That's a lot of faith in the Kamm tail design and Trek's marketing data. The Kamm tail has been around since the 70s and would certainly not be unknown to any of the engineers at the other companies. There *may* be a reason it was never used on bikes before. You are making a huge amount of assumptions about what it will (or will not) take to make a bike that is faster than it. I think it's a very, very cool bike (and there are actually things about it that are much cooler, IMO, than the Kamm tail, some of which you'll see for the first time in Kona), but as others have pointed out, all you need to do is open up a magazine to see a multitude of ads claiming "the world's fastest bike," all from different companies. Simply put, I think we all need to get beyond "this bike is the fastest because they say so."

But that's really neither here nor there. What is obvious is that NO bike can be considered safe from UCI regs. The Shiv and Giant TT bike have both been used for a lot longer than the Trek, and now they are suddenly illegal, despite being used for over two years in the case of the Giant. If the bikes mentioned do get banned, I think it would behoove Trek to join up with those manufacturers to protect their investment in the SpeedConcept.

---

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

If the bikes mentioned do get banned, I think it would behoove Trek to join up with those manufacturers to protect their investment in the SpeedConcept.

I agree. At some point, when is the tail wagging the the dog? Bicycle sales drive pro cycling, at least to some degree. These companies need to give the UCI the riot act. The bike rules are not clearly written, stifle innovation and at worst, are enforced irregularly, not at all or, as in this case, after a bike has been used for a while. Silly. I have no idea how much power bike companies have, but they have some.

Chad

Well thank GOD for the UCI.

Here are som more suggestions on things to ban:

Non round handlebars.
Handlebartape made of synthetic materials.
Ergonomically shaped handlebars.
A-headsets
Too long or short stems made of other materials than metal.
Brakelevers with ergonomic skapes.
Indexed shifters.
Aerobars of all kinds and shapes.
Saddles lighter than 300g made from other materials other than leather and steel.
Double pivot brakes with exotic materials in the brakepads.
Wheels with less than 32 spokes (spokes must be round of course and made out of metal)
Rims lighter than 500g and deeper than 10mm, made out of metal of course.
Rims with machined braketracks.
Hubs with ceramic bearings.
Hubs not made out of 100% metal.
"Exotic lubricants"
Non-metal seatposts longer than 15 cm.
Clincher tires.
Puncture resitant belts in tires.
Clip in pedals.
Non metal cranks with length other than 170mm.
Only 10 gears total should be allowed.
Bottom brackets other than square taper should be banned.
Only frames with "classic geometry" should be allowed. Made from steel of course.
Frame tube diameter on any tube should not exceed 27.2 mm.

I also suggest clothes made from synthetic materials should be banned and also aero helmets (they look ridiculous!!)

This is just a start, I can think of much more...

why wouldnt a triathlete buy one of those bikes?

glad to see trek speed concept is not in the group though :P

---

=====================================
S�rgio Marques
When it hurts is when it feels good ;-)
Sergio-Marques.com

After I just bought a p2 sl, the only question is, do I have one of the fastest legal bikes now??? Or did I just bought a frame the UCI will ban as well?

Since the P2 SL is not a lugged frame and made of that hi tech material -aluminium, it will probably be outlawed in the near future...
Try to se if your granddad has an old bike in his garage, it will probably be legal for some years to come (if it was made in france at least).

I still have an old bike from the 80's. Shifters on the frame!

But there was a time when you flipped your back wheel to switch between (2 ) gears...who knows how much backwards
Union of Complete Idiots will take this? Yeah, I´m still pissed for them making my Zipp 3001 illegal back in 1999 (or thereabouts)

I don't think it is bad that the UCI is making certain bikes illegal. It is the way they do it that is ridiculous. They should not make already used bikes illegal, but use a very clear set of rules so everyone who invents or buys a bike knows what is going to be legal and what not. Now there are roadies who bought bikes/bars/wheels they can not use anymore. I would be pissed if my new p2 is going to be illegal next year in triathlon. I am glad that I am not riding tt's.

Before we all going bonkers over this email let's keep in mind this is unconfirmed rumor at this point and nothing official has been stated. The manufacturers affected have not made statments. The UCI, who has made all sorts of decisions public lately, has not said anything.
And I hear this email is coming out of Kestrel who it so happens has a brand new TT bike they just introduced into the market that is billed at UCI legal. Hmmmmm if that part of this rumor is true.

I think I made that clear.

Not arguing that. Just reminding everyone.
I have a friend who apparently got an email from same person on the board as well.
I was told that the source of info was from Kestrel. It seems to me that if that is true (and who knows what is true and what is BS at this point), they have a vested interest in spreading that "news"/ rumor regardless whether it is true or not.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Interesting to see if the other manufacturers respond to this directly as I am sure they know about this email by now and are receiving numerous inquiries.

Seems it there was no truth to the rumor, you would be seeing the possible mfgs impacted screaming it is not true. So, where are they?

Dav

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

talking to their lawyers?

they are too busy saying "fuckit" and drawing up crazy non uci designs

with freakin laser beams

---

---

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

Yep, that could be one reason for them being quiet.

Dave

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

time to impeach the UCI I say.

Along with such recent gems as banning race radios, dropping flagship events like the pursuit from the 2012 Olympics, and the latest rumoured debacle .... then just a little farther back the whole Protour fiasco ... and probably a dozen other examples over the past few yrs .... I mean, if you were trying to destroy the sport of cycling - could you do any BETTER than the UCI?

RE: 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."
_______________________

Rappster, you are 100% correct here. Gerard has said 30% of the total operating budget for the UCI calendar comes from bike companies (see velonews.com TV). bikes, advertising, sponsorship etc. If the big boys simply said fuck you to the UCI there would be no pro tour, continental tour and the like. The power and solution really is within the bike industry's control.

---

@rhyspencer

UCI is also banning shifting. Select your gear before the race and man up.

Seems to me that UCI are the Mennonites of the cycling community.

Seeing no reputable source has picked this up, not looking good for this one.

But- the new manufacturers group was formed to help prevent things like this, based on the UCI's half-assed 3:1 component ratio implementation this year.

Another issue (point out by Velonews) is the UCI tech adviser apparently isn't well qualified for the position, which also had led to some head shaking decisions.

I would assume Dan and Herbert are out trying to get some facts.

Dave

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

not even, the mennonites have much more rational reasons for the tech they refuse to adopt than the uci does.

---

---

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

This year I broke my rear shifter cable during a race. I had the second bike time in a tri, despite riding 45 of 60 k with only one gear! I had a very good bike ride despite that just having an 11 in the back lowered the cadence significantly during the strong head wind and side wind sections... I must have been in the low 50's some parts of the ride.

If UCI would do this, I would love them! Always select the 11 in the back!

I'm in agreement here, although no matter what rules they do come out with there will always be folks trying to get around them, and then the UCI is slow to react so we're back where we are now... banning stuff retroactively.

It's easy to rag on the UCI because they go about things in such an arbitrary fashion so I'm not trying to defend their decision-making process, but I gotta go Devil's advocate here in terms of the general question of pushing bike design - how should bike design be regulated? Not at all? Where would it stop? There are already engineering competitions to design the fastest human-powered vehicles (which end up being faired recumbents), but nobody is interested in watching them. So where does the line get drawn, and by whom if not the UCI? And wherever that line gets draw, company X will put their nose a mm over the line, and we say so what? Then company Y puts out a design that is 1mm beyond company X, which still doesn't seem like a big deal, but then on it goes and before long you end up saying "wait a minute, the line we drew was back THERE."