Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Also just because you can put water in your aero "fill the gap" fairing does not mean it isn't a fairing. Hence pulling it at the TdF.

Where the rubber will meet the road on this (if true) is Nationals.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I wonder what will happen with the P3/P4, since the curved seattubes definitely do not fit into a 80x80xInfinity rectangle.

Are you serious Jordan? That is like saying bacon does not fit into an elite endurance athlete's diet! Shhhhhh!!!! ;-)

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


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._latest_reply;so=ASC

I asked them the same question.

There are more than a few bikes well outside this box. I also applies to chainstays, then there is the 160mm rule about seat stay attachment location and top of the top tube.

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


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._latest_reply;so=ASC

I asked them the same question.

There are more than a few bikes well outside this box. I also applies to chainstays, then there is the 160mm rule about seat stay attachment location and top of the top tube.

-SD

This topic got way out of hand with very costly and measurable effects one many of us that are concerned with UCI compliance. I can not put a smiley on my last sentence now.

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? [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
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.

I'm 100% with you. What's more, in the UCI's defence, carbon fibre has made it a lot harder to uphold the rule on no fairings. Once upon a time, when bikes were all made of steel, a was a pretty easy thing to identify, since it would be non-structural. However, carbon fibre allows engineers to come up with all sorts of ingenious ways of making devices that are allegedly "structural", but are, in fact, to all intents and purposes fairings. Therefore rules will have to become increasingly complicated to ban structures that are claimed to be structural, but are really primarily designed as fairings. And for those who think they should be allowed to race bikes with fairings, there are races for you.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
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...
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.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [drgreen68] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Well thank GOD for the UCI.

Here are som more suggestions on things to ban:

Non round handlebars.
. . . [snip] . . .
This is just a start, I can think of much more...

The best bike race I've ever done was a race on standard-issued singlespeed bikes with rigorous equipment standards. My team of 4 riders had an annual budget of about $600, and we successfully competed against teams with budgets over $15,000 thanks to the regulations which took out the gear and kept in the athleticism.

The Little 500 has been held in Bloomington, Indiana for 50+ years and has been a huge success with participants and spectators.

Here are their current bike regulations:

http://iusf.indiana.edu/...Little_500_Bike.html

Schwinn Little 500 Bicycle Specification List
The list below is a comprehensive and specific list of permitted modifications to all Little 500 qualifications and race bikes. All parts must be Schwinn ISSUED, with the exception of the following list. In any and all cases of questions, approval must be given by IUSF for additional changes. Failure to comply will result in a penalty being assessed during the race.
  1. RIMS: Both front and rear wheels may be steel or aluminum, 36-hole spoke and must both be 700c. No aero rims with a greater profile than one inch (26 mm) are allowed.
  2. SPOKES: Must be round and of steel, no alloy nipples are permitted.Radial spokes are not permitted.Two, three or four cross patterns are acceptable.Spoke gauge must be 14.Double butted are permitted.
  3. TIRES: Any 700 x 28-32c clincher tires may be used.Cyclocross tires and those tires determined to be variations of, are not allowed.
  4. FRAME AND FORK: Only current issued and approved frames and forks are allowed.The frame and fork cannot be tampered with or altered in any way.
  5. STEM AND BARS:Bars must be of standard dropped shape and taped and plugged.They may be any steel or alloy bar and stem.
  6. HEADSET:May be of any steel or alloy.
  7. CRANK:Must be solid steel or alloy, one-piece crank with a factory specified length between 165mm-175mm.
  8. PEDALS: Stock issued or rubber pedals can be of any width.No steel rat traps, toe clips, or any other foot-clinching device on the pedal or the rider’s shoe is allowed.Furthermore, shoes must have their natural sole.Any alteration must be approved.
  9. CHAIN:No master link, it must be replaced with normal link.There must be at least 1/4” clearance from the front edge of the rear axle bolt to the end of the dropout.Chain must be 1/8” width.
  10. CHAIN RING: Any steel or current Schwinn stock issued (46) chain ring is allowed.
  11. REAR COG: Any steel (18) cog is allowed for the men’s race.Any steel (18) cog is allowed for the women’s race.Teeth may not be ground down.
  12. SEAT POST: Any steel or alloy post is allowed and must be inserted to minimum insertion marked on post or 3 inches(whichever is longer).Seat post diameter is 27.2.
  13. SEAT CLAMP: No quick release seat adjusters will be allowed.
  14. SEAT: Seat is up to your own preference.A steel railed seat is suggested for safety.
  15. BOTTOM BRACKET: Must be one-piece type bottom bracket.“Sealed mechanisms” are allowed while “sealed” bottom brackets are not.No loose bearings are allowed.
  16. HUBS:Rear hub must be a single speed coaster brake type.Both hubs must be bolt-on type.No quick releases allowed.Precision sealed bearing mechanisms prohibited.

I now coach a wealthy team and we push the limits on technology and manage to spend about $700 a bike on upgrades. Even then, we have been beaten many times by teams riding the stock bikes.

Those above specifications work like a champ--- You can't buy your way to success and anyone can afford to complete in the race. personally, I am all for UCI regulations which help keep down the cost of competing.

-Marc
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [roady] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
the UCI doesn't specify 'no bent tubes' on TT rigs.

I think they do specify that for TT bikes all the tubes have to fit into an infinitly long 80mm box...

Dave Koesel - Category Leader Roval, Power, On-bike Components
https://rovalcomponents.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
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 that has always been in the rulebook for TT bikes, just not for road bikes. I assume they don't like the curved seat tubes because most of them violate the UCI rules.

-SD

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

because if the UCI gets retarded enough we will start seeing the good bike makers like Specialized, Cervelo, Felt, Giant, etc start making bikes that people who chose not to particpate in UCI goverened events can use =)

i expect to see a P4 with a non uci legal fork NOW

=)

On our visit to the UCI in June we brought our bikes to let them meaure them and approve their use in UCI races post-clarification.

The FELT can be used in UCI races as it passes their clarified rules.



-SD

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

Which is how one would expect the process to work so that you aren't wasting time and resources manufacturing a bike that would then be deemed non-compliant at the start house. But, you said before that these are basically just opinions and not necessarily binding...so, does that mean you still run the risk of having your design deemed non-compliant despite all of this previous work? That seems a bit backwards...

The only reason I'm asking about this is because I would have a hard time believing that NONE of the manufacturers originally listed in this rumor would NOT have applied basically the same process.


In Reply To:
I wont ask how you got your hands on that letter

Sorry about that...I added the link as an edit after originally posting that. But, as AC pointed out, that letter has been on the web since the introduction of the original P3. Here it is again:

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

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What is interesting about that letter is the orginal P3 would not pass the 80 X 80 infinite box test either. Is that a new rule?

Suffer Well.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

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
Hurrah - at last someone has read the UCI rules (1.3.020 and 1.3.021). Tube sections up to 80mm, equal sized "gusset", curved tubes allowed, not sure whether the straight line bit applies to TT bikes. Pretty sure P3 & P4 seat tubes do conform to this even though the shape appears wider. Would have thought Plasma3 has taken head tube + top/down tubes + gusset to make longest legal section (Simon Smart by name, smart by nature) possible. Fork dimensions only go up to fork crown in the diagram, Shiv and especially Giant's bolt-on are blatantly outside the spirit of the rules and probably any subsequent clarification. Look, Felt, Trek, Argon have all shown how small and elegant a bayonet fork can be. UCI rules also define what is and isn't a tolerable fuselage fairing or screen. Maybe why all P4 riders have got cold feet and using normal bottles.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [cyclenutnz] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:

...and what about a Transition would need to be "reviewed" that also wouldn't apply to a P3 or a TTX?


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.

You don't think that those features don't add rigidity to the structure?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [nslckevin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
There's a lot of stupidity with the UCI and rules, but I don't see this as an example of it.

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

Yes. Mark Cote said so (at least about the Shiv) back in June:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._string=uci;#2393549


Quote:
We've been working with and have been in constant communication with the UCI. The bike is legal today and we can prove that it fits within the stated guidelines (as do many of the other new bikes out in ProTour racing). As the rules have been called out more specifically this year, we've made large investments to be sure we're within the guidlines. The aerobars have been re-tooled to be 3:1, etc, etc.

It's being raced now and the Tour is right around the corner. Can't wait for that prologue ;)

So...it would sound to me like there may be some rule changes coming down the pike that could make it no longer compliant.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
I wonder what will happen with the P3/P4, since the curved seattubes definitely do not fit into a 80x80xInfinity rectangle.


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._latest_reply;so=ASC

I asked them the same question.

There are more than a few bikes well outside this box. I also applies to chainstays, then there is the 160mm rule about seat stay attachment location and top of the top tube.

-SD

Dave,
I don't see that part about the seatstay attachment in the rules...or is that one of those ambiguous "implied" rules based on the incomplete "figures"?

Also...can you honestly state that the Felt bayonet fork isn't also an attempt to "skirt" the rules? Hmmm?

Seriously though...sure, there's no tube going through the head tube and so the "nosecone" on that fork is definitely structural, but come on now...the whole idea was to increase the aspect ratio of the section in that area. In other words, it was done for aerodynamics first and foremost. Perhaps there might be some steering stiffness improvements...but, it's not like a "traditional" fork is necessarily not stiff enough.

Lastly, as far as you know, according to the UCI does the seatpost need to be in line with the seat tube? If not, that could explain your confusion over the curved seattubes fitting within the template (along with the seatstay junctions and the extra material allowed at the fillets).

In the end though, IMHO it still remains that the only people to blame in all of this are the writers of the rules. If they had done a better and clearer job in the first place, a LOT of this uncertainty wouldn't have been present and the need for "clarifications" wouldn't have occurred.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The P4 is being redesigned to comply to the rules.

The Giant passes.

