"The 33"-Road Bike Racing - True Rue

Read it and weep boys: From this morning's NY Times:

Equipment Crackdown Brings More Turmoil to Cycling’s Time Trials



By IAN AUSTEN
Published: May 5, 2009

Professional cycling is in a heated struggle among its governing body, its teams and the companies that manufacture expensive equipment over what is a legal racing bike.

The International Cycling Union abruptly alerted teams at the start of this season that it intends to clarify and reinterpret its often oblique rules governing bicycle design through increased equipment inspections.

The announcement was an unwelcome surprise. Bicycles and accessories may be banned within weeks. That could leave teams scrambling to find new bikes for top riders, and the manufacturers could find it harder to sell their merchandise.

“When I initially looked at it, I wasn’t too worried,” said Phil White, a co-founder of Cervélo, a Toronto-based bicycle manufacturer, which also sponsors a European professional team. “But now I’m quite concerned. This could be quite crushing.”

The crackdown and the renewed debate over bicycle design are not entirely unwelcome. Some prominent cyclists say that recent advances made possible by new materials and manufacturing techniques may be unfairly penalizing teams that have limited access to the latest technologies.

The cycling union first told teams about its plans through a warning letter sent in January, after the teams had accepted delivery of their bikes for the season. A month later, in the middle of the Tour of California, cycling union officials said that they would begin banning equipment immediately, although they backed down after protests. Now, the cycling group’s president, Pat McQuaid, said components must comply with standards by July 1, which means after the Giro d’Italia, which starts Saturday, but before the Tour de France. Enforcement of other standards, however, would not begin until next year.

Exactly why the cycling union decided to raise the issue without giving notice is unclear. McQuaid said the warning letter came out of discussions at the end of 2008.

“We decided to bring both the sport and the manufacturers back to reality,” McQuaid said from his office in Switzerland. “The sport needs to be a sport of athletic ability, not technical ability.”

The dispute largely involves bicycles and parts designed for time trials, the individual race against the clock. Because time trial rules ban drafting, aerodynamics are thought to significantly boost a rider’s speed. During the off-season, well-financed teams use tests in wind tunnels to evaluate bicycles and to optimize riders’ positions. What emerges are expensive and exotic bicycles.

The cycling union has long banned the use of anything intended to cheat the air. But the increasing use of carbon-fiber reinforced plastic resins, which can be shaped into a variety of forms, during the 1990s created new issues. In the ’90s, the British cyclists Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree broke the distance record for one hour — the sport’s gold standard — using bicycles with unusual designs and aerodynamic riding positions. Obree broke the record twice, on two bicycles he built himself (one used bearings from a washing machine), only for his designs to be banned later by the cycling union. In “The Flying Scotsman,” a 2006 film based on Obree’s life, the role of the villain is played by officials from a thinly disguised International Cycling Union.

In 2000, new rules included requiring bicycles be the traditional diamond shape and not weigh less than 6.8 kilograms (about 15 pounds). But another rule is more ambiguous, referring to “a fuselage form,” which the cycling union defines as an “extension or a streamlining of a section.” Whatever that may be, it cannot have a ratio that exceeds three to one. (For comparison, traditional bicycle tubing is round and has a ratio of one to one.)

Until January, manufacturers assumed the rule covered only the individual sections of a bicycle frame and went to great lengths to increase that ratio without breaking the rule, or so they thought. Giant, Scott and Felt make time-trial bicycles with elongated front ends for better aerodynamics. But in a bid to stay within the ratio, those bikes connect the forks and handlebars to the rest of the frame in unusual and complex arrangements. On its Web site, Felt asserts, “Our design created an effective airfoil shape with approximately a 6:1 aspect ratio, that is still U.C.I. legal because it does not rely on a fairing-instant speed.” U.C.I. are the cycling union’s initials in French.

In an interview, Jim Felt, the founder of Felt, an American company, said he was still confident the bicycle would pass inspection. Giant, however, had doubts and redesigned it. The biggest surprise for the industry was the announcement that all the parts of a bicycle would be under the ratio rule. Many handlebars and some cranks greatly exceed the limit. Cervélo’s White said that many of his company’s seat posts also violated the rule.

