Calling all you "pros". Is your bike legal?

[AndreZA]

There's some trouble at the Tour of California as they can not decide which rules to use.

 

A possible disaster on the horizon

By James Huang in Santa Cruz, California

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2009/tech/features/toc_aero_liquigas_helmet09/Garmin_Zabriskie_aerobaralt.jpg

Is that 8 x 2.5cm or 3:1? Confusion surrounding obscure UCI rule has teams in panic

Team management and mechanics were awash in panic after rumours swirled that the UCI would be rigidly enforcing a new technical rule at this Friday?s time trial in Solvang - not beginning in 2010, as many had apparently assumed.

UCI technical ruling 1.3.024 - which was just modified on 1 Jan 2009 - states that, "A fuselage form shall be defined as an extension or streamlining of a section. This shall be tolerated as long as the ratio between the length (L) and the diameter (D) does not exceed 3."

Previously the rules stated only that cross-sections of any particular frame or component had to fit within an 8 x 2.5cm rectangle. By that definition, all of the equipment currently planned for use on Friday is legal. However, if the 3-to-1 rule is applied, nearly every team currently listed on the Tour of California roster is headed for disaster unless some sort of contingency plan is put into effect.

Among the equipment violations would be virtually every aero handlebar currently in use (with one notable exception being Bontrager), many aero seatposts, some wheels and possibly even some frames.

The potential penalties for violating the ruling are undoubtedly severe: either the rider would simply not be allowed to start with the equipment in question, or the rule could be retroactively applied and the applicable performance could be disqualified.

Alternate options discussed by various teams range from incredibly inconvenient to downright impossible: scores of aero handlebars would have to be both obtained and installed prior to Friday or riders would be forced to use their road bikes on the decisive stage.

On a more general note, the ruling could also threaten the very existence of a number of aero equipment manufacturers including Oval Concepts, Vision and 3T. Stay tuned for additional information.

 

taken from http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2009/feb09/california09/?id=/tech/2009/features/toc_aero_liquigas_helmet09

 

 

 

[turtlek]

Thats hectic so now any cervelo soloist P3 and P2 would be deemed illegal thanks to thier huge cross sections!!!!

[Pro-Funrider]

Luckely there is only like three or so timetrails in our country :-(

[Wonder Woman]

excuse my ignorance but can someone please explain that in english

[ridesleeprepeat]

a round tube has a 1 to 1 profile... it is as wide as it is high. a 3 to 1 profile allows the tube to be squashed (you can think of it as squeezing the sides in to flatten the profile) that tube and give it a more areo profile by giving it a 'sharper' cutting edge and a longer 'tail' as it moves through the air. 3 to 1 allow the tube (or other frame element) to be 3 times longer or narrower that the opposing dimension. this allows the tube to move through the air easier and creat less disturbance behind it (all to do with fluid dynamics and critical flow - costs pro teams a bunch in wind tunnel time...).

 

hope that helps.

[Wonder Woman]

it makes perfect sense now...thanks moose B

[Punt]

Why can't they just keep things simple... it's easy to work out if something will fit in an 8x2.5cm rectangle!  But now having to measure 3:1, teams will start arguing over decimals, over where the measurements should be taken from and where to... and it generally just messes things up for everyone! 

[Icycling]

Is it not time the UCI grow up - machanical inervation make the sport intresting.

 

 

 

When they can say the have 100% control over the doping problem and they have not found a cyclist quilty world wide for lets say 5 years then maybe they can start imposing rules on Bike! Beleive it or not the bike has a small effect on performance compared to doping

 

 

 

My 2c worth

[skelmpie]

Their goes my new soloist

[AndreZA]

Like moose said. here is a pic to explain.

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2009/tech/features/toc_aero_liquigas_helmet09/UCI_3-to-1_rule.jpg

[Red Zone]

too bad for those with Zipp 808's I wonder if 404's would be a problem and do you include the depth of a tyre in the calculation

[DangerDave]

yay the soliost just makes it in at 2.7 wide and just under 8.1 high. thankfully. but what if they take the measurements at the BB some of the bikes like the soliost have a over sized BB how are they going to measure that?

[AfreekduSoet]

So no 606/808's or equavalent wheels?  No aerobars from all the leading manufacturers?  No P3/P2, Guru, etc frames?

 

So back to silly little tubes and 303's for TT??  What the heck for?

 

I cannot see how this is going to last or ever be applied to TT.

 

Big question for the tri geeks, does ITU conform to UCI rules when it comes to this ruling? 

[turtlek]

So no 606/808's or equavalent wheels?? No aerobars from all the leading manufacturers?? No P3/P2' date=' Guru, etc?frames?

 

?

 

So back to silly little tubes and 303's for TT??? What the heck for?

 

?

 

I cannot see how this is going to last or ever be applied to TT.

 

?

 

Big question for the tri geeks, does ITU conform to UCI rules when it comes to this ruling?

[/quote']

 

 

 

i dont think so seeing as they have more aggressive set up's than on a TT bike

[TNT1]

Mines legal... Oh, wait, I'm not a pro, at least not a pro cyclist anyway...

[turtlek]

Mines legal... Oh' date=' wait, I'm not a pro, at least not a pro cyclist anyway...

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

TNT of course youre a pro... proBEERder at any rate