Bike Doping II - Martin's illegal saddle

[Hawkwood]

Let's put it this way. To my knowledge, a wheel has never bounced out of a pro rider's forks in a pro race.

But a Tour car has driven into a rider, sending them through a barbed wire fence.

Then this year, a slow, media car got between the friggin yellow jersey wearer and the rest of the front bunch down a friggin descent.

Ironically, Mavic were the factory where testing of wheel integrity was being conducted after that stupid rule was introduced. But again, to the best of my knowledge, only Mavic wheels have exploded on impact. And then done so again after their design was updated.

A UCI official could only come out with one possible case of a wheel coming out, but said he wasn't sure of it. On looking at the video it's not clear, but it seems like the fork ends sheared off in a crash, so nothing to do with the skewer.

Wasn't it the Mavic R-SYS wheels that kept failing, there's some real horror stories out there about them? Didn't Mavic bend the physics of how wheels work with disasterous results?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Wasn't it the Mavic R-SYS wheels that kept failing, there's some real horror stories out there about them? Didn't Mavic bend the physics of how wheels work with disasterous results?

Yes. Carbon spokes, I believe. Shattered into little slivers of puncturey goodness. Ridiculous design and the initiating event that lead to the current stupid, "approved wheels only" rule.

 

[Hawkwood]

Yes. Carbon spokes, I believe. Shattered into little slivers of puncturey goodness. Ridiculous design and the initiating event that lead to the current stupid, "approved wheels only" rule.

Yep, I assume my hand-built, bomb proof, pothole resistent, wheels made of recyclable materials, aren't fit for professional competition as they don't have a UCI sticker on them.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Yes. Carbon spokes, I believe. Shattered into little slivers of puncturey goodness. Ridiculous design and the initiating event that lead to the current stupid, "approved wheels only" rule.

Not all wheels require UCI approval.

What would be your alternative rule?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Yep, I assume my hand-built, bomb proof, pothole resistent, wheels made of recyclable materials, aren't fit for professional competition as they don't have a UCI sticker on them.

Not sure what they are made of, but if they are no more than 25mm in rim cross section, and have at least 16 metal spokes, then they are automatically approved for racing and do not require any pre-testing approval by the UCI.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not all wheels require UCI approval.

What would be your alternative rule?

I dislike rules. How about none?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not all wheels require UCI approval.

Yes. They do. Whether explicit or implicit, UCI approval is required.

To wit:

Not sure what they are made of, but if they are no more than 25mm in rim cross section, and have at least 16 metal spokes, then they are automatically approved for racing and do not require any pre-testing approval by the UCI.

 

[Hawkwood]

Not sure what they are made of, but if they are no more than 25mm in rim cross section, and have at least 16 metal spokes, then they are automatically approved for racing and do not require any pre-testing approval by the UCI.

This is on the UCI website:

`For massed start competitions in the disciplines road and cyclo-cross, only wheel designs granted prior approval by the UCI may be used. Wheels shall have at least 12 spokes; spokes can be round, flattened or oval, as far as no dimension of their sections exceeds 10 mm. In order to be granted approval wheels must have passed a rupture test as prescribed by the UCI in a laboratory approved by the UCI. The test results must show that the rupture characteristics obtained are compatible with those resulting from an impact sustained during normal use of the wheel...'

I guess the UCI might have blanket approved traditional wheel designs, I just haven't found where this is in the website yet.

 

[oldcrank]

This is on the UCI website:

`For massed start competitions in the disciplines road and cyclo-cross, only wheel designs granted prior approval by the UCI may be used. Wheels shall have at least 12 spokes; spokes can be round, flattened or oval, as far as no dimension of their sections exceeds 10 mm. In order to be granted approval wheels must have passed a rupture test as prescribed by the UCI in a laboratory approved by the UCI. The test results must show that the rupture characteristics obtained are compatible with those resulting from an impact sustained during normal use of the wheel...'

I guess the UCI might have blanket approved traditional wheel designs, I just haven't found where this is in the website yet.

Last paragraph of rule 1.3.018, my learned friend.

 

[Hawkwood]

Last paragraph of rule 1.3.018, my learned friend.

Got you:

`Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A traditional wheel is deemed to be a wheel with at least 16 metal spokes; the spokes may be round, flat or oval, provided that no dimension of their cross sections exceeds 2.4 mm; the section of the rim must not exceed 2.5 cm on each side.'

Would it make it clearer if this then said such wheels don't need prior approval, as the above simply exempts them from the rupture test? I know the rupture test is a prerequisite for the approval, so it sort of approves standard wheels in a roundabout way.

 

[oldcrank]

''In order to be granted approval wheels must
have passed a rupture test...''
''...standard (traditional) wheels are exempted
from the rupture test..''
Very clear and straight forward, my learned friend.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I dislike rules. How about none?

Anything goes then?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

If anyone is going to criticise the UCI over a rule, it does help to have read it first.

