cyclezen

Though this may not have industry-wide affects, it certainly will hinder the custom builders who now supply some teams/riders. And I'm not sure what 'elite' level refers to in UCI-speak - just world tour, continental also, national level ??? anyone know what 'elite' is defined as, when it comes to teams?
And it may have the usual negative trickledown that comes from the UCI, in the hinderance of new technology which is heretical to their 'cycling bible'.
just more papal bull **** from the UCI ?

https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/a...in-2014-38019/

coachboyd

For your normal, run of the mill, weekend races you will be fine to use wheels without the stickers on them. If you are doing any nationally ranked races (NRC races, NCC crits, Elite or master's national championships, or any UCI sanctioned races) then your wheels will have to comply and the sticker will be needed on the wheels.

My biggest gripe is the UCI tests the the exact same tests we already do for EN standards, we just get the "privilege" of sending the UCI a big check and a lot of wheels for them to destroy for the "honor" of being UCI certified.

So for our wheels next year, we are probably going to add another small sticker next to the one the UCI will require.

GamecockTaco

tell us how you really feel, coachboyd!

rpenmanparker 

Are the requirements all safety related (determined by testing of ability to withstand abuse), performance related (determination of stiffness, true, etc.) or also specification related like weight, spoke count, nipple material, aero or not, spoke gauge, etc.

ericm979

Safety. But mostly it's an addtional revenue source for the UCI and another way they can bend the sport to their will. All the large wheel manufacturers are for it because it creates a big barrier for new or small manufacturers (like Boyd). In that sense it is anti-competitive.

I don't understand the paragraph about custom wheels:
"One other thing discussed was the loophole for handbuilt wheels," Lew said. "If you're a brand, you’re required to pass this test. However, if you are a wheel-builder, you can assemble wheels and give them to a team, and the team can ride the wheels. Production models have to be tested, but not custom wheels. That regulation is likely changing."

is "likely changing" means that the "loophole" will disappear, or remain?

Many national federations do not bother enforcing UCI regs on their amateurs. So I am free to keep racing wheels I build. Maybe I should buy some fake UCI stickers just in case.

coachboyd

the loophole will likely mean that if you are building with an approved rim, and a certain number of spokes are used, then you can race that wheel (like what High Road did by custom building onto Zipp rims). however, one thing they have to figure outs is when multiple brands are using the same rims. For example if there are two wheel companies both using Gigantex rims and one goes ahead and gets UCI certified, does that automatically qualify the other to use them and call themself a "custom" wheel builder. this is interesting because this exact situation has potential to play out next year here in the States.

Bah Humbug

I salute you, good sir.

Jiggle

The UCI is getting like King George toward the colonies. Lots of petty rules but not really doing much against the important things like catching dopers. It's time for a worldwide "Declaration of Independence" from these clowns.

Tel0004

Sometimes I wonder if UCI is trying to hold back innovation. Professional cycling should be like formula one. Drop (or lower) the weight rule, and let the pros ride the best of the best bikes. Just like formula one, there should be some rules to keep it safe, and (at the lower levels) have rules to keep it more affordable, but sometimes I wonder if the UCI hates innovation.

cyclezen

don't wonder, it is and has been clearly a clear objective of UCI. To some extent, the original thoughts were that if not controlled bike racing would be sideshow of funky bike designs (or so they thought...), and certainly there prolly needs to be some general standardization. On the extreme, allowing recumbants and other more aero positions would compromise safety in a large and tight peloton.
In TT, the designing was definitely stifled in order to keep TT machines in the same realm as the normal road machines. The first really big brewhaha happened when Lemond showed up at a TDF TT with the bullhorm bars. They were actually barred for race, but then allowed later.
Of course his beating of Fignon by a final 8 sec. during the final stage of the TDF had the whole thing blow up again. Then there was a short time when TT 'funny bikes' (usually smaller profile front wheel - 650 or even smaller) were legal, but that was quickly squashed. Then Obreee's innovations in time trialing and position were summarily squashed.
For a long time bikes which didn;t have common diamond main triangles were also raceable (I raced one for 2 seasons...). But that was also squashed, even though the overall position and profile was very much the same as the current accepted 'road' std.
Then came the weight thing...
And now the wheel thing, which gets blamed on the Spinergy fragile rim thing. In the case of a poor rim design, that'll surface quickly and I wouldn;t believe that teams would risk either their riders or their results on poor equipment. SO I think this type of equipment issue sorts itself out without the need for UCI interference. But UCI always seems to find questionable ways to collect the dinars.

And when one reads about the latest machinations in the UCI director race, it's no wonder they are so totally screwed up.

BigJeff

I'm scared of bicycling becoming "Formula 1". Bicycling needs to be mechanical.

Electronic shifting is the path to the dark side... next your bike will shift based on computer decision.


They removed traction control in Formula 1 as a positive step to remove the computers.

