Cycling Weekly are reporting that the UCI has plans to scrap the rule stipulating a maximum 3:1 ratio on bike frame and component design. This could be a huge development for aero fanatics everywhere. I miss those days of crazy innovation that we used to see in bikes and equipment, so it’ll be good to see some degree of flexibility come back. Fair play to the UCI, scrapping rules like this (much like the disc brake fiasco) is going to create a lot of work for themselves in the long run, with having to regulate what the manufacturers come up with, but it’s essential for cycling to innovate.
How long before we see someone riding a TT on something like this?!
For those of us who don’t design bikes for a living ( ) can you share a link that describes the practical implications of these other rules?
I can kinda guess what the double diamond rule has as practical implications (no beam bikes, no Z bikes i.e. lotus) but what are the 8cm rules and the straight line rules?
This is good news. Paul’s right, the new UCI are making improvements.
Hey Damon, does the rule change still stipulate double diamond frames but the ratios can change…so variations from the lineages of the old Trimble, Barachhi, Lotus, and Zipp 2001 are still out ?
To some degree, like Formula 1, I like some constraint on a total free for all. Or you go free for all and fair the shit out of the entire bike, but limit rider positions. To tell you the truth, I like the concept of limiting frame design more and allowing riders to come up wtih innovative positions (within reason)…the latter puts us in the category of athletic innovations of Dick Fosbury and Graeme Obree, squeezing more out of the human with cognitive origin changes that dramatically change sport…note the Froome downhill top tube attack was a variation of the Obree Egg.
This is the UCI rulebook on bike design if you’re interested; don’t worry, it’s not as dry as it sounds and it has lots of pictures on all the different regulations.
Some time later: “Uh, no, the frame tubes must be in a 3 to 1 ratio.”
Then, some time a little later: “Uh, no, we changed our mind again, any type of frame tubes are ok.”
How individuals and businesses put up with this insanity is beyond me. Of course, now that the ITU has followed the stupidity of the UCsillyI , this insanity has repercussions in many sports. And all of these rule changes create absolute madness for an athlete trying to figure out if his/her bike or bike frame is legal or not legal for a given event. Just try asking the USAT if your bike is legal or not legal for a US draft legal age group race. The USAT consistently dodges the question, because they simply have no idea of the correct answer.
The bike business is having trouble in general, and this self imposed madness only makes things even worse.
These are some of the rules that have no merit, in my humble opinion. Some of the justifications for these, like the main triangle, boils down to “we have always done it that way.”
ARTICLE 1.3.013 - The peak of the saddle shall be a minimum of 5 cm to the rear of a vertical plane passing through the bottom bracket spindle.ARTICLE 1.3.014 - The plane passing through the highest points at the front and rear of the saddle shall be horizontal. The length of the saddle shall be 24 cm minimum and 30 cm maximum.ARTICLE 1.3.019 - The weight of the bicycle cannot be less than 6.8 kilograms.ARTICLE 1.3.020 - For road competitions other than time trials and for cyclo-cross competitions, the frame of the bicycle shall be of a traditional pattern, i.e. built around a main triangle.
The form of each element encloses a straight lineThe top tube may slope, provided that this element fits within a horizontal template defined by a maximum height of 16 cm and a minimum thickness of 2.5 cmThe joint between frame section must fall within the highlighted triangle whose two sides have the same measurement as the height of the section, i.e. 8 cmFor road races other than time trials and for cyclo-cross races, the effective width of
the head tube zone may not exceed 16 cmARTICLE 1.3.023 - For road time trials and individual and team pursuit on the track, a fixed extension may be added to the steering system; in this instance, the height difference between the elbow support points and the highest and lowest points of the handlebar extension (including gear levers) must be less than 10 cmARTICLE 1.3.024 - Any device, added or blended into the structure, that is destined to decrease, or which has the effect of decreasing, resistance to air penetration or artificially to accelerate propulsion, such as a protective screen, fuselage form fairing or the like, shall be prohibited.
This rule is jacked up because it is liberally applied to things like screw hole covers, cable covers, chainring covers, etc. that could be created as a blend of the structureOddly, this rule is not applied to brake fairings, which makes no senseARTICLE 1.3.024 BIS - Bottles shall not be integrated to the frame and may only be located on the down and seat tubes on the inside of the frame
Essential for cycling to innovate? Great, I can’t wait to see recumbents winning every time trial. That’ll make triathlons a lot more entertaining, too.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. You can argue all day where that line should be drawn and have valid points on both sides. As long as everyone is playing by the same rules it is deemed ‘fair’, it doesn’t really matter what set of rules they are.
Haha, as Chris Froome said in response to Quintana’s power meter comments, “shall we all just go back to single-speed bikes as well then?”; noone’s advocating the rulebook be completely torn up, but yes, innovation is essential otherwise the sport wouldn’t progress at all.
Understood. But people here act as if all the rules are ridiculous. They’re not. In fact, we all pick and choose which rules we like… So get rid of 3:1 only? What else?
If that’s the case it may explain the p6 delay if Cervelo got wind of the change.
My thoughts exactly. Something tells me the new Cervelo is at least a year out now.
Agreed. It was most likely UCI illegal from the beginning, but now it’s going to be better and have disc brakes.
That was kinda my point it was going to be UCI illegal but with the new rule changes and some slight modification they could make it UCI legal also. I may give Cervelo hell on delivery times once a bike is released but this normally doesn’t extend to the actual releasing the bike. It makes me think they heard the changes and wanted to make adjustments.
) can you share a link that describes the practical implications of these other rules?