# UCI to allow disc brakes in competition



## ®andyA (Nov 14, 2006)

Well according to USA Cycling...

* http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=5042

And the max tire width has changed...

* https://www.usacycling.org/forms/uci/Cyclo-crossRulesModifications.pdf

Full UCI rule changes (via USA Cycling link above):

* http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34593&LangId=1


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

That is good news. I'm planning to build up my first cross frame for this winter, and will at least use a front disk, now. I've already got some old XTR disk hubs that will be perfect. I mostly need to figure out what fork to use.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

fallzboater said:


> That is good news. I'm planning to build up my first cross frame for this winter, and will at least use a front disk, now. I've already got some old XTR disk hubs that will be perfect. I mostly need to figure out what fork to use.


Shouldn't matter to you unless you are a Pro 1-2.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Also, looks like allowable tire width came down. Am I remembering that right? Didn't it used to be 35mm. Now is 33mm. Which basically kills all the 34c tires out there, unless they run narrow.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

I don't see anything that differentiates categories and it'll be up to promoters which rules they will follow and which ones they won't (most of my local races had more than the UCI mandated barrier sections for instance). Seems like awfully short notice. Bike manufacturers will have a bunch of bikes on the market with wider than legal tires. It may temporarily shrink the selection of legal tires until makers adjust their size offerings.


----------



## fallzboater (Feb 16, 2003)

krisdrum said:


> Shouldn't matter to you unless you are a Pro 1-2.


Well, I'm not, good point. I just read this:
http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=1351


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

I'm pretty new to this game, but I've only seen or heard of UCI rules being enforced for UCI eligible races, which is pretty much Elite, Junior, and some Masters races at specific events. Cats 3 and 4 seem to be much more lenient in upholding UCI rules, at least when it comes to equipment choice.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Are they going to take calipers to tires?

Text of the rule changes:


http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=5042
UCI to allow disc brakes in cyclo-cross competition

Following the recommendation of the Cyclo-cross Commission, the UCI Management Committee has approved modifications to its cyclo-cross rules which will take effect at the beginning of the 2010-2011 cyclo-cross season. A summary of the changes is as follows:

1) Disc brakes will now be allowed in cyclo-cross competition.
2) The legal tire width in competition has also been changed. Width shall not exceed 33 mm, whereas before the maximum width was 35 mm.
3) Continental Cyclocross Championships have been established.
4) The “6 obstacle limit” has been changed to a “6 man-made obstacle limit.”
5) The height of barriers is now a maximum of 40 cm instead of a defined height of 40 cm.
6) Man-made sand pits are now allowed and the dimensions for them have been established.
7) The distance between planks has been changed to a range of 4 to 6 meters between.
8) Commissaires may now authorize feeding if the temperature is above 20 degrees C. This feeding takes place in the pit lane, but not during the first two or the last two laps.
9) The commissaires may now invoke the “80% rule” and remove a rider who is behind the leader by 80% of the leader’s lap time. Thus, riders can be pulled before they are lapped.


----------



## ®andyA (Nov 14, 2006)

Coolhand said:


> Are they going to take calipers to tires?
> 
> Text of the rule changes:
> 
> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=5042


Yeah, this is a concern of mine too. While I'll not an Elite racer, I do qualify (and I use the term rather loosely since I think my age and USAC CX Cat qualify me) for UCI Masters categorized races. My Challange Grifo 32's are about as wide as a pair of Maxxis 35's I have... 

I guess it'll depend on how strict the official at a race will be.


----------



## BikeFixer (May 19, 2009)

At this point in time I don't think it'll make much difference because the CycloCross/Road disc brake options pretty much suck right now.
It will however, allow all kinds of new innovation from the component companies.

IMHO


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

I believe SRAM (Avid) is the only major maker of disc brakes compatible with short-pull brake levers?

Notice how the UCI giveth and the UCI taketh away. Yes, we'll give you your fancy disc brakes, but we'll give you less tire to actually stop with.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

BikeFixer said:


> It will however, allow all kinds of new innovation from the component companies.
> 
> IMHO


2011 seems to be the year of carbon fiber CX bikes. Maybe 2012 we'll start to see discs? 

I think this is a good thing and now we (I) can stop complaining about the UCI and this issue.


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

krisdrum said:


> Shouldn't matter to you unless you are a Pro 1-2.


Huh? It matters to anyone who wants to see more cx bikes made with mounts for disc brakes. It also matters to anyone who wants to see some companies start spending some R&D time & money on a good drop-bar disc-brake levers for both cable disc brakes and brake fluid disc brakes. 

Also of interest and likely still some ways in the future, this may be just the spark that makes disc brakes for road bikes more of a viable option once more lightweight designs hit the market.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

fallzboater said:


> Well, I'm not, good point. I just read this:
> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=1351


That's old. The update was published today. The update reads like it's a blanket rule that covers all categories. 

"This Article Published 2004-10-05 09:52:19"

BTW, Shimano also makes mechanical disc calipers for road levers. They don't seem to work as well as Avid's. Maybe someone will find a way to adapt hydros.


----------



## Keski (Sep 25, 2004)

Awesome. Can't wait to see the consumer product trickle down effect. I'm all smiles.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

*Sweet.*

This will give the <.001% of racers who currently use V-brakes instead of cantis an even more pointless option. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

Great! So the Hutchison Bulldogs tubeless (34s!) that I just bought are now illegal but I get the privilege to buy and carry a three pound heavier bike over obstacles and run ups?

Great work UCI! Honestly, what's the point of these changes? Now USAC races, including Natz, will be infested with sketchy handlers since their disc brakes will compensate for the lack of slop riding acumen that kept them away from CX racing.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Lazy Spinner said:


> Honestly, what's the point of these changes?


Well, everything the UCI did before allowing discs in CX was capricious and wrong. I'm sure nobody has changed their mind just because their pet technology has been given the nod.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Lazy Spinner said:


> Great! So the Hutchison Bulldogs tubeless (34s!) that I just bought are now illegal but I get the privilege to buy and carry a three pound heavier bike over obstacles and run ups?
> 
> Great work UCI! Honestly, what's the point of these changes? Now USAC races, including Natz, will be infested with sketchy handlers since their disc brakes will compensate for the lack of slop riding acumen that kept them away from CX racing.


3lbs? Highly unlikely. AND you don't have to run discs. AND now maybe we'll see some lightweight road discs that we've been begging for. Avid 9's were once talked about, so maybe that project will come to fruition. 

The tire size thing, imo, is dumb. Where do they measure anyway? Casing or tread? Just curious.


----------



## hawss (May 23, 2007)

88 rex said:


> The tire size thing, imo, is dumb. Where do they measure anyway? Casing or tread? Just curious.


33mm at the widest point.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

Dammit! Now what are we going to argue about on christmas this year!?


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

wunlap togo said:


> Dammit! Now what are we going to argue about on christmas this year!?



Not about much as the short-sighted, elite traditionalists with so many CX racing years experience who tried to belittle and intimidate those that disagreed must all be choking and speechless when they had to swallow their words.


http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=197624
Happy early Christmas to all. ,


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

adimiro said:


> Not about much as the short-sighted, elite traditionalists with so many CX racing years experience who tried to belittle and intimidate those that disagreed must all be choking and speechless when they had to swallow their words.
> 
> Happy early Christmas to all. ,


Merry christmas to you too! Don't fret, those guys will think of something stodgy and traditional to get you upset about.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

wunlap togo said:


> Merry christmas to you too! Don't fret, those guys will think of something stodgy and traditional to get you upset about.


I nominate suspension as the topic of this year's techno-dweeb vs. imperious luddite smack down.

