Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [drgreen68] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
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...
One of the claims that I've heard for both the P3 and P4 is simply that they need a new seatpost, which will basically mean that the test team just uses an insert that goes where the regular post goes now, and then a 3:1 post will go in there.

There may be something else, but one area where the Cervelos (p2, p3, and p4) do definitively "fail" is the seatpost. AFAIK, it's simply a matter of making a different seatpost/insert for the team bikes (and anyone else who needs one). I also do not think this is new, as I remember discussing it with Dan at ToC.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
re. seatpins

The problem is that for an aerodynamic purpose, you want the seatpin and seat tube to have the same cross section.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yeah , but the thing about the seatpost is "old news" -redesign - sounded like there was more to it than just that...
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [zebragonzo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
re. seatpins

The problem is that for an aerodynamic purpose, you want the seatpin and seat tube to have the same cross section.
Really? What makes you say that?

Here's an alternative example, though I know it was designed around the UCI regs...



"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Rappstar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Really? What makes you say that?

I'm sure someone reputable said it. Additionally, it was thought that an aero seat pin for a regular bike was less aero than round because of the difference in shape.

Hopefully someone will be able to provide some slightly more stable evidence for my thoughts!
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [zebragonzo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

In Reply To
I have no more information but I would like some as well. Maybe cause the UCI just feels feisty today.[/reply]
Although usually we refer to the UCI in a they way, the UCI is we to any of us that is a UCI license-holder. The members of the UCI are the National Federations of each country. Want things to change? Find out who is representing you in your national federation and start lobbying. If you do not have direct access to the National President, then the President of your local club can take that agenda to the President of your State association who (in most countries) should be on the board of your National Federation (USA Cycling in the USA).

We recently changed the President of our national federation because most thought that a change was needed. I won't go into the details but his lack of attention and disrespectful attitude towards something most of us thought was important and a handful of us dared to point out was a spark that turned into a fire for him. He underestimated the response to his lack of interest in that particular matter because before no one dared (or cared). Not anymore.

There are 42 voting delegates in the UCI distributed among continental federations as follows:

Africa: 7 delegates
America: 9 delegates
Asia: 9 delegates
Europe: 14 delegates
Oceania: 3 delegates

See anything interesting there?

I would not be surprised to find out that most road cyclists that are licence-holders don't even know what the name of his National Cycling Federation President is. I think that federated cyclists should start flexing their political muscle, the problem is that most do not realize that they have one.

The formation of the GOCEM is no doubt an important and necessary response to the inconsistent way the UCI officers in charge have been interpreting the rules. As I said before, I would not even mind if we have to race under a stringent (retro to most) standard similar to the NJS in Japan. But I do mind when the persons in charge at the governing body let everyone race with a particular equipment for years and without a rule change suddenly the equipment becomes illegal. Something is definitely wrong there and the result can be very costly.

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? [Carl] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You company is doing that too. How much would it cost trek if your new TT bike were deemed illegal shortly after you go into mass production?


Why doesn't the bike industry man up a little with regards to the UCI? Do you just not have any influence over them at all, even as a group?


In Reply To:
And therefore you flirt with the boundaries of the rules or choose unconservative interpretations of the rules at your peril.


Carl

[/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font]



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
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Why doesn't the bike industry man up a little with regards to the UCI? Do you just not have any influence over them at all, even as a group?"

I would say the bike manufacturers have, in fact, demonstrated influence with the UCI.

In my eyes the end result of the implied influence many here seem to want, would be dictatorial on the part of the manufacturers, rather than the governing body.

How do people react when they perceive Exxon or GM having dictatorial influence over government actions concerning their products?

Be VERY careful what you wish for.

In fact, some of the apparent capriciousness with which the UCI seems to be reacting appears to be in response to the age-old race to push the boundaries.

The rules (boundaries) determine an arbitrary line between the best equipment and unfair advantages. Racing entities (athletes, manufacturers, etc.) will always want to try to be as close to the boundary as possible in order to be on the level with everyone else out there.

Now there have been some unanticipated creative ways of reading the rules (boundaries). There really is no good answer here after the fact. If the UCI does nothing, then creative readings of the rules become the norm and sooner or later smart people will have achieve everything counter to the spirit of the UCI's original rule. If the UCI now steps in (as it has) and attempts to clarify some of these creative readings, then it appears capricious, ill-considered, and anti-technology.

Consider the UCI's position. They clearly benefit from the technological advances and successes of the bicycle industry. And yet they are charged with maintaining a sport that is ostensibly about the athletes involved.

None of this is to say whether I agree or disagree with any particular issue here. But I think it is instructive to consider the situation from the UCI's perspective to the extent possible. (Certainly we aren't privy to specific financial, legal, or other influencing factors).

The UCI has a pretty tough job here. And I'm not sure I'd want some of you on that equipment panel either, based on some of the opinions expressed in this thread.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
the uci can have whatever rules it wants

the arrogance is in retroactively changing enforcement with crushing effects on the industry that they are part of.

yes they reserved the RIGHT to do it, but its insane. The seatpost and aerobar aspect ratio thing, really, who benefits from that? nobody.


