Can anyone explain the rationale / genesis of the UCI rule requiring tip of seat to be at least 5cm behind BB? and while I’m on the subject, why the limit on saddle length?
I remember reading an article about Obree that made it seem like 99% of the UCI rules came into existence to make sure that however he decided to ride was illegal.
I don’t know how 5 cm specifically became a rule, but they have to have some rules on what constitutes a bicycle or else they would have recumbents and prone HPVs in the race.
Because the UCI can sometimes be a bunch of tools that choke innovation.
It’s like stock car. they what it to be man vs man, not position vs position or machine vs machine. Triple triangle bikes, keep the general rider position the same, etc.
Obree’s position gave him the WR as much as his fitness. I, for one, would rather see all the riders in the same general position. it wasn’t him as much as he found loopholes and UCI closed them.
They don’t choke anyhting. If someone can dream something up they can make it. You just might not be able to race it at your local cat 4 crit. Look at what happened with the disk brake thing in cross this year. UCI clearly stated the rules and the brake manufacturers ignored the process to make them legal.
Wow, a full hour has passed and Tibbsy hasn’t posted yet about how the UCI is a bunch of innovation-stifling, child-killing, environment-trashing, loveless bastards.
The disc brake thing just proves my point. Manufacturers innovated, and the UCI stepped in and choked it off for the sake of the sport or soms such nonsense. Process to make them legal? Right. Have Merckx put them on his cross frames and I bet you a euro the UCI would change their rules.
Maybe they think it’d be too dangerous to allow a rider to sit that far fwd in a race that’s full of long technical descents, mass starts and crowded sprints to the finish?
But really who is to stop someone from riding on the nose of the saddle? Sheesh!
There are rules about what goes on your bike. If you have an innovation you have to submit it to UCI for review before you can race on it. Is that so bad? You have to do that with any sport. For the brakes, they had rules about brakes and the manufacturers ignored them. UCI had no choice but to enforce the rules.
If you take a look at the bikes in the Tour you will see some AMAZING innovations that abide by the rules. The rules are there to keep it safe and level the playing field. The guys winning are not winning because of the bike but because of the rider. IMO that shows that the rules work. UCI has let things in that dont run the risk of hurting the riders or the sport. The disk brakes were not tested and could have had major problems in some of the mud that the riders were going to be in. Riders could have been hurt.
Put it this way. If someone came out with a “new helmet”, didn’t get it cleared by UCI, had a rider crash on it only to find that the “new” didnt work, we would think different about their rules.
Play by the rules, or get the rules changed. There is no place for lone worriers in world wide governing bodies.
The bikes havent changed at all! Damn that UCI, we never get anything new!
Notice that the rider position and basic concept of the bicycle remains intact.
Just the point. He was clearly faster on the superman bikes and that made it unfair on the track.
You sir get a bicycle, and you sir get a bicycle. Now race! Thats what UCI is trying to perserve while still allowing new things to be introduced. The bicycle has to remain a bicycle. I shouldn’t become a rocket car.
Besides, I dont see you guys pounding your fists to allow fully inclosed ferrings on your bikes for Hawaii.
"The disk brakes were not tested and could have had major problems in some of the mud that the riders were going to be in. Riders could have been hurt. "
Again, proving my point. Disc brakes have been tested in rougher conditions than any cross race you could imagine, and have been, and still are being used in USA Cycling races. Untested? Load of frog turds. Does the UCI test everyone’s brakes? No. The safely excuse is just lame - the real reason is tradition, and tradition is the opposite of innovation.
In general, I agree that the UCI rules limiting design changes are nonsensical, or at best, in general, not well thought out.
That said, the disc brake ruling was never that they are illegal, rather that they had never been submitted for approval and confirmation of legality. New designs must be submitted to the UCI for approval; don’t be too terribly surprised if you see discs on 'cross bikes in UCI races this year or next.
The official UCI statement on discs in 'cross said something like " we are surprised to run into this problem with Cannondale - they know the rules, and should have known to submit the product for review before the season began…"
The seat setback rule was one of a series of rule changes designed to prevent radical seat positions like Obree’s and Bauer’s (there is a maximum setback as well, aimed straight at Bauer’s “lawnchair” position."
See, the problem is that disc brakes were not an innovation in 2003. They go back much further than that. The technology has been in use for over a decade, and the principle is as old as calipers. There are no safety concerns with them, they are safe and proven
The UCI could have simply determined that disc brakes were not a technical innovation, in that their adaptation for the bicycle was inevitable and covered by the existing guidelines. Prior to 2003, there were NO regulations or guidelines on stopping mechanisms - disk, drum or otherwise.
But this isn’t their style.
You’re missing the point. The ruling on disc brakes was not a ruling on the brakes, per se, but rather a ruling on process. The process was not followed. The implication of the ruling was that the discs may well have been allowed, but they needed to be submitted.
FUNCTIONAL bicycle disc brakes are clearly an innovation (OK, “evolution” is probably more accurate,) and although the competive advantage in 'cross from discs is non-existant, similar types of “evolution” may well provide substantive advantage, or be dangerous (as an aside, many of the disc setups on the market are, in fact, dangerous by design. The traditional orientation of the dropout on a fork is inherently dangerous when combined with the orientation of the mounting posts commonly used in a disc setup. If you NEED to have lawyer tabs on your fork to keep the wheel on under heavy braking, you have done something wrong. There have been many accidents (mostly involving tandems) due to brake-induced involuntary wheel removal, and subsequent post-holing of the fork - as a direct result of this design problem. Any serious study of disc brakes by a sanctioning body would mandate a different dropout or brake post orientation than the one currently in vogue.)
The current rules may well be summed up as “if what you want to do isn’t specifically outlawed in the bylaws, but nobody else is doing it, run it through the process outlined, and we will probably let you do it.”
You might also note that nobody outside of the US (or sponsored by Canondale) gave 2 hoots about this ruling. Disc brakes aren’t even close to worth the weight penalty in UCI style 'cross races (where braking power is essentially a non-issue.)
Anyone who thinks the UCI didn’t have a hard-on for Obree, hasn’t remembered accurately. World Track '94:
“At the world championships Obree showed up again with his famous bike. For the qualifying round he had to change his saddle to match this “5 cm behind bottom bracket” rule. His time qualified him easily for the next round, but after the ride he was disqualified by the UCI officials.
As far as I know the reasons for this were not clear: " Between arms and body the daylight must be seen” was to read in german magazines. Because this rule was not in the UCI rule book before, it was quite clear that the UCI officials invented it quickly to ban Obree. "
Or something like that.
-bobo
$1 says there will be no disk brakes on cross bikes in 2005.
I agree with you, but the reason why is that nobody really cares enough to go through the hassle of getting them approved.
Discs on a 'cross bike aren’t worth the hassle.
(and, yes, I have them on my Mtn. bikes, but not on any of my 'cross bikes, and I have ridden a 'cross bike with them, and blah blah blah…)
It’s a non-issue. Nobody cares.