UCI approval stickers to be mandatory on wheels in 2014
#26
Mr. Dopolina
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217
Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times
in
41 Posts
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?
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?
I completely agree on the 3:1 ruling. This would be one of the exceptions I was talking about. But t could be argued that this was merely a refinement and not an innovation.
Level saddles and sock lengths? I have no idea wtf that is about. What's even stranger is that this isn't even something the UCI can make a dime on, it's purely about the aesthetics of the sport.
#28
I eat carbide.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 21,627
Bikes: Lots. Van Dessel and Squid Dealer
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1325 Post(s)
Liked 1,306 Times
in
560 Posts
Good point. I guess they're only 99.8% evil.
__________________
PSIMET Wheels, PSIMET Racing, PSIMET Neutral Race Support, and 11 Jackson Coffee
Podcast - YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels
Podcast - YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels
#29
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
On another UCI related note, they've tweaked the rules a bit more and have run some races to give the teams a chance to adjust to the new rules. Video from a recent "2014 rulebook" race in Australia:
And they've adopted an official UCI theme song. Very Euro. McQuaid picked it out himself:
And they've adopted an official UCI theme song. Very Euro. McQuaid picked it out himself:
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,075
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
I've always wondered where companies would look for an advantage if the rules were tighter. 2:1 or 2.5:1, <35mm rims, >24 metal spokes, no electronics, and the current weight limit. No frame/fork/wheel approval, just easy to measure specs.
im not saying I want it, I just wonder where the market focus would go. Would we see a resurgence of hand built frames and wheels?
im not saying I want it, I just wonder where the market focus would go. Would we see a resurgence of hand built frames and wheels?
#32
Senior Member
I've always wondered where companies would look for an advantage if the rules were tighter. 2:1 or 2.5:1, <35mm rims, >24 metal spokes, no electronics, and the current weight limit. No frame/fork/wheel approval, just easy to measure specs.
im not saying I want it, I just wonder where the market focus would go. Would we see a resurgence of hand built frames and wheels?
im not saying I want it, I just wonder where the market focus would go. Would we see a resurgence of hand built frames and wheels?
Heck, Just go all the way and require that all frame tubes must be round in cross section and entirely straight between joints, rims must be metallic, Oh,.....and we could put a gear development limit in place to save the pro's knees and extend their careers.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,420
Bikes: Baum Romano, Brompton S2, Homemade Bamboo!
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 474 Post(s)
Liked 204 Times
in
129 Posts
The level seat thing...
Wasn't that originally a way of banning seats that had back rests (vertical parts) that enabled the rider to push back against them and increase power? A heavily angled seat giving a similar effect?
edit - this is what I was thinking of...
Wasn't that originally a way of banning seats that had back rests (vertical parts) that enabled the rider to push back against them and increase power? A heavily angled seat giving a similar effect?
edit - this is what I was thinking of...
#35
Mr. Dopolina
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217
Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times
in
41 Posts
How about socks lengths other than the fact long socks look dopey?
#40
Senior Member
#41
Senior Member
I believe you are correct. It was a way to forbid high backed saddles for either power or aero reasons.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
#42
Senior Member
A. A means of controlling the realestate available for sale to sponsors.
or
B. Easier way to eliminate compression socks without needing to determine how much elastic is allowed in someone's socks or mandate what size they must wear or how loose they must be.
Take your pick.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
#43
Mr. Dopolina
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217
Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times
in
41 Posts
Either:
A. A means of controlling the realestate available for sale to sponsors.
or
B. Easier way to eliminate compression socks without needing to determine how much elastic is allowed in someone's socks or mandate what size they must wear or how loose they must be.
Take your pick.
A. A means of controlling the realestate available for sale to sponsors.
or
B. Easier way to eliminate compression socks without needing to determine how much elastic is allowed in someone's socks or mandate what size they must wear or how loose they must be.
Take your pick.
I was thinking about the compression thing but went with "looks dopey" instead.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tulsa OK
Posts: 2,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well the UCI is really big on the whole "globalization of the sport" thing and making cycling more expensive can only help that cause........
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Missouri
Posts: 662
Bikes: '12 CAAD10 3, '88 Raleigh Talon
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Either:
A. A means of controlling the realestate available for sale to sponsors.
or
B. Easier way to eliminate compression socks without needing to determine how much elastic is allowed in someone's socks or mandate what size they must wear or how loose they must be.
Take your pick.
A. A means of controlling the realestate available for sale to sponsors.
or
B. Easier way to eliminate compression socks without needing to determine how much elastic is allowed in someone's socks or mandate what size they must wear or how loose they must be.
Take your pick.
But I believe the Fred thing.
#46
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
6 Posts
Who knows how that might have changed saddle technology? We don't know if that type of saddle would have ended up keeping people off recumbents because of back issues, or it was a dead end. It's not like our existing saddles are all that great; go read any medical journal and you can figure that out.
I disagree on the Y frame designs. They were gimmicky and had serious cable routing issues. Electronic shifting would take care of that now but I don't honestly think this concept would have replaced the double diamond design. Of course, we'll never know which is really the point.
Or just go look at a mountain bike frame. Thankfully they were too busy taking bribes and kickbacks to involve themselves with this end of the sport.
Which is my biggest beef with the UCI's arbitrary rules and money grubbing. Pro racing is the primary marketing driver for new technology. Put an electronic range finder on Sagan's bike and you'll see them on 90% of the coffee shop rides in no time. They are limiting design and innovation as opposed to actual cost; for all we know a perimeter frame might be much cheaper to produce than trying to design around an archaic concept.
Most of the bikes on the Pro Tour cost more than an FZR600, which is a 150 MPH rocket ship that's light years ahead of what was being raced at Daytona 20 years ago. An FZR600 costs LESS than a set of UCI approved Lightweight wheels. And we're still debating whether carbon frames perform better than older steel frames.
