I was getting my triad worked on at their Norcross factory, very helpful guys by the way, and the guy told me that they are moving away from the integrated seatpost. It seems that it is a pretty similar design other than that but hard to say from that angle.

lol wtf is with the pedals?

you would laugh even more if you saw the kit i had on to test the new frame.

want to see more? stay tuned. This is the very first one out of the tool. Some tweaks and a few weeks and you will see more...maybe under Andreas Realert at IM Frankfurt.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

so, this is based on one, off angle pic, so i may be way off base...

that looks pretty bad ass. i've never really been a fan of blue (for no reason other than they don't 'turn me on' like some others), but that may warrant another look.

---

mckenzie

Not familer that much with blue . I guess the rear brake is under BB ? Were the other Blue TT bike like that also? Looks very aero and I would like to see more.

---

__________________________________________________
Official Polar Ambassador
http://www.google.com/...P7RiWyEVwpunlsc2JtQQ

rear brake is still under the BB but the brake is cleaner and more powerful. some new and faster tube shapes as well as the elimination of the seatmast...but that is all i can say for now. more photos to come in a few weeks.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

Is it UCI-legal? (At least designed to attempt to comply with the current interpretations?)

I guess the one thing that jumps out at me is the distance from where the top tube intersects the seat tube and where the chainstays join the seat tube...is the chainstay attachment point within the allowed 160mm of the top of the top tube?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I miss my Blue's. The TriAd is Sick and I would almost kill for an AC1SL and I'm pretty sure I'd beat some one for a NorCross

But looks like a standard cable routing behind a standard stem, and a standard front brake. Not seeing any of the integration found on next-generation bikes (Speed Concept, Shiv, Plasma 3, new Felt).

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide

In response to Tom.

At Blue or primary goal is to build a bike which is comfortable and fast for the masses of age group racers (the guys like us who sit at a desk all day developing overly tight hamstrings and thus backs with less flexibility). We do not currently sponsor, nor do we foresee in the near future, Pro/Continental teams. Thus the exercise of interpreting what often seems ambiguous if not down right arbitrary rules from the cycling governing body are not at the top of our list.

We do respect the rules and hope to stay inside of them but at this time we are not submitting anything to anyone for approval. We will simply design the bikes the best we see fit and hope to keep them inside some of the "rules" such as 3:1 and the 8cm box.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

Why do you "respect" a set of rules that doesn't necessarily apply to you? If you're truly designing "for the masses" and not a UCI ProTour team ... then those rules are moot. Of course, if you have a very large bloc of ITU riders, that's another story. But I understand that the masses you have in mind are desk jockeys, developing tight hamstrings and inflexible backs, who go out to do the local USAT sprints and olys.

It seems neither here nor there if you "hope" to abide by the rules. Either you must abide by them, and therefore hoping isn't sufficient, or you don't have to abide by them, in which case you can probably make better bikes by ignoring them.

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide

That's cool, and I fully understand that...but, you have to remember that some of us guys out there may have a race or 2 on their future calendars that may require a UCI compliant frame. I was just wondering if the new Blue would be an eligible candidate.



If you're going through the bother of "respecting" the 3:1 rule and the 8cm box for individual tubes, then why not the rest of the "template"? Does that mean that the attachment point of the seatstays IS greater than 160mm on the new bike?

Regardless, AFAIK there isn't any formal submission process for "approval" anyway. The way it's set up with the UCI currently, it's up to the designers/manufacturers to ensure to the best of their abilities that they comply with the template. Things are only deemed "illegal" after the fact. So, it's not like you'd need to submit a sample or anything for someone to use one of your frames in a UCI ruled event, such as Master Worlds TT, or something like that (assuming it fits the template).

It seems to me that if you don't plan on following the overall template, then why restrict yourself to 3:1 and the 8cm box? I think the original Shiv design kind of shows you what's possible with deeper than 8cm sections and high aspect ratio tubing, no?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

It would be easy to digress into an argument on semantics and opinions but that is not why I am in the forum. The good thing about this forum is it allows a lot of consumers to have an opportunity to speak directly, or at least read comments and get to see some of the personality at various companies in which they have a true desire to do business with.

