Does the UCI stifle innovation?

Does the UCI prevent innovation with its regulations? The answer might surprise you.

In my last article that touched on the modern carbon fiber frame and its design, I mentioned that companies were basically sticking with the old geometry that has been around thirty or forty years.

No one seems willing to tweak the design a little, to A.) Place the rider in a more efficient riding position, and B.) Make the bike handle better when going around corners, and at extreme speeds when descending steep hills.

Thirty or more years ago all racing frames were lugged steel, built by craftsmen. There were certain restrictions on frame geometry because it was not cost effective to make lugs in a wide range of angles.

I got around this by altering the angle of the lug as I brazed the joint. (Picture right.)

I did this with the aid of a small hammer in what I describe as, "A little refined blacksmithing."

However, I was just one builder who had taught myself certain individual skills; my methods were not practical for most larger production facilities.

Today frames are either molded from carbon fiber, or they are welded steel or aluminum; there is no restriction on what angles the various elements of the frame need to be. Within what is allowed by UCI regulations that govern competition.

There is a misconception that the UCI somehow places strict restrictions on what a frame builder or manufacturer can design, and as a result are stifling innovation. This is not true.

When I built frames, although I didn’t necessarily follow what everyone else did; my bikes were being used in UCI sanctioned events, so I always designed and built within the UCI regulations.

I needed to check to see if the UCI had changed those restrictions since I retired. Yesterday I emailed the UCI in Switzerland asking for a copy of their frame specs, and was very surprised to get a prompt reply back this morning, in less than 24 hours.

As I suspected these are mostly the same set of rules that have been in place for years. I would hazard a guess that these haven’t altered since I first became interested in frame design in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

The only changes made recently were those pertaining to the cross-section of the frame tubes. I wrote about these in two articles, Part 1. on June 17, 2009 and Part 2. on June 19, 2009. The reasons for these changes I think I addressed fully in these previous articles.

However, there is no UCI rule that says head and seat angles have to be 73 degrees, or any other angle for that matter. No UCI rule that says a fork rake has to be 43 to 45mm. Which today seems to be the industry standard.

All the UCI does in this case is lay down maximum and minimum measurements between certain points on a frame.

Within what I consider these generous parameters, frame designers are free to do whatever they want.   

Below is a drawing from UCIs regs; notice it is an old school level top tube frame because this drawing has been around for years. The various dimensions are marked with article numbers and these are described below the drawing.

 

1.3.012 A bicycle shall not measure more that 185 cm (72.75 in.) in length and 50 cm (19.081 in.) in width overall.

1.3.013 The peak of the saddle shall be a minimum of 5 cm to the rear of a vertical plane passing through the bottom bracket spindle. This only applies to road and cyclo-x bikes. Track bikes can be less as long as the nose of the saddle is not forward of the BB center. 

1.3.014 The saddle support shall be horizontal. The length of the saddle shall be 24 cm minimum and 30 cm maximum. (Between 9.437 in. and 11.081 in.) Interestingly saddle length and BB height is the same; see below.)

1.3.015 Bottom Bracket Height, The distance between the bottom bracket spindle and the ground shall be between 24 cm minimum and maximum 30 cm. (Between 9.437 in. and 11.081 in.)

1.3.016 Front and rear centers. The distance between the vertical passing through the bottom bracket spindle and the front wheel spindle shall be between 54 cm minimum and 65 cm maximum (Between 21.25 in. and 25.562 in.) 

The distance between the vertical passing through the bottom bracket spindle and the rear wheel spindle shall be between 35 cm minimum and maximum 50 cm. (Between 13.75 in. and 19.687 in.) 

1.3.018 Wheels of the bicycle may vary in diameter between 70 cm maximum and 55 cm minimum, (Between 27.562 in. and 21.625 in.) including the tire.

For the cyclo-cross bicycle the width of the tyre (measured between the widest parts) shall not exceed 33 mm and it may not incorporate any form of spike or stud. (In other words, no mountain bike tires on cyclo-cross bikes.) 

The reason for these UCI regulations is simple. They are there to ensure that no competitor has an aerodynamic or mechanical advantage over another; either by riding in a reclining position or making the bicycle itself aerodynamic beyond that which is allowed.

To be fair when Aero-bars became popular with triathletes in the late 1980s the UCI eventually sanctioned them for use in time-trials and certain track events. The only restriction placed on aero-bars is that the hands be no further than 75cm. (29.5 in.) maximum, from the center of the BB.

So there you have it; it is not the UCI who are stifling progress or restricting what the manufacturers can build; it is the manufacturers themselves either playing it safe, or cutting costs by limiting what is available.

                         

Ask me if I care anymore

What a week it has been for the sport of professional cycling. It started off with the Tyler Hamilton interview on 60 Minutes; now we hear that Alberto Contador’s Clembuterol appeal will now not be heard before the start of this year’s Tour de France.

