be scored separately (i.e. the first Rider in each category gets first place points for that category), and should be treated as separate races for purposes of upgrade points. I.e., riders shall be awarded points based on placings within his/her individual category. D: This is definitively not the same situation as normal mixed category races, e.g., typical Men's 3/4s or 1/2/3s in which all of the riders are competing for a single prize list. It is rather the same case as a Women's 4 race being combined with a Women's 1/2/3 due to attendance. Denying Women's 4 riders, who signed up for a Cat 4 race and are competing for their own Cat 4 specific placings and prizes, their upgrade points just because race circumstances forced them to race against higher caliber women seems grossly unfair.
9. Riders in Category A TTT (SECCC) A/B: 7K2d. In Conference races, teams for team time trials in the "A" category consist of at least three and up to four riders. The time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. Team sizes for team time trials in categories B-D consist of at least 2 and up to four Riders. For a twoperson team, the time is taken on the front wheel of the second rider. For a three- or four-person team, the time is taken on the front wheel of the third rider. C: In Conference races, teams for team time trials consist of at least two and up to four riders. For a team of three or more, the time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. For a team of two, the time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the second rider crosses the finish line. D: First and foremost, the rule just doesn't seem to make sense. If 2 A riders decide to do a TTT, they are effectively downgraded for that event, since the highest they could score would be B points. That fact isn't consistent with other upgrade/downgrade procedures that exist in the rulebook. Secondly, there is no advantage to having 2 riders instead of 3 or 4. In fact, having a reduced number or riders can limit speeds significantly. For this reason, why would we exclude a 2 person team from scoring A points, if it is not an advantage? Thirdly, without being able to score A points, this will discourage participation. When there are TTT events, riders may select to not participate if they are not working towards helping their team get to Nationals.
10. Riders in Category A TTT (WCCC) A/B: 7K2d. In Conference races, teams for team time trials in the “A” category consist of at least three and up to four Riders. The time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. 7L6l. Teams for the team time trials shall consist of a minimum of three Riders and a maximum of four Riders. Teams will be timed on the leading wheel of the third Rider. C: 7K2d. In Conference races, teams for team time trials in the “A” category consist of at least three and up to six Riders. The time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. 7L6l. Teams for the team time trials shall consist of a minimum of three Riders and a maximum of six Riders. Teams will be timed on the leading wheel of the third Rider. D: Historical rule that was changed several years ago; bringing back the six rider limit would make TTT more interesting for spectators and fun for participants.
11. Aero Equipment (WCCC) A/B: 7J. Equipment Rule 7J shall apply to road categories B, C, D, and E for the 2010 year, and subsequently apply to all categories in 2011. 7J1. Bicycles (a) Bicycles used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with the current UCI and USAC regulations for mass-start legal bicycles. (b) No handlebar extensions, including "aero bars," or other forms of bars offering forearm support shall be allowed. 7J2. Wheels (a) Wheels used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with UCI mass-start legal regulations. The UCI maintains a website with the information of approved wheels. 7J3. Helmets (a) Helmets worn at Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must meet USAC regulations for mass-start legal, and be worn in accordance with USAC rules. C: We propose extending the exemption from the rule to the B category and removing the limit of the exemptions. The new rule would read, “Rule 7J shall apply to road categories C, D, and E.” with no mention of expanding to all categories. The remainder of the rule should remain the same. D: We have already written an essay on why we believe aero equipment is an important part of the time trial event and why we think that excluding its use from collegiate cycling is a disservice to the sport (see January collegiate newsletter with point/counterpoint from teams). After a year of racing with this rule in effect we have only affirmed our position. Both sides arguing this issue agree that the time trial is not won or lost by the equipment, but rather, by the rider. The necessary equipment required to be competitive (clip-on aerobars) is cheap and portable. Aero wheels and TT-specific frames add slight advantage, but no more than similar advantages gained by using aero or ultralight wheels in mass start events. 90% of the gains are made by having a good position on the bike, which can be had with clip on aerobars. Although we do not see much to be gained by banning the use of such equipment, we do see much that will be/has been lost. The time trial is a special kind of race requiring a special set of skills. One of the things that makes cycling an interesting sport is the variety in events and equipment used for those events. Within the overarching categories of mountain, track, cyclocross, road, and bmx there are
numerous subcategories, each requiring specialized equipment. These equipment are a part of what makes each event unique and exciting. Requiring that all road events use standard mass-start legal road bikes is no different from requiring that all track events use eddy mercx style track bikes or that all mountain events use hard tail or suspensionless mountain bikes. While these changes might be feasible, they dilute the sport, removing a good deal of the fun and excitement that drew us to it to begin with. We understand that for intro categories (C/D), the use of aero equipment may pose some minimal safety hazard as less experienced riders may not be used to riding disc wheels in tight formation. We believe that a rule banning aero equipment in intro categories in an effort to make introduction to road cycling as smooth and simple as possible makes sense. We believe that banning such equipment for experienced B and A riders does not make sense and we therefore support the above proposed rule change.
