Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Track Cycling: Velodrome Racing and Training Area (http://www.bikeforums.net/track-cycling-velodrome-racing-training-area/)
-   -   **** just got real - UCI revisiting the Lugano Charter (http://www.bikeforums.net/track-cycling-velodrome-racing-training-area/926746-just-got-real-uci-revisiting-lugano-charter.html)

8bits 12-19-13 11:36 AM

**** just got real - UCI revisiting the Lugano Charter
 
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/...onsultant.html

http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/f...02-659x440.jpg

Quote:

Martin Gibbs, the UCI Chief of Staff, said, ‘We'd really like to get back to the kind of levels of interest in this area that we saw with riders like Chris Boardman and Graeme Obree in the 1990s. Not necessarily quite that level of anarchy, but certainly we'd like to see that sort of excitement.

‘I think in the past the UCI has been guilty of regulating things it shouldn't have, and not regulating the things it should. We want Dimitris to look at everything, all the regulations, across the board. With his current knowledge, he'll be able to take an intelligent approach to regulating what we need to, and leaving the rest alone.'

Katsanis's remit will include looking at the Lugano Charter, the 1997 document that brought to an end the innovations of the 1980s and 1990s by spelling out the approach that the rider must always be more important than the bike.

‘A lot has happened in development since then,' says Gibbs. ‘Its philosophical basis is fine, but in the past actually translating it into rules has been a challenge. So we want to see if it needs re-written or refreshed.'

queerpunk 12-19-13 12:11 PM

I doubt that things are going to get revised to the point where we see weird and explosive experimentation - I just bet that they'll find a better balance with what they regulate and how they articulate those regulations.

8bits 12-19-13 01:12 PM

I'm skeptical too, but his phrasing seems to suggest something "more exciting" as he puts it.

Racer Ex 12-19-13 01:17 PM

I understand there may be a move from the penny farthing to the safety bicycle.

Quinn8it 12-19-13 01:19 PM

Please let me put my saddle back where it belongs for the kilo!!!!

amybikes 12-19-13 01:26 PM

Really, really awesome. Although do you guys think this will give the GB team an even bigger advantage than they already have, equipment wise? But really, totally, a positive IMO.

carleton 12-19-13 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amybikes (Post 16343568)
Really, really awesome. Although do you guys think this will give the GB team an even bigger advantage than they already have, equipment wise? But really, totally, a positive IMO.

Probably, but only because they seem to not only invest in coaching, travel, talent search, and stipends/salaries for their athletes, but also equipment and technology.

I haven't noticed any other national teams (or private teams) investing as heavily in equipment and technology. Maybe the Australians.

But, if this opens the door for major manufacturers to make money off of new tech, then I can see the major players (Specialized, Trek, Fuji, Giant) letting their engineers go wild in an effort to chase Olympic Gold and all of the free press and sales that come with that.

Many of us have worked in bike shops and I remember when Lance was on his streak and customers would come in saying, "I want a Trek." Period. They didn't care about specs, groupos, low-mid-high end...they just wanted a Trek because Treks won races.

JMR 12-19-13 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn8it (Post 16343553)
Please let me put my saddle back where it belongs for the kilo!!!!

HAHA! Like!

JMR

JMR 12-19-13 08:13 PM

Hopefully they get rid of/adjust the bike weight minimum rule.

JMR

brawlo 12-19-13 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMR (Post 16344725)
Hopefully they get rid of/adjust the bike weight minimum rule.

JMR

Perhaps using a crash test standard like they do with wheels will be better. Frames requiring ballast to pass have been around for many years now, thus proving the durability of the lighter frames. Perhaps also acknowledging the fact that groupset weight reductions have had a big impact in this respect also!

JMR 12-19-13 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brawlo (Post 16344782)
Perhaps using a crash test standard like they do with wheels will be better. Frames requiring ballast to pass have been around for many years now, thus proving the durability of the lighter frames. Perhaps also acknowledging the fact that groupset weight reductions have had a big impact in this respect also!

Yep, I think that they still need to keep something in place to make sure that bikes don't get so light that they become unsafe... but in this day and age 6.8kg is far too high.

JMR

Racer Ex 12-20-13 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amybikes (Post 16343568)
Really, really awesome. Although do you guys think this will give the GB team an even bigger advantage than they already have, equipment wise? But really, totally, a positive IMO.

Actually, it gives the other guys a better chance, if history is any indicator.

Think Graeme Obree's home built specials.

