UCI approved wheels for those that need it
 

For the people who need UCI approved wheels for their races/ rides/ etc, which of our wheels would you like to see with UCI approval?

Also, which wheels were you considering but decided not to purchase because it didn't have UCI approval? Trying to decide on which of our wheels to send in for testing/ approval by UCI..... it's a tough choice and obviously not rich enough to get them all approved.

Wtf?

I would probably be more inclined to purposely buy wheels that do NOT have the UCI approval, given the option. The UCI sticker means nothing more than an extra expense for the mfr that that is being passed on to me with ZERO benefit.

UCI approved wheels must be crash tested. I would guess just about all of your hand builts have not been tested. Boyd, Williams, November, Psimet? I'm not saying they aren't good wheels but my guess is that they haven't done the testing. The testing costs money and if your wheel fails then it costs you more money as you have to redesign.

Sean I think it's great that you have run into this issue. Means someone is using your wheels where it matters.


From USA cycling:

Wheels
Wheels must be of the same diameter, between 550 mm and 700 mm, including the tire.
For mass start races if the wheel does not pass the test of being “traditional” it must be
specifically approved by the UCI. The regulations define a “traditional wheel” as any
wheel with a rim with any cross section dimension no larger than 2.5 cm and with a
minimum of 16 metallic spokes, whose maximum cross section does not exceed 2.4 mm.
Anything more exotic than this for massed start events must first be tested and approved
by the UCI. The UCI maintains a web site with this information under the “Rules” tab.
The publication, “Non-Standard Wheels in Conformity with Article 1.3.018” contains the
latest approved wheels.

Actually, the rims that we are using have gone through pretty vigorous testing procedures, very similar to what the UCI does (and even more). The UCI approved sticker is kind of a joke, there's already the EN Standards which the wheels have to pass. The UCI just wanted in on the action.

Here's where it gets fun. Because we are using rims that can be found on other brands and some of those brands want people to think the rims are their own design. So they will go ahead and get the UCI approved label. . .well, now all of our wheels are UCI approved. This is very similar to what team high Road was doing a few years ago. They did not have a wheel sponsor, so they bought Zipp rims and custom built them. There were different wheel configurations, depths, spoke counts. But since the rim was already UCI approved they were allowed to use those wheels, the team didn't have to pay to re-approve them.

This is why the Exergy team was allowed to use Williams wheels in the Tour of Colorado last year, and we have already had a bunch of people racing UCI races in South America on our wheels (currently there's a bunch down at Vuelta a Mexico). Now, once we release our new rim design that is proprietary to us that will have to get UCI approved. However, if we take that rim and sell it to other companies to use in their lineup they will not have to get their wheels approved.
But since the testing at the factory and EN standards are already in place, the UCI testing basically involves handing them money in exchange for a sticker. Yay, I can't wait.

The UCI wheel approval criteria is a joke, no one is in denial about that. It doesn't apply in almost all races, especially in the US. The approved list covers complete wheelsets, not rims. So it can't be claimed that a wheelset is UCI approved even if the wheelsets are using a RIM that is UCI approved. It can't also be inferred that if another brand has the same rims and their wheels are UCI approved, then any other wheelset with similar rims/ components should also be UCI approved. Furthermore, it is unfair to assume that companies apply for UCI approval for their wheels to claim ownership of the rim molds. There are certainly other reasons to apply for UCI approvals apart from deception.

Let us not confuse the issue of what UCI approved teams can and cannot use with the UCI approved list of wheelsets. Team High Road could have been on SOUL wheels and they would still not need any UCI approval stickers. There are myriad examples of wheelsets that UCI pro teams are using that are not on the list. In fact SOUL wheels have been used in UCI races for many years now, without much hassle at all. There are also many teams continental/ amateur/ pro that race in UCI events with non-UCI approved wheels. For example our wheel was used in the world championships last year, no one stopped the participant, not because it was inferred that they were the same rims as other 'approved' wheelsets but because no one checked..... However, that is not the point of this post.

A year ago, I had the same thoughts as most here, the UCI are just here to make us pay more money, I don't need UCI approvals, etc. that may still be the case, However things change, the playing field changes, hence my question again, FOR THOSE who require UCI approved wheels for the events that they participate in, what wheels of ours would you like to see have this approval done?

US collegiate cycling requires UCI approved wheels. It would be nice to have some affordable deep section carbon wheels. C5.0 clincher?

From the video above: "The wheel keeps its integrity."

Uhh, I see a wheel being destroyed by a massive hammer.

+1. What's up with that? And what is the guy doing to the wheel after the test? Is that the previously damaged wheel; and if so, how on earth does that relate to riding on the thing after a crash. If you hit a curb or something hard enough to break the rim like that you're going endo.

It seems like it would make more sense to test rim integrity an high speeds if a single spoke breaks or something along those lines. If you're going to bring down the peloton, fail. If you get a little rim rub and can safely stop and swap wheels, pass. More bureaucratic nonsense.

But good luck Sean. ;)

I guess you guys don't remember the Mavic wheels that asploded during a race and made headlines.

I think this test is done to show that even with massive damage the wheel won't completely come apart and make a bad situation worse.

As for the suggestion that rim failure guarantees crashing I can assure you it does not.

A few years ago I was doing the Tour of Korea and I was pushed over some insanely high cat's eyes that did NOT fold down and were NOT the nice spherical kind found on most roads. Both of my wheels were utterly destroyed and locked up in the frame.

I came to a skidding halt but did not go down. If the wheels had collapsed I would have been eating ashphalt with NO chance of riding it out.

