http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/jul08/jul15news4
.
Holy clam cakes! That’s huge. It was funny to see Pat McQuaid basically at a loss for words. I’ll say it was a successful coupe de etat by ASO. Seriously, if you were to ask the average person who Lance Armstrong was vs. Paulo Bettini, 9/10 would know that Lance won some race in France and would have no idea who Paolo was. In terms of importance in real world marketing, the Tour de France is extremely important, and if you have control of that, you basically have control of the sport.
I can only assume that there is now going to be a huge swing in bicycle sales as everyone starts ditching the traditional double diamond frames.
So would this mean folks could ride a beam bike?
Dave
Woah. This is massive.
They withdrew from the ProTour…which is a subset of the UCI…
Holy clam cakes! That’s huge. It was funny to see Pat McQuaid basically at a loss for words. I’ll say it was a successful coupe de etat by ASO. Seriously, if you were to ask the average person who Lance Armstrong was vs. Paulo Bettini, 9/10 would know that Lance won some race in France and would have no idea who Paolo was. In terms of importance in real world marketing, the Tour de France is extremely important, and if you have control of that, you basically have control of the sport.
I can only assume that there is now going to be a huge swing in bicycle sales as everyone starts ditching the traditional double diamond frames.
UCI President Pat McQuaid told Reuters that all the teams could face exclusion from the UCI. “We’ll deal with that according to the regulations,” said McQuaid. “They face exclusion from the international federation. It is something we are going to discuss.”
“You can’t quit…you’re…you’re…banned! Yep, that’s it, get out of here!” Classic.
UCI President Pat McQuaid told Reuters that all the teams could face exclusion from the UCI. “We’ll deal with that according to the regulations,” said McQuaid. “They face exclusion from the international federation. It is something we are going to discuss.”
“You can’t quit…you’re…you’re…banned! Yep, that’s it, get out of here!” Classic.
Yep. That was my thought as well. Considering his press conference recently, Lemond has got to be dancing in the streets right now.
John
don’t know about that but they will be lighter now
.
UCI President Pat McQuaid told Reuters that all the teams could face exclusion from the UCI. “We’ll deal with that according to the regulations,” said McQuaid. “They face exclusion from the international federation. It is something we are going to discuss.”
“You can’t quit…you’re…you’re…banned! Yep, that’s it, get out of here!” Classic.
Yep. That was my thought as well. Considering his press conference recently, Lemond has got to be dancing in the streets right now.
John
Not only that…but didn’t Floyd express interest in “taking down the UCI” at one point?
I think Pat McQuaid should really look in the mirror and do a reality check.
What does the UCI truly do for cycling? The pro teams finally said we don’t want the same bullying tactics like Ecclestone in Formula 1.
I would love to be a fly on McQuaid’s head
H
Hahahahh…
“It is something we are going to discuss.”
Classic!
So would this mean folks could ride a beam bike?
Dave
No kidding. I always thought the rules defining frame shape were ridiculous. Who cares if a bike has a seat tube or not? Does it really bother people so much?
Wow this is like WTC vs ITU…the private corporation owns the biggest property in the sport, and to some extent ends up dictating the direction…would be better for all if they just got along.
Dev
The UCI’s trump card (at least with the riders) has always been the Olympics. I wonder if this will affect which riders get selected or races.
Lastly, it strikes as quite tri-geeky that the point of this thread is about bike weight and bike design, when the article is simply about the UCI/ASO split, and doesn’t even mention that issue. As if the UCI’s only contribution/effect is on bike design. Odd.
The UCI’s trump card (at least with the riders) has always been the Olympics. I wonder if this will affect which riders get selected or races.
Lastly, it strikes as quite tri-geeky that the point of this thread is about bike weight and bike design, when the article is simply about the UCI/ASO split, and doesn’t even mention that issue. As if the UCI’s only contribution/effect is on bike design. Odd.
