# Illegal Water Bottles



## cda 455

So aero water bottles are now banned.


Saddlegate, revisited: UCI clarifies horizontal saddle rule and bans aero bottles



> *No more aero bottles*
> 
> Carron’s letter marks the public introduction of Article 1.3.024, which effectively eliminates integrated hydration solutions and many aerodynamic water bottles from use in competition. The rule was approved by the Management Committee in September and will come into effect on January 1, 2013, giving manufacturers a year to comply.
> 
> “Bottles have been increasingly moving away from their original function of allowing riders to rehydrate towards an alternative use as aerodynamic elements which are integrated into the design of frames in order to improve riders’ performances,” Carron offered as explanation for the new rule.
> 
> Article 1.3.024 states: “Bottles shall not be integrated to the frame and may only be located on the down and seat tubes on the inside of the frame. The maximum dimensions of the cross-section of a bottle used in competition must not exceed 10 cm or be less than 4 cm and their capacity must be a minimum of 400 ml and a maximum of 800 ml.”
> 
> To avoid integration, “there must be a space between the bottle and the tube to which it is attached,” Carron noted at the end of the letter, adding that “the capacity is also specified in order to guarantee that bottles are used for rehydration purposes and to prevent any deviations. If bottles with a volume in excess of 500 ml are used, it is recommended that the bottle attachment system should be checked to ensure that it can bear a weight in excess of 0.5 kg.
> 
> The placement requirements are not particularly noteworthy — road cyclists rarely put bottles anywhere but inside their frames’ main triangle anyway. But the dimension requirements for the bottles themselves will make some aerodynamic bottles illegal. For reference, the round bottle on my desk at the moment has a 7cm cross section. In other words, the new rule should only effect riders using odd bottles in time trials


----------



## lardo

Wow. Water bottles are serious business.


----------



## meat

Time to start doing triathalons again. A lot fewer bike issues there.


----------



## camping biker

Nascar.


----------



## jsedlak

So is the SC bottle banned then? Seems silly to me...


----------



## cydswipe

I am sure every bottle that is not like the typical round bottle will be scrutinized. That being said, over the past several years, almost every mfgr. has let some sort of odd "aero" bottle loose, Bontager, Trek, Cervelo, Profile-Design, Arundel, Campagnolo, and Specialized. Now, I don't think they make a lot of "aero" advantage, but they are efectively "fairings" in the incarnations they are being marketed as.


----------



## spade2you

Will they ban having bottles behind the saddle and/or the Selle Italia Optima?


----------



## Keski

I didn't read it. Too many words. Does it include hydration packs used by some?


----------



## Rokh On

spade2you said:


> Will they ban having bottles behind the saddle and/or the Selle Italia Optima?


Bottles can no longer be mounted behind the saddle or on the handlebars. Lot's of coverage on Velo News site. Sounds like maybe it started because of the Cervelo P4 tt and expanded with further clairification from there.


----------



## SolidSnake03

This just seems moronic, is there honestly nothing better for the UCI to spent time doing than write/discuss regulations such as this? It's a FRICKIN' WATER BOTTLE! *shakes head* this just blows my mind because of how insignificant and pointless it is.


----------



## spade2you

Rokh On said:


> Bottles can no longer be mounted behind the saddle or on the handlebars. Lot's of coverage on Velo News site. Sounds like maybe it started because of the Cervelo P4 tt and expanded with further clairification from there.


Awesome. Now my saddle is also illegal.


----------



## trailrunner68

SolidSnake03 said:


> This just seems moronic, is there honestly nothing better for the UCI to spent time doing than write/discuss regulations such as this? It's a FRICKIN' WATER BOTTLE! *shakes head* this just blows my mind because of how insignificant and pointless it is.


Without the rule riders will start filling in the main triangle with empty water bottles or using things like this:


----------



## SolidSnake03

I fail to see a problem with that, if they want to ride with it why not? Oh my god the massive scorpion head shaped water bladder on top of my handlebars is such a crazy advantage....I think I gained 1/2 a Watt

As for filling the main triangle, that would have some significant effects on weight and possibly frame stiffness if the bikes frame was actually hollowed out for water storage. I have a funny feeling many riders might not be ok with those compromises


----------



## trailrunner68

SolidSnake03 said:


> I fail to see a problem with that, if they want to ride with it why not? Oh my god the massive scorpion head shaped water bladder on top of my handlebars is such a crazy advantage....I think I gained 1/2 a Watt


I suppose you don't see a problem with handlebar mounted fairings that don't hold any water either...or fully faired bikes...or recumbents. A large bar mounted fairing would offer huge aero benefits. Your 1/2 a Watt is nowhere near reality.