The joint appeal by the UCI and the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) is against the Spanish Cycling Federation’s finding that Contador is innocent of clenbuterol use. The case to be heard by the Court for Glacial Arbitration in Sport (CAS) has been delayed at the request of Contador’s lawyers. Apparently they need more time to gather evidence.

This is ridiculous, cycling fans had been promised, and it was expected to be settled one way or another before the TDF. The man I feel for is Christian Prudhomme the man who puts on the Tour de France, what does he do now, let Contador ride or not? He is screwed either way.

I am to the stage where I don’t care anymore, and I think that is exactly the tactic being played by the UCI. The UCI failed to ban Contador when he tested positive for clenbuterol, but instead turned the responsibility over to the Spanish Cycling Federation.

When Spain found Alberto innocent, the UCI has to go through the motions of an appeal. But it is a half assed appeal, one they don’t really want to win. I don’t hear any loud protests from the UCI at this latest delay, and if you remember one of the reasons this case has gone on this long is because the UCI waited until the very last minute to launch an appeal. 

I predict that the whole matter may resolve itself; I think Contador will voluntarily withdraw from this year’s Tour de France. The reason; this year’s Giro d’Italia has been brutal over a route that has had an exceptional number of tough mountain stages.

After last Saturday’s stage 15. 143 miles (229 km.) featuring five big climbs over the Dolomites from Conegliano to Gardeccia Val di Fassa, Contador said it was the “hardest day of racing in his life.” (Video above.)

I don’t believe he was expecting to ride both Grand Tours. Remember he only has a month to recover before the start of the TDF. If he rides he will not be on top form, and he will have stronger opposition than he has had in the Giro. Could be interesting.

Another interesting tid-bit of news emerged today. Switzerland has more than 50 World Sports governing bodies based in its country. The UCI is just one of them. The Swiss Government is investigating corruption in those sport’s governing bodies. Good timing, I hope the UCI is up there on their list.

                        

Nothing Changes

I became interested in the sport of cycle racing in the early 1950s.

It was common knowledge that the top European professional cyclists competing in the Tour de France and the Giro d’Italia took dope.

Amphetamines to be precise. How did I know this? I was only 16 years old at the time.

It was not reported in the Cycling Press, there were no stories about doping in newspapers. It was obviously just passed on down from the top echelons of the sport by word of mouth.

It was never considered “Cheating.” After all if the entire TDF peloton was using dope, the playing field was level. These riders rode over the same mountain ranges they do today, when the roads were often no better than dirt tracks. Stages were often in excess of 250 kilometers, 156 miles, as a 16 year old I figured dope was necessary.

So if a 16 year old knew about it, then obviously the UCI knew of it, and also the cycling press. But none of them did an expose of the situation. Not until British cyclist Tom Simpson died on Mt. Vontoux during the 1967 Tour de France.

He died of heat exhaustion, but had pushed his body beyond its limits with the aid of amphetamines. The world's press was all over the story, and then the Cycling Press and the UCI acted in shock and horror, as if not knowing that this practice was going on right under their noses.

Doping in cycling has probably been in existence since the beginnings of the sport. Certainly since the start of professional cycling where there was money to be made, and promoters calling for faster and longer races. And if it was in cycling it was obviously there in other professional sports.

I am sure by now everyone in the cycling community has seen the Tyler Hamilton interview on 60 Minutes. If you haven’t seen it here is a short version. After watching it I feel like a fool, I really thought the sport was changing and they were at last getting a handle on the dope situation.

Now I find the only thing that has changed over the years is that is that drugs have become more sophisticated, and less easy to detect. And instead of being an open secret amongst the cycling community, as it was prior to the 1960s, it is now an open secret only among the professional cyclists themselves.

So here we are today 44 years after Tom Simpson’s death; the UCI still looks the other way, and wishes the whole doping thing (In particular the media talking about it.) would just go away. Should we really expect any different? The man at the top of the UCI is an ex-professional cyclist, am I to assume he never took dope during his career? 

Tyler Hamilton’s claim that Lance Armstrong’s positive test in the 2001 Tour of Switzerland was “made to go away,” by the UCI, has a ring of truth to it. Because Alberto Contador’s clenbuteral positive was at first kept quiet by the UCI.

The UCI knew of it within days of the test in July 2010, but failed to make it public until September 2010, when the story was leaked by the testing lab. Had the story not been exposed, would Contador’s positive been made to go away also?

I still don’t see doping a cheating. It appears all top professionals are doing it so they compete on more or less equal terms. The only ones being cheated are the fans being led to believe the sport is clean.

However, doping is bad because young athletes see the pros do it and think it is okay to use that stuff, and it is not, especially using it unsupervised. There are some dangerous consequences.

The only way to stop drug use in professional sport is to make shame and the consequences of being caught not worth the risk of doing it.

                        

Replacing McQuaid: Mission Impossible

I have just read an interesting piece on the cycle racing blog, “The Inner Ring."

