KOG : Messages : 23704-23721 of 24855

Summarize Messages

Sort by Date

#23704

From: Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:02 pm
Subject: new UCI bike spec

kogswellreader

Offline

Send Email

Our friends at the UCI are at it again.

A couple of years ago they decided that all bikes used for
the hour record had to be built like Eddy's hour attempt
bikes. The idea is to compare apples to apples.

They publish the regulations from time to time. Yesterday
they refreshed the specs and they've added an interesting
new twist to the game:

The bicycle must be accessible to all participants. It must be marketed
(i.e. available for sale on the market) or marketable (i.e. available for
sale directly from the manufacturer, by subscription or through an alternative
distribution network). Prototypes and the use of equipment specially designed
for a particular athlete, event or performance is prohibited. “Special design”
means a bicycle with a technical added value when compared with other
equipment.

Wrong!

Sport should be about the performance of the individual, not
the performance of the equipment. So I get where they're
coming from. But where do you draw the line? What sets
guys like Graeme Obree apart from other competitors is how
they use their brains to enhance their performance. They
build better bikes and use better positions on the bikes and
that makes them faster, if only until the competition copies
them and catches up.

The UCI has drawn the line at the use of drugs, as well
they should. Controlled substances are dangerous and
those who use them are dumb. But using your brain to
build a better bike is just plain smart and it should be
encouraged and promoted as a way to enhance
performance in a safe and sane manner.

The UCI already has rules that govern the general
safety of a bike. A bike has to weigh at least 6.8 kilos
for example. Using less material in a bike is dangerous.

I continue to wonder why the cycling world insists on
stuffing itself into one mold. Other vehicular-based
sports have long since splintered into multiple classes
that allow for people of meager means, for example,
to compete on a flat field. Cycling could do the same.
And in doing so there would be a place for individuals
who have worked on their conditioning to compete
with others without the requirement of a $20000 bike.

What do you think?

If you want to read the new UCI specs, have a look
at the attached file titled: Technical Regulations for
Bicycles – A Practical Guide To Implementation.

It's a hoot.

Matthew

1 of 1 File(s)

TECH.PDF

Reply | Forward

#23709

From: John P <jprelock@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:21 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec [1 Attachment]

jprelock

Offline

Send Email

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Kogswell

Cycles<kogswellcycles@...> wrote:

> I continue to wonder why the cycling world insists on

> stuffing itself into one mold.  Other vehicular-based

> sports have long since splintered into multiple classes

> that allow for people of meager means, for example,

> to compete on a flat field.  Cycling could do the same.

> And in doing so there would be a place for individuals

> who have worked on their conditioning to compete

> with others without the requirement of a $20000 bike.

>

> What do you think?



This seems exactly like what the UCI is trying to do with this rule

change.  They apparently want to be the sanctioning body for a

"production class" for the Hour.  I guess that would leave the door

open for another body to sanction a "formula class" for the same

attempt.



For those familiar with motorcycle racing I guess the UCI wants to be

like World Superbike, leaving an opening for a different organization

to be like MotoGP.



   -John

Reply | Forward

#23711

From: Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:34 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

kogswellreader

Offline

Send Email

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, John P<jprelock@...> wrote:

> This seems exactly like what the UCI is trying to do with this rule

> change.  They apparently want to be the sanctioning body for a

> "production class" for the Hour.  I guess that would leave the door

> open for another body to sanction a "formula class" for the same

> attempt.

Yep.

Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.

But it's a first draft after all.

MG

Reply | Forward

#23715

From: Steve Chan <sychan168@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

sychan_168

Offline

Send Email

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, John P<jprelock@...> wrote:

> This seems exactly like what the UCI is trying to do with this rule

> change. They apparently want to be the sanctioning body for a

> "production class" for the Hour. I guess that would leave the door

> open for another body to sanction a "formula class" for the same

> attempt.