12. Aero Equipment Restrictions (ECCC) A/B: 7J1a. Bicycles used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with the current UCI and USAC regulations for mass-start legal bicycles. 7J2a. Wheels used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with UCI mass-start legal regulations. The UCI maintains a website with the information of approved wheels. C: It would therefore be useful to make an addition to 7J1 and 2, stipulating something along the lines of: “Any equipment permitted for mass start races by the most recent UCI regulations, including the exempt wheels list, shall be permitted in competition. In addition, any equipment permitted as of the preceding current season shall be permitted.” For the date, Jan 1st is reasonable, but it should probably be in September such that teams have time to plan and purchase accordingly. D: The rules in 7J do not lay out policy about what version of the UCI mass start equipment rules and wheel exemption list to use. The presumed intent that the most recent policies should be applied exposes riders to the possibility that equipment may be deemed illegal during a season or in short order beforehand. While such late notice changes to permitted equipment are extraordinarily inconvenient on the pro circuit, they would be disastrous to collegiate riders and teams that have invested and trained on the equipment. It's not clear that any wheel would be dropped from the exemption list, but it does seem that rules and policy may change at relatively arbitrary points.
13. Penalties for Aero Equipment Infractions (ECCC) A: 7J. Equipment B: N/A C: I would put the recommendation at a 5 second penalty per mile or fraction thereof. D: It's not always possible to detect riders using disallowed equipment in time trials beforehand and prevent them from starting the event. It would be useful to establish national guidelines for suggested time penalties to apply afterward in that case.
14. Nationals TTT Start Order (WCCC) A: 7L6. Road National Championship B: N/A C: The start order of the Team Time Trial shall be determined by the previous year’s results, in reverse order of finishing times, so that the previous year’s national champion team is always the last team to start. Teams that did not compete in the previous year’s Team Time Trial shall start in a random order before all others. D: This would encourage a bit of suspense in an event that is otherwise not spectator-friendly. It has been tried the last few years with success; this rule would cement it for the future.
15. National Team Rankings (MWCCC) A/B: 7M1. Each Division’s Teams’ national rankings for each Academic Year are determined on an interim and on a final basis by, for each National Championship, allocating points to the top 20 Teams in each Division according to the following table… C: 7M1. Each Division’s Teams’ national rankings for each Academic Year are determined (a) on an interim basis by, for each National Championship, allocating points to the top 20 Teams in each Division according to the following table… and (b) on a final basis by subtracting from each Team’s total its lowest score from a National Championship, so that only a Team’s top 3 National Championship Results would count toward its year-end national ranking. D: The collegiate calendar is packed, and the cost of attending National Championships is high. By only counting 3 of the 4 National Championships, the pressure on teams to attend all four National Championships will be reduced, saving money for those teams and helping those teams that can only afford to attend 3 events compete in the rankings.
2. Nationals Allocations (WCCC) A/B: 7L2a.(iv) Each Conference qualifies a total number of Riders equal to (A) the percentage of the total number of Riders in that division that are recorded in USA Cycling’s membership files on December 31 of the previous year as being members of Teams that are members of that Conference, multiplied by (B) the field limit of such Race reduced by the number of Riders qualified pursuant to subsections (i)-(iii) of this Section. C: …the percentage of the total number of category A Riders in that division in that discipline that are recorded … D: The reasoning behind this is that only A riders points count toward nationals qualification as per 7L2b., so it seems only fair that the allocation of start slots is based upon the riders using those slots and not the number of B, C, D and E riders a conference possesses. Also I have noted that the start slots should be based on A riders in the discipline, this is based on the same line of thought. The number of A road, track and cross riders should not affect the allocation of nationals start spots for mountain bikers, and the same holds for each discipline.