White was initially unconcerned because most of Cervélo’s customers do not race or they compete in triathlons, which are not governed by the cycling union. But he said that when a clip-on handlebar extension was banned for road-racing bikes in 2000, the popular product’s market evaporated.

Even recreational cyclists, White said, shun products once they are banned for professional use. That, combined with the current recession, he said, could ruin some companies.

“I am sometimes a bit surprised by the way things work in the industry,” said René Wiertz, a former electronics executive who owns 3T Cycling, a major handlebar maker based in Italy. “Doing things like this is pretty arrogant.”

Some riders say they would like to see not only stricter enforcement but also more restrictive rules for time-trial bikes.

Marco Pinotti, the current Italian national time-trial champion who rides for Team Columbia-Highroad, acknowledges the special equipment has benefited him, but he also says that it gives an unfair advantage to teams with large budgets for wind-tunnel testing and sophisticated equipment.

He favors forcing riders to use conventional bicycles without aerodynamic handlebars or wheels for time trials. That is unlikely to find favor with bike makers, who rely on time-trail bicycles to generate publicity — and sales.

Pinotti’s American teammate, Craig Lewis, agreed, saying in an e-mail message: “It was first named the race of truth for a reason. Now it’s just a race between the biggest budgets.”

Just when you think that cycling authorities can't get any dumber, they do.

That's impressive.

I get their point, but this seems very poorly executed. At least a years notice should be given for something like this, not a few months.

Wouldn't that 3-1 idea rule out any rims deeper than 50 or 60 mm? Depending if you take the depth from the top or bottom of the braking track.

Let's hope the USAC doesn't pick up on this idiocy or we'll all need new gear.

Hey, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

Just when you think that cycling authorities can't get any dumber, they do.

That's impressive.

designers and companies have been playing with fire for the past few years. looks like they're about to get burned.

It really is astonishing to me that these friggin jerks can go along, lah de friggin dah, for years, everything is legal, and then one fine day, they get up, get their stupid friggin Swiss panties in a twist, and they tell the entire industry: 'all your **** is illegal now, get all new ****, have it ready for the Tour de France, it starts in 60 days'.

That's just astonishing. How much money does a top team have in cycling crap? $1 million? And how can the manufacturers create new gear that fast. I mean it really doesn't get much dumber than that.

designers and companies have been playing with fire for the past few years. looks like they're about to get burned.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. If the authorities that govern cycling can't enforce their own rules, it strongly points to their inability to do so. Something that's legal in February 2009 doesn't become banned in May 2009 for any other reason than the staggering incompetence of the UCI. Had the UCI laid out clear rules and ENFORCED them from day one (that is their job) manufacturers wouldn't have invested millions upon millions of dollars in equipment that was bound for the trash heap a year or two later. That's not 'the manufacturers playing with fire', that's the UCI being unrelentingly irresponsible and F-ing over the industry that makes their stupid sport possible.

The Euros running pro cycling are just unfathomable imbeciles, and they never fail to astonish me with their arrogance and stupidity. It's just mind blowing.

Seems like they are starting to do this with alot of different types of racing. They already do it with Motorcycle racing....

I couldn't possibly disagree more. If the authorities that govern cycling can't enforce their own rules, it strongly points to their inability to do so. Something that's legal in February 2009 doesn't become banned in May 2009 for any other reason than the staggering incompetence of the UCI. Had the UCI laid out clear rules and ENFORCED them from day one (that is their job) manufacturers wouldn't have invested millions upon millions of dollars in equipment that was bound for the trash heap a year or two later. That's not 'the manufacturers playing with fire', that's the UCI being unrelentingly irresponsible and F-ing over the industry that makes their stupid sport possible.

The Euros running pro cycling are just unfathomable imbeciles, and they never fail to astonish me with their arrogance and stupidity. It's just mind blowing.

aerobars and frame designs, using waterbottles as fairings, even the skinsuits have breached UCI guidelines for awhile.

apparently the UCI got fed up with it.

Just when you think that cycling authorities can't get any dumber, they do.

That's impressive.

You set the bar too high.

People everywhere can be dumb.

aerobars and frame designs, using waterbottles as fairings, even the skinsuits have breached UCI guidelines for awhile.

apparently the UCI got fed up with it.