That is, assuming nobody still wants to pretend that CX tubeless is going to make tubulars obsolete.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

adimiro said:


> Not about much as the short-sighted, elite traditionalists with so many CX racing years experience who tried to belittle and intimidate those that disagreed must all be choking and speechless when they had to swallow their words.


1. Save this post on your hard drive, as you obviously harbor grudges.
2. Before declaring victory, wait and see how many pros actually adopt disc brakes. [And how many "pro" bike makers release disc-ready framesets.] When you've got 33mm tires on greasy mud, there's not much difference in "stopping power" between discs and cantis.


----------



## tamjam (Jul 12, 2002)

Can someone please explain to me what the problem is with discs, I mean, aside from the luddite/traditionalist argument? I mean seriously. I raced my first season of cross last year on a SSCX with discs in as many local Cat C races as I could find, never intending to compete at a National or UCI level, and had a blast. So yes, I am a total n00b. For someone like me, who has no intention of competing at whatever level qualifies one for Nats and is happy just getting a call-up in Cat C at the local race, what's the problem with discs? I know how to install them. I know how to adjust them. They're easy, they're reliable, oh yeah and they're heavier than cantis, so shouldn't the weight weenies out there love seeing me pull up to the line on my disc-equipped bike? 

Cantis suck. Period. I've only ever commuted on them, never competed, and they're useless in any kind of bad weather. Are you trying to keep a "level" playing field or something, that discs disrupt? I am interested in hearing the logic. Several years ago I remember 29ers being banned in certain mountain bike races. Now they're everywhere. Was it truly an unfair advantage, or just fear of the unknown? Will this rule change result in a similar shift in cross over the next few years? 

And the Avid BB7 road discs that I just put on my new Hunter have great feel and modulation when paired with completely rebuilt Campy Chorus 10spd shifters, so as far as I am concerned, the technology is already there. No need for hydraulic discs that work with road levers. 

/Rant Off.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

pretender said:


> When you've got 33mm tires on greasy mud, there's not much difference in "stopping power" between discs and cantis.


Modulation.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

tamjam said:


> For someone like me, who has no intention of competing at whatever level qualifies one for Nats and is happy just getting a call-up in Cat C at the local race, what's the problem with discs?


There has never been a problem in this case, because UCI regs don't apply.

Its just a off season entertainment.

Incidentally, I find that canti's are perfectly adequate for racing in mud, snow and muddy snow, but not for trail riding in any conditions. Center-pulls rule all.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

88 rex said:


> Modulation.


Some people like their brakes on a hair trigger, and in that case modulation is important (and cantis are probably not going to satisfy).

I run all my brakes loose (canti, V and BB7) and never wish for better modulation.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

pretender said:


> 1. Save this post on your hard drive, as you obviously harbor grudges.


No hard feelings...just recalling the sarcastic insults, belittling tactics, and heard-it-all-before by the self-proclaimed Cx experts towards those that disagreed. Besides, hard drives are as obsolete as cantis (just joshing).



pretender said:


> 2. Before declaring victory, wait and see how many pros actually adopt disc brakes. [And how many "pro" bike makers release disc-ready framesets.] When you've got 33mm tires on greasy mud, there's not much difference in "stopping power" between discs and cantis.


To me, there was never any logic in allowing discs for every other racing category except Elite/Pro. My viewpoint was simply that racers should have freedom of choice. Whether racers choose discs vs canti's is not my concern. Victory=having a choice.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

There will be advantages for disc users on courses with muddy sections, they will have full braking power on the next section with traction while the rim-brake bikes won't (the best thing about discs on MTBs IMO). They will also have consistent braking even if a rim is knocked out of true in a fall. 

As far as what the pros use, they will use whatever their bike sponsors want to sell. With a little development the disc setups will be close in weight to rim setups and likely use small 140mm rotors as the narrow tires don't have the traction to harness any more power than that.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

davidka said:


> With a little development the disc setups will be close in weight to rim setups and likely use small 140mm rotors as the narrow tires don't have the traction to harness any more power than that.



I really believe people under estimate the 1) the grip of their tires and 2) brake modulation. Disc brakes are consistant and you can take braking grip right to the threshold without losing grip. My CX bike with road tires brakes a whole lot better and smoother on the road than my road bike. I can really get on the brakes and not worry about losing grip. My CX bike with CX tires allows me toe that fine line of grip. 

I am interested to see what manufacturers decide to do. On my MTB I run 140 in the rear and have no problems at all. I'm about to switch my CX bike over 140 on the rear as well to drop a little weight.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

JayZee said:


> Huh? It matters to anyone who wants to see more cx bikes made with mounts for disc brakes. It also matters to anyone who wants to see some companies start spending some R&D time & money on a good drop-bar disc-brake levers for both cable disc brakes and brake fluid disc brakes.
> 
> Also of interest and likely still some ways in the future, this may be just the spark that makes disc brakes for road bikes more of a viable option once more lightweight designs hit the market.


Go back and read the post I quoted in my response and my response again. The poster was excited by the change because he was about to build a new bike and wanted to do disc on the front wheel at the least. My point was unless he was racing Pro/1/2 he could have used that set-up regardless, because the UCI rules wouldn't apply to his category. The rule change only impacts the Elite and Juniors. The rest of us can still run whatever we want. I could show up on my road bike with 23c tires for all they care. I probably wouldn't be competitive, but I could do it.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

adimiro said:


> To me, there was never any logic in allowing discs for every other racing category except Elite/Pro.


So you know, that's the only category that the UCI makes rules for.

Edit: Went back and read the epic disc vs. canti thread from christmas. You already know.


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

This will be interesting.

Seeing that a lot of manufacturers just came out with new non disc bikes....will these sell, or will buyers wait for the disc version? And if they wait, will the mfgr's ...with a glut of left overs...make the disc frames?

Will the industry settle on 130 or 135 spacing? Or both( probably!)?

Will component mfgrs make hydro disc/shifters? And will they settle on a mounting standard( probably not)?

So the rule allows Pro's to run what everyone else already could...but very few do. And it allows the Pro's to use stuff that really doesn't exist.

Kumbaya! It feels like Christmas all over again!


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Almost without fail all the people with a hard on for wanting disc brakes on a cyclocross bike don't race, they use it for noddling along fire roads or showing their MTB friends how hard core they are riding it on singletrack . Take your 28lb, fat tired, flared drop bar, disc brake equipped Frankenbike and go away, or at the very least call that bike something else and give "Cyclocross" back to the racers, after all Cyclocross IS racing first and foremost. How's that for elitist?


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

OnTheRivet said:


> Cyclocross IS racing first and foremost. How's that for elitist?


That doesn't sound like Kumbaya at all....and I'm sure someone's inner child will be wounded....but I like it.


----------



## whambat (Mar 1, 2009)

Wow. Half of this debate sounds like it was lifted from the mtb xc scene 10 years ago. 

It might take a few years, but I see 140mm rotors (front and rear) with Rival hydraulic levers. That rotor size ought to provide enough braking for 33 tires and still be competitive at weight while kicking ass in terms of performance over canti's. Hydraulics would eliminate a lot of the weight penalty, and it wouldn't take much for avid to incorporate a hydraulic system into a double tap lever. 

About 10 years ago in the mtn bike scene, 22-23 lbs was ultralight for a hardtail with v-brakes, now 20 lb full suspensions with disc brakes are possible. Just try to find a new v-brake race bike now. Disc brakes will become commonplace in cross, it's just a matter of when. 

Thru-axles are just starting to replace the quick release levers in mtbing, any guess on when that will take over in cross. If you are going to push the hub manufacturers to start making disc hubs, why not an x-12 compatible system?

Remember, it took almost 10 years for thread-less headsets to move from mtbing to road.


