i struggle to fit in the 80cm rule... 58cm top tube, ideally an 11cm stem and then extensions.... not a hope!

What do you do? Position the saddle further back than ideal to eat up room?

My comment was more about the decision to only allow one morphological exemption...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

saddle backwards, elbows end up wide(r) and more upright. It sucks.

True- can you hit both with a cheater saddle like an adamo? Will they allow that? Or do they look at someone who is 5'10 and say "you are not getting a handlebar exemption for 80cm"?

thanks Tom.

Well...as far as I know, there is no rule about to what height rider a morphological exemption applies, no? If you can maintain a less than 120 deg angle with your arms you should be able to get the bar exemption. Once again, if they're going to deny exemptions based on height...it needs to be in the RULES!

BTW, the Adamo isn't a "cheater" saddle. It complies with the UCI dimensional requirements for saddles. But yes, it's typically pretty easy to set up the Adamo so that the 5cm behind the BB rule is basically a non-issue.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

It is totally a cheater saddle- that is not a bad thing. If you run the Adamo 5cm behind the bb- you sit about like a saddle at zero.

In what sense? Because the designers had the foresight to make a saddle that is actually comfortable to sit on the nose?

If I set up a "normal" saddle (e.g. an Arione Tri) at 5cm behind the BB, I'll still "sit" on it in the same spot relative to the BB if it was instead an Adamo...it'll just be a damn site more uncomfortable because only 1 of my sitbones will actually be resting on the saddle as opposed to both with the Adamo.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

i have to agree with Jordan on this. Specialized can afford, even if it is somewhat painful, to poor money into the Shiv project to only have it killed a year later...kind of the "no such thing as bad publicity". Think of it this way. Specialized spends let's say $500K to develop the bike including engineers, travel to testing and manufaturers, prototypes, testing...on and on. Then they go and launch this "Uber-Bike" and all the media outlets do at least one page each on the bike...$100K in press...balance sheet reads $400k at that point. Then they go to the Tour and win the prologue...the bike gets a look over by the TV crews and is broadcast in 20 countries around the world...that ad would have cost $50,000...balance sheet is now $350K. The next day print media aroudn the world along with web media have coverage of the bike ridden by the winner...value of that $100K...balance sheet is $250K. Following day on stage one when the winner of the prolugue shows up in the yellow jersey then he gets his road bike featured in all the same media outlets...see where this is going? it sells bikes of all price points and design for the brand...and the growth from the exposure far out weighs the initial $500K investment...if you dont believe me just look at how big Specialized has grown in the last 8 years by asking yourself this; "would you have ever thought to buy a Specialized road bike 8 years ago?" I am not saying there bikes were not good 8 years ago...i am saying they have drastically improved their "sell-a-bility" via a massive marketing machine that has been executed flawlessly.

on the other hand a small company like Blue...we cant poor $500K into a single project, especially if we knew there was no chance to take that to market and recoup any of it in the form of direct sales.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

The UCI is making the situation worse, not better.

Chance,

That's because sports admin people have no idea of or really care about the business world. The live in a "Make it so" world and could not give a fig about how manufacturers and the general public have to deal with it all.

Consider the FINA fiasco regarding the swim-skins. Whether you liked them or not, whether you agreed with them or not, it's frustrating having to deal with an organization that is in/out/in/out on them month to month. I know that we just gave-up and didn't even bother with it after a while. I feel sorry for the companies that paid $2,000/suit for approval only to have FINA say, "You know what, I think we'll just ban all those suits"!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Steve,

Agreed. the process should be clear...even if the actual rulings are arbitrary once inside the process.

There should be an annual deadline for submitting 2-d designs to a UCI board and then if approved a second deadline for 3-d concepts and if approved a 3rd deadline for working prototypes and a 4th and final deadline for submitting the final production version of the product to the UCI for total ratification. Then on Jan 1 of the following year the bike would be legal...no retro active rulings after a bike has been on the podium at Worlds or the Olympics.