The Shiv, I don't know.

The Plasma 3 passes. Plasma 2 also.
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:
I wonder what will happen with the P3/P4, since the curved seattubes definitely do not fit into a 80x80xInfinity rectangle.


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._latest_reply;so=ASC

I asked them the same question.

There are more than a few bikes well outside this box. I also applies to chainstays, then there is the 160mm rule about seat stay attachment location and top of the top tube.

-SD

Dave,
I don't see that part about the seatstay attachment in the rules...or is that one of those ambiguous "implied" rules based on the incomplete "figures"?

Also...can you honestly state that the Felt bayonet fork isn't also an attempt to "skirt" the rules? Hmmm?

Seriously though...sure, there's no tube going through the head tube and so the "nosecone" on that fork is definitely structural, but come on now...the whole idea was to increase the aspect ratio of the section in that area. In other words, it was done for aerodynamics first and foremost. Perhaps there might be some steering stiffness improvements...but, it's not like a "traditional" fork is necessarily not stiff enough.

Lastly, as far as you know, according to the UCI does the seatpost need to be in line with the seat tube? If not, that could explain your confusion over the curved seattubes fitting within the template (along with the seatstay junctions and the extra material allowed at the fillets).

In the end though, IMHO it still remains that the only people to blame in all of this are the writers of the rules. If they had done a better and clearer job in the first place, a LOT of this uncertainty wouldn't have been present and the need for "clarifications" wouldn't have occurred.

1.3.020 c) Configuration
For road competitions other than time trials and for cyclo-cross competitions, the frame of the bicycle shall be of a traditional pattern, i.e. built around a main triangle. It shall be constructed of straight or tapered tubular elements (which may be round, oval, flattened, teardrop shaped or otherwise in cross-section) such that the form of each element encloses a straight line. The elements of the frame shall be laid out such that the joining points shall follow the following pattern: the top tube (1) connects the top of the head tube (2) to the top of the seat tube (4); the seat tube (from which the seat post shall extend) shall connect to the bottom bracket shell; the down tube (3) shall connect
the bottom bracket shell to the bottom of the head tube. The rear triangles shall be formed by the chain stays (6), the seat stays (5) and the seat tube (4) with the seat stays anchored to the seat tube at points falling within the limits laid down for the slope of the top tube.
The maximum height of the elements shall be 8 cm and the minimum thickness 2.5 cm. The minimum thickness shall be reduced to 1 cm for the chain stays (6) and the seat stays (5). The minimum thickness of the elements of the front fork shall be 1 cm; these may be straight or curved (7). (See diagram «Shape (1)»).
The top tube may slope, provided that this element fits within a horizontal template defined by a maximum height of 16 cm and a minimum thickness of 2.5 cm.


1.3.021 For road time trials and for track competitions, the elements of the bicycle frame may be tubular or solid, assembled or cast in a single piece in any form (including arches, cradles, beams or any other). These elements, including the bottom bracket shell, shall fit within a template of the «triangular form» defined in article 1.3.020. (See diagram «Shape (2)»).


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? [Sergio Escutia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 
Thanks...I didn't catch that.

Now then, for a top tube that doesn't take "advantage" of the full 160mm box for the angled tube, or the total allowed 80mm for section height, where does the top of the 160mm "box" start"? For example, for a bike with a level top tube that's only 25mm tall, does that mean that the seat stay can attach up to 135mm below the top of the top tube? (i.e. the top of the 160mm box is aligned with the top edge of the toptube?)

135mm below the top of a level top tube is pretty far down there...even a P2K with the stays attached significantly down the seat tube is well within that requirement...and which part of the seatstay is the attachment "point"? Is it the centerline? The top? The whole thing needs to be within 160mm?

Clarity...or lack thereof...is what it's all about.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [phillyfan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You seem to have more info on this. Care to share? Curious as to how the Giant could pass with the nosecone but the previously legal P4 needs a redesign.

BTW, I'm a phillyfan too ever since the 1980 World Series. 3rd grade then. If you can divulge some more info, that might make me a phillyfan of a phillyfan. ;>)


3 Months of Paradigm Shifting Swim Instruction for Cheap // Your Professional & Private “Critique my Fit”

The Swim Help Compilation Thread

Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How does that work for a bike like the newer argon 18 (112 and 114) in the area of the seat tube to the seatstays? How about the Felt DA for that matter? Is the distance from the seatstay intersection to seat tube to the other side of the side tube, shorter than 8cm? I'd say maybe for felt, and pretty no for the argon...
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [phillyfan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In what areas is there a redesign of the P4 ? Would this also apply to the P3?
If I would have bought a P4 last year as I was first thinking (decided to wait because of rumors about UCI compliance issues) I would be pretty pissed now...
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sorry but I have no additional info....I heard about the P4 way back in the spring. The UCI just kept delaying enforcement.

As I hear more I will pass it along...

Go Phils!
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [SuperDave] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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



Carl Matson
Quote Reply

Prev Next