It's also helpful to suggest a credible alternative, but that's often beyond many.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

How about these wheels and frame?

OK?

 

[Hawkwood]

''In order to be granted approval wheels must
have passed a rupture test...''
''...standard (traditional) wheels are exempted
from the rupture test..''
Very clear and straight forward, my learned friend.

Only if the rupture test is the sole part of the approval process, which of course it might be.

And as for `my learned friend'

 

[Hawkwood]

How about these wheels and frame?

OK?

Why not, if the design works? Let evolution take its course. Set some clear, but wide, boundaries and let the designers get on with it. I'm sure when they invented the diamond frame, they didn't think we'd be still using more or less the same design over a 100 years later.

But straying back to the original discussion about a customised saddle, I don't see the problem with this. Other sports allow it, and here are a couple of examples. Some years ago I was watching Wimbledon, a player changed shoes, and we were told the shoes are custom-made, and designed to last one match, the soles are designed for different surfaces and conditions. Another time a player wrapped tape round the head of his racket, we were told the rackets are custom-made, and the players further tweak them by adding tape to change the balance. Golf, a couple of years ago during the British Open we were shown inside the actual workshops where the club manufacturers make customised clubs then and there for the pros, this was between rounds. Pros ride bikes for a living, why shouldn't they be able to use customised equipment?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Anything goes then?

If you think "no rules" is the same as, "anything goes" then no wonder you need or want rules.

It's also helpful to suggest a credible alternative, but that's often beyond many.

Helpful for what?

What's helpful is having rules for a reason to start with. You know. Instead of making work because we have to keep people employed or skim some registration fees off all these equipment manufacturers that are earning so much money they can afford to sponsor an entire pro bike team.

They're looking at introducing approval for clothing next.

A saddle can't be 1mm off level.

Aero shoe covers cannot be worn indoors.

A credible alternative would be to not have these purposeless rules.

 

[Hawkwood]

''In order to be granted approval wheels must
have passed a rupture test...''
''...standard (traditional) wheels are exempted
from the rupture test..''
Very clear and straight forward, my learned friend.

To put it more simply why not simply state:

Standard, or traditional, wheels (as defined by...) do not need to go through the approval process.

 

[D-Queued]

Why not...

Exactly.

The UCI rules now require that wheels be either 650 or 700.

What is wrong with the 650/700 combo that was commonly used on TT bikes in the 1990s (e.g. Indurain)?

Another stupid, meaningless UCI rule.

Dave.

 

[Elagabalus]

To the OP ...

The grippy substance is the foam interior of the saddle. Martin may have wanted less material in the front of the saddle (as it appears to be hone down in that area) as opposed to a grippy surface. The mechanics were happy to oblige by giving the saddle the ol' belt sander treatment.

 

[D-Queued]

To the OP ...

The grippy substance is the foam interior of the saddle. Martin may have wanted less material in the front of the saddle (as it appears to be hone down in that area) as opposed to a grippy surface. The mechanics were happy to oblige by giving the saddle the ol' belt sander treatment.

Thank you... for the info and for returning us.

Dave.

 

[Hawkwood]

Exactly.

The UCI rules now require that wheels be either 650 or 700.

What is wrong with the 650/700 combo that was commonly used on TT bikes in the 1990s (e.g. Indurain)?

Another stupid, meaningless UCI rule.

Dave.

The Darwin Theory of Bicycle Evolution, if it's daft, dangerous, or doesn't work it will die out.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why not, if the design works? Let evolution take its course.

Well, then they are all riding recumbents with various fairings because that is the most race-efficient design. Are you okay with that?

 

[Hawkwood]

Well, then they are all riding recumbents with various fairings because that is the most race-efficient design. Are you okay with that?

I'm not sure they would be the most race-efficient design, what are they like when the road goes upwards, perhaps they're okay? However just have two categories, recumbents, and bicycles where the bottom bracket is at least xx mms below the saddle. Devise some very simple regs, designed to ensure that bicycles have effective brakes, steering etc, but then let the designers get on with it.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

If you think "no rules" is the same as, "anything goes" then no wonder you need or want rules.



Helpful for what?

What's helpful is having rules for a reason to start with. You know. Instead of making work because we have to keep people employed or skim some registration fees off all these equipment manufacturers that are earning so much money they can afford to sponsor an entire pro bike team.

They're looking at introducing approval for clothing next.

A saddle can't be 1mm off level.

Aero shoe covers cannot be worn indoors.

A credible alternative would be to not have these purposeless rules.

Your comment was about wheels. If there are no rules wrt wheels, then presumably anything does go.

I agree there are rules I don't consider necessary, or that could be better written.

UCI listed their most recent accounts. Somehow I don't think such bike regulations have contributed, or will contribute, to their income stream in any significant manner. For the UCI, it's all about the world championships, and Olympics, as far as income is concerned.