• 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.

    Thanks!

UCI 3:1 rule is a mess

Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Visit site
The stated intent of the UCI with their enforcement of the 3:1 aero rule is to ensure a more level playing field and to keep the bikes as close to a marketable solution as possible. They also want to stop the poorer teams being disadvantaged by cost. Very admirable.

So how dumb is this. A number of the more popular bikes are now caught up, to the extent that bikes like the Cervelo P2 and P3 no longer comply with the current rules. (and we all know that the UCI hate the P4). I am sure the list extends beyond these.

Given the widespread adoption of these bikes, it looks like the UCI is doing their bit to stimulate the bike business, since many riders are now going to have to upgrade in some way in order to ride any events under the UCI banner.

On top of that it is going to be a nightmare for commissaires to police at the start line.
 
Mar 15, 2009
48
0
0
www.frameforum.org
Snipped:

davidg said:
and we all know that the UCI hate the P4

Hmmmm. :rolleyes:


Well, I don't know, because I've never seen a UCI press release or article saying "We hate the P4". Nor, for that matter, have I seen anything published by Cervelo saying "The UCI hates our bike".

I've seen a reason (Article 1.3.024) why the UCI does not allow the the use of :::

... the regulation on the subject of the shape of bicycle elements (1:3 ratio) does not exempt manufacturers
from complying with the official «racing bicycle» standards when concerning uncovered projections
(must be rounded for safety).
As for brake levers, gear levers, bottle cages and other items (not subject to the 1:3 regulation), «knife-edge profile» shapes are not allowed (see uncovered projections - EN and similar standards).

but these are based on the CEN European Bicycle Safety Regulations; they're not some conspiracy against Cervelo on the part of the UCI.

So, do tell us - why does the UCI 'hate' the P4?
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Visit site
Must have touched a nerve. Do you work for the UCI?

From CN http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/time-trial-tech-from-the-streets-of-monaco#

"Another potential sticking point is the P4's unique integrated water bottle. Though not explicitly banned by the UCI, Rinard and the team preferred not to take any chances, instead using a customized aero cage and bottle from team sponsor Elite. Rinard says the cage modifications are easy to perform in case current P4 owners are concerned about scrutiny from their local federations"

Given most other threads on this site are opinions stated as fact, this is my opinion. Why would he make a comment about cage modifications if he was not concerned. Previously Cervelo have published a UCI approval note on their website stating that the frame comply. (Actually the notes are still there even though the frames will be illegal from Jan 2010. Specifically it is the seatpost that does not comply with 3:1.)
 
Mar 15, 2009
48
0
0
www.frameforum.org
davidg said:
Must have touched a nerve. Do you work for the UCI?


No, I don't work for the UCI, and I don't work for (or own) a Cervelo either.
I'm more concerned with objectivity. 'Hate' is such a subjective word, especially when attached to imaginary facts.

We all know that...
 
Apr 8, 2009
272
0
0
Visit site
frameforum said:
No, I don't work for the UCI, and I don't work for (or own) a Cervelo either.
I'm more concerned with objectivity. 'Hate' is such a subjective word, especially when attached to imaginary facts.

We all know that...

not too keen on
 
Mar 11, 2009
258
0
0
Visit site
davidg said:
The stated intent of the UCI with their enforcement of the 3:1 aero rule is to ensure a more level playing field and to keep the bikes as close to a marketable solution as possible. They also want to stop the poorer teams being disadvantaged by cost. Very admirable.

So how dumb is this. A number of the more popular bikes are now caught up, to the extent that bikes like the Cervelo P2 and P3 no longer comply with the current rules. (and we all know that the UCI hate the P4). I am sure the list extends beyond these.

Given the widespread adoption of these bikes, it looks like the UCI is doing their bit to stimulate the bike business, since many riders are now going to have to upgrade in some way in order to ride any events under the UCI banner.

On top of that it is going to be a nightmare for commissaires to police at the start line.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85591218@N00/1292624834
 
davidg said:
The stated intent of the UCI with their enforcement of the 3:1 aero rule is to ensure a more level playing field and to keep the bikes as close to a marketable solution as possible. They also want to stop the poorer teams being disadvantaged by cost. Very admirable.

If the UCI really wants to level the playing field they should limit all frames to round tubes of a limited diameter. They should raise the minimum bike weight to 20 pounds instead of 15, and ban aero rims for everything except time trials.:D
 

Latest posts