In Reply To:
"Why doesn't the bike industry man up a little with regards to the UCI? Do you just not have any influence over them at all, even as a group?"

I would say the bike manufacturers have, in fact, demonstrated influence with the UCI.

In my eyes the end result of the implied influence many here seem to want, would be dictatorial on the part of the manufacturers, rather than the governing body.

How do people react when they perceive Exxon or GM having dictatorial influence over government actions concerning their products?

Be VERY careful what you wish for.

In fact, some of the apparent capriciousness with which the UCI seems to be reacting appears to be in response to the age-old race to push the boundaries.

The rules (boundaries) determine an arbitrary line between the best equipment and unfair advantages. Racing entities (athletes, manufacturers, etc.) will always want to try to be as close to the boundary as possible in order to be on the level with everyone else out there.

Now there have been some unanticipated creative ways of reading the rules (boundaries). There really is no good answer here after the fact. If the UCI does nothing, then creative readings of the rules become the norm and sooner or later smart people will have achieve everything counter to the spirit of the UCI's original rule. If the UCI now steps in (as it has) and attempts to clarify some of these creative readings, then it appears capricious, ill-considered, and anti-technology.

Consider the UCI's position. They clearly benefit from the technological advances and successes of the bicycle industry. And yet they are charged with maintaining a sport that is ostensibly about the athletes involved.

None of this is to say whether I agree or disagree with any particular issue here. But I think it is instructive to consider the situation from the UCI's perspective to the extent possible. (Certainly we aren't privy to specific financial, legal, or other influencing factors).

The UCI has a pretty tough job here. And I'm not sure I'd want some of you on that equipment panel either, based on some of the opinions expressed in this thread.



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
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have a system where bike designs are submitted for review like the UCI currently has

I review them CAREFULLY

and I give a definitive YEA or NAY that is good for, say, 5 years.

thats what I would do if I was interested in trying to keep costs down or keep the looks of bikes 'classical'


now, what I would do if I was in charge is make the bikes totally unlimited and watch the madness of a tour de france with faired recumbants in the mix.

=)


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.?



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
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Dave Luscan] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe the UCI should just institute the "Little Indy" rules....thats the way they are heading.

-

B.Oliver -My Blog...triguywithavx.wordpress.com
Powered by:
-accelerate3.com coaching-
-**TriSports.com Save 20% Message me for one time use code {restrictions apply...see site)
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [jackmott] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
I have a system where bike designs are submitted for review like the UCI currently has

I review them CAREFULLY

and I give a definitive YEA or NAY that is good for, say, 5 years.

thats what I would do if I was interested in trying to keep costs down or keep the looks of bikes 'classical'
[/reply]
Exactly...they already HAVE a "system" in place for having designs reviewed and approved beforehand...and yet stuff is still getting "through" that they feel the need to clamp down on...hmmm, who's fault is that?

Personally, I think that they FIRST need to decided EXACTLY what it is they want to accomplish with the rules, with the understanding that bike racing is actually NOT just about athletic performance (as much as they would like to imagine it is, anyway. If it was just about athletic performance then they could just race ergs, right?) They also need to revisit how they ergonomically specify position, since the current situation (as has been discussed here on ST in the past) is unfairly restrictive on folks of very large or very small morphologies.

Then, CLEARLY write the equipment/position rules so that the intent and implementation is much less ambiguous than the current state (and not rife with seeming inconsistencies).

Lastly, then be consistent in the enforcement.

Is that REALLY too much to ask?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Tom....you're an engineer. When was the last time you found EVERY standard was clear when you tried to apply it to your specific engineering problem?
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Tom....you're an engineer. When was the last time you found EVERY standard was clear when you tried to apply it to your specific engineering problem?

Every time I write a specification :-)

Besides, most engineering standards undergo systematic review at quicker intervals than what the UCI cycling rules appear to be reviewed/modified.

Seriously though, the UCI rules have been put in place in an ad hoc fashion and without a clear intent. That's where it has to start. It's time to step back, define the problem, and then write the rules to effectively address the situation. (Spoken like a true engineer, huh? ;-)

My impression is that they prefer to keep things the status quo so that they CAN arbitrarily disallow things that just plain go against their "sensibilities"...

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Tom....you're an engineer. When was the last time you found EVERY standard was clear when you tried to apply it to your specific engineering problem?

Brian, that is a rethorical question because not every standard is clear. I can say that most standards I work with or have participated in its writing (and they are many) are clearer than the UCI Regulations. That is one of the reasons I am not satisfied with those regulations.

Do you really think that the UCI has done a good job writing those technical regulations? I personally do not. There is a good reason why they had to write that "Practical Guide to Implementation" booklet. If you consider the interpretation of the Regulations by the commissaires in recent Pro Tour races, then, that booklet has clearly failed in offering "...a definitive interpretation in order to facilitate understanding and application of the Regulations". Not even the commissaires at the most important events are interpreting the rules as the guide instructs!

