The real reason behing the UCI's tech decisions

[Don Pickett]

The UCI just handed down a ruling banning the use of disc brakes on 'cross bikes. Manufacturers are
baffled by this decision, as many 'cross racers have been specifically asking for disc brakes for
their better performance in adverse conditions.

In a recent Velonews article (http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/5149.0.html) we find:

"Stu Thorne, owner of cyclocross.com and sponsor of a handful of UCI-competing Œcrossers, said the
decision might just be an over-reaction to an influx of largely American technology in solidly
European sport.

I think it's typical of the UCI to make a decision like this," Thorne said. "I think they're just
afraid of technical advancement. The Europeans are years off from adopting disc brake technology on
Œcross bikes, so it's really no surprise that the UCI would want to squash any development of this
mostly American-based technology. I think they want to keep the bikes very traditional, which is to
say, with cantilever-style brakes. Other than being sticklers for traditionalism, I can't understand
why they'd make such a decision."

I have been making the argument that the UCI's tech decisions are meant largely to keep American
technology from flooing the European market, which has been slower to adopt new tech. I have a weird
feeling I have been right.

 

[Erik Saunders]

dude.. the uci's ruling on disc brakes is old news... i guess that velo news waited on it to build a
story but couldnt get any response from the UCI...

i gotta tell ya... the UCI will eventually allow disc brakes, after they have time to think about
it... i am in agreement with the UCI's wish to control the rush into new technology for its own
sake... major league baseball plays with wooden bats when aluminum and ceramic bats are lightyears
better, but it doesnt matter because the game is still great with wooden bats, no one says "i think
i will only watch college ball because they use the best available technology"... "i think i will
not watch nascar beacuse they have carburators..." i think i will not watch ANY motorsport because
they have rules that limit the design of the cars so that they cant be free to use the latest and
greatest ideas to make schumi's car even faster..."

reality has got to set in at some point.. in an equipment sport, there should be rules to govern the
technology used!... cycling is begining to do this- and it should be done... so enough with the
conspiracy theories...

new tech can drive the high end market all it wants, but it doesnt have to be the same among
sponsored teams in international competition... unlike the marketplace- it aint all about the bike
in competition, thats one thing the euros get that we sort of are wrestling with... the makers of
the stuff only care about the racers using the products because it is advertising for them... they
can make all the gucci ass **** they want and people will still buy it if it is good...
manufacturers are going to have to get used to the idea that they cant just go slapping **** on guys
bikes on sunday to sell it on monday without some kind of technical review... let them lobby the UCI
tech commision if they want...

 

[Chris]

Does it really matter? How many guys won on a disc equipped bike? Most of these guys are just
starting to use carbon forks.

CH

 

[Warren]

In article <[email protected]>, chris
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Does it really matter? How many guys won on a disc equipped bike? Most of these guys are just
> starting to use carbon forks.

Having converted my MTB from V-brakes to disc brakes I can appreciate the significant advantage disc
brakes would offer for a 'cross bike. Why they would be outlawed is bizarre.

-WG

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <211020031901384934%[email protected]>, warren <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, chris
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Does it really matter? How many guys won on a disc equipped bike? Most of these guys are just
> > starting to use carbon forks.
>
> Having converted my MTB from V-brakes to disc brakes I can appreciate the significant advantage
> disc brakes would offer for a 'cross bike. Why they would be outlawed is bizarre.
>
> -WG

Maybe the UCI doesn't think they look retro enough... Hell, they should mandate that everyone
-has- to use real MAFACs, none of these cnc'd knockoffs! And only bar-end shifters, too. I'll bet
they're allowed eventually, but the short notice on the ban is bad for the people who had
committed to using them at this point.

