Bombshell from UCI

May 11, 2009
4
0
0
I apologize if there is already a thread but my quick search didn't yield anything. Two days ago UCI finally posted the "clarification" of the rules regarding the 3 to 1 thing.... I guess clarification doesn't translate well into french... because it actually adds more confusion and doesn't clarify anything.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?id=NjM4Mg&MenuId=MTYxNw&LangId=1&BackLink=/Templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw&LangId%

Here is a particularly interesting exert:

"The bicycle must be accessible to all participants. It must be marketed (i.e. available for sale on the market)
or marketable (i.e. available for sale directly from the manufacturer, by subscription or through an alternative
distribution network). Prototypes and the use of equipment specially designed for a particular athlete,
event or performance is prohibited. “Special design” means a bicycle with a technical added value when
compared with other equipment."


The implications of this are enormous. This will ban all the new prototype TT bikes but ultimately it will also ban the practice of having pro riders test stuff before it comes out... which is brilliant.

There is also an interesting bit on the aerobars:
"Extensions that are not horizontal, raised or arc-shaped or not horizontal are not authorised and neither are
handlebar extension assemblies constructed on two levels."


Make what you want of this, but depending on how you interpret it this will eliminate most of the current protour team setups.

And why isn't anybody reporting on this? Cyclingnews? Velonews? Pez?

-c
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
3
0
I think the UCI may have actually done something right for once. I like the idea of getting rid of prototype equipment. I also really like the idea that any bike used should be available to everyone. Sponsorship deals will effectively limit that, but the concept is nice. I hope the rules extend to all equipment, including aero helmets.

I don't know what the first part of the second quote means.
 
Jun 15, 2009
247
1
0
I don't agree. I love looking at the new bits of kit that are being used by the pro's. It wouldn't have quite the same allure if the fat bloke with the hairy legs was using the same bike on my local club ride. It's like seeing wide boys racing F1 cars down the beachfront on a saturday night.
 

whiteboytrash

BANNED
Mar 17, 2009
525
0
0
How about apply the same rules to dope ? Ie they can't use it unless it's freely available and it's not new cutting edge shiwse. This is just a complete waste of everyones time.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,269
1
0
With these rules, the UCI is trying to lower the speeds cyclists ride at, so as to restore cycling's credibility.

In any case, it's easier than fighting doping... In a year from now, they'll have magically found statistics of lower average speeds in Grand Tours, and which will demonstrate how well the blood passport is working in deterring the use of D.

PS> isn't this a move directed at Lemond specifically, who is claimed to have introduced the watt-o-meter, the TT handlebars and the aero helmet? Pat's payback time for Greg's gregarious speech.:D
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
anubisza said:
I don't agree. I love looking at the new bits of kit that are being used by the pro's. It wouldn't have quite the same allure if the fat bloke with the hairy legs was using the same bike on my local club ride. It's like seeing wide boys racing F1 cars down the beachfront on a saturday night.
The vast majority of pro equipment is already available to anyone who wants to pay for it. You may have to wait a year, though.
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
It's homologation. They do this in auto racing all the time to keep the well-funded competitors from gaining an unfair advantage: everybody has to race a chassis that is available on the retail market. Maybe the UCI should borrow another practice from motorsport and use "reward weight" to make doping irrelevant and equalize the field. How would you like to see Cavendish going toe to toe with a ballast-laden Sastre on the slopes of Alpe D'Huez? I might even watch that.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
whiteboytrash said:
How about apply the same rules to dope ? Ie they can't use it unless it's freely available and it's not new cutting edge shiwse. This is just a complete waste of everyones time.
I really agree
 
How easy would the "must be available to all participants" thing be to circumvent?

Say for instance Pinarello comes out with a new Time Trial bike they want to test during the Tour de France this year (or next year whenever this comes into effect). They don't have their factory set up to mass produce the thing yet because they'd like some real world testing. So they give the bike to everybody on Caisse.

Now to follow the rules, wouldn't they just have to send out a press release and say:

"We at Pinarello are proud to introduce our new Pinarello 'blah de blah'. We are more than happy to make this bike available to the general public for the low low price of $37 999 999.95!"

Now this way they are allowing anyone with 38 million plus tax to purchase one and you can say it's available to the general public and Pinarello can be reasonably certain nobody else will have one - unless of course someone is dumb enough to pay that much for a bike. I'm assuming this would be against the rules...but why?
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,486
0
0
As I remember from NASCAR in the early 70's it was required that a minimum amount were produced. It was 200 or 500 as best I can recall and had to be available through the dealer network. The Dodge Hemi Superbird Daytona is best example I can think of. But it never stopped the cheating. In NASCAR if ya aint't cheatin' ya ain't tryin'
 
Apr 29, 2009
22
0
0
Nascar uses one car with multiple stickers to make the cars look different. It's called the Car Of Tomorrow and the fans really don't like it much. Maybe the UCI will mandate a Bike Of Tomorrow.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY