The Giants are already for sale I think, at least online. Maybe that's dealers being optimistic? Hope not since I am supposed to be on one soon :>)

Well, that's good news. I'll be interested to hear what you think

Doesn't the Plasma 3 have a nose cone just like the Shiv?

I would guess Giant will, since they probably already have the order placed and Giant doesn't have a real TT bike until this. Last years model doesn't even count.

Specialized. well who knows they dont even have it on their website yet acting like they are going to sell it.

Nope...as evidenced in this pic I took at Interbike:

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

The word around Interbike was ONLY the nosecone bikes. Apparently, there is a new "8cm" rule for the headtube area, which would also make the Scott Plasma 3 illegal, despite not having a nosecone, as the headtube area is more than 8cm in length. I haven't been able to find anything on this, so it's rumor as well, but now it seems more people than just me have heard this rumor.

So the rumor that I heard was Giant Trinity, Specialized Shiv, and Scott Plasma 3 are all out. My guess is that the Plasma 3 is probably the bike that is actually under review, not the Transition, though the sloping top tube of the Transition could make it a target... The P4 is only illegal with the water bottle in, and even in that case, only for men.

However, given that this is the UCI we are talking about, you can totally disregard anything I've written above, as it could be absolute fact, absolute fabrication, or something in between.

The Trek is probably not technically under review since by current UCI rules, it wasn't even supposed to be raced in the first place since it's a 2011 product... But of course, that would imply logic is present in some form.

---

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

UCI saw the Water Rover wetsuit and felt they had the same problem on their hand as USAT. Rather than allow a free for all, they are banning technology to level the playing field :-) :-) :-).

Fine with me as long as they're consistent. Ban bikes with nose cone fairings and water bottle fairings and etc. But why the transition? That's like banning all wetsuits over 5mm, and then banning the blueseventy helix just for good measure.

Next thing you know, UCI will ban fins because they just might be illegal fairings :-)

Now that would piss me off! Take my bike, take my wetsuit, but leave the fins out of it! ;-)

Addendum. It's possible that both the P4 and P3 and Orbea Ordu are now illegal, as the UCI has threatened to outlaw any tube that does not fit into a 8cm long rectangle for the entire tube length. I.e. - no curved seattubes anymore. This has been another rumor that I've heard a couple times. The UCI does not like the curved seattubes, so they were trying to figure out a way to ban them, and making the ENTIRE tube fit into a box was a convenient way to do so...

I think it's kind of fun to speculate what bikes the UCI will make illegal because you can come up with pretty much ANY reason to ban a bike and it's couldn't be any crazier than what the UCI currently does. I actually struggle to come up with rules that are more obtuse than the actual UCI rules.

I am waiting for the adaptation of Leviticus 19:19 - "Thou shalt not ride bikes made of two materials blended together." That would put an end to this carbon fiber nonsense...

---

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

Ummm...wouldn't that also eliminate alloyed metal bikes as well?...and silver soldering and fillet brazing to boot?

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Holy crap that's ridiculous!
That would also mean the new Kestrel, designed specifically to be raced in UCI races, would be illegal now.
Why don't they just get it over with and ban everything that's not a round-tubed, steel road bike from the 50's. That's where they seem to be heading anyway.

Only until I instructed the commissaires about all the exceptions to the rules, which would be absurdly specific, as opposed to absurdly general like the original rule.

---

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

The point of the rule was originally stated as a way to level the playing field with regards to expense etc. That is reason for the whole production bike rule starting to be enforced. From my understanding a lot of these rules are based arounf certain nations spending tons of money developing bikes and skinsuits for the track to win olympic medals. Developing countries can't compete.

That's fine but when you look at the pro-tour/ pro-conti side of things they are all sponsored by essentially the same people and get the same bikes. As has been demonstrated here in many tests the trek/cervelo/specialized all test about the same. Why ban technology that has been around for about a decade now?