A sport's governing body isn't your friggin Mommy. They are SUPPOSED to be a professional, competent, authority that lays down rules and standards and enforces them in a cohesive, predictable and consistent manner. They don't just 'get fed up with it' like some over-stressed parent. Their responsibility, one of their primary reasons for even existing in the first place is to define standards for the sport and then to apply those rules uniformly over time.

If this stuff was OK last year and illegal this year, and UCI rules never changed, the UCI is guilty of profound incompetence by any definition. That's my take on this. That will be the industry take on this. That will be the media's impression. I'm sure the fans will agree. So everybody's insane except the UCI.

That should work. After all, this is cycling, the Idiot Sport By Which All Others Shall Be Judged, and we have the governing body we deserve, don't we?

The part of this that seems particularly absurd is this notion that a Cervelo or Felt that a top team can afford gives that team some significant advantage that the 'poorer' teams can't 'afford'. I'd argue that the top teams in the UCI all have budgets that grant them access to similar high end bikes (particularly the competitive top tier teams) and that this is really splitting hairs. They all have aero wheels, skin suits, aero TT bikes. Is some dude on Cervelo or Garmin really going to win the TT over a guy from Team Le Nowhere because they had a TT bike that was faster? Cancellera beats that Le Team Nowhere guy in the TT by 4 minutes, not 4 seconds. Get serious.

A sport's governing body isn't your friggin Mommy. They are SUPPOSED to be a professional, competent, authority that lays down rules and standards and enforces them in a cohesive, predictable and consistent manner. They don't just 'get fed up with it' like some over-stressed parent. Their responsibility, one of their primary reasons for even existing in the first place is to define standards for the sport and then to apply those rules uniformly over time.

If this stuff was OK last year and illegal this year, and UCI rules never changed, the UCI is guilty of profound incompetence by any definition. That's my take on this. That will be the industry take on this. That will be the media's impression. I'm sure the fans will agree. So everybody's insane except the UCI.

That should work. After all, this is cycling, the Idiot Sport By Which All Others Shall Be Judged, and we have the governing body we deserve, don't we?

you're missing the point. the stuff wasn't ok last year, but for whatever reasons the UCI turned a blind eye. that is no longer the case.

you're missing the point. the stuff wasn't ok last year, but for whatever reasons the UCI turned a blind eye. that is no longer the case.

I think you're missing the point. Turning a blind eye and then taking the eye patch off the following season is the very definition of incompetence. To me at least. It strikes me as completely outrageous and damages the sport.

Moreover, this is the kind of thing they should address at the END of the season, and tell everyone that next year it will be different. Announcing this in May five days before the Giro starts is like outlawing all the bats in baseball the week before the post season begins. It's just over the top, the most moronic way to govern a sport I can possibly imagine. Now everyone is in an uproar, nobody knows what to do, and the whole sport appears to be F'd.

The UCI will have no choice but to backpedal on this anyway. It is cycling, backpedaling is normal.

The Euros running pro cycling are just unfathomable imbeciles, and they never fail to astonish me with their arrogance and stupidity. It's just mind blowing.

The North America needs to stage a coup. That'd fix pro cycling. Forever.
Sorry about your mind there, pcad. You probably need some retail therapy to feel right again.
For sale:
1 Columbus SL road bike with non deep-dish rims.
Price $10 000.00 OBO.
Start yer bidding.

The North America needs to stage a coup. That'd fix pro cycling.

I can't imagine anything could be much worse than the UCI and the pinheads who run the Tour de France. It's like a bunch of stoned Marxists trying to run the NY Stock Exchange.

Whoah. Now they'll move this thread over to the MTB Forum.

I think you're missing the point. Turning a blind eye and then taking the eye patch off the following season is the very definition of incompetence. To me at least. It strikes me as completely outrageous and damages the sport.

incorrect.


Moreover, this is the kind of thing they should address at the END of the season, and tell everyone that next year it will be different. Announcing this in May five days before the Giro starts is like outlawing all the bats in baseball the week before the post season begins. It's just over the top, the most moronic way to govern a sport I can possibly imagine. Now everyone is in an uproar, nobody knows what to do, and the whole sport appears to be F'd.