Tom the answer is yes the distance between the top tube/ seat tube juncture and the seat stay/seat tube juncture is within the 160mm requirement.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

Seems like you're singling me out for my comments, when Tom seemed to point out the same things I did. But anyway, perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. It seemed to me that you began a discussion about Blue's design philosophy, and I was participating in that discussion. Now it sounds like you're saying only customers with "true desire" to buy your bikes should be talking to you. Fair enough.

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide

The word that comes to mind is "minimalist." Can't tell a whole lot from that angle, but me likey. And y'all aren't too far down the road from me. I'll be following your unveiling with interest.

.

---

Bob C.

The "science" on any matter can never be settled until every possible variable is taken into account.

not calling anyone out. I just dont want to be in one of the many discussions in this forum where the semantics and opinions lead to endless loops.

I clearly stated what Blue has in mind when designing bikes and I will leave it at that. The only reason I mentioned Tom specifically is he asked a specific question which i could answer with a basic "yes" or "no"

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

Cool.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

---

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

Yep, from that angle it looks pretty much identical to the current Triad mould except for the revised seat post and clamp arrangment.
Does look alot more elegant than the current clamp/cap.

With regards to the UCI ruling... Seriously, how many people outside pro bike racing are affected???

I suppose it does pose the question as to why not go whole hog and radical if UCI rules aren't a consideration though..?

Why do you "respect" a set of rules that doesn't necessarily apply to you?

Not trying to answer for Blue or Chance, but in this day of Ironman/WTC changing (and un-changing) rules regarding compression socks, swim skins, wetsuits, water temps., etc. I feel it is reasonable to one day expect to log on to slowtwitch and see that Ironman has adopted UCI rules for bike compliance. Figuring a set of molds and tooling to build a family of carbon frames is probably $100K I feel it would be prudent to keep one's eyes on the rules, even if they don't necessarily apply to you at this time.

we have thought about doing a radical design and looked into it extensively. The main problems we see and this is just our opinion are multi fold.

First we believe significant change is hard for a lot of people to accept (myself included, just ask my wife or parents). Cyclist/triathletes are bombarded with images of UCI formatted bikes over and over again and this sets the mind to what a bike "should" look like. For example look how long it has taken C-dale to get the Lefty fork to the point where it is considered somewhat normal and to this day you still have a lot of people who test ride the bike and say "that is too weird, i just cant ride that". How many people do you think would race IM Kona on a recumbent? I would GUESS that course would be considerably faster on that style of bike.

Second, even when customers get images of radical bikes such as the Cheetah which has multiple (maybe as many as any other bike out there) IM wins they dont see them nearly as much as the UCI style bikes and they certainly dont get to see them on their local LBS showroom floor.

Additionally, a lot of times a radical new design also require some adjustment to the skill set required to pilot them as the steering mechanism is different. This makes it really hard to get the "masses" onto the bike.

Finally, one of the biggest things holding back design like this isn't the crazy cost which could be associated with doing small numbers of something radical. We have seen that both cyclist and especially triathletes are willing to spend plenty of money on the sport they love. Rather it is the difficulty of getting spare or replacement parts and having mechanical assistance which is experienced and able to assist customers should a problem arise. Imagine if you have spent 6 months of countless hours training and God knows how much money in and effort to go do your dream IM vacation event. Maybe you have flown halfway around the world with your family of 4. Coaching has been paid for, fancy hotels and on and on and on. Then you get to the race site and the airline, unbelievably has damaged your bike. Mind you it isn't major, just the crank has been bent and it has caused a problem with the bearing housing. This bearing is unique to this bike as no other manufacturer uses it and it requires a special tool to install it. Here you are three days from race day and not only do you not have the part to fix your bike, you don't have access to the tool needed and even if you did the town you are in has one small mom and pop shop on hand and they stare at your awesome, wicked fast, beautiful creation as if it had a head of its own. All your preparation and expenses would be down the drain. This is not a far fetched scenario. Look at the number of BB30 bikes out there right now. BB30 is an industry acceptad standard with well over 10 years on the market. I would wager if you went to every bike shop in your area you would find that less than 50% have a spare set of BB30 bearings and even fewer have the tools to remove or press in the bearings.

