Can anyone clarify this for me, it seems as though the USCF has gone mad in following the UCI.
See 1.3.013 on page 160, with these new rules, many tri and TT bikes made today are USCF illegal, out of the box as the saddle nose of the bike extends forward of the BB.
Also, 1.3.020 on page 161 makes beam bikes illegal for mass start road events, and the 3x1 tubing ration is in effect:
http://www.usacycling.org/rulebooks/2004_uscf_rulebook.pdf
Is this nuts!!!
Yes, well, for “international permitted races”. You may have missed the bit that says “These regulations do not apply to USCF domestic races until January 1, 2007…”
Did you notice the following section that says for massed start races, only wheels with more than 12 spokes (no HED3 or disks) and which have passed the UCI rupture test will be allowed.
Ken Lehner
I am not a cyclist so I probably don’t have much of a right to comment, but I will anyway-from the outside, I think a lot of the cyclist rules (and attitudes) are bull shit. I really do wish there was more cycling in my area (I bet triathletes outnumber “cyclists” 10-1 or even more) but some of the rules (and attitudes) do not help.
Words from a cyclist.
Ever see a guys arms go IN TO a Hed Tri Spoke and damn near get cut off in a Crti? I have…I have thought for years that it is just not safe to ride in a Crit with Tri spokes and Quad spokes out there acting as a gee-yo-teen for falling cyclists. I would much rather bounce off spokes than go IN TO a wheel. (The crash I saw - a guy had both arms go into a Specialized Tri and get cut more than 50% when the wheel jammed his arms into the seat stays - both arms were destroyed - multiple exposed fractures)
Any bike with the “Steep” angles and a forward seat is not as stable as a bike with more slack angles…the more stable bike is safer for the pack.
Most tri people I know can not ride “no handed” on their bikes. Part of the issue is the lesser gyroscopic force of the smaller wheels to keep the bike upright and inline. The other part is that the weight distribution is not towards the rear of the bike…I know for a fact that I can hold my line much better on my Ultimate’s or Palmeres than I can on my Rocket R1 or other TT style bikes.
It would be a shame if USCF was to adopt NASCAR style NAZI rules (say “UCI”)…but part of it may be to not give the advantage to the team with the most money to buy the lightest “fastest” bike. For 99.9% of us, it is hard to buy speed…for Cat 1-2 guys…even seconds can count.
Can anyone clarify this for me, it seems as though the USCF has gone mad in following the UCI.
See 1.3.013 on page 160, with these new rules, many tri and TT bikes made today are USCF illegal, out of the box as the saddle nose of the bike extends forward of the BB.
Also, 1.3.020 on page 161 makes beam bikes illegal for mass start road events, and the 3x1 tubing ration is in effect:
http://www.usacycling.org/rulebooks/2004_uscf_rulebook.pdf
Is this nuts!!!
Damn!! Is it 2007 already??
here is an e-mail I got from USCF:
The rule you cite is a UCI rule, which is only applied in UCI races or
National Championships that are direct qualifiers for worlds or
olympics. However, as of 2007, all bicycles must conform. There is no
exception to this rule based on what bike you have. There is an exception based
on the riders morphology however, which is explained in the footnote at
the bottom of page 160 and top of 161.
I certainly am not going to take up for the bike handling skills of triathletes. I bike with guys that have a hard time navigating any deviation from a 3 foot weave in a more-or-less straight line. However, I think the bike authorities hide a lot of rules behind BS claims of safety. The resistance to helmets caused total loss of respect in my eyes for any of these other questionable safety claims. As for the arguments associated with not wanting to reward those with money, that is debated regularly in the triathlon community (which has gone the route of “let them spend it”)-I question whether the rules really accomplish the desired goal-the money is still spent in other ways (training, freedom from other commitments, coaching, supplements, high tech clothing, and on and on)-the question is whether it is worth it. For me-if the cyclist outlaw it, I at least consider it, unless I am satisfied that there is a safety issue involved. I really do not care whether some cyclist idol’s records are broken due to technology. To differing degrees, technology has helped all sports and resulted in broken records.
Why should I care? This is USCF, not USAT, and they are just bringing their regs in line with the dominant governing body in the sport. Sounds reasonable to me.
This is pretty bad news for some frame manufacturers, but they will adapt.
Canada adopted the UCI rules when they first came out, and the world did not end. It is good to have a standard to refer to when designing and setting up a bike. I think you will find that very little will change for the average roadie who does TT’s, and those who want to race under UCI rules just have to get on with it.
That being said, the 5 cm rule does seem rather arbitrary, but it is easy enough to respect. If you ride slam, then no problem. Otherwise, Dan has certainly provided ample info on how to position yourself with slacker geometry.
My experience at the local/provincial level is that the commissaires will not waste their time checking your bike. You may (or may not) find it the same in the states.