http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... tar_274065

And they think this is progressive? Lawyers for the parimutuel concerns in Japan wrote the NJS book. Lawyers for UCI are writing all these new procedures with stamps, stickers, and inspections. Seriously, folks, every component has to have a NJS (excuse me, UCI) stamp or sticker? Nothing can be altered in any way? All have to be approved anyway and meet amazingly bizarre standards? Hmmm. Maybe the UCI should seek a merger.

Don't even start.

sounds like UCI met NASCAR lol

_________________
[img]<iframe%20height='160'%20width='300'%20frameborder='0'%20allowtransparency='true'%20scrolling='no'%20src='http://app.strava.com/athletes/1677950/activity-summary/ddf436fc1ca509b20d4637cfa80c928da771d2c6'></iframe>[/img]

From reading the rule, in English at least, it would seem that no lips would be needed as long as the forks came supplied that way, and were not team modified?
Will they also enforce their rule that tape for covering the valve opening in a disc wheel can only be from the wheel manufacturer?

Isn't that tape against the current rules anyway, or should be if reading the rules, as it's a non-structural aero fairing? Otherwise you could tape brake calipers, bottle cages and whatnot to the frame in an aerodynamic fashion, as long as you only use the dedicated little discwheel patches

_________________
Roadbike
Kinesis RaceLight T2

Mountainbike
Van Nicholas Zion Ti

Tape covering the valve hole is the only tape allowed on the bike; any tape to cover bolt heads etc is not allowed, but things like frame manufacturer supplied rubber grommets can be used.....
All kinds of specific clarifications in the latest guide. Page 35 for the tape rules....
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... M&LangId=1

How about this:

`The addition of handlebar tape to improve the rider's grip is authorised, but tape must be identifiable and only used where the rider's hands grip the handlebars.'

Apart from being ridiculous what about the area under the brake hoods?

Don't get me started about lawyer tabs, I've never seen a crash caused by a QR that wasn't tightened up.

Its not just about a loosened QR. Its about wheels coming loose in a crash as far as I'm aware.

_________________
"Step forward the climber and all those who worship at the altar of lightness" - R. Millar

@ Hawkwood, I have actually seen that (on a decent, at 65kmph) experienced guy jumping railway tracks. Not pretty...

We are talking about professional road racing here, though, not product liability. I am sure that they could obtain any waiver they wanted to. It does seem to be more about asserting control.

I can think of several holes I'd like to tape up.

_________________
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________

Why does the UCI care about lawyer tabs?

The frame rules, as silly as they may be, have some purpose: keeping bikes a little bit traditional, keeping out recumbents, but this is just pedantry.

NJS, on the other hand, set standards that are focused more on keeping competition regular:



Half of the UCI rules just seem to be bizarre desires from a group of old blokes who don't even ride bikes... Half industry concern, half an ego trip. Lame.

And this one?

"The UCI represents the interests of more than 170 National Federations, 5 Continental Confederations, 1200 professional riders, 600’000 licensed riders, millions of cycling athletes who train regularly and more than a billion users. "

They have to implement new rules with bunch of new details and need new staff to keep them busy. Not representing me.

I'll be the first to admit that lawyer tabs have saved my ass at least once on a ride.

It was a 'recovery' (aka slow) 100mi down the coast, very casual with a friend, so I never really noticed the front QR was loose until around mile ~85 when I attempted to jump an obstacle. When I landed it was clear that the axle was being held in only by the tabs. This was a few years ago, but still a lesson well learned.

Sometimes, for one reason or another, the QR is left loose without thinking to check it. Maybe a person was in a hurry putting the front wheel on after taking the bike off a car journey, or out of a carrier. Maybe the person was in a hurry after changing a flat... who knows, but mistakes happen, we're each human and prone to error.

_________________
Exp001

The problem with implementing this lawyer tab rule is that mechanics will start looking to see how little clamping force they can use that still allows them a quick wheel change without spinning a skewer off or on.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing the lawyer tabs are engineered to need 2.2 spins, or 3.4 spins, or 4.1 spins. And this problem would mean a simple solution will not be available for quite a while...

Really though, it's not that hard to set up every wheel to 'spin once to put on/off', and the time added is minimal. But to do this, they need to modify all their roof racks to effectively make a wider quick release fork attachment.

Then the process would be 'undo off roof racks, then put in bike, spin once, and do up without further adjustments'.

The perfect method for this would be taking a chosen skewer, and making roof rack wheel fork mount attachment tab widths that optimally result in the above process being effective.

Cheers,
metal

Easier, just put a wobble thread on the skewer nut. This is one that lets you tilt the rod of the skewer sideways a few degrees and then the nut pulls right back, and reverse to tighten up. When it tightens up flat against the fork tip, it is engaged in the threads and won't move.

Of course whatever someone does, some attorney will take issue with it, at which point CPSC, UCI, etc. will as well. It amazes me that they worry about minor hardware modifications that have no effect on riding performance. Remember those mountain descents that riders complained about a few years ago in one of the tours and had nets hung to catch riders going off the cliffs? Yeah, the UCI is really interested in rider safety.

BTW, to an earlier post, the NJS isn't just about giving competitive equivalency. It's also, and even more, about giving equipment that is ultra reliable so that betting isn't compromised by equipment failures. Otherwise they'd have moved to newer equipment and just mandated new improved standards. Nor would they worry about mechanical reliability if the idea was just to give competitive equivalency. Now the UCI, on the other hand, doesn't seem to know what it wants.