The link above has some detail about a new UCi initiative to put a sticker on road frames that don't break the UCI's arcane rules, and lines their pockets at the same time.
I was wondering what the collective here thought about this, and whether this is something that might be coming our way soon?
Would you prefer a UCI approved bike or are you happy on your nichesteed?
Does the UCI matter?
How's this fit with the CEN testing?
It doesn't. It's a way for the UCI to make money by waving rulers at bikes in a lab instead of on the start line.
Thought as much 
It could have saved Graeme Obree a lot of bother:
Approved By UCI washing machine by carltonreid, on Flickr
Would you prefer a UCI approved bike or are you happy on your nichesteed?
Couldn't give a monkey's.
I want a nice bike that's nice to ride. Not one that fits with some archaic rules created by a committee of people that should sit around talking less and actually ride bikes a lot more.
Same goes for a bike to race on (not that I race any UCI type events).
I regard the UCI as an organisation dedicated to stunting cycle development.
I wouldn't pay extra for a bike with their sticker, and if it had one, I'd peel it off.
Edit: Obree is a prime example of what is wrong with the UCI. If a man in a shed can build a bike it should be legal to race - it's not the same as when some huge corporation has gained an unfair advantage by pouring mega money at the problem .
Of course, usually a bit of that mega money finds its way into UCI pockets, so then it's ok. Maybe Obree should have sent them the rest of the washing machine 
Funny how people would refuse to pay the extra couple of pennies on frame price, but are completely happy that Trek et al give their very expensive bikes away to pro teams with the obvious cost being absorbed by the normal punters anyway.
Still, seems a crazy idea when you first see it, but then I'm not sure how much these bike companies or trade teams pay into the UCI already. Turning up at an event then having to stand in a long line whilst someone with a clipboard gets his ruler out is probably annoying and expensive for all concerned.
It's the likes of, say, Cotic who sponsor a cyclocross rider who are gonna drop out as it might be overtly expensive, though looks like more 'traditional' bikes get through cheap.
I'd go for one of these. Bloody UCI - bunch of self-interested muppets
clubber - Member
I'd go for one of these. Bloody UCI - bunch of self-interested muppets
Should get them printed. I'd put one of them on my bike
Let's get ahead of the crowd and get a STW advance order from Gil!
I regard the UCI as an organisation dedicated to stunting cycle development.
So what if a bike doesn't have double triangle shape, or the "tube" profile is not 3:1 or less. Let Trek, 'Dale, Giant etc. and Pro/Amatuer riders determine what makes the most efficient way of transferring human energy into the required motion.
I would have thought the vast majority, if not all, riders in UCI sanctioned events are given there bikes anyway, the rest of us don't need them.
Always a few who will want and can afford something with a fancy sticker on it. TJ maybe;-)
Not sure how it will effect 99% of riders really. A major company like Giant or Trek can spread the cost over a lot of bikes and you will not notice it. A small manufacturer can't afford to fund UCI team so does not need the licence.
Writing this I did wonder if Cotic would be effected as Ms Potter has ridden UCI events off-road on a Cotic. Mebbe your soda or -X- is going up in price soon or she will be riding a re-badged Specialized....
Cotic would have to pay as I understand it but a much reduced fee (about $1k IIRC) because their frames are made from tubes rather than moulded.
So what if a bike doesn't have double triangle shape, or the "tube" profile is not 3:1 or less. Let Trek, 'Dale, Giant etc. and Pro/Amatuer riders determine what makes the most efficient way of transferring human energy into the required motion.
UCIs argument is you end up with an elite band of makers who can afford the best technology to make their bikes the best and most efficient, then only all the rich riders (or countries) can afford to buy them, thus giving other riders/nations an instant disadvantage.
Bit like saying the USA athlete only has to run 90m, and the Tongan needs to do the full 100m.
Though of course I am painfully aware the big companies (Trek, Giant and Specialized) already rule the roost and US/European riders are at the forefront of the sport anyway....
I'd be tempted to have the sticker, and then upgrade the bike so it broke the rules but still had the sticker!!!!
UCIs argument is you end up with an elite band of makers who can afford the best technology to make their bikes the best and most efficient, then only all the rich riders (or countries) can afford to buy them, thus giving other riders/nations an instant disadvantage.