The UCI will have no choice but to backpedal on this anyway. It is cycling, backpedaling is normal.

agreed.

We'll never see this the same b. The Euros have infiltrated your fragile NY mind.

We'll never see this the same b. The Euros have infiltrated your fragile NY mind.

writes the greeka.

Didn't we already have this argument? (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=512122)

My Dad's Greek, but he came to the USA in 1946. He spends summers at his house in Evia, Greece. I visit him. We all agree that Greece is a nice place to visit, but the entire country is beyond the pale. That's why all the hard working Greeks emigrate to places like the USA and Australia and why Greece will never get out of its own way. It's the European Common Market's token third world nation.

My parents love Greece, but they kiss the friggin ground in September/October when they return to JFK. Trust me on this.

If all the riders end up riding similar bikes, why should any cyclist see that as a negative? Is it your bike racing, or is it you? Bicycle racing should not be allowed to become the same as auto racing. Let's face it, like athletes in any sport, most pro cyclists and pretenders aren't that bright or educated, so I wouldn't expect them to agree, nor would I expect a bunch of profit-oriented industrialists to agree. That's why we have bodies like UCI.

I for one think that time trials should be raced on the same bikes as the rest of the race, and so should climbing stages. One race, one bike.

If all the riders end up riding similar bikes, why should any cyclist see that as a negative?

They do all ride similar bikes and use similar gear. The UCI splitting hairs notwithstanding, that is not the issue at all. It is the INCOMPETENT MANNER in which they first impose rules, then do NOT enforce them, and then later decide, SURPRISE!!!, now we WILL enforce them, mid-season, weeks before the biggest events on the pro calendar.

You don't think that's a problem? Well then, by all means, carry on. And please, do fax your resume to the UCI. And of course, consider emigrating to Greece, you'd love it there too.

The cycling union has long banned the use of anything intended to cheat the air.


:lol:

I am for technology. The highest level of the sport is partially funded by technology development (as in motor racing). I disagree that the rich teams are going to win all the time trials. Rider position and power are still the main determinants of who wins time trials.

To make such a big deal out of whether a base-bar adheres to a 3:1 aspect ratio rule is silly. It is not going to make more than a few seconds worth of difference. The UCI has some stupid rules anyway. The 5cm rule is unfair since it is equally applied to frame sizes that could be 62 or 48. 5cm behind the bottom bracket is a long distance on a 48cm bike, and hardly any distance at all on a 62cm bike.

With all the pissing and moaning about things like aero-shaped bottles they are missing the actual race data. Riders winning TTs while having round bottles on their downtubes. Riders winning TTs with poor aero positions simply because they have the power necessary. This argument serves no purpose other than to give the UCI more attention than they deserve.

:lol:

I never said this. That's not my quote.

No Cervelo for you.

Hey wait, if the UCI gets its way, no Cervelo for anybody.

If the UCI had their way everyone would be riding 12 speed steel frame Colnagos from the late 60s and time trials would all be won by big guys who happen to have chosen the right parents. Aerodynamics are part of cycling. It's time to just embrace that and stop the love affair with the ubermensch.

Can we say the silver lining is that Cervelos/Felts are not just marketing BS?

If the UCI had their way...

not sure if i entirely agree. there comes a time when technology overshadows the atheletes, i.e.


In post-Beijing era, the swimsuit makes the swimmer (http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2231301.ece/In_post-Beijing_era,_the_swimsuit_makes_the_swimmer)
Published: 4 May 2009 10:45 | Changed: 4 May 2009 17:52
By Rob Schoof

When Pieter van den Hoogenband (31) retired from swimming six months ago he thought he would be the fastest swimmer alive for many years to come. Instead, 'VdH' finished in fifth place at an Olympic event in the water cube in Beijing.

In retrospect this event was much more than the departure of one of the greatest sprinters of all times. VdH's fifth place marked a watershed, a threshold between two eras. In ordinary swim suits, many of today's champions would not even come close to the world record that VdH set in the 100-metre freestyle in Sydney in 2000. The record was untouched for almost eight years. Now, fourteen months after the appearance of the first 'magic' suit, 'VdH' is only the 26th fastes swimmer ever.

