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 definitely "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.[/reply]
I just packed our P3 and P3SL TT and Pursuit bikes. When dissasembling them to put them in their cases I figured it was a good opportunity to measure carefully (again) the P3 seat post. It is close to 3:1 but definitely over. I was figuring that maybe I could file down the exposed part of the seatpost in the rear edge to make it 3:1. Piece of cake I thought... then I noticed the very thin part in the top of the seatpost where the seat rests. No, it seems I will not be able to do this modification in my garage.

I will have to see what the é team comes out with. Not a problem at all for them, I am sure, but I am a little restless. The UCI commissairs will be waiting like sharks ready to measure the TT and Pursuit bikes in the 2010 races to DQF anyone that does not comply. They (as it rightfully should be, I have to say) will show no mercy. It will not matter that we are friends and say hello with a big smile, hug and a couple of slaps in the back, every time we meet at the races. I can see them in my nightmares, trying to disguise a smile, putting a baseball umpire to shame... 'Mr. Escutia, yer bike is out!!!!'

There is only one reason I always carry both the P3 and P3SL to the races. And for the same reason I have not filed down the derailleur bases on the P3SL. I love the UCI. It makes things so much more fun. :-)

Sergio

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: English is not my first language. Please read this translated post considering that.

if it is exclusive, then it isn't UCI legal, and if you are not making it UCI legal, why care about the rules?[/reply]
If it is an exclusive bike, no problem. Tom can ask the British for advise on how to ride the Olympics under UCI rules in custom made bikes. :-)

More seriously Dave, What exactly did you change to the Tk1?

Sergio

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: English is not my first language. Please read this translated post considering that.

If it is an exclusive bike, no problem. Tom can ask the British for advise on how to ride the Olympics under UCI rules in custom made bikes. :-)

More seriously Dave, What exactly did you change to the Tk1?

Sergio[/reply]
On the Tk1: We changed the seatpost to be 3:1, not 4.2:1. The new seatpost has an inserted shape identical to the old illegal post, but the part that is on the outside of the frame is redesigned with the new shape. Because the seapost can no longer be "inserted" up and down to a desired height, the top is now removeable like an ISP frame. we are using the sliding 1-bolt, bolt-on head from Ritchey so there is still 40mm of fore-aft adjustment.

We managed to make the new post lighter, offer a wider range of fit (we used to make two seatposts) fore and aft, and improve yaw aerodynamics while maintaining the same low-drag at low yaw angles.

I'd guess that the UKSI bikes will be available for purchase now, or, they'll be shelved until '12 when they'll take orders for September 1st, 2012 delivery...

We've just recently filled requests to supply some of our frames to some high profile UK riders that previously had access to those frames for their Olympic bids.

-SD

---

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

On the Tk1: We changed the seatpost to be 3:1, not 4.2:1. The new seatpost has an inserted shape identical to the old illegal post, but the part that is on the outside of the frame is redesigned with the new shape. Because the seapost can no longer be "inserted" up and down to a desired height, the top is now removeable like an ISP frame. we are using the sliding 1-bolt, bolt-on head from Ritchey so there is still 40mm of fore-aft adjustment.

We managed to make the new post lighter, offer a wider range of fit (we used to make two seatposts) fore and aft, and improve yaw aerodynamics while maintaining the same low-drag at low yaw angles.

I'd guess that the UKSI bikes will be available for purchase now, or, they'll be shelved until '12 when they'll take orders for September 1st, 2012 delivery...

We've just recently filled requests to supply some of our frames to some high profile UK riders that previously had access to those frames for their Olympic bids.

-SD[/reply]
0k, I got it. But does that means than once you set up the seat post you won't be able to modifiy the BB to seat distance (seat height)?

Sergio

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: English is not my first language. Please read this translated post considering that.

So "Super"dave - have you ever heard the saying "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"?

Just wonderin'...

"yes", "I have".

"There is no question" "we" were "suprised by the clarification" of the fuselage "rules to be extended" to also "include a seatpost and handlebar", and further that there is a distinction between the "allowable ISP" shape and a "conventionally clamped post."

The rules "put forth prior to clarification" seem to have "been violated by some of the bikes" mentioned "in this thread." Things like nosecone fairings on the front of headtubes have always been illegal, but perhaps not enforced to the degree that the rules clarify.

Admittedly, I'm a "student" of the new rules and it has taken a visit to the UCI and "people much smarter than I" am to explain how for example a 110mm cross section on a seat tube is ok for some designs, but not others.

...there goes that trigonometry lesson you mentioned.

-"s"D

---

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

So is that to say that at least SOME of the seemingly capricious behavior of the UCI with respect to the rules and their enforcement may not, in fact, be so off the wall after all?

So why the holier-than-thou attitude further up this thread?

There are a lot of ways to interpret text, Coggan. That is the primary issue with communication over the internet that causes so many little tiffs like this.

Chris

No question about that. However, I wouldn't consider this a "tiff"; I'm really just pointing out to Dave how his statements might be interpreted.

Unfortunately, that is the problem. Any comment can be interpreted in ANY way. It's one of the biggest failings of human interactions and communication methods. Pointing out that someone's comments may be interpreted in a manner which they did not intend is like saying "we're all going to die". You are clearly correct in both cases, but it doesn't really do anyone any good.

Chris

I was just following your lead, doctor.

Whose defense are you coming to? Who have I wronged? Honestly, that wasn't my intention and I am sorry if I made it seem as though I had all the answers, obviously that isn't the case. Most of my comments should have "I think" or other such disclaimers unless I am specifically commenting on information I know to be factual, rather than speculate to be probable.