SirHustlerEsq

+1

ThermionicScott 

I constantly wonder why this hasn't happened yet -- one would think that each country or area should be more than happy to sanction their own races, without regard to how they stack up worldwide, and without needing to pay whatever cut of the licensing fees currently go to them. Hour Record? Tour de France? Sure, but how important is it that the UCI approved of your local crit or cyclocross race?

bigfred 

My god, if it weren't for the UCI we might all be riding on bikes shaped like an X or a Y and making full use of carbon reinforced plastic design properties, while being lighter and stiffer than any of the "double diamond, straight tube" designs that the UCI has mandated. Thank goodness they've saved all of us from ourselves.

Now, they're simply doing the same for our wheel choices. How could this possibly be anything but all kinds of good? (That's sarcasm. For those who don't have the sarcasm detector upgrade.)

So glad I build my own. But, I can't help but wonder if this might not have an effect on the rims available to me, just as the frame ruling has had.

Bah Humbug

Formula1 also banned automatic transmissions. And there is evidence that some teams have at least partially-effective traction control.

Bah Humbug

Formula1 has a minimum weight rule, but it includes the weight of the driver.

canam73

I don't want grooves in my tires.

Bob Dopolina 

The original idea of UCI standards was to level the playing field between the teams with generous budgets and those who were struggling to pay the bills. The idea was that no team should be able to BUY a win. By this I mean that in a competitive environment where 1% or 2% separates the the top riders the winner should not be the one from the best funded team. In short, technology should not be a factor.

It's a noble idea I'm confident most would support; It should be about the rider, not the equipment.

This idea has since been corrupted by the self interested pricks running the UCI. Most of these 'standards' are nothing more then the CE, EN or DIN standards most equipment is already tested to. It is a cash grab, plain and simple. The big players support it because it raises the barrier to entry and excludes the up an comers. It allows the established brands with deep pockets to grab the lions share of the spotlight.

In terms of stifling innovation I think this is overstated. There may be individual instances where this is true but after a century of development the fundamentals of a racing bicycle, AS DEFINED BY THE SPORT, are pretty well established. There is always room for improvement, especially with newer materials allowing designs that were not possible even a decade ago, but really most are only refinements on ideas that have already been proven.

I can understand weight restrictions within this context but I think the exact numbers should be able to be review and revised as products, that are readily available to consumers, are PROVEN out over time to be safe.

And this is the last argument that can be made for these standards. Products MUST BE PROVEN SAFE. Having a product fail on your group ride or on the MUP is bad enough. Having products fail during competition leading to injury is criminal. Having a product fail that ends the career of a rider, that ends their ability to provide for them and potentially their families for the rest of their life is worth a little bit of second guessing and a more stringent set of requirements for use.

When peoples lives and livelihoods are on the line it is always better to err on the side of caution.

It's too bad that that is not the driving force behind the UCI standards as it should be. Instead it is a blatant cash grab by a group of shameless bastards.

THSdrummer

Does that mean UCI approved wheels will cost more?

I already can't afford a pair of Zipps. This means more Lightweight wheels will die for the sake of the same testing as well?

Psimet2001 

I have been getting this question a lot.

It's simply a cash grab - backed up by Mavic/SRAM/Reynolds, etc.

I had a great conversation with a father of 2 pros that have been using my wheels - even rebadged - for quite a while. "Rob there isn't a rash of kids sitting in hospitals because of wheel failures. In fact wheels like yours survive better than those other wheels anyway. What they should be doing is requiring certification and testing of anyone who is gluing tubulars. THAT is putting kids into the hospital."

I still have to look into it, but most of this level of the industry is using a lot of the same basic components and a lot of the same factories. The second they make any of us submit a product that has already gotten a sticker under another brand name is the second they reveal it to solely be a money grab and nothing more.

FWIW - I sponsored Vanderkitten Pro Women's Team. For the price of this testing (albeit from what I have heard) I could equip 2 or 3 more struggling women's teams. I would much rather do that than give the UCI a dime.

Unfortunately if I don't figure out this before next season - while they continue to change it every week or two - I will have to pull out of sponsorship. That's not helping anyone but the UCI.

Like I said - the wheels aren't putting kids in the hospital. now STFU UCI and go back to measuring sock height.

Psimet2001 

If I paid them to certify my wheels I would have to charge more for my wheels. If this keeps guys like me out of the market then you bet your ass that the big guys will use this as a marketing bit and justification to charge more for what you're already getting.

Bah Humbug

Have you watched Formula1 in the last few years?

bigfred 

At least in the case of carbon frames I have to disagree on this point. If it weren't for the UCI's mandate that all frames be of a double diamond design we would have a lot of options shaped like Trek's "Y" bike or the few "X" bikes that were largely custom built before the rule change.

The other area that I see a definate stiffling of technology is the 3:1 single element rule. Oval was on the right path with regard to recuding aero drag of the rider and wheels through the use of an F1 approach when they designed their bars, forks and stays. Oh, and add in the UCI mandated riding position.

Level saddles? With a bubble level? Sock measuring?

canam73

Yeah, I know the grooves are gone. But to me it is the best example of the the mis-guided dickering by the FIA.

And I did largely loose interest in F1 during to 2000s and today hardly watch.

THSdrummer

As if I didn't think aero carbon wheels were already overpriced from the big guys...

I should probably get onto buying a training and racing wheelset right now.