Not to mention, I think it highly unlikely it will result in any significant changes to the equipment rules. Although I wouldn’t mind going back to the pre-helmet days and the funny-bike designs for the TTs 
Wow this is like WTC vs ITU…the private corporation owns the biggest property in the sport, and to some extent ends up dictating the direction…would be better for all if they just got along.
Dev
Although (while you may disagree), it appears to me that ASO has a lot more sway over things than WTC does.
Something for WTC to strive for!!
Not to mention, I think it highly unlikely it will result in any significant changes to the equipment rules. Although I wouldn’t mind going back to the pre-helmet days and the funny-bike designs for the TTs
I’m with you. Some loosening of the rules might be nice. But I wouldn’t want to see a situation where anything goes. What would end up happening is bike makers would make one off TT bikes that are ultralight and very complex. Which means that the quality of TT bike that we get would go down.
Cervelo is a prime example. Right now we get to ride the bikes that they race in part because the rules are so restrictive. The rules, in part, limit the technology that can be applied to a bike and thus make it affordable for us to purchase these bikes. Were there no weight rules then Cervelo wouldn’t need to design a bike that lasted more than one race. They could make it ultra light and only strong enough for the day, not practical for everyday use but great for the TdF. The teams would demand it and Cervelo would provide. In addition the bike makers not limited by the double diamond configuration could make ultra complex shapes that while they are fine for a race team would be ulta expensive to make in mass quantities.
Like it or not, the shape and weight rules that are in place are one of the reasons why we have access to the bike we do. Without them we’d be see more of an F1 situation where manufacturers without any limits put on them produce very complex one off designs that we’d never have access to.
Not to mention, I think it highly unlikely it will result in any significant changes to the equipment rules. Although I wouldn’t mind going back to the pre-helmet days and the funny-bike designs for the TTs
I’m with you. Some loosening of the rules might be nice. But I wouldn’t want to see a situation where anything goes. What would end up happening is bike makers would make one off TT bikes that are ultralight and very complex. Which means that the quality of TT bike that we get would go down.
Cervelo is a prime example. Right now we get to ride the bikes that they race in part because the rules are so restrictive. The rules, in part, limit the technology that can be applied to a bike and thus make it affordable for us to purchase these bikes. Were there no weight rules then Cervelo wouldn’t need to design a bike that lasted more than one race. They could make it ultra light and only strong enough for the day, not practical for everyday use but great for the TdF. The teams would demand it and Cervelo would provide. In addition the bike makers not limited by the double diamond configuration could make ultra complex shapes that while they are fine for a race team would be ulta expensive to make in mass quantities.
Like it or not, the shape and weight rules that are in place are one of the reasons why we have access to the bike we do. Without them we’d be see more of an F1 situation where manufacturers without any limits put on them produce very complex one off designs that we’d never have access to.
The fastest bike is a recumbent with a missile shaped shell and an eye slit. TT needs some rule or it becomes a design contest. design isn’t a sport.
the title is a joke, right? There’s nothing in the article about bike restrictions being dropped nor the uci being dead. The protour will be dead. So far ASO has said the UCI’s role is for rules and regulations, and ASO would prefer UCI stays within that boundary.
Smelly.
“The UCI’s ProTour series appears to be officially dead after all 17 teams at the Tour de France decided to leave the series and not renew their licences next season”
The title is hyperbole for sure… but the first sentence of the article I linked to used the word “dead” before I did.
Assuming the ASO and UCI do not kiss and make up, there would be no reason for the ASO to adhere to the old UCI guidelines if they did not want to. I doubt it’ll result in a new “anything goes” rulebook, but it could effect some of the more antiquated and obtuse regulations.
Specifically I was thinking of a new, lower than 6.8Kg weight guideline, a re-thinking of the 5cm behind the BB saddle rule, and getting rid of the ridiculous “praying Landis” restrictions on angled aero bars.
BQ