Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
So then tell us, Jack...how do YOU propose dealing with the situation where manufacturers continually push the envelope (something I absolutely believe they should do...don't get me wrong on that point). How, if YOU were the UCI, do you act when someone's creative reading of the rules lets them start designing nosecones, integrated water bottles, etc.? How do YOU go about restraining things to keep the spirit of the rule intact....when they are clearly headed out of hand?

Where do YOU draw the line?

I'd argue that no matter where YOU draw YOUR line, people would consider it just as arbitrary and capricious as you are considering the UCI's recent actions. But hey...you're just trying to maintain some semblance of sport, aren't you?

I'd also argue that if the UCI didn't react now on things like the aerobar issue, that the end result would have eventually been something completely one-piece, somewhat delta-shaped...and for all intents and purposes...a fairing. This year it was 3T's stuff...next year Zipp, Hed or someone would have gone even deeper...the following year, 3T's answer even deeper and nearly solid delta wing....

Think it wouldn't have happened? Look at how quickly we went from cow-horned funny bikes to the Lotus and Project 96 bikes.

Again, I'm not trying to sound anti-diluvian or retro-grouch here. I'm all for innovation. But I happen to think the driving philosophy of any sport governing body should be about keeping the competition about the athletes...

Any line the UCI tries to draw on equipment between an 1890's highwheeler and a modern fully faired HPV is going to be arbitrary. They have the entirely unenviable task of trying to define that line.

Someone else on the thread argued that their rules language is ambiguous and should be more clearly written. Obviously they have never worked with engineers in trying to define a specific design concept.

I am an engineer working with industry, military, and other standards every day. I have yet to work a project where at least some of the governing standards proved difficult in applying to the particular project and staying within all of the apparent lines drawn.

In the case at hand, the people drawing up the original rules would not likely have imagined the 3T Ventus or Cervelo's current seatpost idiom when they drew up the rule. Clearly 3T and Cervelo's engineers imagined them in the context of their reading of the rule. And yet now the UCI guys have had to look at the overall situation and ask themselves "Do we like the direction this is heading?" Apparently they do not. And probably because they see where it was headed.

Just try, for one moment, Jack, to imagine being on the other side of the fence. Yeah...I know...its a lot like when I ask my 7 year old what HE would do if his 7 year old threw dirt clods at the neighbor's dog. OF COURSE the 7 year old answers "well...I wouldn't do anything."

That doesn't make the answer right, or well-considered, or considerate of the OTHER side of the coin.

Yes so am I - though I'd not claim every day and IMHO the UCI bicycle regs are the most ambiguous and/or stupid I've read. Sure, some international standards are complex --- but heck typically so is the underlying process/design they're trying to regulate. A bike is a bloody bike! How hard is it to pin down what "makes a bike a bike" --- and IMHO the UCI rules need not go any further than that.

Re the 'recalls' -- that's insane --- bikes like the Giant were ridden thru a large portion of the 2008 (!!) season. World champs ITT won on them ... this year the same with the Shiv ... the Tour TTs were both won on 'prototypes (Shiv, Trek Speed Concept).

If these bikes were prototypes (and I'd argue they were), then there are provisions in the rules that should have been applied to prevent them from ever being ridden in UCI events.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well I assume you folks @Trek are working furiously to get the Speed Concept out to the public in 2010 to take advantage of the vacuum at the top e/o the UCI-legal field??

Hmmm ... if the Tour bikes weren't prototypes ... it shouldn't take that long??
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"in high school debate this kind of argument didn't fly"

Absolutely, Jack. That's why I'm not using it to argue that the rules are fine because your proposal has already been tried. I'm not debating the worthiness of the rules themselves. The statement is simply to illustrate that there are difficulties to the situation beyond just identifying a technical description.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Please forgive my ignorance beforehand. I've never done a UCI licenced time trial. I've also never worked in the bike manufacturing industry. However, I do have a few questions:

-As a bike manufacturer, why do I care if my bike isn't UCI legal? I'm assuming that many of my customers are triathletes and will never do any time trials that won't allow their tri bikes. In fact, I would advertise my bike as being sooooo fast that the UCI banned for being and unfair advantage. I could then make custom tt bikes for any teams that I sponsor that fit under the guidelines. Sure, making custom rigs are expensive, but it happens all the time anyway!

