They never measure the bikes at these events. My wife road races, and does a number of TT’s each year.
Ha, right until a jerk gets one step off the podium. Happened here at a grass roots TT. He complained, results were changed.
The one race that more than few slowtwitcher’s might be affected would be Master’s TT Nationals. That is a UCI race and they do measure.
Otherwise, there are basically no UCI races that people on Slowtwitch participate in. The vast majority of road races, stage races, and state time trials are not UCI.
There are just a very few NRC races that are UCI and have a time trial on a TT bike. Most likely no one on this forum is even planning to do one of those races.
If I only did triathlons I wouldn’t care less about this “potential” rule change.
Ha, right until a jerk gets one step off the podium. Happened here at a grass roots TT. He complained, results were changed.
Chip,
Yes, Indeed. It’s always good until THAT guy shows up and then ruins it for everyone else!!
A podium place in the Hobunks Corners 40K TT, is a big deal 
A podium place in the Hobunks Corners 40K TT, is a big deal
How did you know it was the Hobunks Corners race? I mean, that T-Shirt and the corn cob trophy were pretty snazzy. I woulda fought for them too.
Hmmm…I’m at a loss to see what, if anything has changed in the rules. My brief perusal of the current rulebook shows that none of the applicable sections are changed from what they’ve been in the recent past…
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&
Is this just another “interpretation change”, once again not supported by the actual rule text (such as the previous supposed inference that aerobar extensions and forearms had to be horizontal)?
I think the quote in the following article speaks volumes about what the “true story” is:
http://velonews.com/article/85255
The idea has been floated a couple of times, but it’s been shot down, largely on the recommendations of the UCI’s “technical consultant” Jean Wauthier. Wauthier, whose technical expertise in cycling comes from his background in industrial ergonomics, is also the guy who advanced the rule changes that shot down some of Graeme Obree’s innovative approaches to time trialing…
…You might guess by now that we’re not huge fans of Mr. Wauthier. We’ve tried interviewing him and it’s nearly impossible to do so. He just doesn’t make a lot of sense from the technical side of things. At first, we thought that perhaps it was because of the language barrier, so we brought along a French-speaking colleague with a strong background in the technical side of cycling. Nope, it didn’t help. After a 30-minute interview in French, our associate looked at us and said, “I have no idea what the hell the guy’s been talking about.”
'nuff said…
Dev,
I think you’re on the money about SoftRide and about companies needing to have known pros to use their products. It really is all about marketing and finding your target audience. And you’re probably right about the NAS folks entering UCI events on the tri-rigs.
You may (or I may have misunderstood) have missed in comparing the 2200 NAS to all the US UCI folks. The market for TT equipment is huge. As a 50+ roadie, I do 4 of the 6 or 7 TT events in our district. At least 25 of the 50+ folks in my district have dedicated TT rigs. That’s just my age group. The same kind of thing you’d see in an IM transition area. Cervellos, Plamas, Blades, Giants, TTXs, etc. All the goodies, too. Heds, Zipps, Renns, wheelcovers, 808s and 1080s, as well as the occasional Corima and Mavic selections. Now, in the local districts, the UCI rules are always enforced. The only time it counts is for Nationals. At our championships, if you think you have a chance at qualifying, then your bike has to be measured.
Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that the TT market is very large. Sometimes, companies just don’t realize what the market wants. TT helmets is a great example. Look how long it took to get GIRO to make the Advantage available in the US.
The only reason to make aero stuff that is UCI compliant is to get it under the asses of pro riders, so it can then be used for the mass triathlon market. If it was just a matter of selling TT bikes to UCI riders, there is likely no business case for developing those bikes…I am sure that Gerard, Superdave, Sharad, Patrice Lemieux and others won’t come out and admit it in black and white, but in every business, you want to make sure that your stuff is used by some marquis high profile accounts so that mass market adoption ensues… Look at Dave Greenfield and Elite. Doing just fine targetting the triathlon market.
The only reason Softride tanked is they blew their marketing.
Dev,
I’d be happy to admit it and do so everytime I’m asked. I don’t think Gerard, Sharad, or Patrice could survive on Dave’s sales volume. So mass market promotion is critical. These guys are pretty bright, and they aren’t going to spend time developing bikes that don’t pay the bills.
Softride blew their marketing by not producing a bike they could market to the masses, get it?
-SD
The only reason Softride tanked is they blew their marketing. They did not need UCI compliance to survive (just like Elite). Their PR department was unable to overcome some perceived objection by trigeeks that they would not be able to use their bikes in an UCI race…ask yourself how many of the 2200 in an NASport transition enter UCI race with their tri rigs…my guess is less than 50.
Dev,
Good points. However, the demise of Softride I think is actually indirectly related to being non-UCI compliant. I think the marketing for triathlon has changed. Years ago, you just needed to focus on the top A level triathletes, sponsor them and get your product on them or under them, but the game has changed. Back then the sport was much smaller and more homogeneous. Now it is much larger and more diverse. Believe it or not their ar many triathletes who don’t know who Dave Scott or Peter Reid or even Chris McCormack is. But that same triathlete, may follow Pro Road cycling avidly. Anecdotally, based on posts here on ST, my sense is that many triathletes follow, Pro Road racing in a BIG way. Therefore, marketing dollars spent their will feedback and influence the tri bike market. Cervelo was perhaps the first company to actually see this in action - “born” in tri- broke out of Tri into road- then success in road feeds back to nurture the Tri market even more.
Reply to fatandslow, Superdave and Fleck.
Fatandslow, I did not realize that the TT market is so huge in your geography. For example, locally, I doubt that the local bike shops would survive selling rigs to just roadies going out of the local TT’s. The $$$$$$ in our local tri transition zone far outstrips our local TT lineup’s aggregate $$$. The fat part of the bell curve is trigeeks getting aero goodies (bikes and accessories). Most local roadies will just by a road bike.
Superdave, the point I was making about Softride is that they were unable to convince trigeeks that a UCI legal bike was not required. That is a failure of their marketing. They had an aerodynamically superior product and their ride comfort was superior to anything on the market. Morever, the fattest subset of the fat part of the bell curve that makes up the overall market is triathletes age 35-49…they guys are the aging boomers and actually have big wallets and generally bad backs and failing body parts. Softride had multiple Ironman course records under Jurgen Zack’s butt. As far as I am concerned, if you can’t win with all of that in your favour, you missed the marketing boat. UCI rules or not.
Fleck, I think you are actually supporting my points. As I said the main reason to get under UCI riders is to milk them for marketing exposure so that you can sell back to triathletes (the largest part of the market)…not neccessarily to sell back to roadies, although fatandslow says that market is larger than I think.
Softride had multiple Ironman course records under Jurgen Zack’s butt. As far as I am concerned, if you can’t win with all of that in your favour, you missed the marketing boat.
Dev,
Thats’ my point - that’s the old marketing boat. Back then what Zack rode mattered in the Tri world. It did have impact. Now, if recent history is true, it may be more important what Cancellara is riding!** **The advantages to the marketers, is that they get to work the Tri and the Road markets at the same time!!
:…Softride blew their marketing by not producing a bike they could market to the masses, get it? "
The masses are the triathlon market. They don’t really **need **UCI legal…although they might want one for some unknown reason. They really want fast and comfort over UCI legal for sure. Softride failed and convincing trigeeks that UCI legal is not required. if their marketing was good, they would have convinced trigeeks that they want the fastest aero bike that is comfortable and that they do not NEED UCI compliant
Fleck, there is no old and new marketing. It is not like the psychology of how one appeals to humans suddenly changed in 10 years or even 15.
It is simply about making the customer’s perceived wants “serviceable by your product offering”. Take away all the objections and position your strengths. This did not change. Anything that is a “need” that is not serviceable by your product, has to be pushed into the “nice to have category” and out of the “required” category.
My question to you…without putting your wetsuits on FINA swimmers, how the heck do your market them to triathletes? We’re talking about the same buyer who is buying the UCI rig as the one buying wetsuits. Do you think putting Lochte in a Nineteen bathing suit will sell you more suits than putting Chrissie Wellington in a Nineteen wetsuit?
It is just a matter of how you package up your message and what market niche you want to chase. Softride blew it. They had massive momentum and could not capitalilze on it. Same as Nortel with conveged voice and IP networks (vs Cisco). Whenever there is a real or perceived paradigm shift in an industry, victory is about how the incumbents deal with change. Today is potentially no different.
Dev
My question to you…without putting your wetsuits on FINA swimmers, how the heck do your market them to triathletes? We’re talking about the same buyer who is buying the UCI rig as the one buying wetsuits. Do you think putting Lochte in a Nineteen bathing suit will sell you more suits than putting Chrissie Wellington in a Nineteen wetsuit?
