Van Schip pushese the envelope, gets DQed...check out his crazy bike setup

1

Love this guy, van Schip! Reverse tiller steerer? Wonder what it feels like to race that bike.

G3UYTfQWIAEqwY6
G3UYTfQWIAEqwY61206×1030 334 KB

2 Likes
2

Apparently the local UCI officials didn’t ban him at first but UCI officials watching on TV made them. He wasn’t banned either for the stem or bars but the seat post apparently. The daft thing is he has raced a few other UCI races on this setup and even won his last one but only now they are saying its non compliant. His attack along the grass verge next to the peloton is something though and his position looks really aero.

“What a horrible-looking bike
 love it!”: Cycling world loses its mind over Jan-Willem van Schip’s latest bonkers aero set-up; Pidcock back on Pinarello?; Police face mounting pressure over controversial bike theft policy + more on the live blog | road.cc

3

The stem/handlebar position looks like it ought to be illegal under UCI ARTICLE 1.3.022

1-GEN-20250616-E.pdf

The handlebars must be positioned in an area defined as follows: above, by the horizontal plane of the point of support of the saddle (B); below, by the horizontal plane passing 100 mm below the highest point of the two wheels (these being of equal diameter) (C); at the rear by the axis of the steerer tube (D) and at the front by a vertical plane passing at horizontal distance of 100 mm from the axis of the front wheel spindle (see diagram «Structure (1A)»).

Send Van Schip straight to UCI jail for crimes against cycling fashion. See also George Fox who is continually taking the piss out of the “road bike” category in the events run by Cycling Time Trials in the UK.

2 Likes
4

It’s hideous. And amazing. It’s amazingly hideous.

14 Likes
5

Apparently, UCI officials who weren’t even there decided his seat post was illegal; despite him having submitted the design to them, raced it a bit and even won :man_gesturing_ok:

6

Well, I think the rule is clear: once you get a seatpost like that approved you can only race with it ‘n’ times where ‘n’ is unknown to any but UCI HQ.

I don’t know how the UCI could be any more clear than that. :person_shrugging:

5 Likes
7

Its like training, you need to push boudries to get faster. regarding this, one rebel is enough to change the future :wink:

2 Likes
8

You’d like to think so, but there’s been lots of similar rebels over the years but the UCI just seem to be going backwards and making up new rules to suit :face_with_diagonal_mouth:

2 Likes
9

It’s typically UCI to remotely disqualify something that’s been raced (and won iirc) previously and that in person officials passed through scrutineering.

Name a more classic combo than UCI and inconsistent application of rules.

That being said, Jesus that’s an ugly bike and really skirting the rules. It’s definitely using the words and not the spirit!

1 Like
10

Everything about this bike rules! Chinese frame, ridiculously long and positive stem, childrens width bars, and that seatpost. Its gatta be hard for someone his height to get aero on a conventional setup

All jokes aside, if it were a straight seatpost with a 50mm “set-forward”, would that have been allowed? was it the fact that its kinked that got him?”

11

Yes, my interpretation of the rules is that the kink is the problem because it exceeds the max 8cm depth as allowed for “shape (2)” under rule 1.3.020.

I wondered why the rider isn’t using a bigger frame to get the correct reach rather than using that awful stem, but after reading the rules I discovered that there is a rule on max bicycle length 185cm including wheels, so his bike could fall foul of that rule if he had a frame with a longer front centre distance.

The rules are there for fair play and safety but I struggle to see how a max bicycle length affects either of those criteria?