Just looking at a photo thread on another bike website that has a great feature on the Sky Service Course centre. One of the photographs shows Wiggo’s saddle with grip tape on the nose and the caption says that the UCI has now banned this practise.

What on earth for; what was the advantage it gave and why was this a problem or is it just the UCI being the UCI?

Big help if they had an itchy sphincter half way up a climb

If it’s innovative and makes the bike less like an 1800’s dandyhorse, the UCI will ban it.

Saddle grip is only there cos the UCI banned the forward position of saddles (and the length of saddles), because Triathletes and time-triallers innovated by finding better, more efficient positions on the bike.

They’ll innovate by having silicone gripper on the shorts instead. Which’ll get banned. Then they’ll have silicone coated saddle, which’ll get banned.
One day UCI will ban so many innovations, they’ll accidentally ban the bike.

my mates new mtb saddle (crank bros) has ‘special’ ribbing on the nose of the saddle which is supposed to help climbing.

we all just reckon its ribbed for his pleasure.

It’s the UCI being the UCI but it’s basically because of the saddle positioning rules. The UCI mandate that the nose of the saddle has to be a minimum distance behind the BB (possibly 5cm IIRC). For TTing, riders want to be further forward but are limited by the rule so tend to sit right on the nose of the saddle which leads to slipping around, hence grip tape.

But it’s ok, Spesh (IIRC) have already produced a saddle with build in grip tape which is allowed so long as they make it commercially available. No doubt, others will follow.

Brad on the nose

And the saddle must be exactly in parallel with the ground.

b r – Member

And the saddle must be exactly in parallel with the ground.

Quite frankly that is the only acceptable position anyway.

Looks like he could do with a bash ring.

I’m very surprised the UCI hasn’t already banned those rings.

Imminent Biopace comeback?

‘Looks like he could do with a bash ring.’… and a couple of pies. 🙂

something to do with alterations to the manufacturers original being a safety issue. couple of the saddle makers have issued saddles with the grip fabric stitched in which is within the new rules. You couldn’t make this stuff up 🙂

Is everyone at the UCI a donkey jerking tosser or just the ones that make up the rules?

Really, they make the Spanish Inquisition look like Pans People.

It all seems to be very arbitrary but any sport is defined by its rules – every individual is looking for advantage but a ‘level playing field’ is core to the definition of sport, everybody should be playing with the same disadvantage.

every individual is looking for advantage but a ‘level playing field’ is core to the definition of sport

I think that’s a noble pursuit. But that’s categorically not what the UCI appears to be doing. Their legislative agenda is specifically to maintain ‘tradition’. As long as the bike looks like a bike they seem to be happy. It’s any innovation that remotely changes our ideas of traditional bike shape, design and riding that they seem to have a problem with.

the nose of the saddle has to be a minimum distance behind the BB

FFS why?

I for one, applaud the UCI’s efforts to keep competitive cycling as a race between humans and not machines. It would be very sad if someone could claim that Wiggo only won the TdF because of a technical innovation. Of course one could argue that if everyone used such enhancements then the human engine would still be the deciding factor. Whilst this is true, I like the idea of being able to compare the performance of current athletes with those of legends of the past. Change is not always a good thing. Of course, us mere mortals can use whatever we like.

itchy sphincter? I always get him mixed up with tinchy stryder 😉

FFS why?

It limits the likelihood of positions like the Superman and praying mantis – basically retains the basic silhouette of the bike.

As to why the UCI do this? A number of reasons – level playing field for all, makes bikes look like bikes, removes the element of biggest budget wins (see F1 as an example). Personally I think it hinders the development of bike design, but the UCI see cycling as all about the rider and none about the bike.

Because it’s all about maintaining the ‘tradition’ of riding a bike.

We had this debate a while back when I asked what was the difference between a cyclo cross bike and a fully rigid 29er MTB with drop handlebars.