And that is a fair comment IMO.
I saw something on Top Gear once about stock car events in Scandinavia somewhere where after the event, any of the competitors can ask to buy another competitor's car for £1000 (or whatever the number was) and they have to sell it - basically to avoid people having an unfair advantage just by spending loads on a better car.
Do something similar but with some provisos - eg members of the top teams/companies/countries can't do it and you'd have a workable rule that'd keep things fair.
and then upgrade the bike so it broke the rules but still had the sticker!!!!
They're planning to apply the sticker to wheels, aero bars and so on - eg the things that typically break the rules...
Then I shall continue to ignore them as I don't race.
Mind you, I fancy trying triathlon. Do they stick their nose into that one at all?
breatheeasy - Member
UCIs argument is you end up with an elite band of makers who can afford the best technology to make their bikes the best and most efficient, then only all the rich riders (or countries) can afford to buy them, thus giving other riders/nations an instant disadvantage.
Like Graeme Obree? Their treatment of him blows their argument out of the water.
Maybe the rule should be any bike can be run so long as there are no patents on it (like open source software). Then anyone can copy it. We might even see some advances in bikes then.
I like the maximum value and the right to buy rule.
BSA fell foul of this in the USA many years ago when one of their triples won an important race (Daytona?). One of the other riders stumped up the cash (not much) and bought a bike they'd spent something like hundreds of thousands on.
No, the UCI have no control over Tri which is why they're a lot less stuffy, particularly on bikes...
Might go some way to explaining the growth in triathlon then. Lets hope some blokes in blazers don't bog that one down then.
I like andythereocketeer's ideas. The UCI are coming up with ill-thought out rules that give with one hand and take away with the other at the mo. For example the min weight rule means that the richer teams/countries spend their money on aerodynamic improvements instead to get an advantage. Also, they made the upper CX tyre width limit to restrict the no of wheels a racer brings to a race (to keep perceived costs down) but then allow disc brakes, meaning the top guys will now have twice as many bikes!
My race bike is comfortably under the UCI limit. They guys I race against know that, most coms are aware but luckily no one gives a toss.
I saw something on Top Gear once about stock car events in Scandinavia somewhere where after the event, any of the competitors can ask to buy another competitor's car for £1000 (or whatever the number was) and they have to sell it - basically to avoid people having an unfair advantage just by spending loads on a better car.
There was a similar rule for a while in US MX (and I tihnk might still exist at amateur level) - any rider could claim any other riders bike by paying the market rate plus a premium. Unworkable at the pro level, but the idea was to try and ensure a level playing field. Disadvantages are it obviously stifles development, and with most privateers having a factory ride as a goal they wouldn't want to piss the manufacturers off.
When the manufacturers moved to production machines for a while, unsuprisingly the factory guys still one.
Same in cycling I would expect.
Andythrocketeers got the idea though. We all love the technology trickledown (those of us fooled by marketing that is.)
It's been interesting to read the discussion, thanks guys.
I can't understand how more breakaway, non-UCI races/events aren't happening. The UCI and all the other official bodies only have the power and prestige they do because the riders and manufacturers go along with it. Surely if even half the pro-peloton/ top 50 DHers or the big teams decided to ignore the UCI, host their own series and declare their own champion, all the power and Swiss clipboards would explode?
Cant see the problem - wheels used in mass start have had to be from a UCI approved list for some years now, and the world doesn't appear to have ended
mansonsoul - Member
...I can't understand how more breakaway, non-UCI races/events aren't happening.
Single speed racing may interest you. The only sport where you are encouraged to ingest performance reducing drugs (beer).
Like Graeme Obree? Their treatment of him blows their argument out of the water.
Not sure if this is the same thing. I don't know the Obree story too well, but wasn't it that they decided his position/bike setup was inappropriate rather than any technological advances?
I can't understand how more breakaway, non-UCI races/events aren't happening.
TdF isn't a UCI race.
IIRC UCI rules say that anyone can enter a race if they meet the qualification standard (usualy a number of UCI points and not currently bared from competition for dopeing). ASO invite teams to participate, usualy based on their UCI points, but more importantly in recent years they have not invited teams implicated in drugs scandals even if the individual rideres wont be in the teams or it was never completely proven but brought cycling into disrepute etc etc.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