--
tanx, Howard

"We've reached a higher spiritual plane, that is so high I can't explain We tell jokes to make you
laugh, we play sports so we don't get fat..." The Dictators

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Don Pickett]

In article <[email protected]>, erik saunders <[email protected]> wrote:

> reality has got to set in at some point.. in an equipment sport, there should be rules to govern
> the technology used!... cycling is begining to do this- and it should be done... so enough with
> the conspiracy theories...

I guess we're gonna have to disagree on this, cause there is plenty of tech the UCI has allowed in
without a thought - clipless pedals, indexed shifting, lightweight wheels - all of which wasn't
invented in the U.S.

I don't see a conspiracy theory, but I do see some pretty bald politcking.

 

[Steven L. Sheff]

On 10/21/2003 11:18 PM, in article 221020030118086331%[email protected], "Don Pickett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, erik saunders <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> reality has got to set in at some point.. in an equipment sport, there should be rules to govern
>> the technology used!... cycling is begining to do this- and it should be done... so enough with
>> the conspiracy theories...
>
> I guess we're gonna have to disagree on this, cause there is plenty of tech the UCI has allowed in
> without a thought - clipless pedals, indexed shifting, lightweight wheels - all of which wasn't
> invented in the U.S.
>
> I don't see a conspiracy theory, but I do see some pretty bald politcking.

Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.

Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.

--
Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net bellum
pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti
ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-ewe
dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

 

[Kaiser]

I think the UCI is slow to approve new technology simply because they are either too cheap or too
lazy to properly evaluate it.

Also take note that the UCI is controlled by a consortium of people who own and operate Pro teams.
Many of those teams are sponsored by European component manufacturers. It's really basic politics.
If the American manufacturers want more of a say in how things are done, then do what the Euros do
and invest some resources in places that will later give you influenceinthe decision making process.
IE, invest in pro teams and perhaps start one of your own. That's the power of infulence.

Don Pickett <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<211020030238108755%[email protected]>...
> The UCI just handed down a ruling banning the use of disc brakes on 'cross bikes. Manufacturers
> are baffled by this decision, as many 'cross racers have been specifically asking for disc brakes
> for their better performance in adverse conditions.
>
> In a recent Velonews article (http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/5149.0.html) we find:
>
> "Stu Thorne, owner of cyclocross.com and sponsor of a handful of UCI-competing ?crossers, said the
> decision might just be an over-reaction to an influx of largely American technology in solidly
> European sport.
>
> I think it's typical of the UCI to make a decision like this," Thorne said. "I think they're just
> afraid of technical advancement. The Europeans are years off from adopting disc brake technology
> on ?cross bikes, so it's really no surprise that the UCI would want to squash any development of
> this mostly American-based technology. I think they want to keep the bikes very traditional, which
> is to say, with cantilever-style brakes. Other than being sticklers for traditionalism, I can't
> understand why they'd make such a decision."
>
> I have been making the argument that the UCI's tech decisions are meant largely to keep American
> technology from flooing the European market, which has been slower to adopt new tech. I have a
> weird feeling I have been right.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
>
>
> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
>
> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.

Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.

They both are legal for tt's.

 

[Erik Saunders]

the uci isnt controlled by pro team owners... sorry...

i cant believe that so many people have a hard time seeing that it is not good to have an unchecked
technological free for all...

it is important from a marketing (of the sport, not of bike parts) and competition standpoint that
the bikes all have a consistent look and function in the same way... that technology does not
advance so rapidly and diversely that different teams end up competing on ever diverging machines
(as was begining to be the case for TT bikes)... the public needs to see, understand and be
comfortable with what a "racing bike" looks like in order for the races to be taken seriously... and
the focus needs to be kept on the rider and not be allowed to creep closer and closer to the
machine... the bikes will evolve without a doubt, but it should be in a slow and methodical way...

i dont know if any of you remember, but things started to get sick when ONCE rolled out on some WACK
LOOK TT BIKES one year (a french company, not american) that had this crazy down tube that was like
a foot wide, had a front wheel cut-out, curved from the head tube, down around the front wheel and
back to the bottom bracket exactly PARALLEL to the gound!.. they had both carbon and ti versions and
the thing looked like a yellow GP motorcycle... ONCE also rode the first or second generation mega
stealthy Looks (that were the predecessors of the 396) as road bikes... while Kelme rode the Corimas
on the road... a lot of people were going "jesus, what the hell is a bike anymore?"

