Comments on: The Shiv, P4, and the UCI

By: Mechanics Matter

Mechanics Matter — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:49:17 +0000

UCI – “Dear cyclists, you should all be riding 80′s Gitanes with friction shifters”
Cyclists – “But we can have better bikes than Fignon and Hinault had”
UCI – “Oh dear God! Max, Zeuss (UCI’s Dobermans)… attack!! Bike their legs!!!”

By: cwcushman

cwcushman — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 19:39:09 +0000

The UCI (and subsequently the USCF) gains its power because it is recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the governing body of our sport. If a person wants to compete in the Olympics –and because cycling is an impacted sport (too many riders for the room available)– they must meet the minimum requirements set forth by the UCI. They have to have a UCI race license, reached a certain level, and have earned a minimum of UCI or National Race Calendar (NRC) points. If a rider jumped ship and joined a different league it is very possible and quite probable that the UCI would regulate them, ending any olympic dreams.

On a side note, by participating in USCF races we are part of the system that creates pros and olympic champions, even down at the Cat. 4 level were I live my humble existence.

By: art

art — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 18:43:57 +0000

The thing about one design boat racing is that while the standards are very strict, the boats are not identical. It’s still up to the builder to make the fastest boat inside the rules, and some really are better at it than others. The only real difference with the America’s Cup is that the rules change almost every challenge. That’s great for innovation if you can afford $100m per boat.

What the UCI has been trying to do (quite badly it seems) is to comprehensively define what is a “bicycle”. As heavy handed and arbitrary as this seems, it should benefit smaller builders in the long run because they know that the products they’re developing now are going to be race legal in the future. They won’t need to re-invest development and tooling every year.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 13:02:19 +0000

Not knowing a whole lot about how to run/promote/manage bike races, I just wonder why these teams don’t combine their efforts and just ditch UCI. Can’t they just create a new Tour, and don’t invite the UCI? It seems like UCI only exists to limit the potential of cycling, and that there would be a great benefit to starting over again.

Ideally I’d love to see as few rules as possible, and races that spark innovation. Have a stage race with a flat day, and watch faired recumbents zip along at 50mph. The next day could be crazy hills, and possibly we’d see innovative energy capturing systems or superlight 10lb bikes. As long as the rules always include that it must be human powered, starting from zero stored mechanical energy at the race start, then I’d love to watch the races evolve.

By: station44025

station44025 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:30:55 +0000

Sailing has the two extremes: match racing, where everyone sails the same exact boat, and events like America’s Cup or some of the standing challenges where the engineering is pushed as far as possible. I think the bicycle industry would probably like to have new-looking flashy looking things like Trek’s trunk/fairing to market, but still be able to crush upstart innovators like Softride with rules and regulations. Personally, I think simplified but more general rules for things like size and strictly human-power combined with the physical demands of a given course and race tactics would yield the most interesting technical advancements and racing. Bicycle technology is pretty primitive compared to many other fields like aerospace or motor-sports, and it’s really too bad, IMO.

By: Andraz

Andraz — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 01:48:23 +0000

If the competition is about human power all riders should ride exactly same bikes, and for historical comparison they should ride bikes of same design, materials and weight as the pioneers… penny farthings if necessary. We could also give the riders same amount of food and drinks and so on.
On the other hand different people face the same challenge differently. Some primarily use physical force, some use skills or tactics, other construct and use tools, others evade, take drugs, etc…
Since one is not as strong as the others he will try to compensate for it with some other attribute, perhaps build a bike that is lighter and more aerodynamic and improve his chances in the race. But than where is the limit, why shouldn’t someone put a wing or kite on his bike… even some engine that stores braking power on descents…
I guess this would gradually turn in completely different sport with different rules and some sort of UCI.
That is why I only compete under SCR rules: http://www.itsnotarace.org/

By: Hunter

Hunter — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:17:09 +0000

The only ones who like the sticker are the biggest companies. Building a new TT model for a company like specialized is 40% market research, 10% R&D and 50% marketing. Paying for the sticker is an investment in the marketing of that frame that eventually pays back dividends.

By: Johann Rissik

Johann Rissik — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:53:13 +0000

Maybe the UCI can just go shiv their heads up the R’s. They are to cycling what FIFA is to soccer, a millstone around the neck…at best.

By: epicyclo

epicyclo — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 23:08:40 +0000

UCI – holding cycle development firmly in the 19th century.

By: Ted Lewandowski

Ted Lewandowski — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:38:03 +0000

In reference to the actual frame design – any company should know in advance that anytime they design something integral to the frame that acts as an airfoil or is overly aerodynamic – case in point – the water bottle assembly – then you know you’re in position that will warrant a UCI ruling.

Do these companies actually submit the blueprints in advance to the UCI or just the finished bike? I would think you can get everything resolved in pre-production by having the UCI approve the blueprint 1st.