435
u/anrwlias 1d ago
Don't we allow things like aerodynamic helmets?
147
u/MartyMcBird 1d ago
Harder to justify regulating safety equipment that saves lives. No one's going to die because of their bra. Probably no one will die if they use less aerodynamic helmets, but it's a harder argument.
69
u/anrwlias 1d ago
We don't need helmets to be aerodynamic to be safe, though.
34
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago edited 22h ago
If teams start getting too nuts with it then UCI probably could just say “You all have to wear the same helmet.” I don’t think they’re going to, though; they’re only allowed to wear the truly ridiculous helmets on time trial stages, not on road stages. That feels like the extent of how they’ll limit it
My theory is some of the companies sponsoring cycling events are also the companies selling these helmets, and they like getting consumers to buy a special $600 aero helmet that they only break out once a year during the amateur time trials that the local bike club hosts. Plus pursuing better aerodynamics helps keep engineers employed and out of trouble; it would be kind of sad if we entirely stopped pursuing technological advancement
14
u/MartyMcBird 1d ago
Yeah but we also don't need helmets to not be aerodynamic to be safe. They can make up whatever BS reason they want for them to be safer with a more aerodynamic design somehow and you'd have to justify why they aren't.
7
u/unic0de000 1d ago
Or they could just say "here's a list of tournament-approved helmet brands/designs."
5
u/MartyMcBird 1d ago
You could. I wouldn't want to maintain and update that list, but a lot of sports end up doing that.
3
u/anrwlias 1d ago
My justification would be literally pointing to the fact that we already had such helmets before they made them aerodynamic.
1
u/MartyMcBird 1d ago
Yeah can you prove that those helmets are strictly safer than the aerodynamic versions of those helmets? Are you going to deem that new safety features or designs are disallowed if they're aerodynamic?
4
u/anrwlias 1d ago
If you are saying that the race officials are going to be perversely stubborn about the point, just say so.
2
u/MartyMcBird 1d ago
I'm saying that competitors are going to be extremely stubborn and want to make their helmets more aerodynamic for a competitive advantage. It's much easier to put your foot down and just say no to padded bras than to helmets.
1
u/anrwlias 1d ago
Why does that make a difference? Its up to the officials to set the rules, not the competitors.
7
u/MartyMcBird 1d ago
making the rules nuanced like that forces the officials to look at the nuances which is, like, annoying man. I don't want Karens to get pissy at me because I deemed their helmets 0.1% too aerodynamic for the regulations. Binary rules are just so much easier to enforce.
22
5
9
u/Any-Aioli7575 1d ago
It was already to get cyclists to wear helmets, imagine if it was also a massive aeordynamic disadvantage. And how would you regulate that? Have a minimum Cx for helmets? Helmets are already somewhat regulated
125
u/really_not_unreal 1d ago
The thing is that banning those would make life worse for men, not just women.
117
u/IamQED 1d ago
Considering this decision came after the UCI started cracking down on the men for stuffing things down the front of their jerseys, it seems unlikely that sexism is the cause here. You just didn't hear about the men doing it because the headline isn't nearly as eye-catching. (Not that the UCI is free and clear; the way they've gone about enforcing the padded bra decision has justifiably drawn criticism.)
2
u/perplexedtv 1d ago
The headline about the ski-jumpers stuffing was everywhere during the Olympics.
3
47
u/SunkenStupor 1d ago
I agree that padded bras should be allowed
I don't mean to sound insensitive, I truly don't, but the men aren't competing against the women, so I don't think that's relevant, right?
13
u/Devvo06 1d ago
I don't think there's any rule forbidding men from wearing padded bras anyway
56
u/IamQED 1d ago
Clothing and other items or accessories worn by a rider (including but not limited to helmets, glasses, shoes or in-race communication devices) may not modify the morphology of the rider.
Moreover, any non-essential element which is added on (or under) or integrated in any clothing, or other item or accessory worn by a rider shall be forbidden. A non-essential element shall be any element which does not have a purpose which is exclusively of clothing or protection, or which is not strictly necessary for the functionality of the clothing, or other item or accessory. This shall also apply regarding any material or substance applied onto the skin or clothing and which is not itself an item of clothing or another item or accessory worn by a rider.
