im ok with not drawing the line anywhere
if someone could make a faired recumbent that would actually work in a triathlon setting thats fine by me.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

I live in an area with a large Mennonite population. They are WAY more progressive than the UCI.

Apparently the UCI are not so backward after all....rumor has it that they will soon release a video called "how to easy make bike comply to rules"
this 10 hour film was apparently shot during several nights recently (as one official said off the record "we still like to keep people in the dark").
The film will only be available in French the same same official stating: "We don´t want to give anybody an unfair advantage"

You will soon be able to order your copy (Betamax only)

I gotta go Devil's advocate here in terms of the general question of pushing bike design - how should bike design be regulated? Not at all? Where would it stop?

I have no issues with regulations that make sense in order to level the playing field. The problem is that the UCI is so frickin arbitrary and stupid with their regulations. I honestly think a couple of semi-intelligent people could draft a decent set of regulations in a day or so... get feedback, revise a couple of times... and it would be far better than anything the UCI has done. Of course it will need to be revised and expanded as competitors and manufacturers dream up creative ways to get around the "spirit" of the rules, but that is all part of the sport IMO. Regarding the new frames this year, I have no problem with the UCI allowing them to be used this year (assuming that the follow the "letter of the rules") and then banning them next year via a re-writing of the rules.

I haven't read all of the responses, but I'm sure it's mostly outrage...

I give my typically contrarian opinion: except for the Transition, all of those bikes should be banned. The nosecone bikes are a pretty blatant attempt to circumvent the existing rules (which in this rare case, are pretty damn clear), and no manufacturer should some how feel 'surprised' that they're banned. They're sticking a fairing on the front of the bike and trying to pass it off as structural? Come on, let's be real. The UCI never shoul have let those bikes in competition in the first place.

As far as the P4, I feel the same about the 'water bottle', or 'frame stiffener'. It's a clear attempt to add a fairing to the bike.

There's a lot of stupidity with the UCI and rules, but I don't see this as an example of it.

Well if we're going to "go contrarian" what about the hump on the top tube of the Transition, or the little wings stretching from the fork to the down tube - you think those are structural? At least the P4's bottle serves a purpose, i.e., it holds fluids (not to mention the fact that it doesn't seem to reduce aero drag vs. not having a bottle in that spot).

To be totally honest, I haven't looked hard enough at the Transition to form an opinion--though if 'ugly' could get a bike banned, it would be on the list...

The 'hump' doesn't seem any different than the P3C's bent seat tube, and the UCI doesn't specify 'no bent tubes' on TT rigs. The little wings at the bottom, though, probably make the tube bigger than the allowed dimensions--and if they do, I'd say toss that on the list as well.

This thread is rife with p2/p3 trolling.

I figured the thread was rife with righteous indignation r.e. the UCI. The nose-cone bikes are collectively a joke as far as the rules go. I say this as someone who is/was probably going to get a Giant if I don't get a free plastic TT bike next year.

The stupidity is that these bikes have been used in UCI competition. I can't find a link to support this, but if I remember correctly were designed with feedback from the UCI. Can anybody confirm or deny that point for me?

Kevin

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Yep, I mentioned that in a previous response, but to re-iterate, I agree completely: they never should have been allowed in the first place. In that respect, I do feel a little for the manufacturers to be allowed one thing then potentially told another as they start production.

Forum:

Since Kestrel is mentioned in this post, I thought it was prudent we make an addition to the forum conversation.

I am the Director of Product for ASI, and as such associated with Fuji, Kestrel, Breezer, and SE bikes. We have several bikes that are relevant to this conversation.

1. Like most manufacturers, we are in direct contact with the UCI regarding our TT bikes.
2. The process of UCI review is fairly well known and involves submitting frame drawings and design details for review and opinion.
3. UCI officials at events determine a bike’s compliance or not.
4. There are areas of the UCI regulations that can be hard to interpret, and that is most of what our company discusses with them directly.