It’s a nonsense really; the UCI’s image is that it’s staffed by old men stuck in their ways and gorged on their own sense of self importance.

I like the idea of being able to compare the performance of current athletes with those of legends of the past.

All of the current top crop of cyclists are slower than those of the recent past. Their power:weight is down and their climbing speed is down.

Conclusion: technical innovation makes riders slower. Not drug use in the past; oh no.

If they dont innovate and try new things at Wiggo’s level it will never trickle down to our LBS and ultimatly us, which equals having more fun/going faster. We should be applauding any new advances.
Can remember turning up to time trial with local cycling club in the early nineties and being shunned because we had tri-bars on, took them lots of deliberating about whether we could compete. Now if you havent got tri-bars your seen as not taking it seriously!!
UCI need to get out and ride their bikes more.

Because it’s all about maintaining the ‘tradition’ of riding a bike.

makes bikes look like bikes, removes the element of biggest budget wins

ah ok, fair enough on that point I guess, suppose UCI don’t want the racing teams building bikes that no-one outside of the peloton is ever going to get to buy/use, keep racing inclusive and all that.

If they dont innovate and try new things at Wiggo’s level it will never trickle down to our LBS and ultimatly us, which equals having more fun/going faster. We should be applauding any new advances.

Except they do try things at Wiggo’s level, just in triathlon – the UCI has no say there.

Mike Burrows, while being surprisingly gracious about the UCI considering his past issues with them, made an interesting point regarding the level playing field thing. He said if you just want to see a test of human fitness, watch running.

You’re watching bike racing instead of running, so the bikes are an integral part of the sport. So it should be a total team effort, bike designers v bike designers as much as rider v rider.

It would be interesting to see what the engineers came up with, but then again, as often said, we’d end up watching faired recumbents disappear off into the distance miles ahead of anything that remained remotely bike shaped. Quite quickly, bike racing wouldn’t look like bike racing anymore. So there is a line to be drawn somewhere. Banning grip tape on saddles isn’t where it should be however.

Do we think bike market economics would allow for similar homologation rules to those in certain motorsports? If you can’t sell above a certain threshold of identical bikes on the open market, your win is revoked? Might that keep things more realistic while still promoting innovation?

Well, instead of that maybe the UCI should focus on banning tents in hotel rooms etc etc.
Plus if you follow this stupid rule, all Dher racing with a tyre stampled on the seat when muddy should be ban. Or whatevver is name is bike with a XT cassette and a yumea cage on a Di2 ultegra rear mech should be banned too

h ok, fair enough on that point I guess, suppose UCI don’t want the racing teams building bikes that no-one outside of the peloton is ever going to get to buy/use, keep racing inclusive and all that.

A classic case is the minimum weight limit which is around the 15lb mark. The idea being that a) it stops components being dangerously light and b)removes the ‘big budget’ element. Which was fine in 2000/2001 when Armstrong was winning on a bike that weighed 19lbs. But you can spend a couple of grand on a bike now that weighs similar to that, and most teams are having to add ballast to bring their bikes up to the weight limit. Hence why you see a lot of bikes running stuff like SRM’s to increase weight because they have a margin to play with.

I think its a fine line to tread. On the one hand, you don’t want everyone turning up to the flatter stages on recumbents, but you also don’t want to hamper bike design to the point where everyone is riding steel lugged frames and clips and straps. I really can’t see the issue with running grip-tape on saddles, there’s only so far forward that you can ‘perch’ yourself so what’s the issue?

Some interesting points being made here.

Would a recumbent offer any kind of overall advantage though? That is completely aside from the totally impractical idea of them competing, if for no other reason than safety.

i thought the whole ‘a bike must look like a bike’ thing came along because of recumbents? more efficient/faster.

Would a recumbent offer any kind of overall advantage though?

recumbant would piss all over others in TT wouldn’t it?