SolidSnake03 said:


> As for filling the main triangle, that would have some significant effects on weight and possibly frame stiffness if the bikes frame was actually hollowed out for water storage. I have a funny feeling many riders might not be ok with those compromises


I have a funny feeling that you have not thought this through. It would be trivial to make an inflatable structure out of thin plastic that fit snugly into the main triangle, completely filling it in. It would weigh next to nothing. Put in a few teaspoons of water and call it a water bottle. 

Frank Schleck did something similar when he wore an air filled water bladder on his chest to improve aerodynamics during a time trial earlier this year.

Frame makers are already beginning to put water storage into the frame members.

The UCI is just trying to stop the insanity before it gets out of hand, like the picture above of the fairing disguised as a water storage device.


----------



## SolidSnake03

trailrunner68 said:


> I suppose you don't see a problem with handlebar mounted fairings that don't hold any water either...or fully faired bikes...or recumbents. A large bar mounted fairing would offer huge aero benefits. Your 1/2 a Watt is nowhere near reality.
> 
> *Honestly I really don't see a problem with it, let people ride whatever they want or someone can dream up, would make things a whole lot more interesting in my mind. I get that this will probably be a point we differ and that's fine, no need to argue the merits of either side of the debate as valid points exist for both.*
> 
> I have a funny feeling that you have not thought this through. It would be trivial to make an inflatable structure out of thin plastic that completely fit snugly into the main triangle. It would weigh next to nothing. Put in a few teaspoons of water and call it a water bottle.
> 
> Frank Schleck did something similar when he wore an air filled water bladder on his chest to improve aerodynamics during a time trial earlier this year.
> 
> Frame makers are already beginning to put water storage into the frame members.
> 
> The UCI is just trying to stop the insanity before it gets out of hand, like the picture above of the fairing disguised as a water storage device.


Again I don't really see an issue with sticking an inflatable thing inside your main triangle, let everyone do it if they want and see what happens. Maybe it will be a great advancement in aerodynamics and bike design, maybe not. Why not let them try it and find out? True progress, evolution and revolution doesn't happen by just sticking firmly to the established status quo


----------



## Undecided

SolidSnake03 said:


> True progress, evolution and revolution doesn't happen by just sticking firmly to the established status quo


The UCI "administers and promotes the development of . . . cycling," but it has no interest in progressing, evolving or revolutionizing performance-improving bicycle technologies. In that regard, it's taken many much more significant steps than this.


----------



## SolidSnake03

Undecided said:


> The UCI "administers and promotes the development of . . . cycling," but it has no interest in progressing, evolving or revolutionizing performance-improving bicycle technologies. In that regard, it's taken many much more significant steps than this.


Ah but aren't the advancements made in bicycle technology part of the development of cycling? Cycling and the technological side of bike develop are, and have forever been, intertwined. Due to this can one really develop without the other? Can cycling develop without the bike itself evolving, changing and growing?

I feel like it can't due to the dual nature of the sport, the blend of both the bike and the rider into a single unit.


----------



## camping biker

They need to offer some unrestricted classes so the big mfgrs. can duke it out over the latest carbon wonder goodies. Most people who buy bikes don't give a hoot what UCI thinks, don't take pee tests everyday before breakfast, and don't ride bikes for a living. But plenty of those people will fork out money for the latest "assymetric" frame or Italian water bottle. Bring it on!


----------



## trailrunner68

SolidSnake03 said:


> Ah but aren't the advancements made in bicycle technology part of the development of cycling?


No. Pro cycling is about competition between riders, not competition between engineers in Taiwan. If you want to watch Formula 1 then you know where to find it.


----------



## jtimmer1

SolidSnake03 said:


> As for filling the main triangle, that would have some significant effects on weight and possibly frame stiffness if the bikes frame was actually hollowed out for water storage. I have a funny feeling many riders might not be ok with those compromises


Bicycle frames are already hollow...


----------



## Undecided

SolidSnake03 said:


> Ah but aren't the advancements made in bicycle technology part of the development of cycling? Cycling and the technological side of bike develop are, and have forever been, intertwined. Due to this can one really develop without the other? Can cycling develop without the bike itself evolving, changing and growing?
> 
> I feel like it can't due to the dual nature of the sport, the blend of both the bike and the rider into a single unit.


I'm not trying to promote or argue any view of the way things should be, I'm just telling you that the UCI has long tried to reduce the impact of technological developments within the scope of competitive cycling under its authority. For some of the larger examples, look into the history of the hour record and the UCI's evolving regulation of it, especially throughout the 1990s.


----------



## den bakker

camping biker said:


> They need to offer some unrestricted classes so the big mfgrs. can duke it out over the latest carbon wonder goodies. Most people who buy bikes don't give a hoot what UCI thinks, don't take pee tests everyday before breakfast, and don't ride bikes for a living. But plenty of those people will fork out money for the latest "assymetric" frame or Italian water bottle. Bring it on!


The world championships were held this year in Monza:


----------



## camping biker

AWESOME. 

ICE Trice recumbent trike QNT vs QNT / Borealis velomobile - YouTube



den bakker said:


> The world championships were held this year in Monza:


----------



## cda 455

SolidSnake03 said:


> Again I don't really see an issue with sticking an inflatable thing inside your main triangle, let everyone do it if they want and see what happens. Maybe it will be a great advancement in aerodynamics and bike design, maybe not. Why not let them try it and find out? True progress, evolution and revolution doesn't happen by just sticking firmly to the established status quo


Remember back in the '90's? They did radical aerodynamic designs that were eventually banned in favor of the 'traditionally designed bike' or something like that.


Boardman and Indurain:
.


----------



## SolidSnake03

trailrunner68 said:


> No. Pro cycling is about competition between riders, not competition between engineers in Taiwan. If you want to watch Formula 1 then you know where to find it.


If pro cycling really was only about competition between riders than they would all ride identical bikes except for the needed size differences to account for rider height etc...That would be the only way to really "just" have competition between riders since it would greatly minimize the material differences.

As for the aero frames, I do know quite a bit about those things and wouldn't mind a return to them at all. I think it was foolish of the UCI to attempt to "control" the evolution of the bicycle to fit their idea of what cycling traditionally encompasses and looks like.

Why not let the engineers run wild? Natural selection based upon results/wins will let us figure out what works and what doesn't. Self-imposed limitations and stagnation of the development of the bicycle only limits creativity and design. Do you think that is worth preserving the nostalgic image of the bicycle and bike racing?


----------



## cydswipe

Specialized just released a frame with a water bladder inside the frame. their "Transition" I think? I bet that gets nailed too.


----------



## jsedlak

cydswipe said:


> Specialized just released a frame with a water bladder inside the frame. their "Transition" I think? I bet that gets nailed too.


The SHIV? Don't think it matters - I believe the down tube does not meet the 3:1 specs.

The SHIV TT should remain UCI legal however.


----------



## Wookiebiker

cydswipe said:


> Specialized just released a frame with a water bladder inside the frame. their "Transition" I think? I bet that gets nailed too.


Specialized came out with two models of the Shiv...One is for cycling TT's the other for Triathlons. 

The one with the water bottle mounted in the frame is triathlon specific and not UCI legal. It also uses a wider than 3:1 downtube and other areas that save watts through frame efficiency that are not allowed under UCI rules.

The cycling TT Shiv complies with all "Current" UCI rules and does not include a water bottle in the frame, nor does it go past the 3:1 tubing rules of the UCI.


----------



## den bakker

SolidSnake03 said:


> If pro cycling really was only about competition between riders than they would all ride identical bikes except for the needed size differences to account for rider height etc...That would be the only way to really "just" have competition between riders since it would greatly minimize the material differences.
> 
> As for the aero frames, I do know quite a bit about those things and wouldn't mind a return to them at all. I think it was foolish of the UCI to attempt to "control" the evolution of the bicycle to fit their idea of what cycling traditionally encompasses and looks like.
> 
> Why not let the engineers run wild? Natural selection based upon results/wins will let us figure out what works and what doesn't. Self-imposed limitations and stagnation of the development of the bicycle only limits creativity and design. Do you think that is worth preserving the nostalgic image of the bicycle and bike racing?


once again, you're following the wrong sport here. Recumbents is probably where it's at for you.


----------



## scryan

SolidSnake03 said:


> This just seems moronic, is there honestly nothing better for the UCI to spent time doing than write/discuss regulations such as this? It's a FRICKIN' WATER BOTTLE! *shakes head* this just blows my mind because of how insignificant and pointless it is.


Kinda the point though, yes?