During the process, if you are rejected at anytime they would have an intermediate checkpoint where you could re-apply. If you get nixed at the initial and the intermdiate checkoint...to the end of the line and wait until next years process.

sounds simple enough to me...but i am just a common man.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

Is there a definitive answer yet on whether the Shiv, Plasma 3, P4 and Trinity are illegal yet?

Trying to finish up a new TT frame and am not getting the information I need. The big question is whether or not the "head-tube" on these carbon frames has to follow the same 8cm depth limit. If so, there are a LOT of frames out there that are illegal because of the webbing between the down-tube and top-tube.

Also, the whole nosecone thing still has yet to be ironed out. SaxoBank is currently training on the Shiv so it seems that the UCI is still allowing it.

This thread has been a wonderful source of information.


Evan Solida
Industrial Designer
http://www.6ixdesign.com

---

Evan Solida
6Design - Industrial Designer specializing in bicycle development

Dave-

If the fillet is so large between the top and down tubes that it results in more than 80mm of depth, is that legal? If so, the sky is the limit on how large this web could be.

Also, with a bayonette-style fork, is the "fairing" and head-tube considered one large mass that must fit into the 80mm rule, or are they seen as two separate entities?

This is getting good. I'm going to get some popcorn, sit back and watch!

---

Evan Solida
6Design - Industrial Designer specializing in bicycle development

I too, love bagging the UCI. They have been anti development since they banned recumbants, way back in about 1927 or there abouts. They are the most reactionary, least pro-active group of tossers I can think of (at the moment) They make the company I work for, look innovative!

Unfortunately, with the way the UCI is operating these days, it is just getting too easy to bag the UCI. It's like taking candy from a baby.

I have resolved to not worry about the UCI. I don't participate in any UCI races, or any that follow UCI rules. I would love to argue with the UCI, and try to bring them to their senses, but they are like a teenage girl, you just can't reason with an unreasonable opponent. Rather than beat myself up about it, I just ignore them. They are little more than political old boys club and unfortnately they are in a position of arguably unassailable power.

I just feel sorry for all the bike manufacturers trying to deal with the ever changing UCI rules and the ad hoc application of the rules.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Hey everyone,

The rule enforcements from the UCI are hard for everyone. We're all working with the same "differentiate, innovate, and stay inside-the-box" design challenge.

I hate seeing what the UCI enforcements are doing to the industry today, as they did in the late 90's. There's no part of 3T or Oval's story that makes any of us happy. We want to see companies who innovate to be able to survive and thrive.

I want to assure the Shiv was not designed as a marketing exercise. If designing a stiffer bike for the world TT champ is a marketing exercise, then why did we spend so much time engineering the bike to make it stiffer, lighter, more aero? Designing that bike, while making it available on the market for consumers, has led us to a significant number of technical innovations that will fuel engineering growth in our other platforms. Yea, someone has to check the balance sheet on the projects at the beginning and end of the budget year but we pay the development costs by selling bikes, just like everyone else.

Shiv's coming to the market, for TT riders under the auspices of UCI, and triathlon riders with less stringent equipment requirements.

It's a bummer that there's friendly fire between bike companies that all agree we wish for better clarifications from the UCI. The goal here is to get a better clarification of the rules and ultimately an approval process going with the UCI. We're all on the same side here.

Mark

---

--
Mark Cote
MITAerobike
Specialized Bicycle Components

I don't think the accusation is that it was a marketing exercise. I think you could simply say that if it turned out to be AN exercise - or, even more specifically, an engineering exercise - then that is a luxury smaller companies do not have. I.e., I think the argument is that bigger companies can treat projects that the UCI may ultimately ban as "an exercise" which you can take something away from. Put this way, if the Shiv was banned by the UCI and you had to make Saxo a new time trial bike, are there things that you learned in making Shiv that you would carry over? Absolutely. For smaller companies, they might also be able to carry things over, if they were able to afford to make a new bike.

I don't see what Chance wrote as an attack on Specialized, but rather an attack on the UCI. I take some of the blame as well, because I think my post did make it come off as "rich get richer." NO bike company can really afford to invest a lot in a project only to have the UCI can it. So it's not really "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer." It's more like "the well off barely survive, and the poor die." Of course, this is the opposite of what the UCI *SAYS* it is trying to achieve, but that's not what reality is showing...