3. Road And Mountain Bike Nationals Qualification (ECCC)
A/B: 7L6e. To compete in a Mass Start Road Race at a National Championship, a Rider must have either: (i) Competed in their conference championships as a category A Rider in the road race and criterium race and must have competed in at least one other Mass Start Road Race in the current conference season as a category A Rider; or (ii) Competed as a category A Rider in their final three conference Mass Start Road Races during the current season. A Rider may petition the Board of Trustees if their Conference schedule prohibits meeting these qualification requirements. 7L8j, 7L8k read similarly C: Remove the first clause of each, which require participation in conference championships D: Not a critical issue, but this is kind of weird. Except for the very rare cases where Conference Championships are not the last race of the season, the two parts of 7L6e don't actually say anything different. In fact, in those rare cases where conference championships aren't the last races, this actually allows presumably unintended behavior where riders could downgrade afterward and still go to Nationals. The two part format of this rule used to make sense when you had to do either conf champs (2 races) or 3 races throughout the season, but with the stronger requirement (which I'm all for), they're equivalent.
4. Mountain Bike Endurance Nationals Qualification (ECCC) A/B: 7L8j. To compete in an Endurance Race at a mountain bike National Championship, a Rider must have either: (i) Competed in the Endurance Race at their conference championships as a category A Rider and must have competed in at least one other Endurance Race in the current conference mountain bike season as a category A Rider; or (ii) Competed as a category A Rider in their final three conference Endurance Races during the current season. A Rider may petition the Board of Trustees if their Conference schedule prohibits meeting these qualification requirements. C: Part (i) should open with: “Competed in the Endurance Races...” D: This rule should be changed to make eligibility even between endurance and gravity-right now the gravity riders have to do both races at conf champs in conferences that have multiple gravity events, while the endurance racers only have to do one whether or not there are multiple events. I'm all for the former, but it should be equal for both.
5. DH and MX/DS Nationals Qualification (ECCC) A/B: 7L8k. To compete in a Gravity Race at a mountain bike National Championship, a Rider must have either: (i) Competed in the Gravity Races at their conference championships as a category A Rider and must have competed in at least one other Gravity Race in the current conference mountain bike season as a category A Rider, or (ii) Competed as a category A Rider in their final three conference Gravity Races during the current conference mountain bike season. C: Experience in A Downhill events is necessary and sufficient for entrance into the Downhill competition at Nationals. Experience in A Downhill events is sufficient for entrance into the Dual Slalom/MX/Duel and similar events at Nationals. Experience in A Dual Slalom/MX/Duel/etc. events is sufficient for entrance
into that class of events at Nationals. D: Downhill and Dual Slalom/Mountain 'Cross/Duel competition should perhaps be differentiated for purposes of Nationals eligibility. The equipment and skill sets required for Downhill versus Dual Slalom and similar competitions are very different. Most clearly, experience at Dual Slalom does not necessarily entail competence and sufficient safe riding skills for Downhill competition. Our experience in the ECCC also indicates that the reverse is true, although to a lesser extent. In our conference there is a large class of 'A' gravity riders largely competent at either venue, many strong slalom riders less experienced and comfortable with Downhill, and a small but noticeable number of riders with the opposite inclinations. It is probably not necessary at this point to make Dual Slalom/MX/Duel/etc. experience necessary as well as sufficient for that class of events. The biggest downside to this would be that the one or two conferences, if any, currently relying on Dual Slalom events for Gravity eligibility purposes would not be able to do so for the Downhill event. I believe this is currently the case in the SCCCC but that could be incorrect. To that point though, I would say that this is exactly the goal: Those races do not prepare riders for Nationals level Downhill competition, and should not be taken as tokens of sufficient experience to enter that event.
6. Cyclocross Nationals Eligibility (ECCC) A/B: 7K1a.(iii) [(Table) The championship eligibility period for CX Nationals is] Fall session or spring of the same or following calendar year. C: Fall session of the same calendar year or spring session of the following calendar year. D: The current wording suggests that riders could have raced in the 2009 CX National Championships by going to school in either Fall 2009, Spring 2010 or Spring 2009, or perhaps even Fall 2010.
7. Professional Cyclists (WCCC) A/B: 7G3. Current and former professional cyclists, who otherwise satisfy the eligibility requirements of these Rules, are allowed to compete in Collegiate Cycling Races. C: Bar current professional cyclists from racing in Collegiate Cycling Races. D: We disagree with this rule and feel that since collegiate racing is a "developmental" sport, professional riders have no reason to race in it. Exclusion of professionals from intercollegiate competition is standard in almost every sport and we do not see why cycling should be different in this respect. It should be noted that unlike in P/1/2 races, where fields are scored individually but race together to enable a sufficient number of entrants, A category racers are not scored according to their USCF racing categories. As it stands, most A riders have category 2 or 3 USCF licenses and have little chance of being competitive against professional level riders.
We have noticed that, as one might expect, professional riders are significantly stronger than other collegiate cyclists. As professionals they receive much more support in terms of equipment and training than do other collegiate cyclists and this advantage speaks for itself in races. In the WCCC it is not uncommon for there to be one or two professionals racing the As races who are capable of lapping the field in every criterium and who lead their teammates to sweeping victories in road races by being able to fully control how the races play out. The general effect is that a school with a pro rider tends to dominate the competition.
8. Mixed Category Races – Upgrade Points (ECCC) A/B: 7K2h. Categories that race combined races must be scored separately (i.e. the first Rider in each category gets first place points for that category) C: Categories that race combined races must be scored separately (i.e. the first Rider in each category gets first place points for that category), and should be treated as separate races for purposes of upgrade points. I.e., riders shall be awarded points based on placings within his/her individual category. D: This is definitively not the same situation as normal mixed category races, e.g., typical Men's 3/4s or 1/2/3s in which all of the riders are competing for a single prize list. It is rather the same case as a Women's 4 race being combined with a Women's 1/2/3 due to attendance. Denying Women's 4 riders, who signed up for a Cat 4 race and are competing for their own Cat 4 specific placings and prizes, their upgrade points just because race circumstances forced them to race against higher caliber women seems grossly unfair.
9. Riders in Category A TTT (SECCC) A/B: 7K2d. In Conference races, teams for team time trials in the "A" category consist of at least three and up to four riders. The time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. Team sizes for team time trials in categories B-D consist of at least 2 and up to four Riders. For a twoperson team, the time is taken on the front wheel of the second rider. For a three- or four-person team, the time is taken on the front wheel of the third rider. C: In Conference races, teams for team time trials consist of at least two and up to four riders. For a team of three or more, the time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. For a team of two, the time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the second rider crosses the finish line. D: First and foremost, the rule just doesn't seem to make sense. If 2 A riders decide to do a TTT, they are effectively downgraded for that event, since the highest they could score would be B points. That fact isn't consistent with other upgrade/downgrade procedures that exist in the rulebook. Secondly, there is no advantage to having 2 riders instead of 3 or 4. In fact, having a reduced number or riders can limit speeds significantly. For this reason, why would we exclude a 2 person team from scoring A points, if it is not an advantage? Thirdly, without being able to score A points, this will discourage participation. When there are TTT events, riders may select to not participate if they are not working towards helping their team get to Nationals.
10. Riders in Category A TTT (WCCC) A/B: 7K2d. In Conference races, teams for team time trials in the “A” category consist of at least three and up to four Riders. The time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. 7L6l. Teams for the team time trials shall consist of a minimum of three Riders and a maximum of four Riders. Teams will be timed on the leading wheel of the third Rider. C: 7K2d. In Conference races, teams for team time trials in the “A” category consist of at least three and up to six Riders. The time of the team is taken when the front wheel of the third Rider crosses the finish line. 7L6l. Teams for the team time trials shall consist of a minimum of three Riders and a maximum of six Riders. Teams will be timed on the leading wheel of the third Rider. D: Historical rule that was changed several years ago; bringing back the six rider limit would make TTT more interesting for spectators and fun for participants.