----------



## fatmarc (Sep 30, 2004)

myerson quote "But road and 'cross have a tradition, and the sport has to allow for progress while maintaining tradition, else it changes too much. MTB, as a newer discipline that has innovation as part of its very identity, has been given more freedom by the UCI for it to develop at define itself.

If a 'cross bike has drop bars, skinny tires, and cantilever brakes, then it's more or less the same 'cross bike people have been racing on for 50 years, and that's a good thing."

respect.
fm


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

OnTheRivet said:


> ... Take your 28lb, fat tired, flared drop bar, disc brake equipped Frankenbike and go away, or at the very least call that bike something else and give "Cyclocross" back to the racers, after all Cyclocross IS racing first and foremost. How's that for elitist?



Sounds like maybe you got your butt-kicked by a Frankenbike rider in a Cx race...it is humiliating, but don't be so upset, it's not the bike remember.


----------



## CoastieTX (Oct 23, 2009)

This is great news - tradition is finally getting out of the way of progress. 

It's been disappointing to see so many nice bikes with real world potential handicapped by those crappy cantis. The traditionalists can keep their cantis on their purpose-built race bikes. But the majority of us who actually need to stop would flock to something like a Kona JTS with discs - I know I would..

*Are you listening, manufacturers? There's a huge untapped market here - in case you haven't noticed, bike commuting is catching on in a big way - more so than UCI sanctioned races..*


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I think the biggest difference isn't if you race UCI 1/2... but it allows all those riders who want to look like they could race UCI 1/2 to have bikes with disc brakes... and that opens up the market quite a bit.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*you let me know*



PeanutButterBreath said:


> I nominate suspension as the topic of this year's techno-dweeb vs. imperious luddite smack down.
> 
> That is, assuming nobody still wants to pretend that CX tubeless is going to make tubulars obsolete.


when the tubeless takeover happens. I won't hold my breath.

again, tubulars are better because of their sidewalls

if a tubeless tire used a tubular sidewall it wouldn't hold air for a lap

so you can count me in on the luddite side of this debate

now how many top 20 UCI pros were racing tubeless last season, or this season coming????


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

CoastieTX said:


> This is great news - tradition is finally getting out of the way of progress.
> 
> It's been disappointing to see so many nice bikes with real world potential handicapped by those crappy cantis. The traditionalists can keep their cantis on their purpose-built race bikes. But the majority of us who actually need to stop would flock to something like a Kona JTS with discs - I know I would..
> 
> *Are you listening, manufacturers? There's a huge untapped market here - in case you haven't noticed, bike commuting is catching on in a big way - more so than UCI sanctioned races..*


Great, if you can just start calling those contraptions "commuter bikes" and stop referring to them as cyclocross bikes, we'd be golden.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

OnTheRivet said:


> Great, if you can just start calling those contraptions "commuter bikes" and stop referring to them as cyclocross bikes, we'd be golden.


I believe that CoastieTX is referring to the fact that most R and D in the bike world is fueled by the need/wants of racers wanting to find and edge and push the boundaries.

Unless motivated by this, doubt any lite-weight roadie/Cx disc technology will ever trickle down to commuters.


----------



## jmoote (Nov 29, 2007)

adimiro said:


> Unless motivated by this, doubt any lite-weight roadie/Cx disc technology will ever trickle down to commuters.


Why does it matter that your commuter is heavy and/or low tech? It's for commuting!


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

jmoote said:


> Why does it matter that your commuter is heavy and/or low tech? It's for commuting!



How 'bout maybe different people make individual choices.

My commuting bike is a custom Spot singlespeed. Why? Definitely spend much more saddle time on the commuter than on Cx race bike. Besides, I just love to ride nice bikes...nothing wrong with that.


----------



## deuxdiesel (May 16, 2007)

I could care less about the brakes and tires rules, but the course changes seem to be following the trend towards faster and less technical courses when riders don't have to dismount and run, ever. Outside of mud and snow, which we can't control, the most fun I've had racing is on courses that strike a balance between power riding and handling skills, or lean towards the handling aspect. I just seems like the trend is towards "dirt crits".


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

atpjunkie said:


> now how many top 20 UCI pros were racing tubeless last season, or this season coming????


Not sure. Based on the assertions made 2 years ago, I am going to guess somewhere between 8 and 12 of the last year's top 20 were on tubeless. Am I close?


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*hmmmm*



PeanutButterBreath said:


> Not sure. Based on the assertions made 2 years ago, I am going to guess somewhere between 8 and 12 of the last year's top 20 were on tubeless. Am I close?


1. Zdenek Stybar (Czech Republic), 1:08:58 (24.41kph)
2. Klaas Vantornout (Belgium), at 0:21 
3. Sven Nys (Belgium), at 0:38
4. Martin Bina (Czech Republic), at 0:40
5. Francis Mourey (France), at 0:56
6. Martin Zlamalik (Czech Republic), at 1:02
7. Christian Heule (Switzerland), at 1:07
8. Radomir Simunek (Czech Republic), at 1:18
9. Gerben De Knegt (Netherlands), at 1:49
10. Bart Wellens (Belgium), at 2:13 

nope not a tubeless in the bunch

so no not close

so
we have Mary McConneloug, Geoff Kabush and Travis Brown have used tubeless. Most of tire contracts from MTB

and again it is all in the sidewall. I'm sure my beater training tubs are as supple or more than the nicest tubeless


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

wunlap togo said:


> Dammit! Now what are we going to argue about on christmas this year!?


Oh, we will find something!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I nominate suspension as the topic of this year's techno-dweeb vs. imperious luddite smack down.
> 
> That is, assuming nobody still wants to pretend that CX tubeless is going to make tubulars obsolete.


Just like they did for road biking. Oh wait. . .


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

*Don't know about the rest of you, but I*



wunlap togo said:


> Dammit! Now what are we going to argue about on christmas this year!?



have cleared my Christmas day schdeule to allow for at least 48 hours of uninterrupted internet time to join in on a spirited session of name calling. My guess is that the "discussion" will revolve around why we all can't race our Dugast Diavolos. You have ordered yours, right?


----------



## VHR2518 (Jun 21, 2007)

*Leave cross the hell alone*

I meet Adri van der Poel (google the name if you are not a true crosser) in 1989 and asked why the Euros ran those cheesey Mafac canti's. His response was you don't need brakes for cross. So, screw UCI and their weakness to let Shimano tell them what to do.

Of course, Adri is the leader in making cross into dirt crits, lousy roadie wanker from Holland.

ATMO


----------



## e-RICHIE (Apr 21, 2002)

VHR2518 said:


> ATMO


[X] VHR2518 gets extra style points atmo.


----------



## Big Baby Jesus (Sep 28, 2007)

Damn, I just put a set of Avid Shorty Ultimates on my bike. Being that I use my cross bike for Road/Cross you will not see discs on my bike any time soon.


----------



## SlowJoeCrow (Sep 3, 2009)

So does the new tire width rule mean I will be able to buy some 34C tires at closeout prices? Where I race UCI rules are irrelevant, but saving $$ is great.


----------



## Corndog (Jan 18, 2006)

If you aren't racing UCI events, then you can still use 34mm tires no problems. 

I love how the UCI says the new tire rule will help keep the cost down.... you know, not having to have so many tires to choose from. 

What about the poor [email protected] who have a large set of tires already and now more than half of them are banned (but still in good condition)? My wife races the UCI events here in the States and we have a fairly large selection of tires/wheels, most of which are 34mm, as that is what she prefers to ride. I think out of the 8 wheel sets we have with FMB or Dugast tires that only two have 32mm tires glued onto them.

Only three sets really needed replacing this year. Which is expensive enough! Oh well.... such is life. Luckily I'm a slow poke and can still use the 34mm tires on my bikes. But it was nice to be able to share everything.