Tight restrictions on the form of equipment preclude the sort of light bulb moments you saw in his case, and tend to favor the bigger budget folks that can squeeze the most from what they have.

Motor racing is full of examples of some crazy genius finding a new way to skin a cat and knocking off the big guys. Colin Chapman and Lotus was a great example...hey, let's put the engine in the back. They were tiny compared to Ferrari and Mercedes, yet they came to dominate F1.

Funny to note that Obree took big swings at the Lotus bike, by that time Lotus was Goliath and Orbee was David with a welder and an idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMR (Post 16345129)
Yep, I think that they still need to keep something in place to make sure that bikes don't get so light that they become unsafe... but in this day and age 6.8kg is far too high.

JMR

There's no such thing as a "safe" weight, and no correlation between weight and a safe device. If you look at the recall list for consumer cycling products, the most recalled stuff is usually cheap and heavy things along the lines of the Denali MTB.

As a kid I broke a lot of heavy steel bikes in half.

usheen 12-21-13 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carleton (Post 16343620)

I haven't noticed any other national teams (or private teams) investing as heavily in equipment and technology. Maybe the Australians.

The germans? Their FES's look pretty advanced

bikemig 12-21-13 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer Ex (Post 16343544)
I understand there may be a move from the penny farthing to the safety bicycle.

You know what they say, 2 wheels are better than one. . . .

carleton 12-21-13 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by usheen (Post 16348753)
The germans? Their FES's look pretty advanced

Yes! I forgot the Germans. Their FES work probably inspired the British program.

Baby Puke 12-21-13 01:50 PM

Still gotta have that saddle 5cm behind the bb looks like, no help to anyone riding kilos.

Velocirapture 12-21-13 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Puke (Post 16349108)
Still gotta have that saddle 5cm behind the bb looks like, no help to anyone riding kilos.

The latest on saddle position is that the nose needs to be in line or behind the BB, I believe. Nose-tip within 5cm was allowed under biometric discretion previously, but its the biometric discretion part that has fallen away, if i understand correctly.

Kayce 12-21-13 07:01 PM

Maybe the regulations will start to understand that not every cyclist is even proportioned and between 5'8" and 6'1". The rules are annoying for average sized folks, but downright impossible for the very short or the very tall.

Quinn8it 12-21-13 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocirapture (Post 16349439)
The latest on saddle position is that the nose needs to be in line or behind the BB, I believe. Nose-tip within 5cm was allowed under biometric discretion previously, but its the biometric discretion part that has fallen away, if i understand correctly.

AHHH- HUH?
Latest? wheres that info coming from?

As i understand it- and as it was inforced all 2013-
*the saddle can be even with the BB(or behind) in sprint events ridden in drop handlebars (500/1K, Sprints, Keirin)
*the saddle must be at least 5cm behind the BB in Endurance events and/or any event ridden in aero bars..

the new restriction of enforcing a 5cm saddle set-back on kilo riders that use aero-bars is what has me and Babypuke all worked up..

Do you have some different information??

Velocirapture 12-22-13 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn8it (Post 16349850)
AHHH- HUH?
Latest? wheres that info coming from?

As i understand it- and as it was inforced all 2013-
*the saddle can be even with the BB(or behind) in sprint events ridden in drop handlebars (500/1K, Sprints, Keirin)
*the saddle must be at least 5cm behind the BB in Endurance events and/or any event ridden in aero bars..

the new restriction of enforcing a 5cm saddle set-back on kilo riders that use aero-bars is what has me and Babypuke all worked up..

Do you have some different information??

The commissaires at world masters all allowed me to ride with my saddle nose in line with the BB. Including in my pursuit. No one measured me 'biometrically' to ensure that a plumbline ran from the front of my knee, through the pedal spindle at 3 OClock (as it states in the UCI rules), and one of the commissaires mentioned that that had fallen away as the current take is that that the overall reach from back of saddle to front of pursuit bars couldn't be more than a certain length in total. So perhaps that's the factor for yourself and Babypuke? I haven't seen the actual written information though.