 

[Steven L. Sheff]

On 10/22/2003 08:41 AM, in article [email protected], "Kurgan
Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
>>
>> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.
>
>
> Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.

After being legal for 2 years.

> They both are legal for tt's.

Disc brakes aren't banned for mountain biking ... just for 'cross ...

--
Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net bellum
pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti
ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-ewe
dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BBBC77AF.13312%[email protected]...
> On 10/22/2003 08:41 AM, in article [email protected], "Kurgan
> Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
> >>
> >> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.
> >
> >
> > Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.
>
>
> After being legal for 2 years.

You compared Spinaci's right after mentioning aero bars.

Aero bars were never legal for mass start racing. It is a bad analogy.

 

[Nick Burns]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BBBC77AF.13312%[email protected]...
> > On 10/22/2003 08:41 AM, in article [email protected], "Kurgan
> > Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
> > >>
> > >> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.
> > >
> > >
> > > Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.
> >
> >
> > After being legal for 2 years.
>
>
>
> You compared Spinaci's right after mentioning aero bars.
>

Yes, they were. For about 2 or 3 years.
> Aero bars were never legal for mass start racing. It is a bad analogy.

 

[Nick Burns]

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BBBC77AF.13312%[email protected]...
> > On 10/22/2003 08:41 AM, in article [email protected], "Kurgan
> > Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
> > >>
> > >> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.
> > >
> > >
> > > Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.
> >
> >
> > After being legal for 2 years.
>
>
>
> You compared Spinaci's right after mentioning aero bars.
>
> Aero bars were never legal for mass start racing. It is a bad analogy.

Do you mean Spinacis aero bars were not ever legal, or TT style aero bars? Spinacis were legal for a
few years.

 

[Kurgan Gringion]

"Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:BBBC77AF.13312%[email protected]...
> > > On 10/22/2003 08:41 AM, in article [email protected], "Kurgan
> > > Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
> > > >>
> > > >> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.
> > >
> > >
> > > After being legal for 2 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > You compared Spinaci's right after mentioning aero bars.
> >
> > Aero bars were never legal for mass start racing. It is a bad analogy.
>
> Do you mean Spinacis aero bars were not ever legal, or TT style aero bars? Spinacis were legal for
> a few years.

Dumbass -

I know. Aero bars were never legal for mass start. Spinaci's were. Bad analogy.

 

[Kraig Willett]

"kaiser" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think the UCI is slow to approve new technology simply because they are either too cheap or too
> lazy to properly evaluate it.

In my experiences with the UCI, I would not agree with this statement. It took the UCI nearly three
years, considerable expense, and many revisions of test protocols to ban certain kinds of wheels
from the pro peloton during mass start events.

I did come to the conclusion that, in the wheel situation, they were technically incompetent and had
some very interesting motivations, though - allegedly.

--
==================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
==================

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:BBBC77AF.13312%[email protected]...
> > > > On 10/22/2003 08:41 AM, in article [email protected], "Kurgan
> > > > Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:BBBBC8DA.13206%[email protected]...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aero (TT) bars were invented in the US, and are UCI-legal.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cinelli Spinaci bars were invented in Italy, and banned by the UCI.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Spinaci's were banned for mass start racing.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > After being legal for 2 years.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You compared Spinaci's right after mentioning aero bars.
> > >
> > > Aero bars were never legal for mass start racing. It is a bad analogy.
> >
> > Do you mean Spinacis aero bars were not ever legal, or TT style aero bars? Spinacis were legal
> > for a few years.
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> I know. Aero bars were never legal for mass start. Spinaci's were. Bad analogy.