We support a UCI ProTour team, so we pay extra attention to the UCI’s compliance regulations and try to be actively engaged with their staff on this and other bike related subjects.

The UCI lists a comprehensive outline of the regulations on their website for public use and we, like many others suggest racers make themselves familiar with the regulations if they plan to race at UCI events. They cover body position restrictions as well as bike design requirements.

I don't have much else to offer on the subject other than to say its important for racers to work with a professional fitter or someone familiar enough with the regulations to ensure they are conforming to fit requirements before race day. Even if you can conform your fit to the regulations on-site with most any bike, if you have trained in a position that does not meet regulations, you will not be comfortable with a sudden change.

Mike Gann
Director of Product – ASI
Philadelphia, PA

Forum:

Since Kestrel is mentioned in this post, I thought it was prudent we make an addition to the forum conversation.

I am the Director of Product for ASI, and as such associated with Fuji, Kestrel, Breezer, and SE bikes. We have several bikes that are relevant to this conversation.

1. Like most manufacturers, we are in direct contact with the UCI regarding our TT bikes.
2. The process of UCI review is fairly well known and involves submitting frame drawings and design details for review and opinion.
3. UCI officials at events determine a bike’s compliance or not.
4. There are areas of the UCI regulations that can be hard to interpret, and that is most of what our company discusses with them directly.

We support a UCI ProTour team, so we pay extra attention to the UCI’s compliance regulations and try to be actively engaged with their staff on this and other bike related subjects.

The UCI lists a comprehensive outline of the regulations on their website for public use and we, like many others suggest racers make themselves familiar with the regulations if they plan to race at UCI events. They cover body position restrictions as well as bike design requirements.

Mike Gann
Director of Product – ASIPhiladelphia

Yep, I mentioned that in a previous response, but to re-iterate, I agree completely: they never should have been allowed in the first place. In that respect, I do feel a little for the manufacturers to be allowed one thing then potentially told another as they start production.

I've been shaking my head ever since I saw either the Shiv or the Giant. How the UCI didn't just ban them from the beginning is beyond me. As for the P4, that was one time where I thought the company actually came up with an innovative solution to get around where to put water on a bike.
Maybe Giant and Spec should put a water bladder in their nosecones and market them to triathletes ... as long as it was detachachble and could fit the USAT aerobottle regulations.
Chad

So...based on points 1, 2 and 3 above, how the heck would there EVER be retroactive rulings of non-compliance?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The only official rulings I personally know of are those at the race, by the official measuring bikes pre TT start. I don't know of any retroactive rulings.

The UCI is pretty cut and dry on the rules, your designs either are or are not within the regulations. As manufacturers its our responsibility to be aware and within the regulations. The rules that are hardest to adhere to given current fashion, and the quest for the most aero frame, are the 3:1 outlines and maximum tube profiles in each plane. We at ASI spent, and will continue to spend time reviewing our designs to make sure we are compliant and we offer the most aero bike we can. Thats the fine line all manufacturers have to live with. Body positioning relative to the BB shell and saddle length are likely of larger concern to many racers as some have adopted positions that are outside of acceptable limits.

-Mike

Well...the whole application of the 3:1 rule to bars was completely retroactive. (edit: To be clear, by "retroactive" I mean that equipment is ruled OK for use in competition, is used in competition, and is then later not allowed in competition with no change to the rules.)

In any case, does that mean that you can submit your designs for review prior to building a single working prototype and get an opinion from the UCI that it is in compliance with their rules, and STILL have it ruled illegal at the start house by a commissaire?

Lastly, on the topic of rule compliance and Kestrel, does the new 4000 fit within the frame guidelines published in the UCI rule book? Has the UCI given you an opinion on that yet?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

As a warning, this might be my last post for the day...work is waiting for me.

