Understanding the New UCI Regs: Part 1
Wed, June 17, 2009 The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) is the world governing body for the sport of bicycle racing. Last Monday 15th June 2009 they issued a new set of regulations that are an addendum to the existing rules and regs pertaining to bikes used for Cyclo-Cross, Road Racing and Track Racing.
The reasoning behind UCI regulations, as with any other sport, is to put all the competitors on an equal footing. In bicycle racing it means everyone having the same size wheels, etc, etc. It would be chaotic to have some riders on recumbent bikes, or some with smaller wheels in the middle of a race pack.
These new regulations have got some people in an uproar, saying it will be a disadvantage to bicycle manufacturers, teams, and even certain nations. This article I felt was an over reaction. The UCI document was not easy to understand, but after studying it I put forward my interpretation.
As always this is only my view, but I think and unbiased one. I no longer have any connection the bicycle industry; I have no personal agenda to promote. This part of the new regulations (Quoting from the UCI pdf document.) probably caused the most controversy:
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.
In part the bike industry is to blame for this one. Does anyone remember the “Million Dollar” one off bike that Koga built for Dutch Olympic rider Theo Bos? At the time I thought this whole episode was a huge publicity stunt, and I felt the Theo Bos would go just as fast on a stock bike.
It is my opinion, there is no technology available at this time that would give a rider a mechanical advantage. Maybe there is an aerodynamic advantage. If this is the case then is it fair that one rider should have access to unlimited funds, wind tunnel testing, etc? And this advantage is only available to limited riders.
The whole doping issue is about leveling the playing field so that one rider does not have an unfair advantage over another. The million dollar Koga was only available to Theo Bos, and even if another rider or sponsor would have came up with a million they could not have bought one.
Whether or not Theo Bos had an actual advantage is not the issue; there was the possibility he did, and there is a definite possibility it could happen in the future. As I see it the UCI is addressing the issue before it becomes a problem.
Professional riders and top amateurs have always had their bikes custom built, but the same basic bike has always been available to all. The new regulation simply states that, “The bicycle must be accessible to all participants.”
It has been suggested that the pros ride prototype bikes to test new models that will become future production bikes. I am no longer in the industry so I can’t say for sure, but I doubt the pros are riding true untested prototypes. It would be crazy to have someone race in an important event on an untested bike that might fail.
The UCI wording, as I see it, simply states the bike should be available for sale to all riders. It doesn’t say it has to be a stock model that your local bike store sells. It says the bike can be bought direct from the manufacturer.
It does not set a price or even say the bike has to be in stock to buy off the shelf. If special bikes are made for a certain team, there is no reason why other teams could not order the same bike, if they have the money and are prepared to wait for the bikes to be built.
There was too much information in the UCI document to discuss in one article, so I decided to make it a two part piece. In the second part that I will post on Friday 19th, I will write about the new regulations that affect the physical dimensions of the bicycle.
Please limit any comments to the "Accessible Bicycle" issue addressed here. We can discuss the rest of the new regulations after I post the final article
Comment
Reader Comments (6)
Hello, Really good post. I read the same regs. yesterday and thought the the UCI had made another big error but I can see what they are trying to get at now. I suppose its like Keirin Racing. Anyway look forward to the next part of your post.
Simon
Did they specify how this will be enforced or otherwise arbitrated?
The last thing we need is to have every win by a pro contested due to the bicycle and then have the results be in limbo for months while the lawyers get paid.
Maybe people are overreacting, but I don't see the need for this rule. Pros have always had the best equipment, and that won't change even with this rule. Homologation rules in World Superbike motorcycle racing have done little in this respect. The manufacturers create exactly the required number of bikes at $100+k a pop "for sale" which usually (if sold) go to collectors. It hardly levels the playing field.
It all seems a bit like a storm in a teacup to me. 1: manufacturers will have found loopholes in the rules a matter of hours anyway, and 2: if it is about athletic skill, then the UCI should be able to specify that everyone ride on 15kg commuter bikes and the best cyclist should still win.
We already have rules regulating weight limits, tyre clearance, riding position and so much more. Non of this has slowed innovation or radically altered the sport, so why all the fuss?
What we seem to be getting into, if your reading of the regs is right, is some kind of homologation situation like we had with rally cars in the '80s. Anyone remember what a farce that was? and, of course, it favours the bigger teams with the bigger budgets: if there's no stipulation on how many bikes and what kind of supply (my guess is that it will come), then you can basically do what you like. Except if you're the British Cycling track team of course: then you're screwed.
Without the rules for sanctioned racing, we would probably already be into bikes with full fairings of some kind. Is that what we want bicycle racing to be?
The internet is pretty youth-oriented, like a home without adult supervision, and it seems like few people remember or even know about the recent past, and consequently are unable to draw from it. Remember when formula 1 cars had become more like very low flying aircraft than race cars? What about that Shimano bike that proposed to store energy inside some kind of air compression device for release when needed?
Maybe we should just accept change, put a robot motor and remote controls on the bikes and forget about the human element altogether. We could still call them bicycles. I mean, it's just a word.
I just want to know what this means for Graeme Obree's announced attempt at the hour. Presumably he'd be happy to build and sell frames.
Or is he what inspired this rule?
It's never paranoid to think they're out to get Obree.