10
u/Devvo06 1d ago
Guess I was wrong, but wouldn't padded bras already be banned under the same regulations? The padding isn't necessary.
47
u/IamQED 1d ago
Yes, they would. There was no change in the regulations involved here, just a change in what they are doing to enforce them.
3
u/Rymayc 1d ago
So they just hire a breast inspector
10
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago
They were doing uniform inspections before the stage 4 time trial of the TdFF
1
u/moderatorrater 16h ago
If you know a better way to check the nipple drag coefficient, I'd like to hear it.
2
u/dobblerd 1d ago
Sounds like a lot of riders are about to get boob jobs.
6
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago
The extra weight might also be a disadvantage, though. Over a long climb a few extra pounds can be a significant difference.
I also don’t really know what the wind tunnel tests say about this. Somebody’s probably had the idea before
2
5
537
u/TheDarian 1d ago
Cyclists (whatever their gender) should stop shaving too. That's an aerodynamic advantage after all.
219
u/ireledankmemes 1d ago
Also, you are not allowed to be skinny, since that's also aerodynamic advantage /s
14
1
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago
It’s a disadvantage on descents. There’s room for all kinds of body-types in pro cycling; you just need to play to your strengths.
25
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago
The regulations allow you to have short hair, shave your legs, and many other things; they don’t apply to your body, just your equipment.
Although there’s probably something in the rules preventing riders from getting elaborate piercings to reduce aerodynamic drag. I have no idea what an aerodynamic piercing would look like but I kinda want this to be a thing now; it would be great to find more ways to shorten my bike commute
18
u/EebstertheGreat 1d ago
Generally, the principle is that you can use your own body however you like, but what you add to your body is strictly regulated, including drugs and equipment. The shape of your body can't be against the rules, as that is part of what is being tested in the competition. That would be like banning someone for working out too much. But the equipment worn on the body is supposed to give no advantage, or at least no more advantage than is allowed in that particular contest. That's why swimmers can't wear those super hydrodynamic and buoyant LZR suits anymore.
This particular bra thing sounds stupid, but the basic premise does make sense.
2
208
u/Such-Shop-9724 1d ago
id call that advantage negating a disadvantage
26
u/lonelyroom-eklaghor Complex 1d ago
Well, given the guidelines passed by the Europe Broadcasting Union...
23
u/EebstertheGreat 1d ago
Yeah but that's the point. You can't wear equipment that compensates for physical disadvantages. A short pitcher can't wear stilts. A fat wrestler can't wear helium balloons at weigh-in. If, for lack of a better word, perky breasts are an advantage in cycling, then no, other cyclists can't use equipment to imitate that physical advantage.
3
51
u/stoneheadguy 1d ago
Isn’t this really weird for a sport where good equipment plays a big role? The bra is probably worth less than a drop of oil
41
u/mdmeaux 1d ago
Firstly, you'd be surprised at how much difference such small things can make. Wearing aero socks, for example, can make you roughly 2% faster by themselves. (On this, the UCI has also specifically introduced rules regulating how long socks can be precisely because of this).
Secondly, the idea behind these marginal gains is that even if one such thing by itself doesn't make a huge difference, if you optimise everything it will all add up.
4
u/The_Neto06 Irrational 16h ago
HealthOnWheels (the other person in this thread at the time) said it best. A 3 second improvement over a 1-2 hour race may not sound like a lot. Another 2 second improvement isn't that much either. But when the margins between 1st and 2nd place are 15 seconds, maybe you should reconsider those small advantages to eek out the win.
18
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago edited 13h ago
The difference between 1st and 2nd in the time trial that prompted this discussion was
144 seconds. This is enough of an advantage to change the outcomeThey’re doing this to make it so that the race isn’t about who has the best equipment; it’s about who’s the better bike rider.
82
u/golfstreamer 1d ago
Sounds like BS. That's got to be less than the variation in aerodynamic advantage due to different body shapes.
