's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Selle Italia saddle banned(31 posts)

Selle Italia saddle bannedtronracer
May 20, 2003 5:04 AM
Super-hi back Selle Italia launch pad, seen in 1991 TdF prologue and subsequently banned by UCI. Got this pic from NYC bike works website........Anyone know why it was banned? What was the talk all about?
my guess....ClydeTri
May 20, 2003 5:07 AM
UCI is against innovation...they dont like progress...suprised that the pro pelotons arent riding penny farthing bikes......
re: Selle Italia saddle bannedRobbDC
May 20, 2003 5:39 AM
i remember a similar saddle on several other bikes during the early 90s during time trials, etc. I also remember phil leggit saying The UCI banned it because it was 'too' aero, reducing lag, etc...and like the post said before, too innovative.

i think bernard hinault used one of those back in the day.
A level playing fieldMel Erickson
May 20, 2003 5:50 AM
It's not that UCI is against innovation per se but it kind of works out that way. UCI wants a level playing field so it's the athletes that make the difference, not the equipment. They only approve equipment that is readily available and affordable, and not just to the pro elite racers. The equipment has to basically be in mass production, readily available and reasonably affordable to the majority of the cycling community, particulary licensed cyclists. As I recall the saddle did not meet these criteria and was banned. This prevents one off pieces of equipment designed for use by a specific rider or team. In that way it does stifle innovation. Now, don't ask me why Lance Armstrong can use 10spd Shimano stuff. Maybe it's because 10spd is available from Campy and, therefore, no one's at a disadvantage gearing wise.
May 20, 2003 6:06 AM
Why did UCI ban non-diamond frames, such as Softrides and Trek YFoils? They are available to the mass public at prices much less than Colnago carbon frames. They dont like innovation. The tri world keeps pushing technology while the UCI wants to live in the past.
then....brian n
May 20, 2003 6:11 AM
its a little known fact that the UCI also has a ban against ugly frame design, such as said softrides and y foils.

ha ha ha, just a joke of course,
you trying to tell me that....ClydeTri
May 20, 2003 6:49 AM
you trying to tell me that this bike pictured is not only a very functional bicycle, but a work of art?
May 20, 2003 6:51 AM
isnt a work of art....

The Y Foil is one of most beautiful bicycles ever built.
they're ugly in my book. (nm)rufus
May 20, 2003 7:47 AM
Non-double-diamond frames,TJeanloz
May 20, 2003 6:13 AM
While some monocoque frames were available to the public, the mid-1990s saw the cycling equivilent of an arms race in making these bikes more and more aero. The result was that moderately aero softrides and Y-foils, while stylistically similar, couldn't compete with the US Superbike II or the Australian equivilent in terms of aerodynamics. Furthermore, some riders, like Indurain, had bikes made specifically and only for them - meaning that nobody without their resources could get the same level of aerodynamics. Project96 was a multi-million dollar development project, the results of which were available to only a few athletes. The UCI decided that if only a few could afford them, then nobody could use them.
Pro's not using one off equipment?.....Juanmoretime
May 20, 2003 6:40 AM
Between bikes being disguised, a Litespeed painted like the Teams bike sponsors bike and custom made geometries for the individual team memeber. What pro isn't riding one off custom make frames and equipment. I'm willing to bet if a lever or it's reach isn't perfect for thier hand size a custom STI or Ergo lever is made. Or if they want a cassette range that is standard, I'm sure they get it. Pro's have access to many items that are not available to the general public. Do I really care? No. The UCI is just fooling themselves thinking that they have leveled the playing field. The teams with the deep pockets have the better equipment.
yes, butDougSloan
May 20, 2003 7:02 AM
Novelty is banned, in essense. Relatively minor changes to accomodate morphology, or something as innocuous as a custom cassette, are perfectly ok. Try to use something totally new, like Greg Lemond did, and it must be pre-approved now.

Better funded teams might have better equipment, but with the rules in place, the effects of that are fairly minimized, and the rider is still overwhelmingly the greatest factor.

yes, but...ClydeTri
May 20, 2003 7:12 AM
The top teams are all riding bicycles worth say $10,000 each give or take in many cases. How would let them ride a non-double diamond frame bicycle that is worth the same basic amount violate that principle of letting the cyclist determine the outcome and not the equipment? IMHO its just that UCI is stuck in the past believing tradition is everything.
What's wrong with traditionwilki5
May 20, 2003 7:31 AM
Thousands of fans cheer and religously follow pro cycling. By mantaing a sandard form of equipment it does help to ensure that they are starting from a similar standard. It is the same reason that golfers have limitations on driver size and why downhill skiers have limitations on ski sidecut and length. With tri there are three sports to balance differences out over a race.
Golfers need....ClydeTri
May 20, 2003 7:49 AM
golf needs to look seriously at their balls, no pun intended. The balls go so far now, there is talk of a restricted flight ball for pro tourneys...just passing along
different ways of meeting the goalDougSloan
May 20, 2003 7:32 AM
If the goal is to make it relatively fair, there are at least two ways you could do it. One, mandate a basic frame design, which they do now. Two, permit any design, but mandate a cost for the frame. I think that's what you are suggesting. I think the former would be much easier to implement, and in effect, since there is only so much you can do by spending more money, acheives the latter.

