# praying mantis position in triathlons



## rdtindsm (Jan 16, 2013)

I was curious as to why the "praying mantis" time trial position was banned by the UCI. This was a position Floyd Landis used and places the forearms angled upwards. To my naive analysis, it would seem that the position creates an aerodynamic shell that directs airflow around the torso, and was a position I developed on my own for the above reasons. I was about to post asking about this when I decided to do a little research and found at least one web site claiming that this was in fact a very good position which is why the staid and sometimes arbitrary UCI banned it. He stated that it should be used when not otherwise banned.

I don't follow triathlons, so I don't really know if triathletes use this position. My feeling is that I haven't seen it, but maybe just not paying attention.

Where does this position fit in the tri world today? Rules?


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Like it or not, you have to draw the line somewhere if you want cycling to remain the sport we all know and love. 

If you would allow anything and everything that makes a cyclist faster, all races would be contested by by recumbent riders fully enclosed in aerodynamic fairings. While I'm sure that the contestants in these human powered vehicle races are first-rate athletes and sacrifice much to compete, no one other than friends or relatives of the contestants watches that sport. The UCI is well aware of that and (rightfully so, in my view) resists any attempt to diminish the man-over-machine concept and / or introduce technical innovations which pose he danger of making bicycle racing a technology- / equipment-driven sport.

For more on this, read the "Lugano Charter" and the "Comments on the Principles" under the Technical Regulations in the "Developing Equipment" portion of the text at the link:

Union Cycliste Internationale


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perhaps the Praying Landis position was a tad extreme. I tend to like the tops of my aero bars higher than what's generally allowed by the UCI, mostly due to some mild carpal tunnel. The ski pole hand position hurts like hell for me.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

I remember the dilemma that the UCI had at the time - they had the choice of an outright ban or just slap the users silly for riding around looking like complete twat-waffles. Happily the outright ban won.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Mike T. said:


> I remember the dilemma that the UCI had at the time - they had the choice of an outright ban or just slap the users silly for riding around looking like complete twat-waffles. Happily the outright ban won.


Looking strange is part of being on a TT bike. If bein' normal were faster, that's how we'd all ride.


----------



## rdtindsm (Jan 16, 2013)

I learned a long time ago not to ask more than one question in an e-mail because only one will get answered. I violated my own rule. The other question posed in my initial post was basically what kind of restrictions on aerobars, if any, are regulated in triathlons. Can triathletes use the mantis position? Are they governed by UCI equipment rules.

That said, I'm not complaining about the need to regulate bicycle configurations to what we would consider a traditional format. But the praying mantis position is a minor variation of otherwise accepted technology and position while being well within the resources of anyone using aero-bars, let alone 3rd world nations.

If Graham Obree's superman position broke those boundaries, I am not sure that his creative use of ghetto-bars did. I knew a rider, admittedly a strange dude, solved a bike fit problem by turning his bars upside down. He didn't have a lot of racing experience and his strategy was simply to go to the front and ride hard. He probably won one race that has a major position on the regional calender because he established a solo break while everyone else was laughing at him, before they realized he was for real.

UCI simply didn't like Obree. Kind of like a fast rising rider many years ago that pissed the ABL of A at the Olympic trials because he had hairy legs. BTW, he made the team as one of a number of national caliber riders from Madison, WI.


----------



## pacific (Feb 20, 2013)

I was researching this exact same thing the other night. 

If you look at the true Praying Landis position (as performed by Landis himself) you can see that his elbows to hands are tightly pressed together. This should divert much of the air around the body that would otherwise go between the arms and hit the stomach/waist area. 

It's apparently wind-tunnel proven to be fast, but with such narrow elbow placement, doesn't look very comfy or stable. 











There are definitely triathletes who have adopted the position. But they keep their elbows comfortably wide, and fill up the gap between the arms with a water bottle:


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

wim said:


> Like it or not, you have to draw the line somewhere if you want cycling to remain the sport we all know and love.
> 
> If you would allow anything and everything that makes a cyclist faster, all races would be contested by by recumbent riders fully enclosed in aerodynamic fairings. While I'm sure that the contestants in these human powered vehicle races are first-rate athletes and sacrifice much to compete, no one other than friends or relatives of the contestants watches that sport. The UCI is well aware of that and (rightfully so, in my view) resists any attempt to diminish the man-over-machine concept and / or introduce technical innovations which pose he danger of making bicycle racing a technology- / equipment-driven sport.
> 
> ...


So, why have TT bikes? Why is the current norm an acceptable advantage, but praying landis not? It is arbitrary...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Has anyone ever used tried it? I'd be curious. My only concern is that my hands and bars might obscure my view if I ride with my head down.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

jspharmd said:


> So, why have TT bikes? Why is the current norm an acceptable advantage, but praying landis not? It is arbitrary...