----------



## hawss (May 23, 2007)




----------



## Unoveloce (Apr 13, 2005)

Remember that when the UCI makes an equipment rule for competition, they are making it with regards to the pros. Those are mostly European and very well equipped to travel short distances with tons of gear over a brief season. The UCI doesn't care about the amatuers and their wants or needs. The new rules are actually pretty well tied together and are probably a collective effort. I imagine that letting discs into the sport was the UCI bowing to a form of industry pressure. If they are going to allow discs, then they needed to come up with a way to keep the pros from pitting and getting a very fat tired bike with some serrious stoppers, only to pit again a half a lap later and get a skinny tired and quite a bit lighter bike for the pavement/uphill section. Think of a race like Koppenburg when it's wet. A well financed pro would have a serious edge if they grab the light bike with 30-32 and a higher tire pressure for the climb and then switch it out for the dis equipped big tired bike for the descent. They'd have the number of bikes and support staff to make it work. Six man made barriers that can be lower and farther apart also keep the speeds high and the ability to pit quickly difficult without loosing time. 

The UCI doesn't care that you have one bike that you ride as a commuter in the summer and then put fenders on after cross season. They could care less if you want to use mtb tires, let alone tubeless or clinchers. This will affect what bike you ride in the same way that the minimum weight rule for roadies affects the cat. 4 group in your local crit series or charity century. It's like losing sleep over the 3:1 aerodynamic rule when your road bike gets aero bars bolted on for a couple of time trials a year. 

As far as changing what the industry offers to consumers, the manufacturers in Taiwan will have the most say as what the new standards will be. They'll be the ones to decide if it's 130 or 135 and if it's cable actuated or hydraulic. We'll get final veto power with our dollars, but they will be the ones pushing us towards whatever standard they like and can share without stupid patent infringement lawsuits.


----------



## Corndog (Jan 18, 2006)

They already had a rule of no larger than 35mm.... it isn't like they could have swapped to a 45mm or 2.0" MTB tire for the down hill section. 

Also, there are a fair number of people on here who do UCI races in the US. Most of them are not try PROs.... it's expensive to have to replace tires if you have a stash of 34mm tubulars. 

Like most things the UCI do... it's totally arbitrary and they change random things for no particular reason, from time to time. They also randomly choose what existing rules to enforce (like the aero rules on the road bike scene).


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Corndog said:


> They already had a rule of no larger than 35mm.... it isn't like they could have swapped to a 45mm or 2.0" MTB tire for the down hill section.
> 
> Also, there are a fair number of people on here who do UCI races in the US. Most of them are not try PROs.... it's expensive to have to replace tires if you have a stash of 34mm tubulars.
> 
> Like most things the UCI do... it's totally arbitrary and they change random things for no particular reason, from time to time. They also randomly choose what existing rules to enforce (like the aero rules on the road bike scene).



Just Sharpie the size out and when they measure them ask to see the calibration log for the calipers. 1mm, .04 is nothing. I dare them to disqualify someone over that. ****, most tires are probably =/- 5mm wide.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Corndog said:


> Like most things the UCI do... it's totally arbitrary and they change random things for no particular reason, from time to time. They also randomly choose what existing rules to enforce (like the aero rules on the road bike scene).


OTOH nobody wants cycle racing to turn into HPV racing. And similarly, I don't think even the most ardent disc brake proponent wants cyclocross to turn into short track mountain bike racing.


----------



## Corndog (Jan 18, 2006)

Agreed on the anti chairdo front 

I just think the move from 35mm to 33mm is asinine and totally arbitrary. A prime example of changing something just because they can... and changing it just enough to be annoying. For no real reason too... they can't really argue it's a cost saving move, after taking out a lot of people existing tire arsenal, and allowing disc brakes that will push people to buy new frames and wheels (Eventually at least).

The sharpie will be in effect on some of our tires for sure. Prolly have them mostly on the pit bike and spare wheel though. It would be totally lame to have someone raise a stink at the startline and miss a race.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

9) The commissaires may now invoke the “80% rule” and remove a rider who is behind the leader by 80% of the leader’s lap time. Thus, riders can be pulled before they are lapped.

I am more concerned with this rule. On a short course with 130 riders some sandbaggers could jump ahead pretty quick and end the race early for a lot of people.


----------



## Jawn P (Nov 14, 2008)

Not very many sandbaggers in a UCI elite race...


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

tron said:


> 9) The commissaires may now invoke the “80% rule” and remove a rider who is behind the leader by 80% of the leader’s lap time. Thus, riders can be pulled before they are lapped.
> 
> I am more concerned with this rule. On a short course with 130 riders some sandbaggers could jump ahead pretty quick and end the race early for a lot of people.


You do realize that these rules are for UCI Elites? Not many sand baggers to worry about.
Now...whether a local official will try to enforce these rules in other classes is another story.
There used to be a UCI based pull rule in the late 90's that got over enforced here in New England for all classes...but smarter minds prevailed.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

did not realize. Sorry for the inconvenience


----------



## Todd_H (Nov 20, 2009)

tron said:


> did not realize. Sorry for the inconvenience


You bring up a good point though. Yes these rules are for UCI Elites, but I am wondering how often new rules trickle down to the local racing bodies. And how quickly? Our local racing organization has a board of directors, if one member is hellbent on allowing disk brakes, then he/she now has more fuel to bolster their argument. I'm curious, can any of you seasoned vets (ColinR) on this forum remember a major rule change at the top making its way down fairly quickly? How likely is it that disks will be legal? I am still relatively new to the sport, so my knowledge in this area is limited, but I'm curious. 

Also. I was kind opposed to disk brakes at first because I was thinking that cantilever brakes helped define and differentiate the sport from other disciplines. I road my cx bike this weekend and while thinking about this topic I now think the performance gains by disks outweigh nostalgia. And canti's do not define cx, suffering does.


----------



## ez_nv (Feb 12, 2010)

Todd_H said:


> I'm curious, can any of you seasoned vets (ColinR) on this forum remember a major rule change at the top making its way down fairly quickly? How likely is it that disks will be legal?


As far as I understand they were/are already legal in any category other than the UCI races. It was only if you were racing in the Elite category at a UCI event that you would have been prevented from running disc brakes up until now.


----------



## Mefistofeles (Sep 26, 2007)

Although I believe disc brakes will begin making a significant impact on cyclocross in 2011 I think the main impact will be in 2012 when the manufacturers have the frame/situation sorted out. In fact I believe that manufacturers will begin running disc brake prototypes in 2011. However it will take a while for the brake manufacturers to R/D cross specific disc brake,especially hydraulic brakes.

What might be interesting for 2011 would be straight bars, using straight bars would allow instant access to a large ecoysystem of hydraulic mountain bike brakes. Some of these brakes are very light and extremely powerful. It's just wishful thinking on my part but then again I don't think anyone expected the UCI to allow the use of disc brakes!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

Mefistofeles said:


> What might be interesting for 2011 would be straight bars, using straight bars would allow instant access to a large ecoysystem of hydraulic mountain bike brakes. Some of these brakes are very light and extremely powerful. It's just wishful thinking on my part but then again I don't think anyone expected the UCI to allow the use of disc brakes!


I'd be for it, but I don't see it happening. 15lb disc equipped CX bike with a Flat bar would be pretty darn easy to build up.