Technological doping

But the sport, his sport, had changed too much to be a true reflection of ability. Since the proliferation of performance enhancing swimsuits in the Olympic year 2008, nothing is what it seems anymore. But the opposition to this 'technological doping', as it is increasingly being called, is growing. No one believes that so many swimmers are suddenly so much better than old champions like VdH.

In a way, 2008 with its 108 world records was still manageable, since most of the progress was made in the LZR Racer suit, the invention that first plunged the swimming world into the suit crisis. But then new swimsuits came on the market that allowed swimmers to be yet another few seconds - or tenths of a second, what does it matter? - faster than last year.

The world swimming federation FINA stood by and did nothing. After protests from coaches, including Dutch coach Jacco Verhaeren, guidelines were introduced that set regulations for suits, but to date none has been banned. The results are raising more and more questions now that the swimmers have discovered all the advantages of the Jaked, the X-Glide and the BlueSeventy.

Scanning the competition

Swimmers used to have their training programme and a coach who ordered endless repetitions of the 10 x 100 metres - followed by free swimming. Nowadays, swimmers are busy scanning pictures of the swimsuits of their opponents. Swimmers and coaches would like to return to a world without these new suits - but only if everyone else does so at the same time.

"Otherwise it is as if you are going off to war with a toy pistol," says Frenchman Denis Auguin, who coaches Alain Bernard, the first to come in under Van den Hoogenband's legendary world record last year. Just like Verhaeren, Auguin wants to get rid of the polyurethane suits.

Once in a while someone still argues that nothing happens when you just throw a swimsuit in the water. “My suit doesn’t swim, I do,” Frederick Bousquet said last week at the French championships after he beat Bernard in the 100-metre freestyle wearing a Jaked, and smashed his own record by a second.

But criticism is growing in France. "This is no longer a sport. On all sides I see fish swim past me," said Hugues Duboscq, winner of three Olympic medals, but now overshadowed by unknown fellow countrymen in bodysuits. And sprinter Amaury Leveaux found it "nauseating" to see how swimmers were beating their own records by seconds. That used to require years of getting up early and training hard. "It is a disaster."

Blame FINA

The fact that swimmers are helped by their suits is so obvious that some are almost apologetic about it. Like Lennart Stekelenburg, who recently beat the 100-metre record for the fifth time in a Jaked suit he was wearing as a demonstration. He wasn't excited about this world record, he said.

That says everything about the seriousness of the crisis. Records are barely even taken seriously anymore. There is little doubt about who is responsible for the chaos: FINA. The world swimming federation seems to have completely lost its grip on the sport. The federation is having an independent testing and control system set up for suits, but that takes time.

Simply banning suits does not seem to be an option, since many suits were already approved before Beijing. A ban now could lead to enormous lawsuits from the manufacturers, who have put millions into the development and manufacturing. Moreover, the manufacturers are the most important sponsors in swimming - Speedo is an official FINA partner.

A ban would also result in practical problems. What would happens to the records that were set in 2008 and this year? There is no official record of what suit swimmers were wearing when they set these records. And they were legal at the time. But if FINA lets all the records stand, and makes everyone go back to swimming trunks, there is the chance that existing world records will remain in place for may years to come.

Allowing all suits is not an option either, because then the materials will become more important than the swimmers. Swimming, like running, used to be a sport in which it came down to a combination of technique, strength, speed and endurance. That is why a form of regulation is now being worked on, but 123 world records since February 1, 2008 is evidence that the damage has already been done.

I don't think we have gotten to the point where technology has overshadowed the athletes in cycle racing. The guys with the power still win the TTs. Cancellara doesn't win because of his bike but because of his engine.

I think all of this bruhaha is an extension of the world hour record debacle.

The UCI's waffling baffles me.

Consistency is not their forte. In fact, the only thing they do consistently is to be inconsistent.

Part of my distaste for the UCI is the fact that their Technical Director, the person who determines what constitutes a legal racing bicycle, has no prior technical/engineering/cycling experience. His background is industrial ergonomics. This is the guy who has the last word about racing bicycles.

Personally, I'd like to see the bicycle manufacturers get together and lobby the UCI for a role in the process of writing the rules concerning legal racing bicycle design.