-As a consumer, why do I care about UCI regulations? Again, I am a triathlete who doesn't have many of the same guidelines for my bike. Most of us don't even do time trials (I'm not sure why that it, but it's true).
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tri Slow Poke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As a bike manufacturer, why do I care if my bike isn't UCI legal?

Because there is a really bizarre relationship in peoples minds between what bikes are fast and who rides them. For instance, Cervelo rode the CSC success and Cancellara's world time trial championships to the perception, perhaps correctly, that they made the fastest bikes in the world. They went from being a fairly small, well-regarded company to an industry 500-pound gorilla. What did that have to do with triathlon? Nothing.
Bike manufacturers don't want to cut off a percentage of their total sales if they can help it (i.e. the bike racers). Plus, none of the independents like Softride were able to definatively prove a non-UCI compliant design was faster.
I suspect that if the UCI becomes too stringent, then an independent is going come up with something faster, but again will have to overcome the perceptions of the unsophisticated to get the masses to buy it.
Chad


Last edited by: cdw: Oct 5, 09 9:02
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Has anyone else noticed that no where on Cervelo's page do they say that the P4 is UCI compliant? They say that the P3, P2, and P1 are complaint on there pages. This could be an oversight and mean nothing or they could be hedging their bets about an unpredictable UCI.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tri Slow Poke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Please forgive my ignorance beforehand. I've never done a UCI licenced time trial. I've also never worked in the bike manufacturing industry. However, I do have a few questions:

-As a bike manufacturer, why do I care if my bike isn't UCI legal?

There are 50,000 licensed bicycle racers in the US. There are not many races each year where UCI compliance is required for these racers. But why would one of these racers spend a large sum of money to buy a bike that they might not be able to use at some point in time?

Would it be smart to cut these people out of your demographic? Even if bike racers only buy 10% of TT bikes, do you really want to cut your sales by 10% for no real gain?

Also, how many people watched Cancellara win the Tour prologue and World's TT on his Specialized Shiv vs how many people will watch Chris McCormack race at Kona on his? (Hint, a lot less.)

That is why the bike companies care about UCI compliance.

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
x 2. Well said and 100% correct.


For the benefit of everyone else, as regards retroactivity and UCI regulations, and without any regard to consistency in application, none of it should come as any surprise to any manufacturer (emphasis mine in all cases):

1.3.002 The UCI shall not be liable for any consequences deriving from the choice of the equipment used by

licence holders, nor for any defects it may have or its non-compliance. Equipment used must meet


applicable official quality and safety standards.

1.3.003 In no event shall the fact that a rider has been able to take part in the competition give rise to liability

on the part of the UCI; checks on equipment that may be carried out by the commissaires or by

an agent or a body of the UCI being limited to the compliance of the overall external appearance for


purely sporting purposes.

1.3.004 Except in mountain bike racing, no technical innovation regarding anything used, worn or carried by

any rider or license holder during a competition (bicycles, equipment mounted on them, accessories,

helmets, clothing, means of communication, etc.) may be used until approved by the UCI executive

bureau. Requests for approval shall be submitted to the UCI before June 30th of any year, accompanied

by all necessary documentation. If accepted, the innovation shall be permitted only as from

January 1st of the following year.

Acceptance shall refer solely to the fact that the innovation will be acceptable from a sporting point

of view.

There is no technical innovation in the sense of the present article if the innovation entirely falls


within the specifications foreseen in the regulations.


1.3.005 If at the start of a competition or stage the commissaires' panel considers that a rider arrives with a

technical innovation not yet accepted by the UCI, it shall refuse to permit the rider to start with such

an innovation.

In the event of use in competition, the rider shall automatically be expelled from the competition or

disqualified. There shall be no right to appeal against the decision of the commissaire's panel.