Why? Because it is the UCI.. They make no sense.. They never have. Hopefully this manufacturers union will be able to have some pull.. It is unlikely given the history though. I'm still a little surprised by this if it turns out to be true. Especially since it will affect the LOOK. Seems like the UCI (waulthier) has always had a nice streak of nationalism to his decisions...

Some fun decisions..
The preying Mantis position (most likely because it reminding them of Floyd) and obree positions were banned because they didn't look good. That's also how the idiotic 5cm rule came about (you couldn't get in the egg with that much setback). Banning vision tech bars after they've been used for over a decade..

But hey.. None of this makes a difference in Triathlons.. Just leave your fins at home and you should be fine..

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

I will say again that it would be unfair to let the Shiv in and not the P4 in UCI events, that is very clear.

But then, as some here know, I am on a permanent quest to set up the fastest possible TT bike within the legal limits. That may be taken by some as not caring if the field is not level so... am aware that maybe I should have used pink font Chad.

I personally would not mind going back to the Merckx era bike or even race under conformity of a bicycle racing standard similar to the stringent NJS. At this point I would not mind if aerobars are banned. The problem with the UCI as many here have noted is that they are in a reiterative manner incongruent in the implementation of their own technical regulations.

Sergio

---

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

The real problem, as pointed out by Gerard and Rene at 3T, is that all these rule changes don't actually level the playing field, they skew it even more, because only the manufacturers with the budget to respond can adapt to the new rules. Imagine if it was a smaller builder - like Focus - who had sunk significant resources into a new frame of Shiv-esque design in order to make their team more competitive. And then imagine they had to scrap that frame. That could put them out of business. I recall Rene from 3T saying that the new rulings about aerobars, which made their two highest end products - the Ventus and Brezza - illegal almost bankrupted them. Morgan Nicol from Oval expressed similar sentiments. I imagine that the same is true for some of the smaller bike companies. They can't risk innovation, because the UCI might ban their new design. But this also then prevents them from getting a better deal with a better team, getting more exposure, etc., so they lose out there too. You need to innovate to get attention, but if your budget is too small, you can't risk investing in an innovation that might be banned. The UCI is making the situation worse, not better.

---

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

The UCI is making the situation worse, not better.

I'm waiting for the day when everyone just says a big, hearty "Suck it" to the UCI.

It could be close. The constructors finally did that with Ecclestone and F1. If these bikes really do get banned, and Trek, Specialized, Scott, Giant, and Cervelo all get together, that's a lot of leverage. I wonder what would happen if those manufacturers said "fire Wautier, or we are leaving."

Oh, as an aside, in a very humorous, but also very troubling, turn of events, guess who wrote the new FINA rules about swim suits? Yes, Jean Wautier, president of the UCI...

---

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

My guess was those fins behind the fork - non stuctural additions for aero purposes. But the 8cm tube rule could explain it. Had also wondered if they were getting snotty about proprietary brake mounts.

Why would Trek jump in. They potentially have the fastest UCI legal bike out there now. And if they have that tube shape patented then it will take some serious innovations to beat it. That being said I completely agree that the UCI rules and ruling process is totally ridiculous.

UCI = NASCAR ?

Except the market has overwhelmingly ignored non UCI bikes, Lotus, Softride, etc.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

The market has overwhelmingly ignored people who don't market. The tour is probably one of the biggest marketing venues for most weekend warriors cause thats what they see advertized and thats what they want. Since they assume there is nothing faster since the fastest people in the world are riding them.

I bet you 90 percent of the triathlete population couldn't tell you what a cheetah bike, lotus softride etc are. But that same 90 percent will know Cervelo, specialized trek.

At least NASCAR cars are handbuilt and we can react to rule changes quickly and with minor disruption.

Good point.

UCI < NASCAR

Trek would jump in because although they may not be getting the shaft in this particular instance, the UCI is setting the precendant to stifle any all innovation before, during and after the R&D is complete on frames and components in the future. Not good for anyone.