There is no "fuselage" on a bicycle. A handlebar is not a fuselage, neither is a seatpost. The UCI just makes things up as they go along, which is great when you have a one or two year product pipeline.

At this point they could apply it to the gearshift paddle on all STI type shifters. None of them meet the 3:1 ratio test.

Sending out a letter at the beginning of the year that you're now going to apply a horribly written rule to part XYZ has more to do with holding up people for money and showing who has the power than trying to create a level playing field. These are the same jackarses that took Unibet's Protour license money then couldn't deliver.

The end game here is no doubt an inspection/approval process that will have a fee attached.

Virtually every improvement in cycling was first applied to and tested on race bikes, they are the primary marketing vehicle for smaller companies to display innovative technologies and products. Zipp, Cervelo, Etc wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are without racing. Bikes might well look radically different and be much lighter (and cheaper) today had the UCI not decided frames needed to be two triangles, a concept which motorcycles abandoned 20 years ago.

Had the UCI been around at the turn of the last century, we all might be racing penny farthings. Had a UCI official loved downtube shifters, I've no doubt that STI would never have gotten off the ground. Too complex, too expensive, and too much of an advantage to teams that have access.

Like laws, rules need to be justified before they are applied.

Finally, it's not in equipment disparities where the big advantages lie. It's budget. The rider is 90% of the equation if not more.

Some teams have large support staffs with masseuses, cooks, mechanics, Etc, who take care of the riders every need while they fly to point "A" for training camp, point "B" for their altitude training, Etc. Others get in their cars right after the race and drive 3 days to the next event eating carp food and staying 4 to a hotel room.

Banning a $400 aerobar in favor of a $200 aerobar isn't going to address that. And we are talking about applying this at the highest level of racing, where most teams budget is at least several million euros.

The rider is 95% of the equation if not more.


Fixed.

On all other points Racer Ex is 100% Correct.

He's still faster than most of us regardless. He could dump me on a Schwinn Varsity. I wonder if that's UCI legal?

Hey Racer Ex, how much sway would UCI banning some of this stuff have with the USAC? Would our Cervelos be illegal in Central Park? That would be interesting.

I could always race my Cdale. They won't ban the Cervelo on the Nyack Ride that's for sure.

There is no "fuselage" on a bicycle. A handlebar is not a fuselage, neither is a seatpost. The UCI just makes things up as they go along, which is great when you have a one or two year product pipeline.

At this point they could apply it to the gearshift paddle on all STI type shifters. None of them meet the 3:1 ratio test.

Sending out a letter at the beginning of the year that you're now going to apply a horribly written rule to part XYZ has more to do with holding up people for money and showing who has the power than trying to create a level playing field. These are the same jackarses that took Unibet's Protour license money then couldn't deliver.

The end game here is no doubt an inspection/approval process that will have a fee attached.

Virtually every improvement in cycling was first applied to and tested on race bikes, they are the primary marketing vehicle for smaller companies to display innovative technologies and products. Zipp, Cervelo, Etc wouldn't be anywhere near the size they are without racing. Bikes might well look radically different and be much lighter (and cheaper) today had the UCI not decided frames needed to be two triangles, a concept which motorcycles abandoned 20 years ago.

Had the UCI been around at the turn of the last century, we all might be racing penny farthings. Had a UCI official loved downtube shifters, I've no doubt that STI would never have gotten off the ground. Too complex, too expensive, and too much of an advantage to teams that have access.

Like laws, rules need to be justified before they are applied.

Finally, it's not in equipment disparities where the big advantages lie. It's budget. The rider is 90% of the equation if not more.

Some teams have large support staffs with masseuses, cooks, mechanics, Etc, who take care of the riders every need while they fly to point "A" for training camp, point "B" for their altitude training, Etc. Others get in their cars right after the race and drive 3 days to the next event eating carp food and staying 4 to a hotel room.

Banning a $400 aerobar in favor of a $200 aerobar isn't going to address that. And we are talking about applying this at the highest level of racing, where most teams budget is at least several million euros.

+1

I am totally in favor of technology trickle-down for those of us who buy our bike stuff.

The UCI's waffling baffles me.

Consistency is not their forte.