Its a FRICKIN WATER BOTTLE! *shakes head*

Its just there for you to get a drink, because there is a physical need for that.
It is NOT a fairring, it is not a piece of body work, its not there for you to sculpt to aid the bike. If nothing else they are just getting it before it starts, there needs to be a definition to water bottle, otherwise I could attach any fender or fairing I wanted to the bike and call it a water bottle... Disks are illegal, but its not a disk... Its my new disk shaped water bottle with 1.5 oz capacity.
This new rule says your water bottle is only allowed to be a water bottle. I see nothing wrong with that.

And yes, its racing... Everything must be decided by rules so that competitors know what is allowed.


----------



## jsedlak

scryan said:


> Kinda the point though, yes?
> 
> Its a FRICKIN WATER BOTTLE! *shakes head*
> 
> Its just there for you to get a drink, because there is a physical need for that.
> It is NOT a fairring, it is not a piece of body work, its not there for you to sculpt to aid the bike. If nothing else they are just getting it before it starts, there needs to be a definition to water bottle, otherwise I could attach any fender or fairing I wanted to the bike and call it a water bottle... Disks are illegal, but its not a disk... Its my new disk shaped water bottle with 1.5 oz capacity.
> This new rule says your water bottle is only allowed to be a water bottle. I see nothing wrong with that.
> 
> And yes, its racing... Everything must be decided by rules so that competitors know what is allowed.


While I understand this, my aero bottle still functions as a bottle. It is silly to demand that only bottles that create turbulence be used with no option for the manufactures to improve the bottle & bike integration.


----------



## scryan

jsedlak said:


> While I understand this, my aero bottle still functions as a bottle. It is silly to demand that only bottles that create turbulence be used with no option for the manufactures to improve the bottle & bike integration.


A valid point of view. As long as itr functional I don't see a ton of harm....


But while racing I will read the rule book and use every ounce of my creativity to gain an advantage based on the letter of the rules... So you simply have to draw the line, because if you don't give a definitive point to stop... how can you expect them to? Not that water bottles are a hot button issue. 

But all points of competition need to be defined.... People always push limits in racing...
And they decided to draw the line here, rather then there... oh well.


----------



## 88 rex

The new S5 was apparently designed to be aero WITH a standard bottle. 

Wonder if that will be banned soon as well. How about aero bottle holders?


----------



## spade2you

Care to take bets on the next thing(s) banned and how long before the TT bike itself is banned? 

I'm going with visors on TT helmets being next and about another decade before all riders will only be allowed to use road bikes.


----------



## scryan

88 rex said:


> The new S5 was apparently designed to be aero WITH a standard bottle.
> 
> Wonder if that will be banned soon as well. How about aero bottle holders?


As long as the S5 tubing and geometry meet the rules I am sure that is how they WANT you to have an aerodynamic water bottle... It is not that they think water bottles need to produce drag, Its just that when you start to design water bottles to function as another part as well they you are breaking the spirit of the competition and so a rule is made to make it clear that the water bottle is there to be a bottle for water, nothing more.

By that same logic I could see them messing with aero bottle holders. Bottle holder holds the bottle, if you start adding unneeded material to it so that it can serve another function (one that gives and advantage) that could very well be outside the spirit of competition that the sanctioning body wants.


----------



## 88 rex

scryan said:


> By that same logic I could see them messing with aero bottle holders. Bottle holder holds the bottle, if you start adding unneeded material to it so that it can serve another function (one that gives and advantage) that could very well be outside the spirit of competition that the sanctioning body wants.


Well, that is quite the gray area then because why should a feature like a water bottle holder be scrutinized when you have entire frames, seat posts, handlebars, etc. being built solely for aero purposes. All that extra material serves no purpose other than aerodynamics.


----------



## carlosflanders

spade2you said:


> Care to take bets on the next thing(s) banned and how long before the TT bike itself is banned?
> 
> I'm going with visors on TT helmets being next and about another decade before all riders will only be allowed to use road bikes.


Can't wait!


----------



## scryan

88 rex said:


> Well, that is quite the gray area then because why should a feature like a water bottle holder be scrutinized when you have entire frames, seat posts, handlebars, etc. being built solely for aero purposes. All that extra material serves no purpose other than aerodynamics.


It comes down to this:
What is the point of a bottle? To hold your drink.

What is the point of a frame? To connect the components int the most aerodynamic ridged and lightest way possible. 