Imagine and industry were they have super trained technicians working on the product. Guys who can diagnose and fix things, work out the bugs, make engineering changes. Bicycling is that industry. What cycling doesn't have, or at least the drive to provide in significant manner, is advancement, development, radical design changes through a structured program which allows long term testing as well as exposure to the very customers purchasing the product. Just look at the Shiv or SpeedConcept. Shoot those bikes are a joke to some of the bikes i have seen Robert Edgar build when I was at Specialized.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

Lots.

In many (most?) countries, UCI rules apply to all races, not just those sanctioned by the UCI.

In the US, UCI position and equipment rules apply 1) in any event sanctioned by the UCI (not all of which are for pros only), 2) in any event used for national team selection, 3) in NRC races, 4) for any record attempts, and 5) for all national championships (although USA Cycling tends to phase in any changes a year or three behind the UCI to avoid ticking off their members, e.g., they're cutting us master fatties a bit of slack re. handlebars this year).

Now while you might argue that 1-5 above apply to only a minority of riders, it is precisely that minority that is most likely to invest significant money in an aero TT frame. To build one that is not compliant with UCI rules is therefore essentially declaring that your not really interested in selling many such frames to cyclists either here or elsewhere in the world. That is certainly a manufacturer's perogative, but I believe that it is incorrect to claim that UCI rules matter only to a handful of professionals.

I understand the points you make. However, i'm not sure people are urging anything radical like a Lotus, Obree or cheetah that could suffer the issues you mention from a tech mech and sales perspective. What should be easy is to just expand on the current norms, for example longer nosecones, 4:1 tubing etc. Such a bike would still look very close to what the public expects a fast bike to be. It can become the bike that the other majors tried to make by bending the rules - like incorporating all the kind of desirable styling of a shiv, speed concept, plasma 3, giant. It would be by no means a freak bike that customers steer clear of.

There are also a couple of things up there that don't quite add up for me. First of all, people don't ride recumbents at Kona because that's against the rules, not because they "don't accept" them. (EDIT: Maybe you meant that even if they were legal, no one would ride them. Fair enough -- but I think that's a separate discussion. Seems to me that the use of recumbents would be a fundamental change to the sport, not merely an equipment upgrade.)

But bikes like the Cheetah don't find their way to the LBS because Cheetah is a tiny company, consisting of like three people, who hand-makes bikes one at a time. You don't see a lot of Ruegamer frames around either, or Calfee frames ... same story. Boutique manufacturers are the only ones who CAN make crazy frames, because the others are catering to ProTour teams. There are a few "tweener" companies, who are larger than the small shops, but still not tied to ProTour teams, who could stand to carve out a really cool niche if they took some leaps with frame design. Companies like Blue, Ceepo, etc.

And of all the superbikes out there, I can't think of ANY that use a different "steering mechanism." Lotus, Cheetah, Titanflex, BP Stealth, Hotta, Corima .... all of these use standard forks. The closest thing to a "different steering mechanism" would actually be something like the Trek Speed Concept, but it shouldn't handle any differently, because essentially the steering column is in the same place, at the same angle.

Finally, I think you lost the "replacement parts" fight when you mentioned BB30. You know that every stock Specialized Transition uses a BB30? There are plenty of those at Kona, yet no public outcry as to the unavailability of BB30 replacement parts on race day. And moreover, EVERY bike has unique parts subject to breaking, that would be difficult to replace on race day. Like seatposts/seatmast toppers (pretty much every manufacturer has something different). Like Tektro under-the-bb brakes. Like special stem configurations (Felt, LOOK). Yet these bikes make it to Kona year after year. People can probably gather that their bike has special parts, but they take the risk anyway.

Listen, I like Blue. Very cool-looking bikes. I have a good friend who rides one, and you know what? He's way faster than me. I have nothing against Blue's decision not to go radical ... it just seems that the reasons you gave don't make total sense.

---

---

TriRig.com
The Triathlon Gear Guide