I'd say the Euros that run pro cycling are disturbingly consistent in their random waffling. Hell, the UCI and the Tour de France idiots seem to revel in their constant and moronic bickering. That's good for the sport eh? That's like the NFL front office engaging in perpetual pissing contests with the Super Bowl host cities year after year.

Let's hope the USAC doesn't pick up on this idiocy or we'll all need new gear.

Hey, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.

Hi,

I wouldn't worry about USAC until you start winning national championships. Even then, USAC might interpret the vague rules differently than the UCI at a national championship.

I still see the occasional funny bike at local TTs. Of course I also see bikes that Cancellara would gladly ride at local TTs.

not sure if i entirely agree. there comes a time when technology overshadows the atheletes, i.e.

That time comes when you can say with legitimacy that rider "A" cannot win without special part "B". That argument cannot be made here, nor are we even close to that tipping point, though it's a good basis for drug testing.

I wouldn't give a damn if we had to go back to steel bikes and no TT bars. As long as they're still racing bicycles, it's fine with me. Sure, the rules may be inconsistent, but in ten years, we might not even be able to call it bike racing. I have no interest in semi-human-propelled missile racing.

I wouldn't give a damn if we had to go back to steel bikes and no TT bars. As long as they're still racing bicycles, it's fine with me. Sure, the rules may be inconsistent, but in ten years, we might not even be able to call it bike racing. I have no interest in semi-human-propelled missile racing.

There will always be a place (http://www.evandalevillagefair.com/) for people with that mentality.

Hi,

I would worry about USAC until you start winning national championships. Even then, USAC might interpret the vague rules differently than the UCI at a national championship.

I still see the occasional funny bike at local TTs. Of course I also see bikes that Cancellara would gladly ride at local TTs.

But if the USAC bans certain gear, wouldn't that impact everybody who races?

I'll be very surprised if that happens, but it's an interesting question. Actually I'll be surprised if the UCI announcement results in any significant changes. The push back from the bicycle industry and other involved entities will be very strong.

They're just aholes at the UCI in my view. Maybe we can all go back to toe clips and wool jerseys. Maybe that would make them happy. Let technology into the sport just like other areas of human endeavor. It's cycling, technology is part of the sport, always has been.

Personally I'd like to see the Spinaccis (sp?) and Tirimasuus come back (they were banned in 1998 I think for pros). The reference to 2000 - maybe they're talking of the Scott Rakes and Cane Creek Speed bars (which, as far as I know, are still USAC legal)? Those + EPO = 70 kph leadouts in 1997.

UCI is like the F1 or NASCAR governing body. Some stuff isn't clear, some stuff isn't enforced. If someone brings up a sticky point, enforcement gets a bit better.

A friend of mine went to a NASCAR race. They have templates for various bodies, you can't deviate from this car-long, car-tall template, at least not down the middle of the body. It's beneficial to have different hoods and such, and at 180 mph, it can make or break a car's performance. The inspectors would put the template on the car, then the mechanics would pound/bend things to try and get the car to fit the template.

The enforcement varied.

For some teams, smaller teams usually, gaps of about 1/4" were okay.

On some teams, one in particular according to my friend, the inspectors even got out feeler gauges. They wanted to see the body fit the template to within tenths or hundredths of an inch.

However, on other teams, like the established favorites, they'd remove the template so fast that it barely touched the car. It was obvious that there were huge, huge gaps - 1-2" in places, esp in the critical points. The officals would drop the template down, lift it up, and turn. "Okay, next!"

Then the announcers say, "Oh, so-and-so has a good car today." Well, no kidding. He's running a totally illegal car.

In F1, the big controversy this year is you can't have an aero tunnel to create downforce in a certain area of a car. But a few teams interpreted having two wings with vertical things connecting the two as "two wings", not as "a tunnel with wings on top and bottom". The tunnel (or "diffuser") is acknowledged to be worth up to half a second per lap, significant when lap times are measured in thousandths of a second. After some debate, some protests, the tunnel-type design was declared legal. But this was 4 races into the season.

I don't agree with the UCI's timing, but I think what they're doing is correct. It's by the book.