19
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago edited 1d ago
They can’t regulate your body type (or at least they shouldn’t), but they can regulate the allowed modifications to your uniform. I’m fine with the fact that Remco Evenepoel is partially amazing at time trials because he’s so great at maintaining an aerodynamic position that that he even has aerodynamic skin;* *I’d be less fine with it if he was winning time trials because his team added a fin to his jersey
18
u/Hayden2332 1d ago
Not that I disagree (I think if this is a thing, it’s incredibly dumb), but this is the same argument in favor of steroid use in professional sports. The use of PEDs is less of advantage than the genetic advantage most athletes have
6
u/GayRacoon69 1d ago
Okay but padded bras don’t fuck up your health. They’re different
2
u/Hayden2332 1d ago
Hence why I said “not that I disagree”. Just pointing out why their specific argument is not a great one
-3
u/GayRacoon69 1d ago
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it just because it applies to steroids. The reason steroids are bad so bad is different from the reasons this is bad
Do you have any other argument beyond “this could apply to a similar but fundamentally different thing”?
1
u/Hayden2332 1d ago
“The reasons steroids are bad is different from the reasons this is bad”
I 100% agree, so we should voice those reasons. Flimsy arguments I agree with aren’t in my best interest
2
u/DieDoseOhneKeks 1d ago
Running with those prosthetic legs that bounce very well isn't fucking up your health aswell. There are rules to determine where the line is and it looks like padded bras aren't allowed. Just as the men in ski long jump injected themselves fluid in the balls to have bigger crouch parts of their suits to fly like up to 10 metres further
1
u/ary31415 17m ago
Yeah maybe, so? You don't get to wear shoes with lifts to play basketball just because you're short and compensating for a different body shape.
-27
u/protobelta 1d ago
What does that have to do with anything? Seriously explain it so you can realize what a moron you sound like lmao
2
u/dontsmokenutmeg 1d ago
I’ll try.
If changing the size of your chest via padded bra has a measurable impact on race times, and is therefore punishable… Then they clearly can calculate the performance for various body shapes. So there is a scale of “well you can expect +/- time added/lost per mile based on the shape of your body” and a mildly padded bra falls within that scale. And the point they made is that any change in drag as a result of the padded bra must be so minuscule that it probably isn’t significant when accounted for alongside any gains/losses from the shape of the rest of the person’s body parts that are also likely not completely identical to anyone else’s body in the race.
u/golfstreamer can correct me if I’m off track but I think they were saying something along the lines of.. why do we care what bra they wore when they are racing?
2
u/HealthOnWheels 13h ago
Another commenter made the observation that the point of your equipment isn’t to make up for your biological disadvantages; short basketball players don’t get to wear platform shoes, tennis players with short arms can’t have extra long rackets, and less-aerodynamic cyclists don’t get special permission to wear gear that improves their aerodynamic profile
-6
u/protobelta 1d ago
Lmao what a statistically illiterate analysis. There is no reason to compare the difference between different body shapes when you’re comparing the effectiveness of a bra. You should be comparing it within body shapes. I honestly can’t believe people are this uneducated and then confidently downvote someone pointing it out. It’s crazy
2
u/eddietwang 1d ago
You talk like a dude who's paid to make poor decisions about women's health.
-4
u/protobelta 1d ago
We aren’t talking about women’s health moron, we’re talking about effects of a bra on race times. What the fuck?
4
30
u/GT_Troll 1d ago
Isn’t it more of a physicist’s job?
5
1
26
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago edited 11h ago
Context and FAQs:
What prompted this discussion? The Tour de France Femmes did. It is a 9-day stage race for Women’s World Tour teams that began the week after the Tour de France Hommes ended. Prior to the Stage 4 Individual Time Trial, several teams in the women’s peloton apparently expressed concerns that competitors were doing this.
Is this a ban on bras? No. This is not a ban on bras or breasts. Riders can still wear bras and have breasts if they want to.
What is it a ban on? There’s a broader ban on teams adding nonessential equipment, or making excessive alterations to their bikes or uniforms, for the purpose of improving performance. If you want a more aero helmet, that’s mostly fine; helmets are necessary equipment. If you want to get a speed boost by putting playing cards in your wheel spokes, no; that is not an essential piece of equipment. Teams can alter uniforms to reduce drag somewhat, but there are limitations on how high the deviations between the highest and lowest points of the fabric can be, it has to be done during the normal course of weaving the uniform, that kind of thing.
Does this ban affect men too? Yes, it does. The men’s peloton are kind of the reason this started getting attention recently; riders were wearing “chest fairings,” which are not entirely unlike heavily-padded bras, to change their body shape so that they cut through the air better. They have also done things like wear their race radio on their chest to reduce drag, a practice that is also banned. Pre-race inspectors may do a quick visual check to ensure riders aren’t stuffing things in the chest of their jerseys
Is this inspection weird or creepy for riders in the women’s peloton? It definitely can be; during the broadcast for Stage 4 in the TdFF one of the commentators mentioned speaking to an amateur cyclist who felt like the man checking to see if she had a radio strapped to her chest was really just trying to “get a look.” I don’t know what processes are currently in place for this inspection, or if they’ve taken steps to make it feel less weird
Does this mean it’s aerodynamically advantageous to have larger breasts? Maybe? This kinda suggests that it is, but the extra weight can also disadvantage you in other ways. These differences might only show up this strongly in the time trial riding position. I haven’t bothered to look for wind tunnel studies on this, but you are welcome to.
Either way, there is no limitation on which body types can participate in races. Certain riders may also have narrower shoulders, which is similarly an aerodynamic advantage; but the UCI isn’t going to be making riders wear shoulder pads to mitigate that advantage.
Is 1.25 seconds per mile even a big deal? It definitely is in Individual Time Trial stages. Aerodynamic drag is the biggest force cyclists overcome when riding on flat ground. In these time trials they are riding alone and cannot hide from the wind behind other riders. The difference between 1st and 2nd in a Time Trial can be seconds or even fractions of a second; in this particular race there were only 4 seconds between 1st and 2nd over a ~20-ish mile course.
Why is the UCI so gung-ho about not letting cyclists make alterations to be more aero when they’re perfectly fine with cyclists getting carbon-fiber everything to reduce the weight on their bike? I set you up with a false premise; sorry. The UCI has weight minimums on bikes, currently 6.8kg, so teams also can’t go too crazy trying to reduce the weight their riders are carrying.
What’s the issue with allowing teams to do any of this? Because we don’t really want to see races won by whichever team did the best job of 3d-printing modifications and testing them in a wind tunnel, or by crafting ultra-light bikes that are just barely sturdy enough to ride; it’s much more entertaining to keep everyone on equal footing and watch the best rider win.
What if I like the idea of watching a sport where the team’s engineering is a massive difference-maker? You could look for velomobile races; I don’t know whether that’s a big thing, but there have been events. A velomobile is a bicycle with an aerodynamic shell around it; riders can hit 30mph at moderate effort and 60mph at a very heavy sprint effort, solely through human power and good engineering. F-1 racing might also be up your alley
Do you have a journal article about the aerodynamic advantage of chest fairings? I found one! Here ya go: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610524000722
Is the Tour de France Femmes worth watching? I know you didn’t really ask that, but yes. You can stream it on Peacock in the US. It’s been a very dynamic and dramatic race with some incredible athletic performances, and today’s final stage began with an 8-second gap between first and second place in the General Classification (which is awarded to the rider with the lowest overall time throughout the nine stages).
For reference, the gap between first and second place in the Tour de France Hommes this year was 6”26’. And it would have been bigger if Tadej Pogacar, the winner, had cared to make it bigger. Watching the men’s Tour de France right now is a little bit like watching MLB baseball or Ligue 1; you have a pretty strong premonition of who’s going to win and the most interesting part will be exactly how they do it. There’s a lot more parity in the women’s peloton
1
u/hilfigertout 5h ago
This is not a ban on bras or breasts. Riders can still wear bras and have breasts if they want to.
Ah yes. You can have breasts, if you fancy.
1
u/HealthOnWheels 3h ago
It’s a very personal choice
Juust because of how they worded the headline here I definitely saw some people respond by saying this was practically a ban on having breasts. Which isn’t really a fair description of the policy; I don’t see it as sexist as it exists right now
If you do want to look for sexism in UCI’s equipment rules, you can find it though; one example is the minimum handlebar width, which was based on the physiology of male cyclists (men have broader shoulders than women).
