UCI legality of older TT frames

[davidalone]

Can someone with the relevant experience weigh in?
Got my hands on a new old stock cannondale slice ( 2009)for a great price, first generation, before the Slice RS.
My National federation will be enforcing UCI Rules for national champs next year, so I need to ensure this is A-OK.

If I'm reading the UCI document right:
1) frames on sale before 2011 dont need to be in the UCI approved frames list but need to abide by the other technical regs ( 3:1, etc.)
2) frames on sale after 2011 need to be in the UCI approved frames list

Is this correct?
I'm not too concerned though, the Liquigas team raced the same frame for a good 3 years plus.

[Rudi]

That was my understanding as well. You could ask your National Federation for their verdict.

[ms6073]

Wasn't the main reason that Cannondale redesigned the Slice due to the seat tube/seat mast not meeting the 3:1 rule?

[CarlosFerreiro]

You're correct that older frames don;t need the sticker, just need to comply with the UCI envelopes - the full envelopes are quite complex now, and if the frame is close to the limits it might be hard to tell for sure with home measurements - that's a fairly limited amount of frame tubes that the "simple" 3:1 reg applied to for example.

Back around 2009/10 there were a few problems when the UCI decided the 3:1 rule applied to bars and seatpost too, as quite a few designers had assumed that 3:1 only applied to frame members. Because of that there are older frames that pro teams used in UCI races at the time with no issue which may not pass the full regs as interpreted now now.

The recent UCi rule change on the 3:1 part of the regs seems (no full text available yet?) to give more wiggle room, except that unfortunately (it seems) that they are not going to apply it to seatposts or bars - that small change would have made old model Cervelo P2 and P3s legal, where they fail 3:1 by a small amount on stock seatposts.

I don't know about the Cannondale specifically.