Velocirapture 12-22-13 11:14 AM

Here's an excerpt from the UCI 'REGULATIONS: CHANGES PROPOSALS PART 1 – GENERAL ORGANISATION OF CYCLING AS A SPORT' (Rules amendments in force 01.01.14),


from here: http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-...Y2NjU&LangId=1

which, in summary, says you can have your saddle tip up to the bb centre-line, so long as you are in drop bars, but if you add pursuit bars, the 5cm behind rule applies:


(The bold and strike-through disappeared when I pasted this hear, so i've just deleted the bits with strike-through; i hope i have rebolded all the correct bold bits)

(in bold, the modified parts to be approved)



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. This restriction shall not be applied to the bicycle
ridden by a rider in a sprint event on track (flying 200 m, flying lap, sprint, team sprint,
keirin, 500 metres and 1 kilometre); however, in no circumstances shall the peak of the
saddle extend in front of a vertical line passing through the bottom bracket spindle.

The peak of the saddle can be move forward until the vertical line passing through the
bottom bracket spindle where that is necessary for morphological reasons. By
morphological reasons should be understood everything to do with the size and limb
length of the rider.

Any rider who, for these reasons, considers that he needs to use a bicycle of lesser
dimensions than those given shall inform the commissaires' panel to that effect at the
time of the bike check (see diagram «Measurements (2)»).

Only one exemption for morphological reasons may be requested; either the peak
of the saddle can be moved forward or the handlebar extensions can be moved
forward, in accordance with Article 1.3.023.



(text modified on 1.10.10 ; 1.02.12, 1.10.12)
 In force: 1.01.14




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 cm . It is also possible to add a handlebar extension
for the 500 m and kilometre time trials on the track, but in this case, the position of the tip
of the saddle must be at least 5 cm behind the vertical plane passing through the bottom
bracket axle.

The distance between the vertical line passing through the bottom bracket axle and the
extremity of the handlebar may not exceed 75 cm, with the other limits set in article
1.3.022 (B,C,D) remaining unchanged. Elbow or forearm rests are permitted (see
diagram «Structure (1B)»).

Quinn8it 12-22-13 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velocirapture (Post 16350973)
Here's an excerpt from the UCI 'REGULATIONS: CHANGES PROPOSALS PART 1 – GENERAL ORGANISATION OF CYCLING AS A SPORT' (Rules amendments in force 01.01.14),


from here: http://www.uci.ch/templates/BUILTIN-...Y2NjU&LangId=1

which, in summary, says you can have your saddle tip up to the bb centre-line, so long as you are in drop bars, but if you add pursuit bars, the 5cm behind rule applies:

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. This restriction shall not be applied to the bicycle
ridden by a rider in a sprint event on track (flying 200 m, flying lap, sprint, team sprint,
keirin, 500 metres and 1 kilometre)

Help me understand…

this seams to contradict your experience at worlds??

Quinn8it 12-22-13 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UCI
(including gear levers) must be less than 10 cm only a position where the forearmsare in the horizontal plane is permitted. It is also possible to add a handlebar extensionfor the 500 m and kilometre time trials on the track, but in this case, the position of the tipof the saddle must be at least 5 cm behind the vertical plane passing through the bottombracket axle.

From top of page 2:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/ge...I4NzM&LangId=1

Racer Ex 12-22-13 02:02 PM

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/sites...etin%20N°4.pdf

According to this bulletin effective 2014 you can morph yourself to the bottom bracket centerline without having to prove you need it. Tips of bars may go to 80 cm as well, but not both. Pad height to bar tip height 10cm or less difference.

My experience has been that tweener years or years where the National federation might have a different rule...confusion reigns. I had an official argue with me about Masters track nats rules a few years ago so I produced an email from the head of USAC's officials confirming what I was saying.

The response was "well, he didn't tell ME".

There are more than a few officials in this sport that have the who's paying who relationship backwards.

Quinn8it 12-22-13 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer Ex (Post 16351389)
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/sites...etin%20N°4.pdf

According to this bulletin effective 2014 you can morph yourself to the bottom bracket centerline without having to prove you need it. Tips of bars may go to 80 cm as well, but not both. Pad height to bar tip height 10cm or less difference.

My experience has been that tweener years or years where the National federation might have a different rule...confusion reigns. I had an official argue with me about Masters track nats rules a few years ago so I produced an email from the head of USAC's officials confirming what I was saying.

The response was "well, he didn't tell ME".

There are more than a few officials in this sport that have the who's paying who relationship backwards.

WOW! so you are saying that if i keep my extension tips inside 75cm i can ride my saddle inside of 5cm???

that might take some adapting- as i always get a morph for extension length.. my 29" legs and 72" wingspan made the extension morph easy to pass..

not having to change saddles every time i put on aero bars would be amazing!!!


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 AM.