bdcheung

Let's flame the UCI for once again ****ing **** up.

edit: For clarity, the new rule states that anything on a bike can't have dimensions that exceed a 3:1 ratio of length:diameter. So if an aero wheel is 20mm wide, it can only be 60mm deep (that's one interpretation anyways. The UCI is so ambiguous about this - and many rules.). Here's a picture:

ElJamoquio

Que?

substructure

https://www.bikeradar.com/news/articl...uci-rule-20431

eskimo85

I wish they would just let them come up with whatever designs they want.

gsteinb

I really don't get why there are weight or technical restrictions. Or better yet, why there should be middle ground. I say go all the way back to square one, or let them have free reign. It seems crazy to be worrying about how many CMs someone's saddle is behind the BB.

captnfantastic

Ret@rded... making more rules just for the sake of making more rules.

"Because we can"

YMCA

Regulations mean level playing fields.
That's a good thing.
Tactics and fitness should dictate who wins, not technology.

gsteinb

Why? Technology drives sales.

bdcheung

This ain't NASCAR. If anything, it's more akin to Formula 1.

Karenjack241

Dumb question: does this make disk wheels illegal, or are they covered under another article?

bdcheung

Nobody knows.

merlinextraligh

You realize everyone would be racing fully faired recumbents? at least on the flat stages, and TT's.

Creakyknees

wtf... by that wording, your brake levers are illegal. and so are your pedals and your saddle and possibly your crankarms.

gsteinb

I'm pretty sure a rule can be crafted that would outlaw recumbents and fairings without leaving the sport with a cluster **** of ambiguity.

bdcheung

That rule exists:

1.3.020 For massed start road races and cyclo-cross events, the frame of the bicycle shall be of a traditional pattern, i.e. built around a main triangle. It shall be constructed of straight or tapered tubular elements (which may be round, oval, flattened, teardrop shaped or otherwise in cross-section); the centre line of each element shall always be straight. The elements of the frame shall be laid out such that the joining points shall follow the following pattern: the top tube (1) connects the top of the head tube (2) to the top of the seat tube (4); the seat tube (from which the seat post shall extend) shall connect to the bottom bracket shell; the down tube (3) shall connect the bottom bracket shell to the bottom of the head tube. The rear triangles shall be formed by the chain stays (6), the seat stays (5) and the seat tube (4).

skipmcne

I'd like to point out the Irony of the implication that Bicycle racing should be Aerodynamically regulated like F1.
NASCAR restricts folks to a template; FIA has to deal with a much more... dynamic group of innovators.

the UCI (in the past (see: restrictions on TT bikes and competition for the Hour)) has ruled that they prefer a "traditional" definition of a bicycle. Meaning: that what looks like what Merckx rode. (the NASCAR approach). whereas the Manufacturers are more in-league (technically at least) with FIA Folks.

So the UCI has come up with a new rule on airfoil tapers.

I can't think of a demonstrated safety reason for the rule; therefore it must be punative; restricting people who make bikes that don't "look" like their' NASCAR ideals.

carlfreddy

Except when the UCI's technical consultant has no practical engineering experience.

None whatsoever.

His background is industrial ergonomics.

The man at UCI responsible for making these regulations is literally winging it.

https://velonews.com/article/85255

ZeCanon

If anyone was wondering whether the UCI could get any MORE idiotic, here's your answer. You would think that a rule change requiring almost every TT bike to be changed considerably would be something you might want to point out to your protour teams more than a few days before the first TT...

carlfreddy

I just want to clarify my stance here:

Its not like I'm in favor of radical changes, but it only makes sense new technologies will come along that bring improvements to the road bike as we know it (standard main triangle frame, nothing exotic here).

Rules will always be pushed, always. Especially when they are being written by people who have no technical expertise.

esammuli

Seriously. Cyclingnews was talking about teams needing to change frames, handlebars, seat posts, wheels. They said that (with the exception of Bontrager) EVERY aerobar setup in the peloton would become illegal.

jrennie

It's just now getting pub but the Mfg's and team knew about the rules for some time and UCI announced they would be enforcing it. I'm a TT wh@re, love the stuff and the tech but breaking the rules in this is no different than PED's. Cheating is cheating, it doesn't change what it is just because you haven't been caught yet.

tanhalt

The problem is, what rule has been changed? I'm not seeing it. The way the rules are written, those ratios apply to "frame elements"...and it's been that way for a LONG time. If you look at the latest UCI rule book, these portions haven't changed.

Why are they suddenly changing their interpretation of the rules?

I'm all for preventing cheating...but I'm also a big proponent of clearly written and enforceable rules along with consistent enforcement of said rules, both of which the UCI seems to be in drastically short supply.

It's funny...someone told me just last week that the literal definition of "grey area" is the UCI

carlfreddy

Cross sections used to have to fit into a 8x2.5cm rectangle, now cross sections can't exceed a 3:1 ratio of L:W.

If you can't see how that changes things then I'd suggest going back and taking High School Algebra again. Actually, common ratios is covered in Pre-Algebra.....

tanhalt

Ummm...I know that, and as I said above, BOTH of those constraints have been in force for a LONG time when applied to "frame elements" as the rules specifically state. Perhaps you need a refresher in reading comprehension?? It would probably help if you were a little more up to speed on the UCI rules too, huh?

What has apparently changed is that they now want to apply the rules to other parts of the bike that ARE NOT frame elements...and yet, they haven't changed the rules to reflect that change in interpretation. Instead, they'll just "drop a bomb" in the middle of a stage race...jerks

Then again, it's not like that ever stopped them in the past

Treefox

At what angle is this measured? I assume it must be perpendicular to the tube, rather than parallel to the ground, as that would make any toptube illegal... heh...

But the direction indicator suggests otherwise.

And my impression is that this doesn't apply to wheels (which have other regulations regarding depth); this seems to be frame only... But I'm no expert...