If this technical innovation is not noticed or sanctioned by the commissaire's panel, the UCI disciplinary

commission shall order the disqualification. The UCI shall refer to the disciplinary commission,

either automatically or at the request of all interested. The disciplinary commission will only apply

sanctions after having received the opinion of the equipment commission.

In out of competition situations, the UCI shall decide whether an item should be considered a technical


innovation and whether the procedure provided for in article 1.3.004 is to be followed.


So...the commissaires at the race make the initial call (1.3.003), but if they miss something or someone protests then the disciplinary commission with support of the equipment commission can sanction or DQ (all 1.3.005). All of that covers one or more races/incidences. The last line of 1.3.005 essentially gives them the ability to wipe out a season's worth of results-to-date by deeming an infraction to constitute a tech innovation (as opposed to a 3:1 violation, etc) which wasn't pre-approved per the procedure in 1.3.004.

Eagle-eyed folks will notice there are a couple things mixed up in here: namely compliance and technical innovation. Inasmuch as an instance of the latter (say, an innovative tube shape or a multi-functional nosecone) might in their eyes represent a violation of the former (either in form or application), the dots are connected. Even a get-out-of-jail-free letter like Cervelo's may not be much of a guarantee since the raceday commissaire's decison can't be appealed.

Bottom line: retroactive application of the regulations is within their power. Whatever you think of the logic or sequence of events which would lead to that situation...until things change, it is what it is. And therefore you flirt with the boundaries of the rules or choose unconservative interpretations of the rules at your peril.


Carl


I don't think you'll see any speculation regarding the TTX or SpeedConcept. Upon careful review, both of those Trek frames pass the UCI guidelines in spirit and in strict accordance.

For those that questioned the Felt TT bikes above, all the current frames we produce in this category (TT/Tri, AR Road, and Tk1) pass the UCI regs for January 1st, 2010 except the Tk1 seatpost which has been redesigned and debuted at this weekends' Elite Track National Championships in the USA.

Carl is right, clarifying and especially the subsequent enforcement of the previous rules should not come as a suprise.

-SD

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

I don't think you'll see any speculation regarding the TTX or SpeedConcept. Upon careful review, both of those Trek frames pass the UCI guidelines in spirit and in strict accordance.

For those that questioned the Felt TT bikes above, all the current frames we produce in this category (TT/Tri, AR Road, and Tk1) pass the UCI regs for January 1st, 2010 except the Tk1 seatpost which has been redesigned and debuted at this weekends' Elite Track National Championships in the USA.

Carl is right, clarifying and especially the subsequent enforcement of the previous rules should not come as a suprise.

-SD

Dave...just out of curiosity and since you have a better handle on the UCI regs than I do, but at what point does a "bayonet fork" become a "nosecone"?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

I don't think you'll see any speculation regarding the TTX or SpeedConcept. Upon careful review, both of those Trek frames pass the UCI guidelines in spirit and in strict accordance.

For those that questioned the Felt TT bikes above, all the current frames we produce in this category (TT/Tri, AR Road, and Tk1) pass the UCI regs for January 1st, 2010 except the Tk1 seatpost which has been redesigned and debuted at this weekends' Elite Track National Championships in the USA.

Carl is right, clarifying and especially the subsequent enforcement of the previous rules should not come as a suprise.

-SD

Dave...just out of curiosity and since you have a better handle on the UCI regs than I do, but at what point does a "bayonet fork" become a "nosecone"?

1. when it is not structural
2. when it exceeds 3:1 in total aspect ratio (including the headtube and external steerer)
3. when it is narrower than 25mm
4. when it is deeper than 80mm including the head tube, excluding the fillet rules.

Just because some of the new nosecones are in fact, structurally part of the stem, or brakes doesn't mean they can avoid rules 2,3, and 4.

Why do you ask, are you making bikes now?

-SD

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

I don't think you'll see any speculation regarding the TTX or SpeedConcept. Upon careful review, both of those Trek frames pass the UCI guidelines in spirit and in strict accordance.