UCI is a joke!

What the hell!! I just got my UCI license and it wasn't cheap. I thought UCI was for real. :(

Or more precisely, Pat McQuaid is a joke.

Meh...I had wheels in the world championships in Jan. I doubt I will be paying the UCI to put a sticker on my wheels anytime soon. I have and continue to sponsor a lot of pro riders, and that won't change anytime soon.

My wheels would crush the vast majority of house branded junk that will end up getting stickers because they feel like paying.

...so custom frame manufactuers will no longer be allowed in UCI without a sticker and they can't afford to have them tested....Custom wheel builders won't be in UCI.......sounds like UCI equipment will become a who's who of bland extremely large manufacturers. Enjoy watching it.


I build wheels for riders, enthusiasts, and racers...not the UCI.

Agreed 100% on all counts

Psimet, Coachboyd and if anyone from Williams is looking...please don't take my comments as a slight of your work or a comment on the quality. Rob you repaired a wheel for me so obviously I trust your work. And reading over my post again I think I said that...but maybe it wasn't clear.

I think it's a joke too...hell the Mavic R-Sys had the sticker...how the hell did they pass? Oh yea it's all about money.

But still good for Soul for needing to have their wheels tested. To me that says they are being used in races that matter by enough people that someone (probably from another wheel company) took notice and said something to race officials or the UCI.

I'd love to be fast enough to worry about this

Why would you chose a carbon clincher over say a carbon tubular? Or even an alloy clincher?

UCI approval only matters for racing, so I would be interested in something that is both aero and light. C4.0/C5.0 seems to fit the bill. While some might argue for running tubulars for race wheels, I'm not up for dealing with them.

From a business perspective, I see people running low profile alloy wheels or deep section carbon (generally, cosmic carbone or 404). The S2.0 is in line with UCI traditional wheel requirements and doesn't need special approval, so you have something that covers the alloy end of the spectrum. Where I see a gap is in affordable UCI approved carbon wheels.

Thanks.

And this is a beautiful thing.

Thanks.

And I won't argue with that.

No Kidding.

Get a room.

Yes, the S2.0s are already UCI legal, so it doesn't need any special approval. Our tubulars are definitely going in for approval, but still not convinced about the clinchers. It's one of those situations where we don't really see a need to be racing a carbon clincher. Riding them yes, I can understand the logic there, but racing them, as special event wheels, no. But then again, what I believe may not necessarily be what consumers want, which is the main purpose of this thread.

I've seen you mention this a couple time Sean about not wanting to race on carbon clinchers. I'm just wondering why you are feeling this way (I don't want to question your belief, just looking to add to the discussion). I know for myself I have raced all my races so far this year on carbon clinchers, although it's been due to time constraints of not being able to glue tires on yet (been stretching a set for two months now, haha). I think you'll find that especially in the North American market there are many more people that will be racing clinchers more than tubulars.
Granted if you had to choose the best option for racing the tubular wheels is definitely going to be that option. But I think you'd risk missing out on a larger customer base who don't want the "hassle" of a tubular (especially the triathlete market if the wheels have to meet UCI deadlines).

I still have not heard on any situations where people have been prevented from starting any races due to not having approved wheels. I think the UCI will be too busy measuring sock height now anyway :-) I would be interested to hear how the process goes for you with getting the wheels approved and if it really is just a "pay us now" type of situation.

The ITU is far more sensible with rules, so pretty much any wheels are allowed except discs at Kona and a few other races...

Here in Australia, all categories are racing under UCI rules and more people these days are racing on clinchers including carbon clinchers... So there is a market (though people racing rather than riding recreationally isn't huge here) with clincher wheels.

The discussion here is what wheels are customers looking to purchase if they were looking for UCI approved wheels to race or join an event, not why tubulars or clinchers are better wheels to race with, I think that debate can be easily done on another thread. My preference for tubulars is just that; my preference. We sell carbon clinchers just as well as we sell carbon tubulars. BUT we do not have UCI approved wheels at the moment and I want to understand whether the consumer's choice of type of wheels is related to the type of event.

The North American market does not require UCI approval, hence people generally raced whatever wheels they had, they do not generally go out to purchase a wheelset just for a particular event and the decision rarely surfaces. Most races in NA do not require a huge amount of climbing/ decending. Having tubulars in this situation may appear to be troublesome. However, in other markets, there are alot of races where tubulars become almost essential. Flatting on a clincher while descending is dangerous, neither does it do any good to the carbon clincher rim itself. There are also many multiple stage races that do not have race support, and flatting, then damaging a carbon clincher leaves the participant without a wheel for the remainder of the stages, thus rendering the participant unable to continue. Last year I was able to finish two races with a flatting tubular just by rolling in on it. I wouldn't have been able to do that on carbon clinchers. The other benefits of clinchers vs tubulars as I said should just be left to another thread, perhaps you could start one and I will chime in there on my views on the subject and I am sure there are other more knowledgeable people on that subject as well.

The UCI is very active in Asia, Australia and Europe. Most national championships are also now heavily scrutinised by the UCI. I have come to accept the fact that if you want to play the game, you have to play by the rules. As archaic as the UCI appear, I am sure there is some logical (although most of the time I am doubful) reason why certain things are the way they are. The only thing that I feel is lacking is any form of explanation from the UCI regarding their rules which always appear exceptionally arbitrary.

So, from what I can understand, since UCI sanctioning is rarely enforced in NA, clincher wheel approval isn't actually important to most people on this board.