Buy a tricked out Cervelo P3 for around $6,000, maybe $10,000 if you go totally nuts on some components, and you'll have 99.999% of the speed of probably any other bike, given the current rules. Anyone can compete in the equipment arena. I'd bet thousands of amateurs have bikes as good as any pros.

and I don't believe in aluminum bats either!dzrider
May 20, 2003 8:46 AM
I'd put weight limits on frames and wheelsets and keep the bikes looking much the same as they did in 1975.

Going faster without improvements in handling and safety increase the already considerable risks taken by riders. I'm also concerned that a sport that changes equipment too radically loses its connection to its history. It would be a shame to have kids look at the performances of Eddy Merckx or Fausto Coppi and respond "Man, they were slow!"
UCI has a minimum weight limit. nmMel Erickson
May 20, 2003 9:15 AM
I know, it's way too low! nmdzrider
May 20, 2003 12:39 PM
what weights would we see if no rule -- 12 pounds? nmDougSloan
May 20, 2003 3:32 PM
Also safetywilki5
May 20, 2003 8:58 AM
As well there are safety issues. For winning people are always willing to push the envelope and accept equipment that may be on the line of being unsafe because it improves speed, aerodynamics, ...... So besides setting a competition standard the UCI needs to monitor equipment for safety standards.
your cost estimates are way lowlaffeaux
May 20, 2003 10:18 AM
Imagine a bike company decided to build the perfect bike. Using computer modeling, wind tunnel tests, building many models to run various tests on, and in the end produced one frame that was "perfect." Do you think that frame cost $10,000? A company could easily spend hunderends of thousands of dollars on R&D on the project. If the top riders had access to these frames, and the average pro did not, how level is the playing field?

The UCI is trying to prevent unfair advantage, and I think it's fine.
CORRECTION: It was 1986 not 1991ElvisMerckx
May 20, 2003 6:30 AM
Thierry Marie rode that saddle to victory in the TdF Prologue in 1986. The saddle was banned the next day because it was considered both a fairing and the backrest also offered unfair leverage support.

-- Old Timer
Elvis got it, as I remember. It's the NASCAR approach.Silverback
May 20, 2003 8:00 AM
I vaguely remember the incident, and I think the big issue was that riders could brace against the back of the saddle. The aero effect, with the thing tucked away behind the rider, would be pretty small.
As for stifling innovation: Maybe they're taking the NASCAR approach, maintaining a stock look so spectators can identify. If you've ever seen a NASCAR "stock" car up close, or with the skin off, you know they're fabricated from the ground up.
stock cars....ClydeTri
May 20, 2003 8:18 AM
ceased being stock many years ago..they arent even fords or chevrolets or wahtever now..all built to basically the same template .....why they call them ford, chevrolet or whatever is strictly for advertising money....
CORRECTION: It was 1986 not 1991russw19
May 20, 2003 10:45 AM
That was the same year they banned teams using a tether to keep them in an aerodynamic position.

Anyone remember those?

Of course I remember that! Do you remember . . .ElvisMerckx
May 20, 2003 11:30 AM
1986 is also the year the USCF adopted the Snell Z90.4 standard for helmets. I had just upgraded to a Cinelli hairnet, and, alas, I never got to wear it in competition.
Of course I remember that! Do you remember . . .russw19
May 20, 2003 11:42 AM
Wasn't '86 the year Campy came out with C-Record? If so, that was a fine year!

Ahhh, C-Record! Yes, '86 was a very good year!ElvisMerckx
May 20, 2003 11:55 AM
I've got boxes of C-Record stuff; almost 2 full groupos. I've even got the high-flange hubset -- talk about beautiful. I would love to somehow convert it to 10 speed.
Ahhh, C-Record! Yes, '86 was a very good year!russw19
May 20, 2003 2:39 PM
Man, you gotta build a bike with that stuff...even if it is just to look at! I almost bought some guys bike off ebay a month ago that was full C-Record with the Colbato brakes with the stones intact! The frame was too big for me, but who cares, I just wanted the parts... and he would have parted with it for like $625. Not too bad! But I had just bought an old Super Record Merckx instead... a C-Record bike will be in my collection by this time next year!

Then I have to find an old Colnago MTB with Record OR. That would be a find. Not really worth riding, but it would still be a find!

Can get extra leverage from pushing the pedalLC
May 20, 2003 8:15 AM
Using it would kind of be like riding a recumbrant bike where you can push the pedal over on the top of the stroke using the high back to push off.