Crazy UCI rule.

It's a tough call about UCI being counter productive to innovation and being rather stuck about how a bike should "look like" and "how much it should weigh" etc. An organisation dedicated to making Retro-rules? The saga of the mythical 1hr record destroyed by the UCI is epic.

BUT

An extreme of letting the floodgates wide open would be the road pro circuit (at least TT) is all done on recumbents inserted in oversized torpedo suppositories blazened with sponsorship - because they are faster and better value for money per m3.

Ultimately, if you do not like the rules in any competitive sport then stop playing the game and go off to do something else.

If the UCI sets too many unreasonable rules, then I have faith riders and sponsors will eventually say arseholes to the lot and go off and set-up in another form where there is more freedom and money.
 
I think it's more the priorities they seem to have wrong i.e. the order in which they tackle things. Perhaps there *is* an advantage when your saddle is at a different angle, but that's way down the list as far as I can see. Sort the drugs issue first :evil:
 
Woz":1vlbkpjo said:
It's a tough call about UCI being counter productive to innovation and being rather stuck about how a bike should "look like" and "how much it should weigh" etc. An organisation dedicated to making Retro-rules? The saga of the mythical 1hr record destroyed by the UCI is epic.

BUT

An extreme of letting the floodgates wide open would be the road pro circuit (at least TT) is all done on recumbents inserted in oversized torpedo suppositories blazened with sponsorship - because they are faster and better value for money per m3.
You say that like it would be a bad thing?
Woz":1vlbkpjo said:
Ultimately, if you do not like the rules in any competitive sport then stop playing the game and go off to do something else.

If the UCI sets too many unreasonable rules, then I have faith riders and sponsors will eventually say arseholes to the lot and go off and set-up in another form where there is more freedom and money.
That's the argument of extremes and the occluded middle.

There's always some degree of negotiation and compromise avaiable, it's not all or nothing - saddles at absolute angles, or nothing else, and hell in a handbasket.

In this instance, I'm still not understanding the pedantry - but all the same, there are ways and means by which a given sport can preserve the spirit of the sport, and ideals in terms of key design features, without ruling with an iron fist on every single detail or minutia.
 
orange71":rxs3q79k said:
I think it's more the priorities they seem to have wrong i.e. the order in which they tackle things. Perhaps there *is* an advantage when your saddle is at a different angle, but that's way down the list as far as I can see. Sort the drugs issue first :evil:
Agreed - there does seem a huge missing the point thing going on, there.
 
....but all the same, there are ways and means by which a given sport can preserve the spirit of the sport, and ideals in terms of key design features, without ruling with an iron fist on every single detail or minutia.

Just for discussions sake, are there really "ways and means"? Can you be more specific? IMHO it would be very difficult to acheive without having some precise "standards" laid down. Otherwise, it's all up for judgement calls on a case to case basis depending on which way the wind blows at the time. Look at the fuss at the end of the TdF when Greg Lemond used those Scott aero bars for example.

On subject though, I would propose +4 / -2 degree tilt (measured at the rear) just to move the line and have a drawn out debate with a UCI official. I would also show by bottom boils to the UCI :wink:
 
If you read the piece there is a fair amount about pressure on the perineum. I presume they are worried about long term health effects of running saddles at extreme angles.
 
Woz":968096o3 said:
Just for discussions sake, are there really "ways and means"? Can you be more specific? IMHO it would be very difficult to acheive without having some precise "standards" laid down.

Its really not hard, for example you can easily avoid the 'suppositories' that you're so concerned about by ruling "No fairings"... job done.

As for pressure on the perineum being the underlying cause for enforcing this rule, saddle manufacturers have been making saddles that relieve this problem for years now, the UCI really don't need to intervene.

I'd be interested to know which riders currently run their saddles at an 'illegal' angle. Anyone know of any?
 
Woz":3mb948sc said:
I would propose +4 / -2 degree tilt (measured at the rear) just to move the line and have a drawn out debate with a UCI official.

There's an app for that.

28d72124.jpg


Woz":3mb948sc said:
I would also show by bottom boils to the UCI

TMI
 
Russell":s19h1pvu said:
As for pressure on the perineum being the underlying cause for enforcing this rule, saddle manufacturers have been making saddles that relieve this problem for years now, the UCI really don't need to intervene.

True. I run a Flite with the cutout hole in it and a Spoon with the concave centre section.
 
Sounds to me like they are trying to slow someone down or scupper someone's plans.

Anyone seen obrees bike recently? Will any of this affect him?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top