I'm not suprised illegal bikes are now illegal. I am suprised bikes that were once legal are now illegal and I am suprised that illegal bikes were allowed despite not fitting the template for legality.

I really want to make my position and attitude clear here, can you point out the comment, or the reply I posted that is inappropriate? I'll revise the wording.

I have no doubt that there are far holier folks than I and I thank you for steering my moral compass back where it belongs.

FYI: My shit stinks, too, and both my pot and kettle are black. Truth be told, like many others here, I'm just an ignorant bike-nerd MOP bike racer.

Hey! I resemble that comment!

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

As I see it? Just about anybody else attempting to build the most aerodynamic bicycle that can be used in UCI-sanctioned races.

Not sure I get that. How has SD or Felt wronged anyone? Near as I can tell they've made the bike they believe to be best under the UCI restraints, but I don't see what actions they've made to wrong any other company.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

I was talking about Superdave's comments in this (and other) threads, not his or Felt's actions.

EDIT: Maybe it would clearer if he had written "offended" instead of "wronged".

AC - Are you defending Cervelo again? Is that the issue here? That SuperDave implied/stated that companies playing on the fringe of UCI rules are going to get burned...

As an outsider trying to garner info on the compliant/non-compliant SHIV, it seems that you are off base on the SuperDave issue. Guy seems down the middle on this one.

But continue on with your cat fight. Nothing like watching one company (Felt) and a defacto employee of another (Cervelo) go at it. All and all, makes for good lunch time reading.

So is that to say that at least SOME of the seemingly capricious behavior of the UCI with respect to the rules and their enforcement may not, in fact, be so off the wall after all?

I, for one, am not willing to acribe any degree of intelligence, professionalism or consistency to the UCI actions in regards to bicycle standards. I agree there should be some standards and very generally, the rules now seem to work to some degree. However, this whole business with the new TT bikes has just been a complete debacle. The first time I ever saw a pic of the Shiv I said, "Dude, no way is the UCI going to let that fly." And then Fabian used it in the Tour, Vuelta and Worlds. And only now is the UCI thinking about banning it? The Giant falls in the same category. As for the P4, I kind of think the aerobottle was a good way to do it. You do need to carry water on a bike, after all, though not so much for many time trials.

Rules that constantly need to be clarified were not well written in the first place and were not well reviewed before they were published. The UCI has been doing this for years.
Beyond even the issue of the poorly-written rules, they can't even enforce them with any consistency. Today something is legal, tomorrow not.
There ought to be deadlines throughout the year for when a new design can be introduced and approved. Maybe end of January for spring races and mid-June for the rest of the year. If your bike is not approved then, you get to wait until next period.
Plus, they really ought to enforce their rule that it be available to the public. You receive approval in Jan/Jun, then by the next quarter X number of units are available to the market.
Personally, I think the UCI ought to have a bike rules committee with equal representatives from the bike industry so you don't just have a bunch of old farts dictating from on high.
Chad

he is just pointing out that EVERY bike company has bent the rules or been surprised by the uci

in one post superdave said nobody should be surprised

in a later one he said they were surprised

what?

come on bike companies, admit it, the uci is nuts!

=)

---

---

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

And yet Superdave is on here touting how Felts are all (now!) UCI compliant, and the lengths to which they have gone to make sure this was so, all the while doing his best to poke a stick in the eye of any other manufacturers. (Personally, I think he's just jealous of the fact that Specialized and Giant were able to get away with stretching that nose cone way out there, while Felt attempted to play by the rules by not doing so with the Bayonet fork.)

well to Felt's credit they do seem to have done a better job than most.

---

---

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

The Giant/Techdev/Veloscience bike(s) was the first IIRC. Used in the 2008 Tour -- won the World Men ITT Champs in 2008. Used all thru 2009 ... and is now reportedly banned? How long does one organization NEED to comprehend and enforce their own rules???? Something is clearly amiss .. . . . . .

At least the Giant is available for ordering (if not delivery!) - I was considering one for 2010 but now it's like time has frozen if not reversed.

Did Einstein foresee this? Is the UCI really a nasty black hole created by the LHC? They're both mostly in Switzerland aint' they? :-) :-)

That was not my intention, you can read by some of the posts here that people are specifically asking which rules are being enfored now that are preventing these bikes from being used. I mentioned that in some cases; they are not new rules, just that they are now being enforced. In other cases, it is the clarification of terms that has led to them being outlawed, and in others, the amendments that encompass elements like ISP, stems, cranksets, etc... that had previously not been identified.

Please let me know which of my posts offends and I'll delete or reword it to your satisfaction. I hoped to be as informative as I am able to based on what I've learned and how I interpret. There is always the possibility (and even likelyhood) that I am wrong. I regret that Felt has been dragged into my shortcomings in authoring and articulating my comments not as mud-slinging, but as the if/when/how/why of the information provided by the OP.

Providing a copy of emails or communication to verify the facts I've presented as they relate to the UCI or current designs or future Felt designs wouldn't add any credibility here, I'd prefer to focus on providing clear straightforward information and getting back to making the fastest UCI legal bikes available.

-SD

---

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

mcevt,

there are times I wish that I could make a comment without the "me" becoming "us"

I understand however that my posts are often viewed as a Felt Company edict, so I'll carefully choose my words. It was never my intention to offend, and if I've done so I want to correct that. I consider guys like AC & Mark Cote (and Dan, Steve, Steve, JC...) an authority on aerodynamics and use both of them as a resource in my training, setting up my own equipment, and choosing a vareity of component options. Offending them could risk losing this resource.

I don't want to engage in an argument, in fact, I look forward to the inevitable holes getting punched in my viewpoint so I can review, update, and learn from them.

-SD

---

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