Guess why that is.
Thanks to creating a market, triathalon now has faster bikes than bike racers. That's going to be an interesting avenue to watch over the next few years, but it's pitiful that this is where bicycle innovation goes to find a home.
I spent most of my life around motorcycle racing, some of it as a pro doing GP racing. Chucking design limitations actually drives cost down over time, because a clean sheet of paper produces evolution and lets the little guy in to play. You want to make something expensive, limit design parameters and make people have to squeeze refinements out of engineering dead ends which highly favors the big guy.
Adjusted for real dollars the ratio between the best race bicycles and a high end sport motorcycle should have remained around the same. It hasn't. That should be a pretty good indicator of how successful the UCI's cost containment strategy has been.
Last edited by Racer Ex; 08-14-13 at 11:51 AM.
#47
Mr. Dopolina
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217
Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times
in
41 Posts
I meant to respond but got sidetracked. I really do think the argument about the UCI stifling innovation is overstated in most cases but possibly true in others.
Comparing a motor-bike and a bicycle in terms of what is required engineering wise is just silly. first off, no-one is trying to stuff an engine or transmission (and all the other parts) inside a frame (unless you believe the Cancellera story). There is much, much less room for true innovation with a bicycle because these is just much, much less of it to innovate.
Lets look specifically at what is being suggested.
If we throw out the double diamond concept what is possible?
If we combine the TT and DT into one large dia tube a la Y-Foil (I assume some air foil inspired shape) we end up with a whippy seat tube. This is what pros complained about with the first generations of the Giant VERY sloping TT. It left them feeling whipped around on hi-speed descents and hard corners. Since then the TT has crept back up and now we have sloping TT as a commonplace feature on many brands but it is no where near where it used to be and we still have a triangle.
The only way around this problem is to add more material to stiffen things up which adds more weight. Not a good solution.
How about an aero benefit? Possibly, but many TT bikes are already using aero shaped DT and I don't see much drag being generated by the TT. So there many be a marginal aero benefit but how much and at what cost and would this be an innovation?
So a whippy frame that is heavier and marginally more aero.
What about the rear triangle?
Again, if we remove the SS we end up with a whippy rear end and the only solution is to add more material to stiffen things up. I doubt there would be any aero advantage here.
The fact is the triangle is a great shape to build with. It is strong and stable. People like Giant, Trek, Look, Lotus and a host of others have tried other concepts and they have ALL had serious drawbacks and are now oddities in some Fred's garage. Every show season we see computer models of some kids engineering/design project but NONE ever make it into production. This isn't because of the UCI (entirely), it has a lot to do with the fact that most of these concepts just cant be manufactured and if they could, the hurdles are so high that they are cost prohibitive.
Having said all that I do believe that there are a ton of refinements that have yet to be brought to market and there may even be some truly innovative ideas out there. I don't believe we have reached the pinnacle of bicycle design but I do believe that there are factors much greater than the UCI rule book preventing these ideas from finding the light of day.
The UCI is certainly a considerable stumbling block and many of their standards are nothing more than a cash grab but I do think some of the standards they use are realistic and serve a useful purpose (while others are just asinine).
Having to apply for a UCI sticker for products that have already passed DIN, EN or CE tests is just shameless. Manufacturers have been fighting this for a few years now and I for one hope they continue.
Comparing a motor-bike and a bicycle in terms of what is required engineering wise is just silly. first off, no-one is trying to stuff an engine or transmission (and all the other parts) inside a frame (unless you believe the Cancellera story). There is much, much less room for true innovation with a bicycle because these is just much, much less of it to innovate.
Lets look specifically at what is being suggested.
If we throw out the double diamond concept what is possible?
If we combine the TT and DT into one large dia tube a la Y-Foil (I assume some air foil inspired shape) we end up with a whippy seat tube. This is what pros complained about with the first generations of the Giant VERY sloping TT. It left them feeling whipped around on hi-speed descents and hard corners. Since then the TT has crept back up and now we have sloping TT as a commonplace feature on many brands but it is no where near where it used to be and we still have a triangle.
The only way around this problem is to add more material to stiffen things up which adds more weight. Not a good solution.
How about an aero benefit? Possibly, but many TT bikes are already using aero shaped DT and I don't see much drag being generated by the TT. So there many be a marginal aero benefit but how much and at what cost and would this be an innovation?
So a whippy frame that is heavier and marginally more aero.
What about the rear triangle?
Again, if we remove the SS we end up with a whippy rear end and the only solution is to add more material to stiffen things up. I doubt there would be any aero advantage here.
The fact is the triangle is a great shape to build with. It is strong and stable. People like Giant, Trek, Look, Lotus and a host of others have tried other concepts and they have ALL had serious drawbacks and are now oddities in some Fred's garage. Every show season we see computer models of some kids engineering/design project but NONE ever make it into production. This isn't because of the UCI (entirely), it has a lot to do with the fact that most of these concepts just cant be manufactured and if they could, the hurdles are so high that they are cost prohibitive.
Having said all that I do believe that there are a ton of refinements that have yet to be brought to market and there may even be some truly innovative ideas out there. I don't believe we have reached the pinnacle of bicycle design but I do believe that there are factors much greater than the UCI rule book preventing these ideas from finding the light of day.
The UCI is certainly a considerable stumbling block and many of their standards are nothing more than a cash grab but I do think some of the standards they use are realistic and serve a useful purpose (while others are just asinine).
Having to apply for a UCI sticker for products that have already passed DIN, EN or CE tests is just shameless. Manufacturers have been fighting this for a few years now and I for one hope they continue.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
skydive69
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing
26
02-19-11 09:57 AM