You can submit a drawing for review as I understand the situation, that is what we have done. Ultimately, we only get opinions, not any sort of official ruling in that process, so its not a formal approval. We believe our bike to be well within the requirements, in every respect of their regulations and as aerodynamic as we can manage currently. Part of our efforts are to educate our athletes on the regulations and the UCI so they are prepared and understand the limits of what we can offer.

Luckily the competition in the bike industry ensures you will all have new options in bikes every year as we all try to present our best foot forward. We, like many, will have our new TT bikes on display at Kona for the public to touch and feel....feel free to bring your digital calipers.

Cheers, and good luck with your racing.

-Mike

That's OK...I've got to go help out at my kids' school shortly :-)

Does that mean that the UCI no longer issues letters such as the one shown below?

edit: http://www.cervelo.com/uciapproval.aspx




And...if this sort of letter is merely considered an "opinion", doesn't that mean that there seems to be a fairly wide "disconnect" between the people reviewing this sort of stuff and the people enforcing the rules?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

We have submitted and received no such letter. Maybe that's good news. We have had nothing but positive and professional interaction with the UCI. Their representative is straight forward in answering our requests. We gave them technical drawings that look very similar, but included slightly more detail. We also hand measure the prototypes and production samples to ensure the design requirements are strictly adhered to.

I wont ask how you got your hands on that letter

-Mike

Man given observed realities, such as the entire industry having to introduce new aerobars that are only different in ways of no importance visually or structurally, to adhere to a differing enforcement of the rules,

and the p4 water bottle being approved then disapproved

and specialized commenting on how it wasn't clear to them if they could run aero water bottles or not.

and so on

I just can't reconcile your comments with reality. Maybe you have to speak nicely of the UCI or face their wrath? Maybe you just haven't had a bizarre ruling come down on your bikes yet?

I'm really glad I don't have to deal with it =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

The rules have been clear for some time regarding these frames, the rules just haven't been enforced. The head tubes can effectively be greater than 80mm deep if you read the rules, but you have to follow the fillet guidelines which many have not.

The seat tubes of a TT bike must fit into a 80mm x 80mm box of infinite length. The cannot be narrower than 25mm, they cannot have an aspect ratio of greater than 3:1.

These are not new rules, they are just being enforced. Being unfamiliar with the rules or trying to be clever to go around them has caught up with a few people. When we visited the UCI in June just before the tour there were a few suprises indeed. Some of those suprises will be revealed to the rest of the public before New Year's Eve I suspect.

Previously, some makers felt as though the handlebars and seatpost did not represent the "fuselage" of a frame as it was drawn in the UCI rulebook. The UCI later clarified that the fuselage did include those items and that their illustration of a frame did not exclude that they meant the seatpost and handlebar. In this case, Felt and many others had made handlebars and seatposts that did not pass this new ruling.

Other vague areas like integrated seatposts being part of the frame, yet being allowed to be narrower than 25mm or a greater aspect ratio of 3:1 baffled me, but these new ruling have cleared that up as well.

In some cases the enforement of the rules has caught people off-guard, which is really not as difficult a pill to swallow as the new interpretations that seem to really hit the pocketbooks of those pushing the envelope on development while adhering to precedence, milestones, and letter-of-the-law understanding.

Regards.
-SD

---

https://www.kickstarter.com/...bike-for-the-new-era

It has been posted on Cervelo's website ever since the original (aluminum) P3 came to market.

I wonder what will happen with the P3/P4, since the curved seattubes definitely do not fit into a 80x80xInfinity rectangle.

---

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

As a bike manufacturer and member of the sporting community, do you have access to appeal UCI rulings to the Court of Arbitration for Sport? I've wondered this a number of times when I saw particularly idiot UCI rules.

Being unfamiliar with the rules or trying to be clever to go around them has caught up with a few people.

I totally agree, however, why did these bikes every make it into competition in the first place? That, I think, is the failing on the part of the UCI that needs to be addressed. Among others.

Chad