11. Aero Equipment (WCCC) A/B: 7J. Equipment Rule 7J shall apply to road categories B, C, D, and E for the 2010 year, and subsequently apply to all categories in 2011. 7J1. Bicycles (a) Bicycles used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with the current UCI and USAC regulations for mass-start legal bicycles. (b) No handlebar extensions, including "aero bars," or other forms of bars offering forearm support shall be allowed. 7J2. Wheels (a) Wheels used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with UCI mass-start legal regulations. The UCI maintains a website with the information of approved wheels. 7J3. Helmets (a) Helmets worn at Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must meet USAC regulations for mass-start legal, and be worn in accordance with USAC rules. C: We propose extending the exemption from the rule to the B category and removing the limit of the exemptions. The new rule would read, “Rule 7J shall apply to road categories C, D, and E.” with no mention of expanding to all categories. The remainder of the rule should remain the same. D: We have already written an essay on why we believe aero equipment is an important part of the time trial event and why we think that excluding its use from collegiate cycling is a disservice to the sport (see January collegiate newsletter with point/counterpoint from teams). After a year of racing with this rule in effect we have only affirmed our position. Both sides arguing this issue agree that the time trial is not won or lost by the equipment, but rather, by the rider. The necessary equipment required to be competitive (clip-on aerobars) is cheap and portable. Aero wheels and TT-specific frames add slight advantage, but no more than similar advantages gained by using aero or ultralight wheels in mass start events. 90% of the gains are made by having a good position on the bike, which can be had with clip on aerobars. Although we do not see much to be gained by banning the use of such equipment, we do see much that will be/has been lost. The time trial is a special kind of race requiring a special set of skills. One of the things that makes cycling an interesting sport is the variety in events and equipment used for those events. Within the overarching categories of mountain, track, cyclocross, road, and bmx there are
numerous subcategories, each requiring specialized equipment. These equipment are a part of what makes each event unique and exciting. Requiring that all road events use standard mass-start legal road bikes is no different from requiring that all track events use eddy mercx style track bikes or that all mountain events use hard tail or suspensionless mountain bikes. While these changes might be feasible, they dilute the sport, removing a good deal of the fun and excitement that drew us to it to begin with. We understand that for intro categories (C/D), the use of aero equipment may pose some minimal safety hazard as less experienced riders may not be used to riding disc wheels in tight formation. We believe that a rule banning aero equipment in intro categories in an effort to make introduction to road cycling as smooth and simple as possible makes sense. We believe that banning such equipment for experienced B and A riders does not make sense and we therefore support the above proposed rule change.
12. Aero Equipment Restrictions (ECCC) A/B: 7J1a. Bicycles used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with the current UCI and USAC regulations for mass-start legal bicycles. 7J2a. Wheels used in competition in all Collegiate Road and Time Trial Events must conform with UCI mass-start legal regulations. The UCI maintains a website with the information of approved wheels. C: It would therefore be useful to make an addition to 7J1 and 2, stipulating something along the lines of: “Any equipment permitted for mass start races by the most recent UCI regulations, including the exempt wheels list, shall be permitted in competition. In addition, any equipment permitted as of the preceding current season shall be permitted.” For the date, Jan 1st is reasonable, but it should probably be in September such that teams have time to plan and purchase accordingly. D: The rules in 7J do not lay out policy about what version of the UCI mass start equipment rules and wheel exemption list to use. The presumed intent that the most recent policies should be applied exposes riders to the possibility that equipment may be deemed illegal during a season or in short order beforehand. While such late notice changes to permitted equipment are extraordinarily inconvenient on the pro circuit, they would be disastrous to collegiate riders and teams that have invested and trained on the equipment. It's not clear that any wheel would be dropped from the exemption list, but it does seem that rules and policy may change at relatively arbitrary points.
13. Penalties for Aero Equipment Infractions (ECCC) A: 7J. Equipment B: N/A C: I would put the recommendation at a 5 second penalty per mile or fraction thereof. D: It's not always possible to detect riders using disallowed equipment in time trials beforehand and prevent them from starting the event. It would be useful to establish national guidelines for suggested time penalties to apply afterward in that case.
14. Nationals TTT Start Order (WCCC) A: 7L6. Road National Championship B: N/A C: The start order of the Team Time Trial shall be determined by the previous year’s results, in reverse order of finishing times, so that the previous year’s national champion team is always the last team to start. Teams that did not compete in the previous year’s Team Time Trial shall start in a random order before all others. D: This would encourage a bit of suspense in an event that is otherwise not spectator-friendly. It has been tried the last few years with success; this rule would cement it for the future.
15. National Team Rankings (MWCCC) A/B: 7M1. Each Division’s Teams’ national rankings for each Academic Year are determined on an interim and on a final basis by, for each National Championship, allocating points to the top 20 Teams in each Division according to the following table… C: 7M1. Each Division’s Teams’ national rankings for each Academic Year are determined (a) on an interim basis by, for each National Championship, allocating points to the top 20 Teams in each Division according to the following table… and (b) on a final basis by subtracting from each Team’s total its lowest score from a National Championship, so that only a Team’s top 3 National Championship Results would count toward its year-end national ranking. D: The collegiate calendar is packed, and the cost of attending National Championships is high. By only counting 3 of the 4 National Championships, the pressure on teams to attend all four National Championships will be reduced, saving money for those teams and helping those teams that can only afford to attend 3 events compete in the rankings.