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

Mefistofeles said:


> Although I believe disc brakes will begin making a significant impact on cyclocross in 2011 I think the main impact will be in 2012 when the manufacturers have the frame/situation sorted out. In fact I believe that manufacturers will begin running disc brake prototypes in 2011. However it will take a while for the brake manufacturers to R/D cross specific disc brake,especially hydraulic brakes.
> 
> What might be interesting for 2011 would be straight bars, using straight bars would allow instant access to a large ecoysystem of hydraulic mountain bike brakes. Some of these brakes are very light and extremely powerful. It's just wishful thinking on my part but then again I don't think anyone expected the UCI to allow the use of disc brakes!


They have existed for years...they're called mountain bikes....and if you want 700c wheels...29er mountain bikes.You might want to go to a bike shop and check them out. They are and have been legal for everyone except elites at UCI races.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

the mayor said:


> They have existed for years...they're called mountain bikes....and if you want 700c wheels...29er mountain bikes.You might want to go to a bike shop and check them out. They are and have been legal for everyone except elites at UCI races.


Even you're smart enough to know there are differences in purpose built flat bar CX bikes, and mountain bikes. Bars do not define the bike. MTB's have drop bars too.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jul 25, 2006)

CoastieTX said:


> This is great news - tradition is finally getting out of the way of progress.
> 
> It's been disappointing to see so many nice bikes with real world potential handicapped by those crappy cantis. The traditionalists can keep their cantis on their purpose-built race bikes. But the majority of us who actually need to stop would flock to something like a Kona JTS with discs - I know I would..
> 
> *Are you listening, manufacturers? There's a huge untapped market here - in case you haven't noticed, bike commuting is catching on in a big way - more so than UCI sanctioned races..*


The value for manufacturers is they can produce one bike for both competitive racers AND multi-purpose consumers. The CX bike is can be an extra-ordinary workhourse and disc brakes make them better.

As for the affect of disc brakes on the sport ... who cares. If they are an "advantage" they'll be used. If not, they won't the problem will solve itself. I just want a few more options out there for CX bikes with disc tabs and more CX forks with disc tabs.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> The value for manufacturers is they can produce one bike for both competitive racers AND multi-purpose consumers. The CX bike is can be an extra-ordinary workhourse and disc brakes make them better.


Do competitive racers want their bike to be a extra-ordinary, multi-purpose workhorse?

Cannondale, Redline, Lemond, Salsa, Bianchi, Soma, Vassago, Motobecane (.etc?) have offered disc bikes to "multi-purpose customers", with all but the last three being discontinued at this point. Would an even more expensive, less trail-worthy, less commute-worthy "race" option attract more "multi-purpose" customers?


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> The value for manufacturers is they can produce one bike for both competitive racers AND multi-purpose consumers. The CX bike is can be an extra-ordinary workhourse and disc brakes make them better.


Honestly this makes little to no sense. People who don't race have ZERO understanding of what makes a good "proper" cyclocross bike. What I don't need are 4.5 lb (steel is real [rolleyes]) boat anchor frames, clearance for big tires, brakes from a DH bike and rack eyelets. Go to a cyclocross race, pick up a nice race bike and look at it and tell me you want to "try" and make that into a "workhorse" bike.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

88 rex said:


> Even you're smart enough to know there are differences in purpose built flat bar CX bikes, and mountain bikes.


What purpose could a flat bar CX bike serve that a lightweight 29er frame w/ CF fork could not?


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

Let's all face it.....
Until the UCI allows pink wicker baskets and handle bar streamers, this argument is pointless.

Do you hear that manufacturers? There is a huge untapped market for cyclocross specific pink baskets and streamers!


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> What purpose could a flat bar CX bike serve that a lightweight 29er frame w/ CF fork could not?



Ease of shouldering. Different headtube geo (and geometry in general). More saddle to bar drop. Shorter chainstays. Potentially different cable routing. Not earth shattering differences (still just a bike), but enough to quantify a real difference.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

88 rex said:


> More saddle to bar drop.


Sounds like a job for _drop_ bars. 

So you want a race specific, flat bar, disc CX bike as opposed to a multi-purpose bike, I take it?


----------



## Mefistofeles (Sep 26, 2007)

My own interst in having a cyclocross bike with disc brakes stems from the sort riding that I used to do. I used to ride with a group of fixie's and for the most part I was able to hang with this group on my cross bike. I liked having larger tires because it made the ride more comfortable I also felt that the larger tires were more puncture resistant,especially Schwalbe Marathon Plus tires. 

There were several things I disliked about my Cross bike and braking power was one of them. I have several mountain bikes equipped with four piston disc brakes and the v's on my cross bike just weren't cutting it,especially on high speed downhill runs. Sure the I could add a front caliper mounted brake but it still wouldn't have quite have quite the power as a four piston hydraulic disc brake.

Another thing that I disliked was not having a front suspension. Some of the roads around here are in less than pristine condition and there's nothing more annoying than riding at down and incline and hitting a pothole without a front suspension.

It's certainly possible both of these problems with a mountain bike but a mountain would have one huge disadvantage: gearing. Most the fixie riders that I know are running 52/53 chainrings. Even if I was running full slicks/skinnies on a mountain bike I would still be at a disadvantage in terms of gearing. There are a few 48t cranksets available but they're usually lower end units. To my knowledge no one is making a 48T 105 quality MB crankset. 

Also to be honest I really dislike the the drop bars. Even though I have drop bars on the Bianchi Cross Concept I find myself grabbing the vertical parts of the bar and using it more like a truncated straightbar. Although most people will find it sacrilege I just find the straight bars to be more comfortable, it's easy for me to see why the Fixie riders prefer as well. In fact at least half of the fixies in my former riding group use straight bars.

Also let's be honest if maybe drop bars are better for long riding but for manuverability I think it's hard to beat straight bars. 

So that's why I'm so excited about the UCI's new rules maybe someone could manufacture a bike that's closer to my road riding needs than what's being offered on the market today. 

If not I'll just put some fat slicks on my mountain bike and go that route. But it would be nice to ride with the fixies again.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Sounds like a job for _drop_ bars.
> 
> So you want a race specific, flat bar, disc CX bike as opposed to a multi-purpose bike, I take it?



I'm not in the market for either right now.  

But if I were looking to build an all out race bike that would do nothing more than see CX racing, then yea, I'd prefer flat bars (with a decent amount of bar drop). For a multi-purpose bike, I prefer drops. I personally have more control on flat bars, and have no problem sprinting from flat bars, especially with a good drop. I'd prefer manufacturers develop a decent hydro drop bar set-up though for my multi-purpose bikes.  

That ebay carbon CX bike with disc mounts has LONG top tubes and would probably make a great flat bar'd race bike, for anyone looking for a race bike.


----------



## joness (Dec 6, 2006)

Mefistofeles said:


> There are a few 48t cranksets available but they're usually lower end units. To my knowledge no one is making a 48T 105 quality MB crankset.


You aren't looking for a cross bike. You are looking for a mountain bike (flat bars, suspension) with bigger gears. I suggest you just buy a Salsa 48 tooth chainring for $41 and put it on a nice crank.

http://www.webcyclery.com/product.php?productid=17150&cat=303&page=1


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

You lost me at "I used to ride with a group of fixie's"


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jul 25, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Do competitive racers want their bike to be a extra-ordinary, multi-purpose workhorse?


Probably not. But competitive racers actually represent a very SMALL part of the market. It's perfectly reasonable to offer a utilitarian offering for most of the market with disc tabs, fender/rack eyelets and wide stays and ghast, bottle mounts. Then strip it all down and offer full carbon offerings for Cat1 racers. 

At the same time, I'm sure some serious roadies would love the opportunity for a "roadie" bike with disc brakes for sure handled stopping power.



PeanutButterBreath said:


> Cannondale, Redline, Lemond, Salsa, Bianchi, Soma, Vassago, Motobecane (.etc?) have offered disc bikes to "multi-purpose customers", with all but the last three being discontinued at this point. Would an even more expensive, less trail-worthy, less commute-worthy "race" option attract more "multi-purpose" customers?


The Redline Conquest was offered for a long time with discs. Don't have any doubt that the UCI ban had something to do with dropping disc tabs. Most people simply didn't understand that the disc ban only applied to top racers. Even a casual cyclist would like options and if you can't take your workhorse and race it, it's less of a workhorse. ALL Salsa frames are being discontinued and re-released due to Salsa's losing access to it's tubing supplier. 

What would you like to bet that since the UCI ban is lifted, you will see Cannondale, Redline and put disc tabs back onto their CX offerings soon (as well as pretty much everyone else). 

Personally, I'm looking forward to a wider range of steel disc forks for CX with disc tabs. I'd like to convert my Surly X-Check to front discs.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jul 25, 2006)

OnTheRivet said:


> Honestly this makes little to no sense. People who don't race have ZERO understanding of what makes a good "proper" cyclocross bike. What I don't need are 4.5 lb (steel is real [rolleyes]) boat anchor frames, clearance for big tires, brakes from a DH bike and rack eyelets. Go to a cyclocross race, pick up a nice race bike and look at it and tell me you want to "try" and make that into a "workhorse" bike.


a) I don't care ... and most people don't race. If I did, it would only be a few times.
b) Lots of people ride Surly Cross Checks at races.
c) I don't walk up to Superfly riders and tell them they should be riding a Karate Monkey. Why would you or I expect any different in the CX area.
d) I'll bet you'll find a lot more fire-road riders than CX riders who would appreciate all the ghastly features you mentioned.
e) Most people don't have the money or storage space to buy a purpose built rig for every cycling discipline they participate in:

1) Road
2) XC Mountain
3) CX
4) Touring
5) Casual Cruising
6) BMX
7) Urban Assault
8) Utility
9) XC Free Ride
10) XC Downhill
11) Dirt Road
12) Time Trial

So for everyone besides top CX racers with pro discounts, it makes every bit of sense to get as much application out of their bikes as possible with Free Ride bikes often serving as downhill rigs, XC bikes takes spins on BMX tracks aghast ... CX Bikes serving as a primary road bike which only occasionally seeing dirt. And maybe it gets touring duty too so it gets a rack and some fenders.

I'm 100% sure that manufacturers will still make carbon CX bikes with no tabs and no bottle mounts for the Cat 1/2 crowd. No one is putting you out. And I'm sure that Shimano's pressure came from bike manufacturers who WANT to offer disc brakes in CX platforms but have difficulties with the perception from the UCI ban. Shimano wouldn't produce a hydraulic drop bar lever/brifter if they didn't think they could market them as widely as possible.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> Probably not. But competitive racers actually represent a very SMALL part of the market. It's perfectly reasonable to offer a utilitarian offering for most of the market with disc tabs, fender/rack eyelets and wide stays and ghast, bottle mounts. Then strip it all down and offer full carbon offerings for Cat1 racers.


This is the situation now, no? Plenty of utilitarian options and there have always been at least a couple with discs available.



willtsmith_nwi said:


> At the same time, I'm sure some serious roadies would love the opportunity for a "roadie" bike with disc brakes for sure handled stopping power.


I'm sure that there are some, and I am sure that their number is insignificant as far a the market goes.



willtsmith_nwi said:


> The Redline Conquest was offered for a long time with discs. Don't have any doubt that the UCI ban had something to do with dropping disc tabs.


Many disc bikes have been introduced (and failed) since the Redline, so I do doubt that the UCI ban had anything to do with it.



willtsmith_nwi said:


> Most people simply didn't understand that the disc ban only applied to top racers. Even a casual cyclist would like options and if you can't take your workhorse and race it, it's less of a workhorse.


Anybody interested in racing surely did. I doubt there were many casual cyclists who were poring over the UCI regs.




willtsmith_nwi said:


> ALL Salsa frames are being discontinued and re-released due to Salsa's losing access to it's tubing supplier.


The Las Cruces was discontinued long ago.



willtsmith_nwi said:


> What would you like to bet that since the UCI ban is lifted, you will see Cannondale, Redline and put disc tabs back onto their CX offerings soon (as well as pretty much everyone else).


For what? BB7s? Don't you think that it would take a major leap in STI/Doubletap integrated lightweight hydraulic discs before any of this happens. If so does the "very SMALL part of the market" that races competitively in a relatively tiny niche of cycling seem like it will have the pull to drive these developments?



willtsmith_nwi said:


> Personally, I'm looking forward to a wider range of steel disc forks for CX with disc tabs. I'd like to convert my Surly X-Check to front discs.


IRD (Tange), Salsa, Vicious or custom seems like plenty. Its not like any race bikes are being built with steel forks these days, so I am not sure why you would look forward to any better selection based on the UCIs rule change.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

OnTheRivet said:


> You lost me at "I used to ride with a group of fixie's"


Don't feed the troll.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

wunlap togo said:


> Don't feed the troll.


But do applaud the satire.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> But do applaud the satire.


Absolutely, that was a good one!


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> But do applaud the satire.


Sadly...there isn't a huge untapped market for satire. I wish there was.


----------



## Unoveloce (Apr 13, 2005)

If you are interested in racing and going fast on a cross bike, but are still a proponent on flat bars, please tell me how you grab the bike with your right hand when it's on your shouldfer with a flat bar? Just about every way involves the bar swinging around and smacking you in the face unless you grab the bar with your left hand or you reach over the top tube and grab the stem, thereby pulling the front wheel down and the seat into your helmet. Not exactly optimal for extended shouldering, especially up steep hills.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Unoveloce said:


> If you are interested in racing and going fast on a cross bike, but are still a proponent on flat bars, please tell me how you grab the bike with your right hand when it's on your shouldfer with a flat bar?


I believe the technique involves firmly grasping the end of the bar with your eye socket.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

This thread is hilarious


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I believe the technique involves firmly grasping the end of the bar with your eye socket.


And I'm sure it won't be the first time he's been skull F'd


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

with all the due respect I could have for any guy's personal relationship with his bike, I really can't understand why people argue and insist about converting a CycloCross bike into a Mountain bike with higher gearing.

The CycloCross sport and the bike used for it has a well defined specs and scope.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> I really can't understand why people argue and insist about converting a CycloCross bike into a Mountain bike with higher gearing..


I think it's because for some people internet forums are their entire social life, understandable if all they want to do is argue and tell everyone else they're idiots.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jul 25, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> This is the situation now, no? Plenty of utilitarian options and there have always been at least a couple with discs available.
> 
> I'm sure that there are some, and I am sure that their number is insignificant as far a the market goes.
> 
> ...


First I love the way you're incapable of constructing a cohesive thought as opposed to a series of context free retorts. Further, I cannot speak for why the UCI misunderstanding keeps popping up. It's likely the same reason that a significant number of Faux News viewers believe that President Obama is not a natural citizen.

I don't think you do enough shopping. I don't think you pay any attention to all the casual cyclists riding full blown roadie rigs. I don't think you even care about the marketplace, just your particular bike because none of the things you've said seem to have any point besides presenting the snobbery of uber-racer types.

A series of CX disc bikes are on the market for years, then they drop the discs and you conclude it was a failure? So why did they produce it for a number of years? Likely they felt they would get better sales from individuals who would like to race them occasionally and were under a mistaken impression that they would not be allowed. Further, why do you then contradict yourself and point say there are lots of utilitarian offerings?

As for Shimano ... they know more than you and I. And they wouldn't lobby for a disc ban and creating new products for them unless they knew damn well that their customers would be producing lots stock disc CX bikes. Yeah, and since that ban IS gone, we can expect Dyna-Sys hydro brifters that will function for both CX, MTB and Touring.

But why argue. Why not just relax and see what happens ...


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

this is what the people arguing here seem to want










it is called a Hybrid bike. 

No need to change the UCI rules to have them on the market, they already are.


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

Salsa_Lover said:


> this is what the people arguing here seem to want
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you're not an elite, you can race that bike in 'cross and beat guys with canti's. And then commute to work on it on monday!


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

wunlap togo said:


> If you're not an elite, you can race that bike in 'cross and beat guys with canti's. And then commute to work on it on monday!


Wunlap...you're not following the logic.
If the UCI would allow flat bars....you and all the other Elites could ride a bike like this to the race, then race....and then hook up a Burly trailer to take you prize money and trophy home!
How awesome would that be?


----------



## wunlap togo (Oct 1, 2004)

the mayor said:


> Wunlap...you're not following the logic.
> If the UCI would allow flat bars....you and all the other Elites could ride a bike like this to the race, then race....and then hook up a Burly trailer to take you prize money and trophy home!
> How awesome would that be?


Dang. You just blew my mind. Now we know why the UCI makes these seemingly idiotic rules- they're in league with the oil companies and determined to keep us driving to cyclocross races!


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

wunlap togo said:


> Dang. You just blew my mind. Now we know why the UCI makes these seemingly idiotic rules- they're in league with the oil companies and determined to keep us driving to cyclocross races!


Kumbaya!
UCI and BP are one and the same!

But Burly is in on their own secret protocol too! 
Why do you think they are weening us off of barriers? 
Because they want us to have their racks and trailers on our disc braked commuter/cross bikes....and you won't be able to go over barriers with them....so Burly is secretly paying the UCI off to get rid of barriers!
True story!


----------



## Jim311 (Sep 18, 2009)

This debate sounds entirely like the late 90s debate on the mountain bike side. V-brake holdouts proclaimed that their brakes were plenty strong, they never had modulation problems, fade, contamination, or wore out rims. They said that they could easily lock up a mountain bike tire, and had far more power than their tires had traction, especially in the wet situations which they said they rarely encountered anyway. They saw no reason to add the extra rotating mass or weight.



Can you even buy a mountain bike without disc brakes now, save for something that rolls off the floor of a department store? Discs are superior in every fashion, with the only exception being weight, and even that is pretty negligible. I have seen some setups that rivaled or even beat higher end v-brake setups of yesteryear.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

Jim311 said:


> Discs are superior in every fashion, with the only exception being weight, and even that is pretty negligible. I have seen some setups that rivaled or even beat higher end v-brake setups of yesteryear.


High end cantis are in the 100g to 150g a wheel. After years of development within the equally weight concious XC crowd, what is the lightest caliper/rotor combo?

MTB riding/racing can make good use of the extra performance of discs (and suspension). In a nutshell, the weight is well worth it. CX racing, not so much.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Unoveloce said:


> If you are interested in racing and going fast on a cross bike, but are still a proponent on flat bars, please tell me how you grab the bike with your right hand when it's on your shouldfer with a flat bar? Just about every way involves the bar swinging around and smacking you in the face unless you grab the bar with your left hand or you reach over the top tube and grab the stem, thereby pulling the front wheel down and the seat into your helmet. Not exactly optimal for extended shouldering, especially up steep hills.


Not to get into this whole fray, but I think this is a poor argument against using flat/riser bars. If you're running flat bars, you simply grab the left grip with your right hand while shouldering.

I won't argue against the UCI drop bar rule, because I think it's good to preserve the look/feel/heritage of cyclocross as a discipline unique from road and mtb.

But for the weekend warrior building a cross bike from scratch, it might make perfect sense to use a more mtb-like cockpit, depending on how the person rides. So many guys flip up their bars and spend 99% of their time on the hoods, might as well run mtb bars, regardless what kind of brakes you're running.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Jim311 said:


> I have seen some setups that rivaled or even beat higher end v-brake setups of yesteryear.



Modern v-brakes are still much lighter than any discs made and are perfectly adequate if you don't race in sloppy conditions. My singlespeed MTB weighs 20lbs I weigh 150lbs, I run V brakes and never feel the need for more brakes when I race this bike. My Carbon hardtail geared race bike has discs but they are way overkill for my arid climate, they are nice but not necessary.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> High end cantis are in the 100g to 150g a wheel. After years of development within the equally weight concious XC crowd, what is the lightest caliper/rotor combo?



5 lbs minimum for discs. 

Time to start pumping the iron so I can lift my bike! :23:


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

the mayor said:


> Kumbaya!
> UCI and BP are one and the same!
> 
> But Burly is in on their own secret protocol too!



Disc brakes for the burley as well! Just think of the possibilities for Ti hydraulic line quick disconnects, and brake line equalizers. Gotta keep the burley braking straight. Will this lead to the development of electric brakes for the trailer? My mind is spinning with this new opening of opportunities that have been previously restricted by the UCI . Does anyone know what burley classes the UCI added? Under 6 mo? 2-4? Fido?


Gotta get to work training for the new categories sure to show up in Bend this December.


:thumbsup:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> First I love the way you're incapable of constructing a cohesive thought as opposed to a series of context free retorts.


Sticks-n-stones. 

You don't seem to have any awareness of what has been available for the last several years, or why anything developed for UCI pros would be incompatible with your stated goals.

If you wanted a Disc CX bike for non-racing pursuits, you have been able to get one for years. Several companies have stepped up to meet that need _specifically_, and none have earned a long-term audience. If you wanted a race caliber disc CX bike Salsa offered a Scandium frame CF fork frameset. People who bought them loved them, but apparently there were not enough of those people to keep the concept afloat.

The UCI rule is irrelevant to the Monster Cross/Ultimate Commuter/All-around White Knuckler market, because the applications are completely different. You don't have to think too hard to figure out why.


----------



## OnTheRivet (Sep 3, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> If you wanted a race caliber disc CX bike Salsa offered a Scandium frame CF fork frameset. People who bought them loved them, but apparently there were not enough of those people to keep the concept afloat.


Totally forgot about that bike. That was a true light weight high end disc bike and it went the way of the Dodo. You know I'd wager more cyclocross bikes are bought for racing than for all other uses combined, I NEVER see them when I'm out riding and I look. So you get this minority of a minority *****ing that their needs are not being met yet bikes like that Salsa disappear because nobody buys them .


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

OnTheRivet said:


> Totally forgot about that bike. That was a true light weight high end disc bike and it went the way of the Dodo. You know I'd wager more cyclocross bikes are bought for racing than for all other uses combined, I NEVER see them when I'm out riding and I look. So you get this minority of a minority *****ing that their needs are not being met yet bikes like that Salsa disappear because nobody buys them .


When Fisher, of all companies, declined to carry-over the Poprad Disc when they took over Lemond's CX line-up I think it says something about the viability of the concept.

I will be interested to see what, if anything, Shimano/SRAM produce for UCI elite racers, but I certainly won't be buying. I suspect that this is the case even for most of the disc evangelists around here, especially those looking for more steel fork options.


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

OnTheRivet said:


> Totally forgot about that bike. That was a true light weight high end disc bike and it went the way of the Dodo. You know I'd wager more cyclocross bikes are bought for racing than for all other uses combined, I NEVER see them when I'm out riding and I look. So you get this minority of a minority *****ing that their needs are not being met yet bikes like that Salsa disappear because nobody buys them .


Cannondale, Lemond and Redline had very raceable frames....that no one bought.
I had a pair of Cdales.....practically gave them away.
Now...add the cost of hydro shifters. With Dura Ace shifters retailing at $800, DI2 at $900...and even 105 close to $400......what are hydro shifters going to cost?
In usual fashion.....all the people who want/demand something will never buy it.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

the mayor said:


> I had a pair of Cdales.....practically gave them away.



If you have more let me know:thumbsup: 

If the Las Cruces, or equivalent, ever gets produced again I just might be first in line. Sans canti studs though like my La Cruz.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jul 25, 2006)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Sticks-n-stones.
> 
> You don't seem to have any awareness of what has been available for the last several years, or why anything developed for UCI pros would be incompatible with your stated goals.
> 
> ...


I did reread a previous post on noticed "competitive CX" in my description. Scratch that and put in "recreational CX" competitors. I know guys who compete in CX on Mountain bikes. There is no reason (besides misinformation and CX fashion queen gossiping) that having a purpose built CX bike bars one from competition. 

You point out that some multi-purpose CX models have ceased production. Plenty of MTBs cease production and I bet that there are likely lots of CX models that get dropped or re-configured. I do know that the options are limited as when I bought my CX discs are something I wanted, but at the time could not find WITH a solid steel frame. In the end bought my Karate Monkey a little brother in a Cross Check. And I HATE cantilever brakes. 

Like what you want. BUY what you want. I'm not some MTB invader on your board. I'm a consumer who likes to have as many options as possible. And I respect Shimano tremendously for taking my side in not wanting perceptions of the UCI disc ban to interfere with manufacturers decisions to build CX bikes ... almost ALL of which will never be raced in elite competition. But like I said earlier, people like options as well as the option to race their steed in elite categories if they train hard enough. ... then attach fenders and pedal home.

Finally a BIG PS. Brakes are something you rarely want to use in ANY cycling discipline. But for the times you NEED your brakes to work, they had better do it. I know a guy who was hell bent on sticking with Vs until his wet pads slid on wet rims. Now he wears a knee brace and cranks on discs.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jul 25, 2006)

88 rex said:


> If you have more let me know:thumbsup:
> 
> If the Las Cruces, or equivalent, ever gets produced again I just might be first in line. Sans canti studs though like my La Cruz.




I'm absolutely SHOCKED that PBB could say that I don't keep up with the market. Bike companies are always changing their designs and lineups for SOME reason. When it happens to be a 700C disc bike, it's immediately comes to a dubious notion that over the course of multiple years the bike was offered with discs, it never sold.

Just imagine what goodies will come out when there is a low weight BB9 and hydraulic brifters. And we will weight and see who adopts them out of the need to have their brakes work VERY well in the time they really need them to.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> I'm absolutely SHOCKED that PBB could say that I don't keep up with the market. Bike companies are always changing their designs and lineups for SOME reason. When it happens to be a 700C disc bike, it's immediately comes to a dubious notion that over the course of multiple years the bike was offered with discs, it never sold.
> 
> Just imagine what goodies will come out when there is a low weight BB9 and hydraulic brifters. And we will weight and see who adopts them out of the need to have their brakes work VERY well in the time they really need them to.



The Vaya, a very nice bike, is nothing like a Las Cruces, and marginally like my La Cruz.

Eh, screw the market and tradition. I'm pulling out the 650b flat bar'd bike for 2012 with fat 44c's.:thumbsup:


----------



## the mayor (Jul 8, 2004)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> I'm absolutely SHOCKED that PBB could say that I don't keep up with the market. Bike companies are always changing their designs and lineups for SOME reason. When it happens to be a 700C disc bike, it's immediately comes to a dubious notion that over the course of multiple years the bike was offered with discs, it never sold.
> 
> Just imagine what goodies will come out when there is a low weight BB9 and hydraulic brifters. And we will weight and see who adopts them out of the need to have their brakes work VERY well in the time they really need them to.


Then you won't be shocked to know that that is NOT a cyclocross bike.....no more than a HUgo is a Formula 1 car.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

willtsmith_nwi said:


> I did reread a previous post on noticed "competitive CX" in my description. Scratch that and put in "recreational CX" competitors. I know guys who compete in CX on Mountain bikes. There is no reason (besides misinformation and CX fashion queen gossiping) that having a purpose built CX bike bars one from competition.


Anyone not racing a Cat 1 in UCI sanctioned series has been free to race any bike they want in most cases. That is the vast majority of racers, and among them there has been negligible interest in discs. 



willtsmith_nwi said:


> You point out that some multi-purpose CX models have ceased production. Plenty of MTBs cease production and I bet that there are likely lots of CX models that get dropped or re-configured. I do know that the options are limited as when I bought my CX discs are something I wanted, but at the time could not find WITH a solid steel frame. In the end bought my Karate Monkey a little brother in a Cross Check. And I HATE cantilever brakes.


Sure, bikes go in and out of production. But that is not the same as one manufacturer after another attempting to sell a specific feature and then discarding the idea completely. This isn't just routine model churn. 



willtsmith_nwi said:


> I'm not some MTB invader on your board. I'm a consumer who likes to have as many options as possible.


Its not my board, but it is the _Cyclocross_ board.



willtsmith_nwi said:


> And I respect Shimano tremendously for taking my side in not wanting perceptions of the UCI disc ban to interfere with manufacturers decisions to build CX bikes ... almost ALL of which will never be raced in elite competition.


You respect Shimano for practically ignoring "your" side and offering nothing to you until the UCI lifted the ban for products that have nothing to do with you?  At least give SRAM props for offering the road BB7 for all these years!



willtsmith_nwi said:


> Finally a BIG PS. Brakes are something you rarely want to use in ANY cycling discipline. But for the times you NEED your brakes to work, they had better do it. I know a guy who was hell bent on sticking with Vs until his wet pads slid on wet rims. Now he wears a knee brace and cranks on discs.


You should really look into Cyclocross. It is regularly contested in conditions that few mountain bike racers ever ride in. Rain, mud, _snow_. Its generally considered poor form to moutain bike on trails that are as sloppy as a CX course can get on a regular basis.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> You should really look into Cyclocross. It is regularly contested in conditions that few mountain bike racers ever ride in. Rain, mud, _snow_. Its generally considered poor form to moutain bike on trails that are as sloppy as a CX course can get on a regular basis.


Although I admit that mountain bikers very infrequently race in snow, we do ride year round including snow and sub-freezing temps. Nothing sucks more than coming out of a creek and having a rim immediately freeze over. V-brakes are horrendous in this scenario. We also race in the nastiest of mud on courses that are rain or shine, although again, infrequently. 

Anyhow. I have no idea what you guys are bickering about. I think Willtsmith is a little late to the game. Something he wants seems to already exist. He's a non racer and there are a few non-racer type bikes like he's describing available. It's the Las Cruces type bikes I'd like to see resurrected.......or a Cannondale SuperX disc created,

And I personally fear the sticker shock of a hydro STI, which may ultimately lead to slow development of these frames. Imagine the price of Di2 hydro shifter


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

88 rex said:


> And I personally fear the sticker shock of a hydro STI, which may ultimately lead to slow development of these frames. Imagine the price of Di2 hydro shifter


I think a superlight, mini mechanical brake makes more sense than overhauling STI or DoubleTap levers to include hydraulic brakes. The BB7 is relativaly heavy, but it has never been a high-end, race oriented brake.


----------



## 88 rex (Mar 18, 2008)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I think a superlight, mini mechanical brake makes more sense than overhauling STI or DoubleTap levers to include hydraulic brakes. The BB7 is relativaly heavy, but it has never been a high-end, race oriented brake.



Something mechanical, light weight and dual action (correct term?) so you don't have to deflect the rotor. That would be ideal for a whole boatload of reasons. "BlackBox BB9":thumbsup:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Dec 4, 2005)

I wonder if IRD has a patent on the dual action mechanical: http://interlocracing.com/discbrake.html


----------