All items doing their intended job, not twisting the definition of water bottle to include wings and fairings.


----------



## Wookiebiker

scryan said:


> It comes down to this:
> What is the point of a bottle? To hold your drink.
> 
> What is the point of a frame? To connect the components int the most aerodynamic ridged and lightest way possible.
> 
> All items doing their intended job, not twisting the definition of water bottle to include wings and fairings.


Yes...but how many variations of bottles are there out there that are not even on a bike? Why does a water bottle on a bike have to be limited to basically one shape? Because they say so?

Kinda stupid if you ask me.

What if the best way to carry water on the bike was/is a different design, shape, placement than currently available? Oppsss...I guess we may never know because it's been banned :mad2:


----------



## SolidSnake03

well we need to abide by the "traditional" water bottle shape to keep the deep and rich history of cycling alive and prospering...


----------



## trailrunner68

Wookiebiker said:


> Yes...but how many variations of bottles are there out there that are not even on a bike? Why does a water bottle on a bike have to be limited to basically one shape? Because they say so?


That is generally how the rules of the governing bodies of sports work. If you don't like them then you can find another sport. You probably won't like that that sport also has rules.



Wookiebiker said:


> What if the best way to carry water on the bike was/is a different design, shape, placement than currently available? Oppsss...I guess we may never know because it's been banned :mad2:


You can use whatever you want. If you want to compete against others then you will be restricted to using gear that does not give you an appreciable advantage over the other competitors. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.


----------



## Wookiebiker

trailrunner68 said:


> That is generally how the rules of the governing bodies of sports work. If you don't like them then you can find another sport. You probably won't like that that sport also has rules.
> 
> You can use whatever you want. If you want to compete against others then you will be restricted to using gear that does not give you an appreciable advantage over the other competitors. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.


I understand all this...the fact that you can't tell I'm joking bout how stupid the rule is...well, that's kind of funny.

The simple fact is restricting water bottles does not give a competitive advantage to any team or rider. They are simple enough to engineer that all riders/racers would have the same advantage rather quickly.

With the UCI this is where they are heading:


all bikes should be limited to round tubes no larger than 1.5" in diameter
double diamond frames
bars that don't exceed 31.8mm in diameter
tires no wider than 23c
rims no deeper than 20mm
no less than 32 spokes per wheel
DB spokes no smaller than 14/15
cranks no longer than 175mm and no shorter than 170mm
everybody rides the same saddle design
no zero degree seat posts
frames can only be made out of cro-moly because we all know Carbon Fiber explodes, Ti flexes and Aluminum dents too easily

The simple fact is the UCI is trying to regulate any technological advances out of cycling...when in reality it's technology that drives cycling and sales. 

They are just shooting themselves in the foot and at some point (of which we are already seeing) the teams/riders will revolt and leave the UCI to sit alone making rules for themselves and nobody else because they will no longer have a league to run as a new one will have been started and will be doing much better than the UCI ever thought they could.


----------



## trailrunner68

Wookiebiker said:


> I
> The simple fact is restricting water bottles does not give a competitive advantage to any team or rider. They are simple enough to engineer that all riders/racers would have the same advantage rather quickly.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Point being? 

Does that bottle truly give a competitive advantage...or does it just look "Fugly:? Just because something is different doesn't make it better or higher performing.

Cycling is heading the way of NASCAR...quickly. I guess if you want all your fans to be "Fat, Drunk and Stupid" that's the way to go. :thumbsup:


----------



## AlphaDogCycling

Here's my simple solution to the whole problem:
Let riders ride any type of bike they want, but they only get one. If you want a recumbent, great, but you have to ride that same recumbent for every stage -- time trial, flat, hilly.
You want a funny bike like the Lotus, great. Ride if for every stage.

This rule would eliminate the most "egregious" issues, as the bikes selected would have to function for time trials, flat stages, and hilly stages.

Problem solved


----------



## den bakker

AlphaDogCycling said:


> Here's my simple solution to the whole problem:
> Let riders ride any type of bike they want, but they only get one. If you want a recumbent, great, but you have to ride that same recumbent for every stage -- time trial, flat, hilly.
> You want a funny bike like the Lotus, great. Ride if for every stage.
> 
> This rule would eliminate the most "egregious" issues, as the bikes selected would have to function for time trials, flat stages, and hilly stages.
> 
> Problem solved


welcome to the world of one day racing.


----------



## den bakker

Wookiebiker said:


> Point being?
> 
> Does that bottle truly give a competitive advantage...or does it just look "Fugly:? Just because something is different doesn't make it better or higher performing.
> 
> Cycling is heading the way of NASCAR...quickly. I guess if you want all your fans to be "Fat, Drunk and Stupid" that's the way to go. :thumbsup:


cycling is not "heading" anywhere, there's nothing new in any of this. 
go to the sport where the innovations are if that's what you want. Bents.


----------



## AlphaDogCycling

@den bakker

Agreed -- but my suggestion was really more applicable for stage races. For one day races, it would be "easier" to pick a bike that is tuned to the style of the race -- e.g., recumbents for time trials -- but wouldn't really work well across varied terrain.


----------



## carlosflanders

Am I the only freak who thinks the UCI is actually doing a reasonable job of retaining integrity to the man over machine side of the sport?

Anything that makes us look less like a triathlete has got to be good.

IHPVA don't appear to be threatening UCI anytime soon. Maybe if they introduced race radios vaughters and bruyneel might defect.


----------



## cda 455

AlphaDogCycling said:


> Agreed -- but my suggestion was really more applicable for stage races. For one day races, it would be "easier" to pick a bike that is tuned to the style of the race -- e.g., recumbents for time trials -- _*but wouldn't really work well across varied terrain.*_


Why not?

I've never rode a recumbent so that's why I'm asking.



I've seen a 1930s pic of a recumbent cyclist passing an upright cyclist on a track while racing. 

But I do wonder how a recumbent would do up Alpe d'Huez, though.


----------



## cda 455

carlosflanders said:


> Anything that makes us look less like a triathlete has got to be good.



I'll assume this is sarcasm?


----------



## carlosflanders

cda 455 said:


> I'll assume this is sarcasm?


Sarcasm, Moi?


----------



## cda 455

carlosflanders said:


> Sarcasm, Moi?



:lol:

Oui!


----------



## spade2you

I've never been passed by a recumbent, even without my TT bike. Then again, most of the dudes who ride bents have beards and their gut weighs more than me.


----------



## den bakker

spade2you said:


> I've never been passed by a recumbent, even without my TT bike. Then again, most of the dudes who ride bents have beards and their gut weighs more than me.


well that settles it then 

the current hour record is at 91.5 km I believe. Of course he might not live close to you. 
oh and the record holder does have a wisp of facial hair. Less than a David Z in the off season though.


----------



## trailrunner68

Wookiebiker said:


> Does that bottle truly give a competitive advantage...or does it just look "Fugly:? Just because something is different doesn't make it better or higher performing.


It's a freaking fairing, dude. There is no reason it could not be made three or four times larger. 

We might as well just give everyone one of these. Lots of room for sponsor decals on this baby.


----------



## kbiker3111

Wookiebiker said:


> Specialized came out with two models of the Shiv...One is for cycling TT's the other for Triathlons.
> 
> The one with the water bottle mounted in the frame is triathlon specific and not UCI legal. It also uses a wider than 3:1 downtube and other areas that save watts through frame efficiency that are not allowed under UCI rules.
> 
> The cycling TT Shiv complies with all "Current" UCI rules and does not include a water bottle in the frame, nor does it go past the 3:1 tubing rules of the UCI.


The Tri-Shiv also has different geometry, since nobody get super aggressive in Tris. When Macca is running an inch of spacers, you know the heat tube is too low.

Kona Kit: Chris McCormack’s Specialized Shiv


----------



## Goodbarsix

I am a huge fan of UCI's rules on bikes, and I even believe that those same rules help drive innovation in bike design.

Think about it. You have a set of rules on what a bike can look like. Now instead of engineers focusing on making the most aero one-piece fin looking bike, they focus on using materials in new ways. That then leads to material manufacturers developing more advanced versions of those materials.

Now instead of having a bunch of 8lb bikes in the peloton, we have stronger and stiffer frames. As components get lighter the frames don't need to be as light so the engineers can focus on improving the strength and longevity of the frame...could even be argued that this helps make the bikes safer.

Just my point of view on this argument.

Tyler


----------



## AlphaDogCycling

@Goodbarsix,

I agree in principal that a rule determining what a "road bike" looks like is a good idea. My problem is that the UCI, as they currently do this, is inhibiting innovation.

Case in point: disc brakes for road bikes aren't explicitly disallowed. But before a company could build an UCI approved road bike with disc brakes, they need explicit permission. Given the benefits that going to disc brakes could offer, why does a manufacturer need to ask permission? Why doesn't the UCI just say that disc brakes on road bikes are ok, as they've done for cross and mtb?


