Biking/Drafting etiquette question (Page 2)

My hubby and I take turns pulling (he's GREAT to draft off of!) and he always makes a comment on the "great view" whenever I'm up front. Maybe you should make her take her turn just for a little bit!

That shouldn't be your biggest fear.  9999x out of 10000 if someone hits your rear wheel with their front wheel, they are going down, not you .  Unless I guess if one can't handle a bike very good.

expect for this little rule " While on the cycling course, participants shall not work together to improve performance, efficiency, or position by teamwork or other joint conduct.."

http://www.usatriathlon.org/upload/pdfs/usatcrandpcmodifications.pdf

That's what I was going to say.  So I'm OK if someone drafts as long as I know they are there.

However, if I'm on a solo ride and someone grabs my wheel without saying something, it does irritate me.   Mainly because if I'm alone and I want to coast for a second (for whatever reason), stand up to stretch, adjust my package, scratch my butt - and if I think I'm alone - then my sudden drop in speed can become a problem for us both.  Do I check anyway?  Almost always, because it does happen.  But it's stupid of the person behind to not understand that grabbing a wheel without discussing it first is a safety issue.

agreed.  i dont mind anyone drafting me, but ask first will ya!

That is not what that rule is referring to.  "Slingshotting" is legal, and is actually advised when you are racing in a non-draft legal tri.  The fact of the matter, and USAT realizes this, is that you are going to come upon riders that are traveling within 1/10 of a MPH of you.  As you approach them, you are going to pick up speed from the draft.  You will move to pass on their left and as your front tire (cyclist 1) edges the front tire of the cyclist being passed (cyclist 2), the passed cyclist *must* drop back out of the drafting zone or the passing cyclist will pass purely on his/her own strength (usually a combinaton of the two, when the cyclists are evenly matched).  As cyclist two removes himslef from the drafting zone and cyclist 1 loses the draft he gained while passing, cyclist 2 will begin to catch him again (the official draft zone is 2m wide by 7m long, but I think someone pointed out that there is a much larger effective area where some advantge is gained).  It is not USATs intention to have the cyclist that is unfortunate enough to have a competitor that made a one time charge over his normal pacing force another rider to slow down and ride under his normal pacing when the first cyclist resumes his normal pacing.  The only way to avoid this is to continue to leapfrog each other until someone pulls away.

NOW, for the rule, it is in place(and it isn't even a standardized rule as much as a precursor to the positioning rules) because USAT does not want teams to go out together to allow their strongest riders to gain advantage.  Generally, an official would only use that infraction when there is a clear communiction (participants talking about it while riding) or implied communication (participants weaing matching unforms) of a plan.  In that case, I believe they would call a violaton for 5.10 with no specifiy to the segment of the rule, but a written description of the violation on file with the head official, but Charlie Crawford is probably a better person to ask about that, if you are truly interested in what the call would be.

In fact, the proces that is being called "legal drafting", which is a slang moniker given by competitors and no he USAT, is explained fairly succinctly in 5.10g.

I agree the "Slingshot" is legal.  What i dont' agree is that two people doing it over and over and over again, to improve their times, is legal.  In fact, the USAT agrees with me as well.  The put it in their rules.

The way kproudfoot wrote his post, it sounds like to me, that there is "teamwork" going on.  ie "both parties know they are suppose to be doing it."

And what do you "its not a standaradize rule?  its in the rules?!?  being "teammates" doesnt' mean that they need to wear the same kit, had discussed it prior, etc.  The rule isn't just for teammates.  Its for people that keeps dropping in and out of the draft zone of each other to gain an advantage.  Again, that is why kproudfoot's post goes against the rule. "It makes both of your bike splits faster in the end even though you keep slowing down."

BTW, your example makes no sense.  rider A rides faster so he catches B.  ok, with you. but now he slows becuase he doesn't have the benifit of the draft?  how did he catch him in the first place then?  did he leave t1 with him?  Was there a steady line of bikers for him to "slingshot"  and now there is not? 