    The upright bicycle hour record was left behind long ago by

recumbent bikes, so these UCI events are basically just a test of

which athlete is a better bike motor. If the bike motor is all you are

testing, you really *do* want to squash all innovation in anything

else (like the bike).

    If you dumb down the reference standard for the bikes below the

bike used for the most recent record, you disadvantage all the people

who come afterwards. You want reproducible test standards, while

allowing the elites their best shot, then this is what you need to do,

right?

--

"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a

habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel

Smiles

Reply | Forward

#23716

From: Mike Avina <avina.mike@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

motelnoir

Offline

Send Email

UCI be damned I want to see porteur races come back.

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Steve Chan <sychan168@...> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM, John P<jprelock@...> wrote:
> This seems exactly like what the UCI is trying to do with this rule
> change. They apparently want to be the sanctioning body for a
> "production class" for the Hour. I guess that would leave the door
> open for another body to sanction a "formula class" for the same
> attempt.

The upright bicycle hour record was left behind long ago by
recumbent bikes, so these UCI events are basically just a test of
which athlete is a better bike motor. If the bike motor is all you are
testing, you really *do* want to squash all innovation in anything
else (like the bike).

If you dumb down the reference standard for the bikes below the
bike used for the most recent record, you disadvantage all the people
who come afterwards. You want reproducible test standards, while
allowing the elites their best shot, then this is what you need to do,
right?

--
"Sow a thought, reap an action. Sow an action, reap a habit. Sow a
habit, reap a character. Sow a character, reap a destiny." - Samuel
Smiles

Reply | Forward

#23713

From: "e-RICHIE" <richardsachs@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:43 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

bobbesrs

Offline

Send Email



>> Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.





everything is "production" atmo.

just because you can't keep up with demand doesn't mean it's uci illegal.



i am sure this news story has nothing to do with framebuilding, framebuilders,

or alienating anyone in the handmade niche.



e-RICHIE©™®

http://www.richardsachs.com

Richard Sachs Cycles

No.9, North Main Street

Chester, CT 06412  USA



Please note: message attached



From: Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...>

To: KOG@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [KOG] new UCI bike spec

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:34:47 -0500

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:21 PM, John P<jprelock@gmail.com> wrote:

> This seems exactly like what the UCI is trying to do with this rule
> change. They apparently want to be the sanctioning body for a
> "production class" for the Hour. I guess that would leave the door
> open for another body to sanction a "formula class" for the same
> attempt.

Yep.

Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.

But it's a first draft after all.

MG

Reply | Forward

#23714

From: Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:48 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

kogswellreader

Offline

Send Email

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, e-RICHIE<richardsachs@...> wrote:



>>> Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.



> everything is "production" atmo.

> just because you can't keep up with

> demand doesn't mean it's uci illegal.



huh?



so if I produce one bike every decade then

my bikes qualify?

Reply | Forward

#23717

From: "Forbes Bagatelle-Black" <diarmaede@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:53 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

diarmaede

Offline

Send Email

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:

>

> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, e-RICHIE<richardsachs@...> wrote:

>

> >>> Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.

>

> > everything is "production" atmo.

> > just because you can't keep up with

> > demand doesn't mean it's uci illegal.

>

> huh?

>

> so if I produce one bike every decade then

> my bikes qualify?

>

If you assign it a part number and keep a record of it in a database, then yes. 

Why should Richard be penalized because he only makes X bikes per year?  If he

designs an "Hour Record" frame and markets it as a product, I say it's a

production bike no matter how many he makes, even if his design allows for a bit

of change between builds.



Of course, the flip side of that coin is that NAHBS should allow Chinese

companies which are not fully automated to show bikes, as long as they actually

bring some or all of the people who do the building, ATMO.



Cheers,



Forbes

Reply | Forward

#23720

From: Steve Palincsar <palincss@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:02 pm
Subject: Re: Re: new UCI bike spec

palincss

Offline

Send Email

On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 21:53 +0000, Forbes Bagatelle-Black wrote:

> --- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:

> >

> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, e-RICHIE<richardsachs@...> wrote:

> >

> > >>> Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.