---

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

Mark,

If you took my comments to be a shot at Specialized then i probably wasnt clear. I am all for innovation and agree the UCI is, well let us just say "difficult". My comment was aimed at showing that even if a bike is ruled "illegal" months after the Tour, it will still have sold thousands of bikes, albeit maybe not that particular bike. The exposure the Shiv has driven for the Specialized brand has been wonderful and you know a large number of consumers have gone out and purchased Specialized bikes (Roubaix, SL2/3, Allez...)because of the innovation displayed in the Shiv.

again, not taking shots at anyone as i think you guys did a hell of a job desinging the bike and the team (Chris, Robert, Luc...) should all be super proud of that thing as it is a beast.

---

Chance Regina
President
AVC Enterprises

If the fillet is so large between the top and down tubes that it results in more than 80mm of depth, is that legal? If so, the sky is the limit on how large this web could be.
SD: There is a limit to the size of the fillet as it relates to the two tubes that are intersecting. You can't have two tubes 50mm deep and a fillet 80mm. Get a copy of the UCI rules, it is in there.

Also, with a bayonette-style fork, is the "fairing" and head-tube considered one large mass that must fit into the 80mm rule, or are they seen as two separate entities?
SD: Yes, the clarification of the rules now stipulates that additive aero structures must comply. So Bayonet + Head Tube = 80mm. Same with aero water bottles, aero front brakes, etc...

This is getting good. I'm going to get some popcorn, sit back and watch!

-SD

---

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

And didn't mean to come off as feeling attacked. I think everyone's pretty frustrated this year that we can't tell a consumer one way or another "yes or no" about whether they'll be held at the line at a UCI sanctioned event because of a seatpost, etc. All of the energy in the conversation should be focused towards getting a clearer voice with the UCI so this doesn't happen again every 14 years (Lugano Charter...).

As a side note, if we weren't pushed by our teams to innovate this much over the past few years, I don't think the industry would be as re-invigorated to build super bikes like in the 90's.

Don't worry, we're all friends :) Just wish the science could speak more than the rule book. Without these rules, damn you could build a sweet bike.

Mark

---

--
Mark Cote
MITAerobike
Specialized Bicycle Components

"Shiv's coming to the market, for TT riders under the auspices of UCI, and triathlon riders with less stringent equipment requirements."

i just shot off an email to a wauthier asking, sort of "once and for all" what's the deal with these three bikes. legal or no. do i understand you to say that the shiv is definitively legal, just with a tweak or two from it's original soft launch to pro team riders? but, that a shiv-plus version will be available for triathletes? or am i misunderstanding?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It's interesting how marketing plays out with all of this, and I see some distinct parallels between what we are struggling with and F1. Auto companies that pour money into racing technology generally learn a lot from it. Same for companies that sponsor ProTour teams. But, here is the difference between F1 and cycling. A normal person could NEVER go out and buy an F1 car or really anything even remotely similar to it (with the notable exception of the Enzo.) Recreational cyclist and amateur racers aspire to the grandeaur of racing professionally. We buy what they ride, wear what they wear, etc. If the professionals aren't allowed to ride something, what makes that product commercially marketable? Other than to say, "it's too good for even the pro's."

Pro cyclists are the fashion runway models for the entire industry. If they're not using it, how could you possibly go about promoting a product that they can't even use?

But getting back to the situation at hand, it seems that my understanding is now that there are many bikes being ruled illegal by UCI rules. The Shiv, obviously, would be illegal if under the nosecone/frame rule. Same goes actually for the Felt line of TT frames.

We need Graham Obree back in the fold!!

---

Evan Solida
6Design - Industrial Designer specializing in bicycle development

Triathletes don't care about UCI rules, build us these sweet bikes you speak of.

I'm have this hunch that cervelo is going to come out with a P4 with nose cone and uci illegal fork

whether this is true or not let us celebrate it and maybe it will encourage gerard to make it so!

---

---

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