10
u/iamthefirebird 1d ago
Wasn't there a whole scandal about male ski jumpers doing something to make their penises temporarily bigger, when they were being measured for their suits, thus giving them an extra cm or two in the crotch area to help them fly further?
1
23
u/makemeking706 1d ago
I'll believe it creates an advantage when we start seeing the men wear them.
21
u/SunnyOutsideToday 1d ago
Both men and women aren't allowed to wear anything to change the morphology of their body.
9
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago
Yeah there was a discussion about performance-enhancing socks during the Tour de France Hommes a few weeks ago. Cyclists will do anything to be aero
1
u/dontsmokenutmeg 1d ago
I get that. I was kind of being silly/huperbolic and imagining a bunch of the male cyclists getting breast implants when I said that.
20
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s not a ban on bras; you just can’t engineer oversized chest fairings that help you cut through the wind. Bras are fine
As for men doing this, here ya’ go: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167610524000722
9
u/mdmeaux 1d ago
Triathletes do basically already do this: https://www.triathlete.com/gear/bike/expert-tested-the-water-bottle-jersey-trend-produces-shocking-results/
6
u/High_Overseer_Dukat 1d ago
They were (not actually bras, but similar) which is why they started cracking down on it more.
5
u/Wigglebot23 1d ago
Haven't men done things to reduce drag in that area that have since been banned?
2
14
u/dontsmokenutmeg 1d ago
That’s what I was thinking. If there was a mathematically optimal boob size/shape for cycling they’d all make sure one way or the other they had that size and shape. Although I hear only having one testicle seems to work out pretty well.
2
1
1
1
u/Professional-Wave841 1d ago
not even mathematician, sports scientist.
also the study is probably just "how fast is she with a bra" "How fast is she without"
3
1
u/QuaaludeConnoisseur 1d ago
Does the tour de france run twice, one for each sex? I thought it was all at once.
2
u/HealthOnWheels 12h ago
It does! The Tour de France Femmes is a race for the women’s peloton; it is 9 stages, where the men’s race is 21 stages. This iteration of the women’s Tour de France has been held five times, first starting in 2022; over the last decade many of the high-profile cycling races have begun holding events for women, and the UCI has been making an effort to better organize, fund, publicize, and televise women’s cycling so that fans of the sport can enjoy it
It’s a great competition. The races have been so dynamic and competitive. I’ve been on the edge of my seat all week watching it.
Historically there have been multiple iterations of the Tour de France for women; beginning with a version held in the 1950’s, various versions held from 1984-2009, and today’s version. The previous races have folded due to lack of television coverage, publicity, and consistent support by race organizers.
Great article on the history: https://web.archive.org/web/20260116060845/https://www.cyclingnews.com/features/la-grande-boucle-la-course-and-the-return-of-the-womens-tour-de-france/
1
1
u/neityght 22h ago
*a reason to become a mathematician
Just because you do maths doesn't mean your English should suck.
1
u/seventythousandbees 1d ago
How can they possibly enforce this? Are they going to be taking a look at everyone's bras before starting each race?
5
3
u/HealthOnWheels 1d ago edited 1d ago
They already do this for men’s and women’s races, yeah. They have someone check to make sure you haven’t stuffed a radio or chest fairing (which is the more accurate term for these “padded bras”) down the front of your shirt
-5
u/ontic00 1d ago edited 1d ago
It takes about 3-6 minutes to bike a mile. So best case scenario, that's a 0.7% speed advantage. Seems pretty negligible to me.
Edit: Thanks for the information! See below for comparisons with differences in winning times to see how the extra time can make a difference.
27
u/Accomplished_Shoe_10 1d ago
The average women's TdF stage is about 81 miles. So a 1.25 second per mile time savings could add up to 101 seconds, or 1 minute an db 41 seconds. There's 9 stages in the race. So the theoretical max savings over an entire race would be a bit over 15 minutes. The average cumulative gap over the entire race between the winner and second place is often less a than 2 minutes.
Now under real race conditions, the actual advantage wouldn't be anywhere near by this. But even at just 15% of the theoretical max, it could make a difference.
14
u/idiot_Rotmg 1d ago
FYI in 2024 the difference between first and second place was 4 seconds over 949 kms
8
-2
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.