If they change the rules, so be it. But until they do, rules are rules.

cdr

I seriously think the UCI have, for years now, completely overestimated the effect of technology/design.
Yes it might make a few watts difference but hey, everyone can do it. Wind tunnel testing is used to get the rider in a more aerodynamic position, not just to test the equipment.

What the stuffy gets at UCI really want is a return to standard shaped frames and downtube shifters.

They stipulated the minimum weight for 'safety reasons'. How can a block of wood lodged under a saddle to make a bike hit the limit be described as safer?

if the UCI really wanted to level the playing field they could have weight classes for riders. Imagine Leonardo Piepoli and David Millar in two separate time trials. One of them up Alpe d'Huez and the other one on 50km of flat. Is that a level playing field?

Say goodbye to the P4!

What the stuffy gets at UCI really want is a return to standard shaped frames and downtube shifters.

Technophobes though they may be, there's no evidence at all to suggest that this is true. It is obviously true that they want to restrict the application of aerodynamic technology, but suggesting that they want to return to the bicycles of the late 1980's is unnecessarily hyperbolic.

The main issue here for me is consistency and timing. The UCI is completely right to have rules governing the use of technological advances within the sport. We do want a level playing field, so that athletic ability is what really matters. But there is also the need to allow for technological innovation and change, because it is true that technology is a part of the sport and always has been. The rules actually don't strike a bad balance at the moment. In a situation where 'anything goes,' there is a HUGE advantage to teams and sponsors with big budgets to devote to testing novel frame designs, components and etc. With an admittedly arbitrary template in place, there is still room for technological innovation, but restricting it to modifying that template within certain limits greatly reduces the variables which means that the playing field on technology is somewhat leveled. There are still advantages to those with the better tech, but under good rules the technology game remains in place, but it stays competitive for the non-juggernauts of the sport. The UCI would be doing an good job at this if they had any consistency in their application of the rules.

So, no, the goal is not to stifle innovation, let alone revert to old technology. Rules are GOOD. We need them. The problem is poor enforcement. The UCI has sucked at this for years.

if the UCI really wanted to level the playing field they could have weight classes for riders. Imagine Leonardo Piepoli and David Millar in two separate time trials. One of them up Alpe d'Huez and the other one on 50km of flat. Is that a level playing field?

Missing the point. Either that or you're being sarcastic. "Weight classes" in cycling would make for an incredibly boring sport, not that it would even be possible to pull off.

[QUOTE=grolby;8866300It is obviously true that they want to restrict the application of aerodynamic technology, but suggesting that they want to return to the bicycles of the late 1980's is unnecessarily hyperbolic.

[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. There is a precedent of exactly this in the case of the world hour record. It remains to this day. It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility of the same kind of thinking applied to road time trials.

Missing the point. Either that or you're being sarcastic. "Weight classes" in cycling would make for an incredibly boring sport, not that it would even be possible to pull off.

bingo

My point with the weight classes is that it is a completely ridiculous concept. As is the aerodynamics witch-hunt that they are engaging in in order to "level the playing field"

if the UCI really wanted to level the playing field they could have weight classes for riders. Imagine Leonardo Piepoli and David Millar in two separate time trials. One of them up Alpe d'Huez and the other one on 50km of flat. Is that a level playing field?

Yea, and the heavier riders also get to skip all the mountains in a mountain stage, right? :rolleyes:

The point is to allow everyone the choice of equivalent equipment, so that the equipment advantage of one rider to the next comes down to choices that everyone can make (disk wheel or 404 in windy conditions, light rim or aero rim on the mountain stage, etc). If team A has $10 million to play with, and team B has only $1 million (or whatever units makes sense, you get the picture), it is logical to think that in an "anything goes" system, team A has a big advantage. $10 million will get you a lot of development; lots of prototypes and lots of testing. $1 million might get you one shot in the dark; maybe it's good, maybe it's bad - can't tell because there isn't money for trial and error.

The problem for the bike manufacturers is that they have two options, both bad from a business standpoint. Either they concede that the playing field is not level (i.e. teams that can afford the R&D get a significant advantage in the race) and bring on regulation to level the field, or they are forced to argue in front of their customers that the "aerodynamic benefits" they tout so much in their sales material are not significant enough factors in the bike race to affect the outcome, which means they are arguing their own irrelevance.