----------



## cda 455

Goodbarsix said:


> I am a huge fan of UCI's rules on bikes, and I even believe that those same rules help drive innovation in bike design.
> 
> Think about it. You have a set of rules on what a bike can look like. Now instead of engineers focusing on making the most aero one-piece fin looking bike, they focus on using materials in new ways. That then leads to material manufacturers developing more advanced versions of those materials.
> 
> Now instead of having a bunch of 8lb bikes in the peloton, we have stronger and stiffer frames. As components get lighter the frames don't need to be as light so the engineers can focus on improving the strength and longevity of the frame...could even be argued that this helps make the bikes safer.
> 
> Just my point of view on this argument.
> 
> Tyler


If only the rules were more absolute, meaning, many rules that are not purposely left vague as according to Pat McQuaid (IIRC).

Also, enforcing rules consistently would help. IIRC, the saddle angle suddenly being enforced last season.


----------



## jswilson64

AlphaDogCycling said:


> Why doesn't the UCI just say that disc brakes on road bikes are ok, as they've done for cross and mtb?


Probably because Magura/Shimano/Campy/SRAM haven't yet paid them enough to release that statement.


----------



## nightfend

I am actually glad there has been some restraint in bicycle design. Being an amateur racer, it is expensive enough just keeping two road bikes and a tt bike functional and race ready. Trying to keep up with the latest technological fairing designs, etc. would a nightmare. Everyone thinks the $10k bike is expensive, if there were no limits on technology, then we'd soon see $40k+ wonder recumbents and other crap. No thanks.

I own a nice TT bike that I've dumped a ton of money into, and I still think we'd be better off if the UCI outlawed TT bikes, aero helmets, etc from racing. Not to mention travelling to stage races and only having to bring one bike would be a nice change.


----------



## cda 455

nightfend said:


> I am actually glad there has been some restraint in bicycle design. Being an amateur racer, it is expensive enough just keeping two road bikes and a tt bike functional and race ready. Trying to keep up with the latest technological fairing designs, etc. would a nightmare. Everyone thinks the $10k bike is expensive, if there were no limits on technology, then we'd soon see $40k+ wonder recumbents and other crap. No thanks.
> 
> I own a nice TT bike that I've dumped a ton of money into, and I still think we'd be better off if the UCI outlawed TT bikes, aero helmets, etc from racing. Not to mention travelling to stage races and only having to bring one bike would be a nice change.


Hmm. You bring up an interesting post. 


I must admit what I summarize from your post is, 'Keeping up with the Jone's'. 

Must you keep up with technology on a month to month basis?


Here's my thought process on this matter (Please bare with me for my lack of knowledge of cycle racing and rules, etc.):

If I were the same exact caliper racer as you and wanted to race the exact same races as you I would try to get by with racing with only one bike where the frame is made of Ti. If rules dictated I couldn't have aero bars on my bike during a non TT race, I would either have removable aero bars or, if that was too much of a hassle, I'd have a TT bike built with Ti with the elliptical tubing. At the USA Pro Challenge last year there was at least one team that used road bikes set up with aero bars for the prologue and TT. 

Why Ti over carbon fiber? Because Ti is much more durable than CF. Since I'm an amateur racer and I'm paying for all this, I want something that will last getting knocked around or not having to worry if I leave the bike in the car while I'm in Vegas in Aug. 

In addition, I'll want to be racing the same frame probably as long as I race. Because my thoughts are I can't or don't want to afford to buy any more bikes than I have to for racing because I think the racer is by far the biggest factor when it comes to bike-racer combo. Am I correct? 

And that's my whole point: I think I make, by far, the biggest impact on my racing than my bike does.


----------



## nightfend

Sure, the riders fitness is the most important factor. So training comes first. Certainly a nice bike helps, but ultimately a fit racer could win on a crappy/heavy bike.

While a lot of riders just use their road bikes for time trials and throw on clip-on bars, this usually only gets you so far. Mostly because the geometry on a road bike and a tt bike are not the same. So it is hard to get as aero as you need on a road bike with clip-ons as a true tt bike.

As far as materials go. Usually when you crash in a race, you tend to slide out, and damage your front wheel, shifter levers, and saddle first. I've also messed up rear derailleurs and pedals. Sometimes if you are really unlucky you'll crack a frame. Materials probably doesn't matter much. The Ti, while it wouldn't crack, would end up with a massive dent that would still cost a lot of fix. Carbon repairs pretty easily.