> >

> > > everything is "production" atmo.

> > > just because you can't keep up with

> > > demand doesn't mean it's uci illegal.

> >

> > huh?

> >

> > so if I produce one bike every decade then

> > my bikes qualify?

> >

> If you assign it a part number and keep a record of it in a database, then

yes.  Why should Richard be penalized because he only makes X bikes per year? 

If he designs an "Hour Record" frame and markets it as a product, I say it's a

production bike no matter how many he makes, even if his design allows for a bit

of change between builds.

>



Of course, since his order book is closed, it's all academic...

Reply | Forward

#23719

From: "e-RICHIE" <richardsachs@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:57 pm
Subject: Re: new UCI bike spec

bobbesrs

Offline

Send Email

>>>

so if I produce one bike every decade then

my bikes qualify?





well i'm not the uci, but wouldn't it qualify, regardless of your prodigious

output atmo?



e-RICHIE©™®

http://www.richardsachs.com

Richard Sachs Cycles

No.9, North Main Street

Chester, CT 06412  USA



Please note: message attached



From: Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...>

To: KOG@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: [KOG] new UCI bike spec

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:48:47 -0500

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, e-RICHIE<richardsachs@juno.com> wrote:

>>> Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.

> everything is "production" atmo.
> just because you can't keep up with
> demand doesn't mean it's uci illegal.

huh?

so if I produce one bike every decade then
my bikes qualify?

Reply | Forward

#23721

From: "e-RICHIE" <richardsachs@...>
Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:02 pm
Subject: Re: Re: new UCI bike spec

bobbesrs

Offline

Send Email

>>> If you assign it a part number and keep a record of it in a database, then

yes.

>>> Why should Richard be penalized because he only makes X bikes per year?

>>> If he designs an "Hour Record" frame and markets it as a product, I say it's

a

>>> production bike no matter how many he makes, even if his design allows for

>>> a bit of change between builds.



>>> Of course, the flip side of that coin is that NAHBS should allow Chinese

companies

>>> which are not fully automated to show bikes, as long as they actually bring

some

>>> or all of the people who do the building, ATMO.





my team does at least 35 UCI races a year and routinely field a worlds team

rider and

i have no worries that this new story touches me or any of my peers atmo. re the

nahbs

model, i have no knowledge of what the guidelines are that separate too small

from

too big, so  cannot comment on whether your example is accurate.



e-RICHIE©™®

http://www.richardsachs.com

Richard Sachs Cycles

No.9, North Main Street

Chester, CT 06412  USA



Please note: message attached



From: "Forbes Bagatelle-Black" <diarmaede@...>

To: KOG@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [KOG] Re: new UCI bike spec

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:53:55 -0000

--- In KOG@yahoogroups.com, Kogswell Cycles <kogswellcycles@...> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM, e-RICHIE<richardsachs@...> wrote:
>
> >>> Too bad they don't define what 'production' means.
>
> > everything is "production" atmo.
> > just because you can't keep up with
> > demand doesn't mean it's uci illegal.
>
> huh?
>
> so if I produce one bike every decade then
> my bikes qualify?
>
If you assign it a part number and keep a record of it in a database, then yes. Why should Richard be penalized because he only makes X bikes per year? If he designs an "Hour Record" frame and markets it as a product, I say it's a production bike no matter how many he makes, even if his design allows for a bit of change between builds.

Of course, the flip side of that coin is that NAHBS should allow Chinese companies which are not fully automated to show bikes, as long as they actually bring some or all of the people who do the building, ATMO.

Cheers,

Forbes

Reply | Forward

< Prev Topic | Next Topic >

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Messages

Yahoo! My Yahoo! Mail
	Sign In New User? Sign Up
		Sports - Groups - Help

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...

Best of Y! Groups

Messages