And to throw another wrench into the works on this: while Spinaci bars were legal for a couple of
years, the Scott Rakes were immediately banned by the UCI for mass start events. (If you
remember, it was the opposite here in the US.) After the Spinachi ban, all the Shimano equipped
guys rode along hanging on to the shifter cables, a position that pretty much mimicked the
Spinachi one. But I think it would be much easier to get from Spinacis to the brake levers than
from Rakes, which was the reason the UCI gave for the ban (from what I remember).

--
tanx, Howard

"We've reached a higher spiritual plane, that is so high I can't explain We tell jokes to make you
laugh, we play sports so we don't get fat..." The Dictators

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Don Pickett]

In article <[email protected]>, erik saunders <[email protected]> wrote:

> it is important from a marketing (of the sport, not of bike parts) and competition standpoint that
> the bikes all have a consistent look and function in the same way... that technology does not
> advance so rapidly and diversely that different teams end up competing on ever diverging machines
> (as was begining to be the case for TT bikes)... the public needs to see, understand and be
> comfortable with what a "racing bike" looks like in order for the races to be taken seriously...
> and the focus needs to be kept on the rider and not be allowed to creep closer and closer to the
> machine...

In your world only. The general public is a sucker for any new piece of "tech" which comes along, no
matter the logic. A friend of mine just bought a new cheapish mountain bike which he will ride on
nice, wide paths somewhere. Yet, he made sure to get a front disc brake! Why? Cause it was a disc!
Because of this prolifigacy, anything new technology-wise which appears on a racing bike will
translate into sales, both for my non-cyclist friend and all the feds who have to have the latest,
carbon fiber water bottle with titanium nipple.

This is, in fact, the real reason Shimano tried to mandate that any Shimano sponsored mountain bike
pro had to run the full XTR kit, including disc brakes: disc brake sales have not taken off like
manufacturers thought they would, cause most serious cross country riders know that cantis offer
most of the performance for less weight and much less cost. So Shimano thought pics of pros with
discs would increase sales.

> i dont know if any of you remember, but things started to get sick when ONCE rolled out on some
> WACK LOOK TT BIKES one year (a french company, not american) that had this crazy down tube that
> was like a foot wide, had a front wheel cut-out, curved from the head tube, down around the front
> wheel and back to the bottom bracket exactly PARALLEL to the gound!.. they had both carbon and ti
> versions and the thing looked like a yellow GP motorcycle... ONCE also rode the first or second
> generation mega stealthy Looks (that were the predecessors of the 396) as road bikes... while
> Kelme rode the Corimas on the road... a lot of people were going "jesus, what the hell is a bike
> anymore?"

No one I knew was saying this. Those bikes were finally outlawed because they allowed too much
aerodynamic fairing for the rear wheel.

My point still stands.

 

[Benjamin Weiner]

Don Pickett <[email protected]> wrote:

> I guess we're gonna have to disagree on this, cause there is plenty of tech the UCI has allowed in
> without a thought - clipless pedals, indexed shifting, lightweight wheels - all of which wasn't
> invented in the U.S.

> I don't see a conspiracy theory, but I do see some pretty bald politcking.

No, there is a conspiracy, but you're wrong about where it is.

It goes like this:

UCI bans disc brakes "to assure level playing field" as not all riders/sponsors have them

US Masters Fatties think "Disc brakes must be better! UCI scaredy cats admit it themselves!"

US Masters Fatties rush out, buy Cannondale, Redline?, or other disc brake compatible CX bikes of
choice. Make sure to buy disc-only frame, cause you know saving the weight of the 5g/each fittings
where the brake bosses screw in is important. Hell, there are 4 of those heavy mothers!