They should get some legal writing advice first. Second, if they really want sporting fairness in cycling so that every cyclist competes on an equal footing, "asserting the primacy of man over machine" maybe they should take a look at the way the NJS handles that matter and stop playing "cat and mouse" with the cycling equipment manufacturers. But having all Pro Tour riders racing "on an equal footing" à la Japanese Keirin —I am sure, will lead to loosing a lot of economic support from the cycling equipment manufacturers. Not to mention the risk of ST becoming a boring place for some of us. ;-)

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? [115InTheShade] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
Maybe the UCI should just institute the "Little Indy" rules....thats the way they are heading.

-

Yeah, Dude!

Funny thing about those Little 500 rules is they were written by college students, fit on one page, have had teams trying to skirt them for 50 years, and work like a champ. It's odd that the UCI can't get a set of equipment rules together as clear as the Little 500 rules.
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Tom A.] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
 





Quote:
Every time I write a specification :-)

Besides, most engineering standards undergo systematic review at quicker intervals than what the UCI cycling rules appear to be reviewed/modified.

Seriously though, the UCI rules have been put in place in an ad hoc fashion and without a clear intent. That's where it has to start. It's time to step back, define the problem, and then write the rules to effectively address the situation. (Spoken like a true engineer, huh? ;-)

My impression is that they prefer to keep things the status quo so that they CAN arbitrarily disallow things that just plain go against their "sensibilities"
...

Sorry for the lack of punctuation. arent you an aerospace engineer? Reference far 25.981 and get back to me :)

i dont work for boeing, but would be angry if i did! do you want to know why the 787 is delayed? "HINT: Spec interpretation"

I won the "carry a coffee cup through a course without spilling the coffee contest" because they never stipulated that the coffee could not be frozen. It's simple, push the rules until they bite you! And the GOBERNMENT is the worst when it comes to "interpretation"
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [Sergio Escutia] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Do you really think that the UCI has done a good job writing those technical regulations?"

I haven't said I think the rules and regulations are good. I'm simply taking an even bigger step back than Tom.

If you just step back to an engineer's or other literalist's point of view, the rules are indeed murky, especially when applied through the UCI's byzantine methods.

However, let's step even FURTHER back...and recall that this is ostensibly an INTERNATIONAL organization (albeit dominated by the European mindset)...and therefore the organization is prone to the same sorts of cross-views that any other international authority finds itself.

How many people think the UN operates efficiently and clearly?

The same governance philosphy and mindsets you see in European countries are present in the UCI...start by understanding those, and how difficult concensus is to reach.

Again...I don't like unclear and capricious rules and interpretations thereof any more than most here on the thread.

Solutions are a lot more simple in the quorum of ONE...its when you try to bring all the competing interests to the same conclusion...that the clear becomes byzantine at best.

Or better yet...do any of you think you're the first ones to think of the solutions to the problem? Does anyone think Jack's simplistic solution hasn't been attempted? Hell...they probably started there....and ended up where they are now.

The UCI is 109 years old. It isn't perfect. But when an organization has been around and in charge that long....its going to take a hell of a revolution to knock them off. The Grand Tour alliance didn't quite pull it off. Its not likely anyone else is either. Unless the mayor of Tokyo is correct and the Olympic Games are going away after 2016 (Ha ha!).
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
in high school debate this kind of argument didn't fly

=)

In Reply To:
Or better yet...do any of you think you're the first ones to think of the solutions to the problem? Does anyone think Jack's simplistic solution hasn't been attempted?



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
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [MarcK] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
In Reply To:
Maybe the UCI should just institute the "Little Indy" rules....thats the way they are heading.

-

Yeah, Dude!

Funny thing about those Little 500 rules is they were written by college students, fit on one page, have had teams trying to skirt them for 50 years, and work like a champ. It's odd that the UCI can't get a set of equipment rules together as clear as the Little 500 rules.
The big difference is that I suspect the organizers of the Little 500 know what they DO want and thus can be PROACTIVE about it. The UCI, on the other hand, only knows what they DO NOT want (once they've seen it, not before) and thus can only be REACTIVE.

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [ndenezzo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
toptube?
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [mrkieffer] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
toptube?

If it fits within the toptube "box(es)" in the rules, what's there to review?

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/
Quote Reply
Re: new Giant, Shiv and P4 UCI illegal? [TriBriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I will just tell you one example of how wrong people (race officials) can interpret UCI rules.'

Swedish elite nationals this summer- They measured bikes supposedly for the "5 cm nose of saddle behind BB" and
"75 cm tip of aerobar infront of BB". How they did it:this is the good part- They measured from the tip of the saddle to the tip of the aerobar without any reference to the BB!! If your bike measured more than 80 cm it could be deemed illegal (however this did not apply to everybody as I heard it...). They also did not -at least on my bike- measure horizontally- they just measured from tip to tip.
Quote Reply
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

Prev Next