UCI Calls off dogs for now.

Tom,

That's good to know. What was amazing was the interest and panic( Almost 7,000 views on the key thread) on something that would have minimal to no impact on triathletes.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Except for THIS part:
"Rule 1.3.024 was officially modified and put into effect on January 1, 2009..."


Ummm...sorry James, but the actual rule wasn't modified at all...in fact, in the letter he quotes it specifically states:

"The UCI technical regulation was adopted in the year 2000. It has been respected without major difficulty for several years. However, like all laws, rules and procedures, the passage of time inevitably leads to malfunctions and irregularities, together with a loss of vigilance and rigour. The main problem of this kind is the failure to comply with the technical rules for time trial events. The rules are still the same..."

I hate to say it, but from his first reporting of this "fiasco", he's used verbage implying that there was a "rule change", when there was no such thing...just an "interpretation change"...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Everyone likes watching a good train wreck! :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Are there any frame designs out there now that have come out before/have not been updated much since the ruling: P3C, Pina Montello, etc.?

How about those that came out recently, like the P4 or the sweet Ridley Deans? Hope they stick around for a while...

Exactly. For some reason there was a sensational element to this. Perhaps a part of it was because people weren't reading the articles and relying on a sort of summary gleaned from a cursory examination of the information.

---

Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com

It impacts triathletes in that bike companies by and large comply with the UCI rules. Look at the Trek y-foil. Actually a very nice road bike, even has a cult following amongst long distance riders. Soon after Trek came out with it the UCI changed rules that made it non legal and Trek dropped it from its line. They even cited the UCI rules as why. And for as much as some on this forum claim non UCI bikes would sell, many of them have been on the market and they have either failed (zipp, softride) or are small players (titanflex).

I know the above wasn't really your point and I agree, the rule change may have affected maybe 6 people who post here, but for some inexplicable reason UCI rules reach way farther than UCI riders.

Styrrell

No kidding, Steve. There is some wildly off-based speculation there.

The one thing that jumps out at me from the actual reporting thus far is the cool head that Vaughters seems to be bringing to the AIGCP, particularly as regards dealing with his counter-parts at UCI. If the reporting is correct, he's working from a VERY mature viewpoint and set of values. The more I see out of JV, the more I think this guy is a huge part of the right answer for the future of cycling.

but for some inexplicable reason UCI rules reach way farther than UCI riders.

Agreed, and I believe I expanded on this very point in detail, early on in the monster thread on this, but no one seemed to pay attention! :)

The impact for for UCI compliant road racing events and Time Trials is direct. The impact on triathlon is felt passivley through the marketing that the higher profile bike companies do and thus influencing the the choices that bike consumers make.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I can think of at least two reasons why strict enforcement of the UCI rules could be good for triathlon.

1) Some companies will choose to comply and others will not. Those who do not will focus on the non-UCI market, and will push some radical engineering.

2) The companies that focus on the non-UCI (triathlon) market will use their marketing dollars differently, and I think it could mean more money coming into triathlon. Several companies who market through UCI teams now would no longer have that option, and would likely seek out triathletes and triathlon events to promote their products.

In short, I'm not sure decoupling the road and tri markets would be a bad thing, either in terms of engineering or sponsorship. The big losers would probably be companies like Cervelo and Vision who currently get to "double dip," but the big winners could be pro triathletes and race directors.

"The UCI can be commended in its efforts to limit technological advantages"

AND advances

---

Azby

This is America. Accurate complete information is not necessary to vote, (or have an opinion). Don't let the facts get in the way.


t

---

*******************************************
My Blog:
http://www.staggerforwardrejoicing.com
Ultrarunning & Parenting: There is no finish line.

Not a bad concept but I don't think that there is enough money in TT/Tri bikes for a company to go after one or the other. I would think that they need the combined market to sell enough of these bikes to make them affordable.

No data, just a gut feeling.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava