The much needed UCI loller thread

[CyclistAbi]

@Unchained

Whatever problem you approach in a more scientific and methodical way, at minimum including statistics and the time needed to understand the underlying system involved, after start to implement measures, results are always different. If the measures implemented are effective.

So the idea only cycling can for ever and ever remain the same, statistically and is some regard, that is on what indeed not only cycling fans but more importantly governing bodies would like to sell. Why? As it's the easiest thing to do, requires no effort whatsoever.

A good example was once this approach was used to determine on how many safety orientated issues are cyclists fault. It turned out it's around 30%. Before that it was generally accepted, by fandom, it's close to 100%. And AFAIK this study wasn't done by UCI.

Crazy.

 

[jmdirt]

I think that even though I disagree with the handlebar width rule I have been 'polite' about it. Today while I was grinding away 30 minutes into a climb I glanced down at my bars and what popped into my head? The new UCI rule is F****** STUPID! But what's even more stupid is that once it was pointed out to them how inequitable the rule is, they didn't respond with, "good point (s), we will amend accordingly", they said "p*ss off, we talked to some people."

 

[RedheadDane]

But what's even more stupid is that once it was pointed out to them how inequitable the rule is, they didn't respond with, "good point (s), we will amend accordingly", they said "p*ss off, we talked to some people."

Maybe the people UCI talked to are the same people who came up with that whole "calculating watts per kg by pretending all cyclists weigh 70 kg" thing that's been discussed over in the TdS thread...

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Maybe the people UCI talked to are the same people who came up with that whole "calculating watts per kg by pretending all cyclists weigh 70 kg" thing that's been discussed over in the TdS thread...

No, (some of) those guys understand what they're doing. The UCI on the other hand will probably soon make it illegal to weigh less than 70 kg.

 

[RedheadDane]

No, (some of) those guys understand what they're doing. The UCI on the other hand will probably soon make it illegal to weigh less than 70 kg.

"Sorry, Gaia. It's for safety."

 

[CyclistAbi]

Guys, for all the stupidity from UCI, regarding safety, you have to agree that if we force them making inflatable collarbone protectors mandatory, instant justice?

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Guys, for all the stupidity from UCI, regarding safety, you have to agree that if we force them making inflatable collarbone protectors mandatory, instant justice?

I look forward to seeing news reports of you and your placards on the street in Aigle trying to force them into this.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

"Sorry, Gaia. It's for safety."

I mean there are definitely some riders who would be better off gaining a few pounds, but 30 kg. is probably a bit extreme.

Guys, for all the stupidity from UCI, regarding safety, you have to agree that if we force them making inflatable collarbone protectors mandatory, instant justice?

Yes, the people at UCI should be forced to wear ridiculous outfits.

 

[CyclistAbi]

I look forward to seeing news reports of you and your placards on the street in Aigle trying to force them into this.

Placards are too risky.

Yes, the people at UCI should be forced to wear ridiculous outfits.

Broad shoulders, AFAIK, attractive.

 

[CyclistAbi]

A good example was once this approach was used to determine on how many safety orientated issues are cyclists fault. It turned out it's around 30%. Before that it was generally accepted, by fandom, it's close to 100%. And AFAIK this study wasn't done by UCI.

Quick update:

The most common cause – or main contributing factor - is the riders’ own mistake (29%)," the UCI said.

Pro cyclist gear restrictions set to be tested in 2025 as UCI confirms test event

'Riders' own mistake' the most common cause of crashes, says safety body, as UCI confirms rider tracking will be introduced at the 2025 Road World Championships

www.cyclingnews.com

So, whenever talking about pro peloton safety, from now on it's confirmed and agreed by all major sides involved, around one third of crashes happen due to riders making mistakes.

It's a start.

 

[Potomac]

Quick update:

Pro cyclist gear restrictions set to be tested in 2025 as UCI confirms test event

'Riders' own mistake' the most common cause of crashes, says safety body, as UCI confirms rider tracking will be introduced at the 2025 Road World Championships

www.cyclingnews.com

So, whenever talking about pro peloton safety, from now on it's confirmed and agreed by all major sides involved, around one third of crashes happen due to riders making mistakes.

It's a start.

It has got to be more like 99% rider's fault.

 

[CyclistAbi]

It has got to be more like 99% rider's fault.

Exactly. This is on how the narrative used to go, until somebody actually did an analysis. And even now they tried to sell it as it's mostly riders fault, wording used. One how one third can be sold as being the main factor.

Crazy.

 

[Rob5091]

So we've got Lappi for another 4 years as Prez thanks to a non-election election - no one else stood in the election, which is a good old fashioned mafia style of winning (or certain US House districts).

 

[Rob5091]

Ok chaps, it's time to load up with the ketones. Apparently after 4 years the UCI has decided to let the peloton use them. Of course everyone has since moved on to 150g/h carbs, eye of newt and toe of frog etc etc.
https://cyclinguptodate.com/cycling...al-ketones-as-their-impact-is-deemed-marginal

 

[Mayomaniac]

So we've got Lappi for another 4 years as Prez thanks to a non-election election - no one else stood in the election, which is a good old fashioned mafia style of winning (or certain US House districts).

Our beloved great leader, Selfie-Lappi!

 

[CyclistAbi]

Page 7 - Tour de France - Tour de France 2025 Stage 8, Saint-Méen-le-Grand-> Laval, 171.4k

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

forum.cyclingnews.com

 

[Unchained]

Cycling News reporting that UCI is putting One Cycling on notice.. Top teams at TDF are involved and top names.. UCI looks petrified by possibility of hostile take over.. They want more and richer races, UCI says no everything is fine, people are happy with current money involved.. We will see if they are right and see if threats to pull licenses are just hot air..

 

[Rob5091]

Lappi leaps into action again ...
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fi...in-in-major-dispute-over-gps-safety-trackers/

Four WorldTour teams and one ProTeam have been confirmed by the UCI as disqualified from the Tour de Romandie Féminin in a dispute over GPS safety trackers.

Lidl-Trek, Visma-Lease a Bike, Canyon-SRAM zondacrypto, EF Education-Oatly and Picnic-PostNL were excluded, meaning that 30 riders, six per team, were out of the race even before it began.

The dispute, first broken by Daniel Benson's Substack is to do with the teams and the UCI being unable to agree over the use of a new safety system with GPS for riders bikes, which the UCI wanted to trial at the three-day Swiss WorldTour event prior to the World Championships.

 

[Potomac]

UCI needs some new leadership.

 

[Potomac]

The GPS tracking has me thinking. I would like to every vehicle in the race with a GPS as well.
It might be fun to see how much time and distance dropped riders spend behind various vehicles as they try to get back to the peleton.

 

[Berniece]

Lappi leaps into action again ...
https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fi...in-in-major-dispute-over-gps-safety-trackers/

What is the explanation of the 4 teams? I don’t understand the issue but haven’t seen their response

 

[carolina]

I'm also struggling to understand what the problem with the teams was. UCI only asked for one rider of each team to use the GPS. What's wrong with that?!

 

[PeterB]

Statement by the teams:

*UCI fails to confirm rule clarification request despite team’s tracking system co-operation*

We are shocked and disappointed by the UCI’s decision to disqualify several teams, including ours, from the Tour de Romandie Féminin.

Earlier this week, all affected teams sent formal letters to the UCI expressing support for rider safety but raising serious concerns about the unilateral imposition of a GPS tracking device to just one of the riders per team.

We made clear that:

•We would not select a rider ourselves, nor install, remove, or maintain the device.

•The UCI or its partner was free to select a rider and install the device at their own liability if they believe they are in their right to do so.

Despite our cooperation and the existence of a proven and collaborative safety tracking system already tested successfully in other major races (fully operational for the whole peloton and offered to the UCI), the UCI has chosen to impose this measure without clear consent, threaten disqualification, and now exclude us from the race for not selecting a rider ourselves. The reason why they don’t want to nominate a rider themselves is still unknown and unanswered. Despite multiple requests by the teams over the last two days, the UCI commissaires were unable to demonstrate on the basis of which precise UCI rule teams are obligated to discriminate one rider against other riders in terms of obligations (except for officially refering to an email of the teams’s union) but have nevertheless decided to carry on and disqualify the teams with their riders.

This action disregards the rights of teams and riders, applies the measure in a discriminatory manner, and contradicts the UCI’s own stated commitment to dialogue with stakeholders.

We are always at the forefront to make cycling a safer sport, but it should be achieved through collaboration, not coercion.

 

[PeterB]

Statement by UCI:

The UCI condemns refusal of some teams to participate in test of GPS safety tracking technology

The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) regrets that certain teams on the start list for the Tour de Romandie Féminin have refused to comply with the rules for the race related to the implementation of GPS trackers as a test for a new safety system. The test is being carried out over the course of the three-stage UCI Women’s WorldTour event.

The decision of these teams to oppose the specific rules for the event is surprising, and undermines the cycling family’s efforts to ensure the safety of all riders in road cycling by developing this new technology.

As communicated in the specific rules for the event and in accordance with articles 1.3.073 and 2.12.007/3.5.3 of the UCI Regulations, teams were required to designate one rider on whose bike the GPS tracker would be fixed. Teams were given further explanations during the Sport Directors pre-event meeting. The UCI regrets that certain teams have objected to the test by not nominating a rider to carry the tracking device and have therewith opted to be excluded from the Tour de Romandie Féminin. In view of this situation, the UCI shall consider if other measures are warranted in accordance with the UCI Regulations.

Details of the test were communicated on 7 August and in a detailed pre-race communiqué. As a reminder, this test involves one rider per team carrying a GPS tracking device, weighing 63 grams, during the three stages (15-17 August) of the Swiss UCI Women’s WorldTour stage race. The same technology will be deployed at the 2025 UCI Road World Championships in Kigali, Rwanda, where all riders will carry the device.

The decision to implement this test of GPS safety tracking technology was made by SafeR, the structure dedicated to safety in women’s and men’s road cycling, bringing together representatives of all road cycling’s stakeholders: organisers (Association Internationale des Organisateurs de Courses Cyclistes - AIOCC), teams (Association Internationale des Groupes Cyclistes Professionnels - AIGCP), riders (Cyclistes Professionnels Associés – CPA, and CPA Women).

The objective of the test is to refine the UCI’s safety tracking software and establish protocols to provide real-time data to race control, medical teams and UCI Commissaires. This system will strengthen the monitoring of rider safety during races and enable rapid response in case of incidents. The initiative is part of the UCI’s ongoing efforts to protect rider safety, and broader implementation of this technology is envisaged for coming seasons.

The Tour de Romandie Féminin’s three different stage formats – individual time trial, point to point, and a circuit – makes the event ideally suited to test the system developed by its timing partner, Swiss Timing, which is also the provider for the Tour de Romandie Féminin. The UCI has worked with the organisers to ensure the smooth running and efficiency of the test and thanks them for their implication in ensuring rider safety. It is regrettable that the actions of some teams will impact this important international event.

The teams that have refused to participate in the GPS tracking technology test – and that are therefore excluded from the Tour de Romandie Féminin – are:

Canyon//Sram zondacrypto

EF Education – Oatly

Lidl –Trek

Team Picnic PostNL

Team Visma | Lease a Bike.

It should be noted that most of these teams are part of the Velon organisation which is the owner of its own data transmission system and is working on the development of its own GPS tracking system.

The UCI’s priority is to ensure the safety of riders. It works with the entire cycling family towards this goal, and the collaboration with most stakeholders is positive and constructive. It is deplorable to witness the refusal of certain teams to move forward together to protect the safety of riders, and the UCI condemns their non-cooperation.

 

[PeterB]

There's a clear contradiction in the statements.
As per UCI, "The UCI regrets that certain teams have objected to the test by not nominating a rider to carry the tracking device".
As per the teams, "We made clear that ... The UCI or its partner was free to select a rider and install the device at their own liability".

So, sounds as if the teams wanted to shift the responsibility for selecting the test rider to UCI, while UCI insisted on the teams to do so. I am quite sure both parties had some background motives. But still surprised that UCI proceeded with the dsq - how can they justify it to the organizer? The race lost the best third of its competitors just like that..