hotbike

I found this article today:

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/...tail/5226.html

Quote:

"LAGUNA HILLS, CA (BRAIN)—The International Cycling Union (UCI) has approved the first models of frames and forks following requests submitted by their manufacturers.

The approved models belong to the following brands: Richard Sachs Cycles, Scott Sports SA, Cicli Pinarello S.p.A., Willier Triestina S.p.A., Felt Bicycles, Cannondale Bicycle Corporation and BMC Trading AG et Corima SA.

When they arrive on the market, the concerned frames and forks will feature a label certifying they are UCI approved.

The full list—regularly updated—of approved models is now available in the equipment section of the UCI website, according to a press release.

As of today, the UCI has received approval requests from 17 manufacturers—including several leaders in the bicycle market—for more than 40 models. The UCI will communicate the names of the labeled models as they are approved.

The UCI’s technology coordinator Julien Carron said, “We appreciate that manufacturers on a whole have welcomed this new approval procedure. In January a meeting was organized at the UCI headquarters to enable manufacturers to actively contribute to the structure of the procedure. The UCI now continuously receives requests for approval from manufacturers, which clearly shows that the approval procedure is well accepted.”

According to Bill Duehring, president of Felt Bicycles, “Felt is very proud to be among the first bicycle makers to receive the new UCI race-approved label. As a performance-oriented company fully committed to the competition side of cycling, we totally support this new clear and streamlined process. It takes any subjectivity out of what is UCI-legal and what isn’t, something we are 100 percent in favor of. Given the modern day complexity, lead times and costs associated with building advanced design bicycles we are quite happy to see the UCI embrace manufacturers as they have.”

Frame manufacturer Richard Sachs, specialist in the production of frames for road cycling and cyclocross, was also among the first to request approval for one of his products. “After my initial approval request, everything happened quickly. The procedure was simple and low cost. As manager and sponsor of a cyclocross team that participates in around 30 races per season, I have to say that the approval procedure for a product is as simple as that of registering for a race.”

The UCI approval procedure for frames and forks came into force on January 1, 2011. The procedure ultimately leads to the award of a label certifying that new models are in accordance with the requirements of the UCI Regulation.

Following consultation with the manufacturers, the UCI set up three distinct approval procedures: a comprehensive procedure (concerning “Monocoque”..."

End Quote

I am following this story because I built a Fiberglass Ladies Bicycle (My avatar photo), and it turns out that not only is the aerodynamic fairing a monocoque, but the frame itself is a monocoque.

I hope this doesn't cause too much confusion, since fairings are considered cheating by the UCI, and we only used to hear the term "Monocoque" used in reference to HPV's, Recumbent Streamliners, and Velomobiles.

I know my Daughter's bike will never be UCI certified, since the fairing is cast in one piece with the frame.

But what they mean by "Monocoque" is that the Carbon Fiber strands are continuous. The fibers begin in the top tube, wrap spirally (or helically) around the head tube, and continue several inches into the down tube. Then the fibers in the top tube and down tube overlap the struture by several inches, embedded in the resin, which makes for a single structure that can not come apart. Totally different from glueing sticks together.

What are your thoughts, anybody?

unterhausen

I believe they are differentiating between a bike that has no discrete tubes and one that is made of tubes. There is a clarification of the rules for bikes made of tubes somewhere on the UCI site.

I can't see the bike in your avatar that well, but they have limits in how big the tubes (or analogous structural elements) can be and where the seat is relative to the pedals that would seem to disqualify the bike even if it didn't have a fairing.

hotbike

Here's a larger version of my avatar photo:


Now, I know the UCI won't allow fairings, And the "effective seat tube angle" on this bike is 54 degrees, so it's a recumbent, and the UCI won't allow recumbents.
By "effective seat tube angle" I mean "where the seat is relative to the pedals ".

What is the limit on the size of the tubes? This frame has a single monster tube, four inches wide and about six inches deep. You can't make a frame any wider on account the bottom bracket isn't long enough, and the cranks won't have room to turn.

I was thinking about making a carbon fiber version of this Monocoque bike, and maybe reduce the frame tube dimensions to 3 inches wide by 5 inches deep.

Question:
So what is the maximum size tube allowed by UCI?
I need to know in case someone asks me to build a carbon fiber bike.

And I don't need the fairing. I only think the faired bike should go in the show room window of the bike shop, to dazzle passers by and window-shoppers.

unterhausen

for discrete tubes, it's 80mm. But don't listen to me, the rules are on the UCI site

hotbike

Oh, mumble ______#,

Well if that's the case, I can't build a UCI certified frame. Our tubes are way more than 80mm. I don't have permission from Mellisa to make the tubes any less than 3 inch by 5 inch, oval cross section.

I'm not sure what "discrete" means... I was really thinking the frame tubes should be "bold and outlandish", I wasn't thinking "discrete" at all.

Maybe a totally new design, with a higher seat tube angle, NO fairing, and 80mm tubes is in order.

I agree with H3ndry, a new bikeforums member, who just posted his first thread:

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ign-me-a-frame

titled "Can anyone design me a frame".

I'm a structural engineer, not a designer. I'd rather have someone else design a frame, then I'll review the design, make suggestions for changes related to structural integrity, and give the designer a list of design parameters, to use in the redesign. Mainly I want the designer to know that I will only build a "Monocoque" frame, and I'm not going to put my name on a CF bicycle that uses the "stick and glue" construction technique.

We had this Monocoque design Twenty Years Ago, and now the buzzword in Carbon Fiber frame design is "Monocoque". I just want the designers to know that I refuse to regress twenty years in the design and construction.

Note: I was offline for two days, on account I got the "blue screen of death" and I had to get a new computer. This is very interesting, the keyboard and mouse are wireless, and the keyboard is very small. I have to go over and post something in the A&S Forum now, bye.

NoReg

Yeah, what you are building is more what I would call monocoque, based on other stuff I make like boats. There the idea is sorta exoskeleton vs ribs and skins, which doesn't for the most part have an analogy in bikes. I suppose a frame that looks like tubes but isn't would be just as much, though why one would make such a bike, other than to set design backwards for race purposes is an open question. Mostly my brain was frying reading that article and trying to figure out how RS was considered a builder of Monocoque frames.

erik c

He's not, he (RS) used the simplified tubular procedure.
snip...
“ Monocoque” models used during massed start road races and cyclo-cross, as well as “Monocoque” models with backdated approval (prior to 2011) and a simplified procedure (concerning “tubular” models). snip...

NoReg

Yeah, I know. It was his prominence in the article, vs the thread heading.

erik c

I think the thread heading was a bit misleading, because of the special interests of the OP.
The new UCI regs apply to all frames used in UCI competition, not just monocoques.

I think RS is featured prominently because he was one of the first three manufacters to have actually gone through the UCI process. He's also been relatively vocal about the painlessness of the process, so it makes sense to me to have his "sound bites" included.

I also don't think I'm typing anything you didn't already know.

96_xj

all I know is my Monocoque frame is still not UCI compliant.... Only USAC/T racing allowed

hotbike

96_xj,

Thank you for posting that photo. This is what is meant by a Monocoque frame. If I redesigned my frame without the fairing, and raised the seat tube angle, I don't think it would look much different than this.
What is the name brand of this frame? I read "BP Stealth", is that correct? Are there any other bikes similar to this one?

repechage

If Richard Sachs were to get NJS certification then we will know he is serious, the UCI stuff is paperwork.

I do like the looks of his Sax Max lug set. I think he will have to apply separately for UCI certification for that model. I do find humorous that Richard went to the trouble to create this lug set, he has for so long been asking why to 1.125" steerers...
Maybe he rode that oversize bike from another builder he has enough to have a divine inspiration.

unterhausen

RS has posted elsewhere that he does not have to re-apply for tube diameter changes. I don't see him exceeding 80 mm with his head tubes any time soon.

repechage

That just reinforces the view that these new regs. are a license to steal.

unterhausen

they really aren't new regs, they just replace the process where the uci guy walks around with a tape measure

repechage

There might be some consistency in the future where a bike is allowed once then excluded at the next event.
In theory, a bike will be approved then allowed, there will be no second guessing. There is a similar applications of rules in NASCAR, (being cynical on purpose, just ask the Toyota engineers what they think about their "box" engine being penalized as it is better than the box).
This is an interesting period, in the 70's as an example the playing field was quite level, only very minor variations in bikes. Today the race on Sunday, sell on Monday push is quite strong, it will be interesting to see how the brands innovate in the new format. I bet in a short time there will be a limit of models introduced in any one year.

e-RICHIE

you'll be the first to know atmo.
thanks so much.
eric is right - i won't need to.
i am on the supply side of the industry too, and another revenue source is a good thing.
all inspiration should be as divine as the ride of my gaulzetti.

ps the single best explanation about the need for rules lies in ken getchell's quote pasted in my post on V -
https://www.velocipedesalon.com/forum...tml#post281882

pps the rules are not new - they're not new at all. the UCI at the behest of many industry types on the road side was encouraged to finally enforce them. according to my opinion, applying to the org and complying with them (the rules) i a lot more seamless the way it's mapped out now than if every bicycle had to be measured at every race start at every venue atmo. for folks who never have any overlap or synergy with the UCI events, none of this should make their radar.

repechage

Those who do not understand the lessons of history are condemned to repeat.

https://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4046695

And concurrent with that

Eventually, one brand's good solution is a competing brand's allegation of cheating.
To say that the bikes on the start line are/will be the same as the model approved is charming.
They will still need the ability to do "start line" measurements. Rules are made to be bent.

unterhausen

why the antagonistic tone? The rules were always there. You can see the effect if you watch Contador squirming on his saddle in last year's tour time trial. Some time back they decided they didn't want to become the human powered vehicle racing association and put rules in place that limit the designs that can be used in their races. AFAIK, the HPVA or something like it still exists and at least awards records.

NASCAR had the very real issue of drivers and fans dying if they didn't do something about safety. Over the last couple of seasons this has led them to limit design choices to a single chassis design with branded power plants. There is no way to take a stock car and make it safe to travel at 200mph. The UCI would have real issues if they were to go to a single design for no good reason.

e-RICHIE

you and i are talking at cross purposes atmo.

the rules, the ones i am referring to that have been on the books for years, inform frame geometry and, to an extent, design. we wouldn't want to encourage anything at all with two wheels showing up and starting at every race. if one doesn't like the rules, there are always other races, governing bodies, or HPV events on the salt flats. anyway - what's the rub? do you race, or have something at stake, or a product this affects? this is a genuine question.