That’s a good point and it is the logical extension of what I am talking about. Blue Seventy is having a go at that now. Although, the gig may be up as FINA is set to rule on the new swim-skins made by all the wetsuit manufacturers. Their is a chance they may be outlawed. That issue aside, I don’t see the frenzy and the passion for road cycling in triathletes at the same level in those same triathletes for pool swimming. Just look at the threads here on Slowtwitch. A rough guess is that their are 10 threads on bikes to every one thread on swimming. Most wetsuit threads drop off the first page with 2 posts and 10 views and then are gone for good in a space of a few minutes, while a thread on the colours of Cancelleras saddle can be on the front page for days with several thousand views!! So I am guessing that while it would be good for exposure, in that market their would be not the back cross-over that the bike companies get in the Tri bike market from marketing in the road market. Just my thoughts.
Fleck,
I agree with Dev all the way on this.
You said I was acting as an unnecessary alarmist. I was responding to the cyclingnews article, which is pretty significant:
If bicycle manufacturers continue with their current pattern of producing bikes that serve both UCI compliance and then sell well over 80% of these bicycles to triathletes who are not under UCI regulations, then the outcome will simply be that triathletes will be buying less aero, slower bicycles in 2010 than they are riding today.
Currently, manufacturers blow some serious smoke up our triathlete-asses, telling us that UCI compliant bikes are faster than non-UCI bikes (Softride, Lotus, Cheetah, Zipp) while ignoring the R&D capital that has gone into the advancement of UCI compliant bikes over the past 10 years with no companies in that time mass producing non-UCI compliant bikes. The Lance factor is probably most likely the cause of this - Lance was riding a UCI legal bike, that’s what the average triathlon age grouper is going to buy.
The possible good news is that this UCI ‘clearing up of an old rule’ may encourage triathletes, the ones buying these bikes, to wise up and no longer fear UCI regulations and buy non-UCI triathlon specific bikes despite Pro Tour riders not riding them. It may become common knowledge that the Pro Tour guys have their hands tied but that triathletes do not. Maybe companies won’t have to throw down marketing capital to convince triathletes otherwise and these companies can thrive off of selling non-UCI triathlon specific bikes.
Sure, some people will fight such a change, and seeing how fear of change creates anger, it will be that minority of people who may be most visible, but change is inevitable and in this case, the UCI may have drastically sped up this needed change.
bThe final picture of the bunch was of the “UCI,” which was the photoshopped picture of a guy sticking his head up his a**. That picture gets more and more applicable.
Sooooo very true.
Howdy Kids,
Manhattan was AWESOME, Fleck, Yes I did some 'Reservoir laps for YOU, My Man!
Anyway, I just do not lose ANY sleep over UCI or ITU
Neither affect my world, or the retail buyer’s world (if you are good enough for either, you do not BUY, you RECEIVE)
I will run my Jet9 C2s on my R3, my H3Deep and JetDiscC2 on my P3/4 and so on…why would I care a 'rip about some blue-suited euro-trash opinion?
Next burning point: Drugs(PEDS) Honour System or testing?
(I say the former, it works for drafting (insert pink font and a big-ass smiley:)
Thomas A Price
The Spartan Athelete
Mentoring, coaching, consulting
Watch for me at IMC/ULTRAMAN-Can this Year!
Ok, So I’m reading through this thread, and I’m confused.
DOes this mean that say the Cervelo P2. Felt, Look, etc or a regular standard tri bike that you pick up and buy at your LBS. Is that bike going to be legal under UCI rules.
Someone said that these rules arent really applicable to the random regular tri races that are across the US, except for a few of the major races. But, under this new ruling, are the regular joe smoe tri bikes now going to be illegal?
Perhaps as the next step the UCI will ban any frame and component that isnt cylindrical in cross section and more than 1" in diameter and demand that rims be box section, shifters be returned to their rightfull place on the downtube and brake cables emerge from the top of the brake levers!
Kevin
That’s how the Hour record is done these days (brake cables and shifters aside)!
First, Dave I would love to hear your take on UCI’s interpretation of their own rules. It seems to me that some bikes tak advantage of the rules on tube junctions and exceeding 80mm, especially in the headtube and seattube area. I seem to remember you saying that the seattube of bikes like the P3c also didn’t fit under the old rules as you interpreted them.
Did Felt play it conservatively in interpreting the UCI’s rules when designing the new B2/DA frameset?
FWIW, I don’t think this will be the end of 808s, aerobars, or aero bikes. Though we may see some minor retooling.
Example 808 is already what 26mm wide? Thats practially 3:1 as it stands now.
How do you define the “diameter” or something that is not a circle?