So all the talk lately about the new Specialized Shiv (or “Transhiv” as I like to call it) got me thinking. Yes, this new bike is not UCI-legal, but why? Not so much in terms of what specific UCI rules it does not adhere to, but rather why does UCI impose these sorts of rules on the design of a bike in the first place? For example, why is there a rule regarding the 3:1 ratio of the downtube? And why is there a rule regarding the distance between the bottom bracket and the nose of the saddle. I think I can understand rules about fairings and such, and maybe even recumbents, but many of UCI’s other rules just seem silly.
I hope that there are some really good reasons for these rules, but I have not been able to find any good information on the subject. Hopefully someone here on ST can enlighten me…
Its kinda like Nascar, the bike needs to fit within certain dimensions so that everyone is on a somewhat level playing field. I do not follow car racing, but I do know that before races they can check cars with these big templates to make sure the car fits within them. It is the same idea really. I can understand why they have these rules, but the way they go about enforcing them is completely idiotic.
Its legal…wait no its not…wait yes it is…no, its not…wait its legal again…nope now its not. All about 5 minutes before the start of a race
they want to keep bikes traditional looking
safe
convenient
and not have there be too much of a tech war (remember that juniors, sometimes from very poor countries, compete within the UCI as well)
.
It has to do with maintaining the “spirit of the sport” and other arbitrary cockamamie nonsense. Watch the movie “The Flying Scotsman” it will give you some good insights into the jacked up way the UCI operates, its also a great movie about a great cyclist. It seems like they are just stuck in the past and want everyone on steel frames with triple cross wheels. Carbon fiber is the equivalent of marrying your sister and aerodynamics are the devil himself.
It has to do with maintaining the “spirit of the sport” and other arbitrary cockamamie nonsense. Watch the movie “The Flying Scotsman” it will give you some good insights into the jacked up way the UCI operates, its also a great movie about a great cyclist. It seems like they are just stuck in the past and want everyone on steel frames with triple cross wheels. Carbon fiber is the equivalent of marrying your sister and aerodynamics are the devil himself.
Sadly I think that is the real reason. I like to believe its to make sure everyone is on the same playing field…of course I’m a bit of an optimist.
Yeah I think the whole “keeping the playing field level” and “keeping the sport approachable for all athletes” is total crap. Show me a bike in the tour that costs less than what 8-10 grand and I would be surprised.
I went to a little christian HS and the principal admitted to me once that 2-3 weeks before the start of school each year he would go to the mall and get all the clothing catalogs he could find and he would look for what was cool or hot or trendy and thats that we used to come up with his banned list of clothes for the year. This totally shocked me as it was not based on anything moral or values based but solely on what he knew we would want.
I feel like this is what the UCI does. They wait till someone shows up to the dance with something cool and they ban it just because its cool and they can.
Trek Y foil. BANNED
All beam bikes BANNED
lets not forget last year when the 3:1 rule was implemented weeks before the start of the tour. WTF??? How does the 3:1 rule “level the playing field” when it forces EVERYONE to throw away gear they have and get new gear.
I think I can understand rules about fairings and such, and maybe even recumbents, but many of UCI’s other rules just seem silly.
Easily 98% of the UCsillyI’s rules are plain dumb and dreadful. Not only do these crazy rules impede the progress of technology and of great ideas, they have big and very negative environmental consequences as well.
The UCI regulations began development after the '96 olympics. They were alarmed by the non traditional bikes such as the GT, Lotus and the Australian team bike along with the hour record attempts of Obree and Boardman… The imperative seemed to be that a bicycle “should look like a bicycle”. Its unfortunate that instead of having a technical commission with engineers and industry representatives they instead chose Waulthier who is a sports “philosopher” and we instead ended up with the current list of ad-hoc vaguely written and abitarily enforced rules. The new approval process seems like a step in the right direction.
The ironic part is that the rules seem to have done nothing to reduce costs. You can get a significant advantage with one of the expensive next generation superbikes and components. If they truly wanted poor juniors to compete, how about a standard inexpensive frame design? Or restriction to round tubing and bar sections, low profile wheels etc?
well in the long run the 3:1 rule should make aerobars and seatposts a little safer.