For those that questioned the Felt TT bikes above, all the current frames we produce in this category (TT/Tri, AR Road, and Tk1) pass the UCI regs for January 1st, 2010 except the Tk1 seatpost which has been redesigned and debuted at this weekends' Elite Track National Championships in the USA.

Carl is right, clarifying and especially the subsequent enforcement of the previous rules should not come as a suprise.

-SD

Dave...just out of curiosity and since you have a better handle on the UCI regs than I do, but at what point does a "bayonet fork" become a "nosecone"?

1. when it is not structural
2. when it exceeds 3:1 in total aspect ratio (including the headtube and external steerer)
3. when it is narrower than 25mm
4. when it is deeper than 80mm including the head tube, excluding the fillet rules.

Just because some of the new nosecones are in fact, structurally part of the stem, or brakes doesn't mean they can avoid rules 2,3, and 4.

Why do you ask, are you making bikes now?

-SD

In regards to 2 and 4 above, does that mean that the headtube and the external steerer are considered part of the same "fuselage form", even though they move relative to each other?

BTW, how does one apply the 80mm deep "box" in regards to various tubes? is the box centered? Can it be offset to one side? How does one determine where a tube ends and a fillet begins?

I only ask so that I can more intelligently evaluate and discuss various designs...I'm not making any bikes...yet ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
yes, these parts create one form, one shape, and are under the same guidelines.

The tubes just need to be in the box, it doesn't need to be centered. I know what you are thinking, I checked though, it still doesn't fit.

Good luck with that bike company.

-SD

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I appreciate your clarifications as you understand them. Do you care to clarify the ubiquitous fillet rules?
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
yes, these parts create one form, one shape, and are under the same guidelines.

The tubes just need to be in the box, it doesn't need to be centered. I know what you are thinking, I checked though, it still doesn't fit.

Good luck with that bike company.

-SD

Thanks Dave...is the "ruling" that they create one form part of the rules (I can't seem to find that part...although, as has been seen earlier in this thread, that doesn't mean it isn't there ;-)...or, is that a "clarification" that has been made to the manufacturers directly?

I'm thinking that with the proliferation of this style of bayonet mount (Look, Felt, etc.) that it might be something they'd want to specifically spell out to remove ambiguity.

On the bike company...of course the first thing is I need a name...with a Germanic last name I was thinking that translating "skunk works" into German might be sort of cool. However, I have a feeling that the "Anhalt Stinktierwerks" isn't quite appealing :-/

Maybe I should just stick to "CheapAssAero and Engineering" ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
yes, these parts create one form, one shape, and are under the same guidelines.

The tubes just need to be in the box, it doesn't need to be centered. I know what you are thinking, I checked though, it still doesn't fit.

Good luck with that bike company.

-SD

Thanks Dave...is the "ruling" that they create one form part of the rules (I can't seem to find that part...although, as has been seen earlier in this thread, that doesn't mean it isn't there ;-)...or, is that a "clarification" that has been made to the manufacturers directly?

I'm thinking that with the proliferation of this style of bayonet mount (Look, Felt, etc.) that it might be something they'd want to specifically spell out to remove ambiguity.

On the bike company...of course the first thing is I need a name...with a Germanic last name I was thinking that translating "skunk works" into German might be sort of cool. However, I have a feeling that the "Anhalt Stinktierwerks" isn't quite appealing :-/

Maybe I should just stick to "CheapAssAero and Engineering" ;-)
If Ahnalt Stinktierwerks ever makes a frame, I promise you I will race it (if you want me to).


"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp | Game Designer @ Zwift

Ask me about: 1st Endurance | Normatec - $100 off RAPP2019 | Zipp | Quarq | SRAM
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If Ahnalt Stinktierwerks ever makes a frame, I promise you I will race it (if you want me to).[/reply]
LOL!

Tom, is this what you were looking for?

http://www.uci.ch/...NTI0MDY&LangId=1

Sergio

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: English is not my first language. Please read this translated post considering that.


Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
If Ahnalt Stinktierwerks ever makes a frame, I promise you I will race it (if you want me to).

Like I tell my kids when they mention that they would like to live someplace where it snows...be careful what you wish for ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Sergio Escutia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
If Ahnalt Stinktierwerks ever makes a frame, I promise you I will race it (if you want me to).

LOL!

Tom, is this what you were looking for?

http://www.uci.ch/...NTI0MDY&LangId=1

Sergio[/reply]
Aaah...yes...I see the part about offset fork designs needing the pivoting section within the 80mm template for the head tube. Thanks!

So, it's not explicitly part of the rules...yet.

You know, nearly everything in that "practical guide" should be included in the rules if that's what they actually intend...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
yes, these parts create one form, one shape, and are under the same guidelines.

The tubes just need to be in the box, it doesn't need to be centered. I know what you are thinking, I checked though, it still doesn't fit.

Good luck with that bike company.

-SD

But wait...on the "nosecone" bikes (i.e. Giant and Shiv) the part in front of the head tube isn't an "offset fork" since there's a regular steerer tube down the middle of the headtube. Those parts in front are acting as stems and brake mounts and thus are individually constrained to the 3:1 ratio, no?

Or...is that the whole controversy?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
yes, these parts create one form, one shape, and are under the same guidelines.

The tubes just need to be in the box, it doesn't need to be centered. I know what you are thinking, I checked though, it still doesn't fit.


-SD

But wait...on the "nosecone" bikes (i.e. Giant and Shiv) the part in front of the head tube isn't an "offset fork" since there's a regular steerer tube down the middle of the headtube. Those parts in front are acting as stems and brake mounts and thus are individually constrained to the 3:1 ratio, no?

Or...is that the whole controversy?

as I understand the rules and their clarification, the additive aero sections must adhere to both 3:1 and 80mm. Those parts in front may be acting as stems or brake mounts, but I think they still need conformity. Exclusions are on spinning parts that don't always point "into" the wind, and wheels. Cranksets still need to be = or < 80mm AFAIK.

If you move forward with that bike company, I'd recommend a visit to the UCI before you start cutting molds though. Starting over gets costly.

-SD

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
yes, these parts create one form, one shape, and are under the same guidelines.

The tubes just need to be in the box, it doesn't need to be centered. I know what you are thinking, I checked though, it still doesn't fit.


-SD

But wait...on the "nosecone" bikes (i.e. Giant and Shiv) the part in front of the head tube isn't an "offset fork" since there's a regular steerer tube down the middle of the headtube. Those parts in front are acting as stems and brake mounts and thus are individually constrained to the 3:1 ratio, no?

Or...is that the whole controversy?

as I understand the rules and their clarification, the additive aero sections must adhere to both 3:1 and 80mm. Those parts in front may be acting as stems or brake mounts, but I think they still need conformity. Exclusions are on spinning parts that don't always point "into" the wind, and wheels. Cranksets still need to be = or < 80mm AFAIK.

If you move forward with that bike company, I'd recommend a visit to the UCI before you start cutting molds though. Starting over gets costly.

-SD

Who says it would be molded? :-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:

Who says it would be molded? :-)[/reply] perhaps I assumed too much. Do you want to make this bike aerodynamic? Commercially viable? and sell more than a few?

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

Who says it would be molded? :-)
perhaps I assumed too much. Do you want to make this bike aerodynamic? Commercially viable? and sell more than a few?[/reply]
How about aerodynamic and exclusive :-P

Actually...I'd probably make just one for myself...and one for the guy who's dad might make it for me...oh yeah, and one for Jordan too ;-)

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

Who says it would be molded? :-)
perhaps I assumed too much. Do you want to make this bike aerodynamic? Commercially viable? and sell more than a few?

How about aerodynamic and exclusive :-P

Actually...I'd probably make just one for myself...and one for the guy who's dad might make it for me...oh yeah, and one for Jordan too ;-)[/reply] if it is exclusive, then it isn't UCI legal, and if you are not making it UCI legal, why care about the rules?

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply

Prev Next