----------



## spade2you

nightfend said:


> I am actually glad there has been some restraint in bicycle design. Being an amateur racer, it is expensive enough just keeping two road bikes and a tt bike functional and race ready. Trying to keep up with the latest technological fairing designs, etc. would a nightmare. Everyone thinks the $10k bike is expensive, if there were no limits on technology, then we'd soon see $40k+ wonder recumbents and other crap. No thanks.
> 
> I own a nice TT bike that I've dumped a ton of money into, and I still think we'd be better off if the UCI outlawed TT bikes, aero helmets, etc from racing. Not to mention travelling to stage races and only having to bring one bike would be a nice change.


You're about the only person I've heard who _has_ a TT bike and wants them banned. 

Personally, I love my TT bike. I'm more than a little annoyed that the things I purchased several years ago are now illegal. Cycling borrowed tech from triathletes and other sports. Pushing all that away kinda makes cycling seem very stubborn.


----------



## nightfend

Well, USA Cycling is always slow to adopt UCI rules, so I wouldn't worry about the waterbottle thing. I know in our area, we don't even check UCI bike measurements half the time for time trials.

And, yeah, while it would suck to lose the money I invested in my Cervelo P3, hopefully I'd be able to pawn it off on a triathlete or something...


----------



## spade2you

nightfend said:


> Well, USA Cycling is always slow to adopt UCI rules, so I wouldn't worry about the waterbottle thing. I know in our area, we don't even check UCI bike measurements half the time for time trials.
> 
> And, yeah, while it would suck to lose the money I invested in my Cervelo P3, hopefully I'd be able to pawn it off on a triathlete or something...


I just don't see any real reasons to "go back" other than rules written by people who get off on having more rules and enforcing them. 

I agree that enforcement will take a while, but I also spent good money on things when they were legal. If I would have known that my saddle were illegal, I wouldn't have bought it. If I would ahve known my aero bottle (which I only use on really hot and long ITTs) was illegal, I wouldn't have bought it, and so on. Pretty soon my power meter will be illegal.


----------



## aengbretson

Looks like it's time to figure out a way to shave 2cm from my Arundel bottle... Heat gun here I come!


----------



## Nevermiss

Wow. I hope the people writing the rules at the UCI dont' get paid what our elected officials do for sitting in meetings and spewing out stuff that a 10 year-old would say makes no sense. I have to wonder if someone in that meeting didn't secretly think "WTF are you idiots even talking about this for?.....Snap out it!"


----------



## MJCBH

nightfend said:


> Well, USA Cycling is always slow to adopt UCI rules, so I wouldn't worry about the waterbottle thing. I know in our area, we don't even check UCI bike measurements half the time for time trials.
> 
> And, yeah, while it would suck to lose the money I invested in my Cervelo P3, hopefully I'd be able to pawn it off on a triathlete or something...



I was wondering if USA Cycling adopts most of the rules of UCI. I'm a Cat 2 cyclist and have never had my TT bike measured, etc. at the local races which are USA Cycling sanctioned (I ride a C-dale Slice so it really wouldn't be an issue). Since I obviously will not be racing in any UCI races, do I not need to worry about some of these rules, such as being able to use my profile design aero water bottle?


----------



## asgelle

MJCBH said:


> I was wondering if USA Cycling adopts most of the rules of UCI.


You're a Cat 2 and have never bothered to read the rulebook? The answers to your questions and more are in it.


----------



## MJCBH

asgelle said:


> You're a Cat 2 and have never bothered to read the rulebook? The answers to your questions and more are in it.


I'm a female Cat 2 who just recently upgraded so no, I haven't "bothered" to read the entire rule book yet. That is one of the reasons why I'm asking this question. Sometimes the rulebooks are a little hard to understand and feedback from RBR can help to clarify things.


----------



## King Arthur

*nonsense*



cda 455 said:


> So aero water bottles are now banned.
> 
> 
> Saddlegate, revisited: UCI clarifies horizontal saddle rule and bans aero bottles


Is there a special ban used for those found or in possession of "illegal water bottles." What about camel backs? No mention there of this? Do I have a special place I can serve my "time out" if I am caught with the goods?


----------



## Creakyknees

MJCBH said:


> . Sometimes the rulebooks are a little hard to understand


It's less hard to understand, if you actually read it. HTH.


----------