It appears you may as well try to oust the Pope as try to get the UCI’s president Pat McQuaid removed from office.

This doesn’t surprise me, I have seen the workings of Cycling’s national governing bodies both in the UK and the United States, and they are structured pretty much the same as the UCI is described.

Clubs affiliated to their national governing body send delegates to an annual congress where officials are elected. These officials in turn become national delegates and get to elect a President and other officials at the world level at the UCI Congress held every four years.

At the club level and even at a national level, work is often on a volunteer unpaid basis; however, if you get elected to a national level there are certain perks. Travel is one of them; an all expenses paid trip to Switzerland every four years to the UCI congress for a start.

Then there is the Olympic Games every four years; who wouldn’t like to go to the Olympics for free? The top officials that represent each individual sport for each country get to go. There is an awful lot of working hard for little or no reward to get to these top positions, but when you get there it is like being the member of an exclusive club.

So having worked so hard to reach the top, even at a lower national level, are you going to make waves at a world level and vote the head guy out of office? Unlikely, unless you have aspirations to be President yourself, in which case you had better have a lot of buddies who you can count on to vote for you.

I’m sure many of the people who voted McQuaid into office ended up with nice paying jobs with the UCI. Others no doubt get to go to big races all over the world. The Tour de France, The Giro d’Italia, etc, etc.

If you are one of McQuaid’s cronies why would you vote him out? You would have to start all over again to ensure having an “In” with the new guy. If you back the wrong guy and he doesn’t get voted in, you lose; you are out of the exclusive club for ever.

McQuaid was first voted into office in 2005, and re-elected in 2009. The next vote is not for another two years in 2013, and there is no guarantee he will step down then.

In the mean time the Professional Riders might break from the UCI and form their own league, rather like the NFL and the NBA.

This looks like a distinct possibility, because McQuaid will stay where he is at least until 2013, and the UCI is not going to change. For that to happen the whole system would have to change, right down to the national and even the club level.

                          

Dictatorships

As countries around the world ruled by Kings and Dictators, rather than democratically elected governments fight for their freedom; it seems the UCI, the world governing body of the sport of cycling has its own dictator in the form of President Pat McQuaid. (Above.)

The former Irish pro bike rider has managed to piss off just about everybody, from the bike industry, to the promoters and now the professional cyclists. Without all of these different entities there would be no sport of cycling, and yet he still he remains in office.

Unfortunately we need organizations like the UCI just as countries need governments, democratic or not. Within separate countries there are smaller local governments, and usually within a democratic society these too are elected officials that can be voted out of office.

In theory that is. In practice there are cities within democratic countries where local mayors and other officials have been in power twenty or more years, about the length of time many of the world’s dictators have held on to power. Often they stay in power because there is no alterative candidate to oppose.

And so it goes on in any society, below any system of government there are smaller systems run by officials, some paid some not. Many unpaid volunteers do a job out of love for what they do, or for the benefit of the group as a whole.

It might be a group as small as a ladies sewing circle, or an athletic club; when the group gets beyond a certain size it needs structure in order to continue. That means a set of rules, and elected officials to oversee the day to day running of the club or organization.

I always tended to shy away from holding any official position within a cycling club where I was a member. I did on many occasions act as event organizer for bike races, it was something I enjoyed doing, but that was as far as my bike officialdom went. I was like the majority of members in any cycling club; I just wanted to race and ride my bike.

Here I have to generalize in my observations, which can be a mistake because there are always exceptions to the generalization. But over the years I have seen two types of people who become officials in cycling clubs.

There are the nice guys, they are the ones who step up because they have the ability to organize and do the job. Often it is time consuming and no one else wants the job, so they volunteer for the benefit of the group as a whole.

Then there are the control freaks; they want to see the job done their way, and by volunteering they will be in charge ensuring that things are run according to their way of thinking.

When it comes to club level elections of officials, the nice guys will often only take on the job only if no one else wants to do it, but if there is someone else willing to run they will not oppose. So the controlling types tend to end up in charge.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not necessarily a bad thing. A bike store owner may start a local club and put money into it. This could be considered a private enterprise, and not particularly democratic, but as long as it benifits the members what harm is there?

Also at a club level if the membership does not like the way things are run, they will leave and join another club, or form a new one.

It becomes a problem when it reaches National or World level as is currently happening with the UCI. We have a person in charge that is running this organization the way he and his cronies see fit. Not necessarily a way that is for the greater benefit of the sport.

The UCI President in theory could be voted out of office; however, the average members of clubs affiliated to their National Cycling bodies cannot do this. And like getting your local mayor out of office you also need a strong candidate to oppose the incumbent.

The only group with any power to oppose the Pat McQuaid and the UCI right now are the professional cyclists. Their demand of representation before major rule changes are made is not unreasonable.

Does the UCI need the professional cyclists more than the Pros need the UCI? It is going to be interesting.