• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.


Aero Ruling - Richard McAinsh

Mar 13, 2009
Visit site
Thankyou Cyclingnews for bringing up this letter! I think the UCI rulings on technology in general are causing far more harm to the cycle industry than they have even done to protect it.

I don't see why the UCI thinks it needs to put the future of companies and technical progression of the Cycle industry at risk, in the attempt to protect competition. It is not technology that has had such a negative impact on the sport, it is enhancement through drugs.

By enforcing the handlebar rule, the UCI once again shows that cycling is a backward sport, interested in the conservation of a bygone era. As someone who works in the industry, I want to see changes, excitement and growth of the sport to new audiences. New technology captures the imagination, it brings in a lot of interest - it builds peoples idea of what the future can hold the UCI constantly appears to hold this back. The UCI needs to stop its tinkering and alow acceptable progress within the sport.

I definately agree ruling on positions and not bike technology is a far more senisble approach in protecting the sport and the industry.
Mar 12, 2009
Visit site
Ovidius said:
... I definately agree ruling on positions and not bike technology is a far more senisble approach in protecting the sport and the industry...

To a certain extent they already do this (angle of forearms etc). However if restricting the position of the body too much you are restricting the very thing which makes us unique and that which ultimately drives the sport.

Are they going to ban people from being really low in a TT position for example? Hand too close together? Too wide apart?

I really fail to see how or why body position should be subject to further scrutiny further than it has already. A relaxing of these rules would make it more about the body not the machine. Bring back the Landis position! And why not, given that from my readings it does not benefit all and simply not comfortable for others. Least it makes for some uniqueness in the peloton.

I have a feeling that the UCI simply wants everyone to race and look like this:-

Mar 14, 2009
Visit site
The 3T letter was very interesting. The main point I took from it was that the UCI is not good at writing the rules/standards & then does not explain them or be clear on when they will be enforced & how. Does the organiser of a 4th cat race have to use measuing equipment to check profiles of every bike? What a mess.

I race triathlons & Time Trials in the UK which are not controlled by the UCI & have far fewer restrictions, so I can ride a Giant MCR without problem (though not very fast).
Mar 15, 2009
Anyone in any doubt over whether their equipment is 'UCI legal' or otherwise should take a look at BikeCAD Pro.

The latest version not only covers frame/fuselage tube profiles, but also wheels, saddle length and position, handlebar configuration, forks and anything else "Article 1.3.0xx" related.
Results are viewed on-screen with a visual representation of the design parameters, plus written details of each of the Article clauses in an easy-to-understand tabular format. A click of a mouse shows you instantly whether or not your design conforms to the rules.

There's an overview of BikeCAD Pro HERE (link)

Check it out :)