I feel as if they have vaguely good intentions but very unintelligent people trying to implement those intentions.
Not sure that I follow your logic on this. You can make almost any ratio stiff enough to meet the safety and performance needs of cyclists, without imposing arbitrary rules. You can bet that big companies like Specialized, Trek and Cervelo are not going to risk product safety - they have way too many lawyers for that to happen ;-). Just look at your front fork dropout if you have any doubt as to the power of lawyers - those silly little tabs completely negate the usefulness of a quick-release skewer, yet have become standard on bikes due to “concerns” about wheels coming off. The first thing I do when I get a new bike is file those darned things off - just don’t go call the fork police on me, please!
Just look at your front fork dropout if you have any doubt as to the power of lawyers - those silly little tabs completely negate the usefulness of a quick-release skewer, yet have become standard on bikes due to “concerns” about wheels coming off. The first thing I do when I get a new bike is file those darned things off - just don’t go call the fork police on me, please!
I have always wondered about this, do you really believe they **completely **negate the QR? Have you ever tried to change a flat with a wheel bolted on? OR with a lawyer tab is very simple? For me The risk involved in removing them and a tire launching during a crash is worse than the reward of not having to rotate a QR axle 720 degrees prior to taking off the wheel, which takes 1.2 seconds. I agree with Jackmott though the intentions are often appropriate the implementation is asinine.
Yeah I think the whole “keeping the playing field level” and “keeping the sport approachable for all athletes” is total crap. Show me a bike in the tour that costs less than what 8-10 grand and I would be surprised.
Believe it or not, there is more to the sport of cycling than “the tour”
Now, whether or not the UCI’s intentions are really to keep the sport on a level playing field or not, I do not know, but it is true that youth in poor countries do attempt to participate in the sport and have little chance of succeeding if cycling becomes all about technology.
Firsthand experience. 2003 I rode in the inaugural Tour d’Afrique across Africa (Cairo-Capetown). In Ethiopia, south of Bahir Dar where the Chinese had gotten to paving the roads, we were joined for the remainder of the country to Kenya border by a handful of youths training for some races in Addis Ababa and hoping to get an invite to Jr Worlds somewhere. Let me tell you, that by that point in my journey I was fit as hell, lean as hell, and there were some actual bike racers amongst us (as opposed to this triathlete poser) who were strong as hell. When I got back home that I went out for a group ride and just shredded everyone. I was fit as hell. These young Ethiopians (one in particular), though, could ride us off their wheels at will. They had some Canadian “coach”, but no technology and only gear they could scrape up or get donated. 80s bikes, downtubing shifting, and they took all of our discarded tubes and tires to patch up and keep using. I don’t know whether kids like these trying to get into cycling from a 3rd world country stand a chance (and surely the same talent and situations exist in S. America), but it is out there and “technology doping” will only exacerbate the separation of haves and havenots.
Personally, I can’t see why so many people care whether a bike is UCI-legal. Bike manufacturers make UCI-legal bikes because everyone wants to buy one, but how many people actually plan to participate in a UCI-regulated race, e.g. nationals, NRC, Tour of Utah, Tour de Beauce? It’s consumer attitude that is stifling innovation.
I guess it helps when you come to sell it, just in case Cadel needs wants to buy my bike.
Personally, I can’t see why so many people care whether a bike is UCI-legal. Bike manufacturers make UCI-legal bikes because everyone wants to buy one, but how many people actually plan to participate in a UCI-regulated race, e.g. nationals, NRC, Tour of Utah, Tour de Beauce? It’s consumer attitude that is stifling innovation.
Not necessarily…it is very much about SKU management. Bike suppliers that sponsor Pro teams need UCI compliant bikes. And since most of those companies are also selling the bikes for triathlon, the UCI regulations impact the designs for tri simply because of SKU management. Not to mention that there are only so many R&D dollars to go around. In the past, the numbers could not justify having a dedicated TT bike and a dedicated tri bike, especially since most could be used across both disciplines. as the tri market has grown, that thinking is starting to change.