Yes, it's arbitrary and always has been. I think the reason is that "man-over-machine" and "not technology-driven" are such nebulous concepts that rulings based on these can't really help being arbitrary. There's no procedural or technical anchor, so to speak.

BTW, I just now realize that my previous answer may have missed the mark entirely. The OP entitled his thread "praying mantis position in triathlons," but then wrote that he was "curious as to why the 'praying mantis' time trial position was banned by the UCI." The UCI doesn't regulate triathlons, and I missed that disconnect entirely.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

I think the UCI needs to relax a lot of its regulations on positioning and what constitutes a bicycle. If the bike is under the rider's power exclusively, I think he/she should be able to use whatever position they feel is best suited for a particular race. To me all these restrictions equates to a bad business model for the cycling industry. You have manufacturers investing all this money into R&D to cooperate with the UCI's demands, and the end result is a $3000 set of wheels that saves you 40 seconds over a 32-hole box rim set. If they weren't forced to comply with so many ludicrous restrictions, they could develop cheaper alternatives that would encourage more sales but also give competitive athletes a better way at taking advantage of the laws of physics. Dare I say it might even become less tempting for athletes to dope if they can get legitimate advantages through their equipment.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

SauronHimself said:


> .... Dare I say it might even become less tempting for athletes to dope if they can get legitimate advantages through their equipment.


Let's not get carried away here. People who compete will want every advantage they can get their hands on, be it from equipment or chemical. This is the dark side of competition.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

wim said:


> ...
> 
> If you would allow anything and everything that makes a cyclist faster, all races would be contested by by recumbent riders fully enclosed in aerodynamic fairings.


A highly aero optimized fully enclosed recumbent, when ridden by a fairly accomplished cyclist, can average 60 mph for 1 hr around a flat auto test track. The gearing on such vehicle is huge, the front chainring is as tall as the rider's position.

Not even the fastest match sprinter can come close to hitting 60 mph. Goes to show you that when it comes to top end speed and sustaining that speed, aerodynamic (i.e., equipment) is still king. Human power alone ain't getting you 60 mph.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

aclinjury said:


> when it comes to top end speed and sustaining that speed, aerodynamic (i.e., equipment) is still king.


No doubt. Two weeks ago, the world record was upped to 83.13 mph (set over 200 meters with a 5-mile run-up).

World Human Powered Speed Challenge: Dutch cyclist breaks speed record in Nevada - YouTube


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

SauronHimself said:


> Dare I say it might even become less tempting for athletes to dope if they can get legitimate advantages through their equipment.


Pretty strange conclusion. Are you suggesting that if I can buy a fast bike (the same fast bike as everyone else) that I will no longer be tempted to dope so I can be faster than everyone else? I think you failed Logic 101 with that claim.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Kerry Irons said:


> Pretty strange conclusion. Are you suggesting that if I can buy a fast bike (the same fast bike as everyone else) that I will no longer be tempted to dope so I can be faster than everyone else? I think you failed Logic 101 with that claim.


One of the ironies of the late 90s was how a few guys went to the wind tunnel and had obviously very fast positions (Boardman, Ullrich, etc) and everyone else was just riding whatever was comfortable while ingesting every possible drug to make them fast. 

www.cyclingnews.com presents the 88th Tour de France 2001


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

kbiker3111 said:


> One of the ironies of the late 90s was how a few guys went to the wind tunnel and had obviously very fast positions (Boardman, Ullrich, etc) and everyone else was just riding whatever was comfortable while ingesting every possible drug to make them fast.
> 
> www.cyclingnews.com presents the 88th Tour de France 2001


not like ullrich was clean as a whistle. as for going fast, garzelli lost 8 minutes that day.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> Pretty strange conclusion. Are you suggesting that if I can buy a fast bike (the same fast bike as everyone else) that I will no longer be tempted to dope so I can be faster than everyone else? I think you failed Logic 101 with that claim.


It doesn't matter if all the bikes happen to include the same technology. Given the choice of exploiting a legitimate advantage through equipment and/or position vice resorting to doping, the choice is obvious if you're trying to minimize risk. I suppose one way to determine more accurately what the pros would do is to ask them, particularly the retired ones who were caught doping. I don't think the temptation to dope would be as strong if they knew they had carte blanche to change their equipment and/or position.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

SauronHimself said:


> It doesn't matter if all the bikes happen to include the same technology. Given the choice of exploiting a legitimate advantage through equipment and/or position vice resorting to doping, the choice is obvious if you're trying to minimize risk. I suppose one way to determine more accurately what the pros would do is to ask them, particularly the retired ones who were caught doping. I don't think the temptation to dope would be as strong if they knew they had carte blanche to change their equipment and/or position.


and then what with the 24 pro tour teams now on "inferior" equipment? any guesses how they would compensate?


----------