Next year, more manufacturers have disc compatible frames, UCI says "After extensive tech review by
Franck et Jules, UCI janitors/mechanical engineers, we have concluded that disc brakes are safe" (as
safe as riding cross race through Belgian beer tent can be, anyway)

Everybody happy! Well except US Elite cross riders who are either sponsored-enough or rich-enough
to afford riding discs this year. Since as you know US CX is just rolling in sponsorship and
salary $$$ ...

Ben not fast enough for disc brakes

 

[Richard Adams]

erik saunders wrote:

> in the USA, all the tech is crazy... because americans are nuts with consumerism...

Mostly due to the declassification of lots of military secrets. Much of the technology you take
for granted in Titanium/Carbon frames had its roots in submarine technology and hush-hush
skunkworks stuff.

> lets just not ever limit any bike designs and have recumbents in UCI races, with regular bikes of
> all stupid wacky forms, and see how good things look to the spectators... and see what happens...

Hey, why not recumbent races? Mountain biking isn't that old, and they're still trying to thrash out
something that will survive in the USA. It seems there's a bike maker on every block these days, but
that could be because I live in the Santa Cruz area...

> this might not be so bad... there are motorsports that are able to attract a lot of $$$ without
> everyone racing the same car, but cycling is a sport with a lot of tradition, and that tradition
> must be preserved, or it is not truly the same sport that bred all the great champions whom the
> world reveres...

I fail to see the tradition - technology connection, aside from higher profile teams getting the
very best and very expensive bikes, while Div II & III teams make do with what sponsors give
them. There is a rate of declining return and effectively a good rider is the determining factor
these days, as most eq is 99.9% the same quality. The weight limit still plays a roll in keeping
things balanced.

> the first consideration of the UCI should be the preservation of cycling's traditional aspects,
> then it should be to keep the machines current with the marketplace... that is, to always keep
> racing bikes in line with the modest bikes that a normal consumer would be able to buy...

Sort of like IROC for cars. Every driver/rider gets exactly the same frame, wheels, box of parts.
May the better skilled and able win. Sorry, the sport needs it's sponsors unless the teams switch
over to the model of most modern sports. A big team based out of a city or region which collects
money on tickets (VIP maybe?), endorsements, TV, etc.

> i just dont see anything wrong, or backwards in this... the rider comes before the bike... the
> integrity of the sport comes before some nut-ball bike design whose only real goal is "brand
> differentiation"... it is not the technology that makes the races exciting to fans world wide.. it
> is the riders... the normal european cycling fan doesnt know very much about bikes anyway...a lot
> of us forget that the well-educated tech savy cyclist/cycling fan here in the USA is very very far
> from a typical cycling fan in any other part of the world... in france and belgium, for instance,
> they more resemble NASCAR fans... cycling fans outside of the "too smart for my own britches" type
> that we tend to be here dont even know what the hell the UCI is!...

I know what my spine and legs tell me. The rest is fiddling with adjustments, cleaning and
maintaining. A better built bike lasts longer when the miles are long. It also doesn't hurt to be
hauling your carcass up a 15% grade on a 17.5 lb bike rather than a 25 lb one.

> RBR is the reason that specialized sponsors mario... but "tout-les-jours Jaques" is the reason the
> Brioches La Boulangere sponsors a bunch of guys you never heard of... maybe RBR types love a silly
> lookin wonderbike that their wife would never let them buy, but Jaques looks at that thing and
> goes "what

> international cycling, or are all the hard working union guys in western europe?...

As Peugeot (the brand) illustrated, Jaques will buy what his favorite pro is riding, even if that
pro secretly knows it rides like ****. Each sponsor has different expectations. ONCE was going for
visibility, which they got then departed, what's wrong with that?

RBR as the backbone of national or international cycling is like suggesting a flock of Canada geese
heading south are responsible for the weather.

The survival of cycling as a sport requires a Janus. Someone like LeBlanc who retrieves a few
nuggets of the past to underscore tradition, but look to setting regulations and race calendars to
balance the sport and maximize its exposure.