|UCI Wheel safety Regulations (Major rant)||jim hubbard|
Feb 22, 2002 10:47 PM
|What a F$%cken load of shite. Why do we(as competitive cyclists) let ourselfs be governed by a pack of small minded w$%kers!
I have just been doing some reading on www.cyclingnews.com and www.bike.com. On the first site is published a list of wheels that have currently passed the UCI rupture tests. And on the second a press release by Zipp. It seems that Zipp's 303 wheelset doesn't pass the rupture test and from reading this it is beacuse they are over engineered.
The UCI have succeeded in halting technological progress is the form of bicycle aerodynamic design(the world hour record as an example). The banning of "mini aero bars" in massed start events, due to safety concerns(what a load of shite). The redesign of Mavic's zap levers( not a good system anyway but thats not the point!).
This bunch of buracratic w%^kers would have us riding riding 1930's bikes if they could. They are banning significant advances in technology in the name of what? Purity of the sport?
Sorry for the rant, but I think we as cyclists have got to draw the line somewhere.
Feb 22, 2002 11:05 PM
|I think too many people are looking for advantages through equipment instead of focusing on training or riding. In terms of amateur racing, I think it sucks that people who can afford $1000 wheels would have an advantage over those who can't. The UCI may not be perfect, but this ruling doesn't bother me. The standard may not be perfect, but I like the idea of not having to worry about being impaled or sliced open by some rich guy's wheels in a crash. And what's so bad about 32 hole GP4s anyway?|
Feb 22, 2002 11:15 PM
|If a trek or cannondale frame snaps in a crash this leaves sharp protruding objects that people can injure themselves on. So are they going to do rupture tests on frames? This would put most manufactures out of business.|
Feb 22, 2002 11:16 PM
|Can you say "wheel envy"?
Feb 23, 2002 3:59 AM
|The little advantage these wheels give are insignificant in local races. Egos do not necessarily spin faster than a good work ethic and genetic prowness. I am sure we all have beaten or been beaten by someone who rides with less quality equipment. Wheel envy no, less gray hair yes.|
|Am i wrong or...||YoungRcR|
Feb 23, 2002 4:22 AM
|The USCF doesnt follow the same rules as the UCI. So, in a USCF event those wheels are fine. How many of you out there actually compete in UCI sanctioned events rather than local races?|
|Am i wrong or...||gtx|
Feb 23, 2002 10:51 AM
|good point. I haven't raced on the road for several years, so this isn't really a big issue for me anyway--though in some sense I do miss the racing in the 80s, where everyone showed up at races with the same basic bike--Columbus SL with Record. In the 80s, too, I rode the bike leg in a bunch of triathalons with my normal road bike. Now if I wanted to do that I'd need a whole new bike. I prefer mtb racing these days--even if I'm one of the only guys out there on a hardtail. ;)|
|I see your point, but...||Marlon|
Feb 23, 2002 2:20 PM
|...the flip-side to having the UCI regulate everything is that they're causing bike and wheel technical innovation to stagnate. Granted, with the new wheel regs, their aim is probably two-fold: 1) to limit advantages that wealthier teams have over others, thus keeping the playing field level, and 2) to increase racing safety by limiting possibly dangerous wheels. But then again, remember when the UCI made up the "double-diamond" rule on road-bike designs, thus killing any chance of technical innovation of the type that Chris Boardman used when he set his hour record? The UCI has good intentions, but when was the last time you saw any major improvements in your basic road bike design? Sheesh... the double diamond design is at least century old! The only place where serious innovation is happening is in the triathlon world or in HPV (human powered vehicle) competition. Another point to consider: the only advances really in road cycling design in the last few years (asides from STI/Ergopower combined brake/shifter levers) have been in metallurgy and carbon fibre production - we're getting into cost-heavy materials research, and as a result I think we're starting to reach an asymptote in technological advances of this nature. And now the ruling on bike wheels will see the end of years of research into wheels such as the Specialized (now HED) tri-spoke... Jim Hubbard is right - the UCI, despite all its good intentions, is stifling technological progress and innovation.|
|Oops, meant Graham Obree first, then Boardman...||Marlon|
Feb 23, 2002 2:23 PM
|I see your point, but...||jim hubbard|
Feb 23, 2002 3:01 PM
|Yes your are right about the technological advances as far as metalurgy go. The only real advances in the last few years have been with carbon. Now this ruling pretty much makes them illegal. Alot of companies, campy, shimano, mavic, zipp, hed, (i could go on) have invested tens of millions into design and testing of this material. It is never going to be completely safe because of the nature of it when it ruptures. I keep wondering what they are going to ban next!|| |