Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

UCI approval stickers to be mandatory on wheels in 2014

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

UCI approval stickers to be mandatory on wheels in 2014

Old 08-07-13, 02:29 PM
  #1  
cyclezen
OM boy
Thread Starter
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 3,122

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
UCI approval stickers to be mandatory on wheels in 2014

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/
cyclezen is offline  
Old 08-07-13, 03:01 PM
  #2  
coachboyd
Boyd Cycling owner
 
coachboyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Attached Images
coachboyd is offline  
Old 08-07-13, 03:31 PM
  #3  
GamecockTaco
You rode how far???
 
GamecockTaco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 579

Bikes: '96 Trek 830; 06 Cervelo Soloist, 06 Scott Scale 70, 2013 Cervelo S2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by coachboyd View Post
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.
tell us how you really feel, coachboyd!
GamecockTaco is offline  
Old 08-07-13, 04:46 PM
  #4  
rpenmanparker 
Senior Member
 
rpenmanparker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682

Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build

Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6554 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 48 Times in 31 Posts
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.
rpenmanparker is offline  
Old 08-07-13, 05:12 PM
  #5  
ericm979
Senior Member
 
ericm979's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 6,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
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.
ericm979 is offline  
Old 08-07-13, 06:12 PM
  #6  
coachboyd
Boyd Cycling owner
 
coachboyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
coachboyd is offline  
Old 08-07-13, 06:18 PM
  #7  
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 17,038

Bikes: S1, R2, P2

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6545 Post(s)
Liked 1,936 Times in 1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by coachboyd View Post
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.
I salute you, good sir.
Bah Humbug is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 07:19 PM
  #8  
Jiggle
Senior Member
 
Jiggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Somewhere in TX
Posts: 2,266

Bikes: BH, Cervelo, Cube, Canyon

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
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.
Jiggle is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 07:35 PM
  #9  
Tel0004
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Posts: 148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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.
Tel0004 is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 09:26 PM
  #10  
cyclezen
OM boy
Thread Starter
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 3,122

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Tel0004 View Post
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.
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.
cyclezen is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 09:43 PM
  #11  
BigJeff
Senior Member
 
BigJeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Tel0004 View Post
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.
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.
BigJeff is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 09:49 PM
  #12  
SirHustlerEsq
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rep. of Dallas
Posts: 1,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by coachboyd View Post
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.
+1
SirHustlerEsq is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 09:55 PM
  #13  
ThermionicScott 
7-speed cultist
 
ThermionicScott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: CID
Posts: 20,120

Bikes: 1991 Bianchi Eros, 1964 Armstrong, 1988 Diamondback Ascent, 1988 Bianchi Premio, 1987 Bianchi Sport SX, 1980s Raleigh mixte (hers)

Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2798 Post(s)
Liked 755 Times in 531 Posts
Originally Posted by Jiggle View Post
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.
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?
__________________
Originally Posted by chandltp View Post
There's no such thing as too far.. just lack of time
Originally Posted by noglider
People in this forum are not typical.
RUSA #7498
ThermionicScott is offline  
Old 08-12-13, 10:27 PM
  #14  
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,841

Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
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.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 07:33 AM
  #15  
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 17,038

Bikes: S1, R2, P2

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6545 Post(s)
Liked 1,936 Times in 1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by BigJeff View Post
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.
Formula1 also banned automatic transmissions. And there is evidence that some teams have at least partially-effective traction control.
Bah Humbug is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 07:33 AM
  #16  
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 17,038

Bikes: S1, R2, P2

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6545 Post(s)
Liked 1,936 Times in 1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by Tel0004 View Post
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.
Formula1 has a minimum weight rule, but it includes the weight of the driver.
Bah Humbug is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 07:53 AM
  #17  
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Tel0004 View Post
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.
I don't want grooves in my tires.
canam73 is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 08:07 AM
  #18  
Bob Dopolina 
Mr. Dopolina
 
Bob Dopolina's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,165

Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR

Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked 74 Times in 26 Posts
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.
__________________
BDop Cycling Company Ltd.: bdopcycling.com, facebook, instagram



Bob Dopolina is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 10:51 AM
  #19  
THSdrummer
Senior Member
 
THSdrummer's Avatar
 
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
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?
THSdrummer is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 10:51 AM
  #20  
Psimet2001 
I eat carbide.
 
Psimet2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 21,279

Bikes: Lots. Van Dessel and Squid Dealer

Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1086 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times in 337 Posts
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.
__________________
PSIMET Wheels, PSIMET Racing, PSIMET Neutral Race Support, and 11 Jackson Coffee
Podcast - YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels

Psimet2001 is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 10:53 AM
  #21  
Psimet2001 
I eat carbide.
 
Psimet2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Elgin, IL
Posts: 21,279

Bikes: Lots. Van Dessel and Squid Dealer

Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1086 Post(s)
Liked 738 Times in 337 Posts
Originally Posted by THSdrummer View Post
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?
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.
__________________
PSIMET Wheels, PSIMET Racing, PSIMET Neutral Race Support, and 11 Jackson Coffee
Podcast - YouTube Channel
Video about PSIMET Wheels

Psimet2001 is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 11:03 AM
  #22  
Bah Humbug
runner
 
Bah Humbug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Austin
Posts: 17,038

Bikes: S1, R2, P2

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6545 Post(s)
Liked 1,936 Times in 1,051 Posts
Originally Posted by canam73 View Post
I don't want grooves in my tires.
Have you watched Formula1 in the last few years?
Bah Humbug is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 11:06 AM
  #23  
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Posts: 3,841

Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Bob Dopolina View Post


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.
.
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?
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 11:14 AM
  #24  
canam73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Haunchyville
Posts: 6,395
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Bah Humbug View Post
Have you watched Formula1 in the last few years?
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.
canam73 is offline  
Old 08-13-13, 11:23 AM
  #25  
THSdrummer
Senior Member
 
THSdrummer's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by Psimet2001 View Post
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.
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.
THSdrummer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.