The only way for your example to work all away around the course is either they leave t1 together and have the same ability or 2 they are working together, either stated between themselves or not.  And if they are doing #2, then its against the rules.  

Ok, granted this could happen a few times, but over and over?  I think not.  Again, not unless they were doing it to gain an advantage and working with each other.

Now I agree that it wouldn't be enforced very much.  But that doesn't mean it isn't against the rules.  Hell, regular drafting isn't enforced very much. 

I'm not going to argue with you - It is unenforceable.  You can't sit and watch people trade positions and know that they are doing it on purpose.  You can't see what their actual speeds are, you can't see if one motivates the other by passing him, you can't see a "battery level" that maybe cyclist 1 burned up making the pass and then slowed down.  If there is any doubt in his/her mind, officials will not call it.  Kproudfoot said both parties know they are suppose to be doing it, he says nothing about discussing it or agreeing to it. 

Read section 5.10g and notice that what the rule book says must happen, is what kproudfoot is describing.  Does it bend the rules?  Yeah, probably.  But so do tax accountants.  They only get fined/prosecuted/jailed if they break them.  Without proof of collusion (which you probably can't get) and an actual statement that repeated re-passing is illegal (of which there is none), there is no penalty.

I'm not going to argue with you - It is unenforceable 

I never said it is enforceable.  Just that it is against the rules.  And by your comments below, it sounds like you agree with me. 

Kproudfoot said both parties know they are suppose to be doing it, he says nothing about discussing it or agreeing to it. 

Neither does the rules state that two or more have to discuss it or agree to it.  If they do it, its against the rules. 

Does it bend the rules?  Yeah, probably.  But so do tax accountants.  They only get fined/prosecuted/jailed if they break them.  Without proof of collusion (which you probably can't get) and an actual statement that repeated re-passing is illegal (of which there is none), there is no penalty.

Ok cool.  It is only illegal if you don't get caught.  Beauty.  Where do you stop with that logic?  If you don't get caught drafting, its ok?  If you don't get caught going 20+ over the speed limit, its ok?  If you dont' get caught cheating on your taxes, its ok?  If you don't get caught doing, xxxxx, or xxxxx, or xxxxx, its ok? 

Sorry, but I guess I live and play by a different standard than what you described. 

So you have never used a tax loophole?  That is what this is, IMO, a loophole. 

Do you drive exactly the speed limit and no more, or do you feel it's OK to drive over, as long as it isn't more than 10MPH.  Something to ponder. 

Anyway - I have asked for an "official opinion" from Charlie Crawford.  I asked Lucy Harr (She is the Midwest Director of Officiating for the USAT) and her opinion was that it is really not something that can be called for a few reasons.  One - because an official cannot spend the kind of time that it takes to "catch" someone doing this in a race.  There is too much ground to cover to spend 5-10 minutes on two cyclists.  Two - generally, when an official pulls up with his motorcycle driver, anyone that is doing something "questionable" is going to stop doing something questionable, kind of like when they see a police officer on the road. 

Lucy did say, however, that if she, somehow, had the ability to know that this was happening when she came upon it - she would call it because it is her feeling that the preamble to rule 5.10 IS a part of the rule, and not just an "opening statement" of what the rule is about (so basically, she agreees with you, as do I in a perfect world situation).  She warned me, however, that there are many times when Charlie's opinion does not align with hers, so we may get a different answer from him - and since his is the one that really counts - we will have to see.  Lucy was working the Lifetime Fitness Tri with Charlie this weekend, so she is supposed to ask him and get back to me.

She did think that it was a great question, however, and had never been asked it before (WOOOOOO - we stumped on of the more experienced USAT officials!!!)  She did think, however, that since she hadn't been asked the question before, that it was a "generally accepted practice" among top level age groupers (not that it makes it right).

BTW, I don't think people should get away with using tax loopholes (you should pay what was intended by the law, not what you can't wriggle out of) and I do drive using the "less than 10 over rule", FWIW.