15lb weight limit doesn’t seem draconian to me. If you can build it strong enough then add power meters computers etc as ballast fair enough no biggy, bike design is still progressing but no one is going dangerous light and you can still rock up to a race on your £999 bike and not be disadvantaged.

grip tape still seems silly tho.

Well, instead of that maybe the UCI should focus on banning tents in hotel rooms etc etc.
Plus if you follow this stupid rule, all Dher racing with a tyre stampled on the seat when muddy should be ban. Or whatevver is name is bike with a XT cassette and a yumea cage on a Di2 ultegra rear mech should be banned too

❓

He’s probably referring to oxygen tents

weighs similar to that, and most teams are having to add ballast to bring their bikes up to the weight limit.

Ballast’s been banned, they now do it with cheeper cassetts and cranks. The rules are something like all parts have to be functional.

As for is stifeling inovation, arguably we wouldn’t have Di2, SRM’s and aero wheels if there wasn’t a weight limit forceing designers to look at ways of distributing the weight for the maimum advantage (eg heavy aero rims).

A classic case is the minimum weight limit which is around the 15lb mark. The idea being that a) it stops components being dangerously light and b)removes the ‘big budget’ element. Which was fine in 2000/2001 when Armstrong was winning on a bike that weighed 19lbs. But you can spend a couple of grand on a bike now that weighs similar to that

I spent a couple of grand on a bike which is a few hundred grams under that. Silly outdated rule which stifles innovation in weight saving – as well as being discriminatory against riders like Emma Pooley.

recumbant would piss all over others in TT wouldn’t it?

and on most of the road stages.

recumbant would piss all over others in TT wouldn’t it?

and on most of the road stages.

I can visualise the classic sunflower scene now – all the riders whizzing past, all you’d see is a bunch of silly little flags going along

IanMunro – Member
Looks like he could do with a bash ring.

excellent! LOL!

I think the UCI has a responsibility at every level of the sport to ensure safety and leep the playing field reasonably level. Look at what happened with swimming – Speedo brought out a hugely expensive skinsuit that gave such an advantage at the last Olympics that the Japanese team, who were sponsored by Mizuno, bought their own Speedo kit and wore that. Move down to the club level and the rich parents of kids in Surrey were buying Speedo swim suits and getting an unfair advantage. They’ve had to ban skin suits outright to restore the human dimension.

The UCI keeps a bike looking like a bike so that you don’t get a rich muppet buying the latest, silly priced, superman positioned TT bike, riding it in his local TT and either going under a car or wiping the floor with his opponents. The weight limit, sticky stuff on the saddle and saddle angles are part of the same exercise.

I spent a couple of grand on a bike which is a few hundred grams under that. Silly outdated rule which stifles innovation in weight saving – as well as being discriminatory against riders like Emma Pooley.

I still tink the opposite, the weight limit just forces development off in another direction (aerodynamics). And Pooley’s no more dissadvantaged for being short/light than anyone else is geneticaly disadvantaged for not having Armstrongs lungs or Hoy’s legs.

Bessidedes the whole point is it prevents inovation and keeps a level playing field.

You’re watching bike racing instead of running, so the bikes are an integral part of the sport. So it should be a total team effort, bike designers v bike designers as much as rider v rider.

he may be a great bike designer but he is wrong.
The best athlete should win and not the person on the best bike.
it would be like F1 where it is the best driver in the fastest car who wins rather than the best driver.
Still LA would be happy as it would be all about the bike 😉
I dont agree with all the UCI do but i do agree with what they are trying to do.

And Pooley’s no more dissadvantaged for being short/light than anyone else is geneticaly disadvantaged for not having Armstrongs lungs or Hoy’s legs.

The difference is she’s disadvantaged by the rules. Nothing in the rules saying you can’t develop legs like Hoy or lungs like Armstrong (well there are rules about how he got those lungs, but that’s another subject 😉 ). However the rules say Pooley has to ride a bike the same weight as Cancellara’s when without such a rule hers would be significantly lighter.