Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:04 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:35 pm
Posts: 2146
Location: Geneva
Got caught up in the 'PRO' thread but I'd love to hear any more info that people have heard regarding this. I'm in the market to buy a TT frame for next season's UCI GF series. Are they going to adopt the 'tri' regulations?


Top
   
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:16 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:30 pm
Posts: 15
I doubt it will be tri rules because that basically means you're good to go as long as you have a helmet and functioning brakes (in non-draft)... There are other limiting UCI rules such as saddle position and extension length etc etc that seem to still be upheld.

Here's a recent article by Cycling Weekly on the matter: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... ign-281563

Addendum:

Apparently the rule change will only affect frames and not components so things like aerobars and seatposts will still have to conform I think.

Some interesting commments from an engineer at Canyon about what the change might bring (keeping in mind he has a vested interest one way or the other, obviously):

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/pro ... ign-281626


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Shetland, Scotland
It looks like this is a minor change, only getting rid of the 3:1 limit and still keeping the 80mmx25mm maximums and all the other frame envelope limits.
So the few areas of the frame that 3:1 limited to 75mmx25mm would now be able to go to 80mmx25mm.
At least if they had applied it to seatposts too then a few older frame would have become legal again - old Cervelo P2 and P3 models for example. :cry:


Last edited by CarlosFerreiro on Mon Sep 05, 2016 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 05, 2016 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2014 4:57 am
Posts: 1559
^^ Seems ridiculous that they have relaxed part of the rules yet still excluded some pretty neat frames.

_________________
Using Tapatalk


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 9:55 pm
Posts: 74
I don't see why this would make any difference other than making the bikes uglier. Of course it will make a good argument for "last years aero bikes suck" but thats just marketing.

Sent from mTalk


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 1:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 109
All things being equal narrower is more aero, correct? So, if they can make the tubes narrower while keeping the depth the same it should make for faster tube shapes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 1:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 4220
Stalkan wrote:
All things being equal narrower is more aero, correct?

A few things to consider.... 1) moving objects experiencing winds at any other angle than head on (zero yaw) can benefit aerodynamically from "shapes" on the sides, so just saying "the narrower the better" is not true in most cases and 2) handling in cross winds is severely affected as you expose more surface area to them, so simply increasing the "3" part in the ratio negatively affects handling. And 3) handling in cross winds can be made more stable simply by making things stronger in that direction (I.e., increasing width and in effect making things less "noodly", or adding more or stronger material at the expense of light weight).
Basically, nothing is free and it's always a challenge to get that perfect combo of everything that works in all conditions. I really don't think the rule change is going to make things all that different performance wise than they are today, but it will give the marketers a little more leeway in their "spin" on things. They must be getting somewhat bored.

_________________
Colnago C60 - PR99
C59 Five Years Later
My Special Colnago EPQ
Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Shetland, Scotland
Sorry, bad wording in my post above, the 25mm permitted on the main tubes is a minimum and doesn't seem to be changing at the moment, so there doesn't seem to be a chance coming to make the tubes narrower.

Before the longest cross section you could do was 80mm x 26.67mm <-> 75mm x 25mm, limited by 80mm max, 25mm minimum and 3:1 max ratio.
Now it looks like you will be able to have up to 80mm x 25mm, limited just by the 80mm max, 25mm minimum box that seems to be staying in place, and the old 3:1 ratio limit goes away.

The parts of the frame that were limited purely by the 3:1 ratio before were fairly limited too - the middle sections of the main tubes basically.
Headtubes, BBs, gussets, dropout allowances etc took that limit away from a lot of the rest of the frame.
Still waiting to see all the new words though ;)


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:21 pm
Posts: 2150
Location: around Paris
Kurets wrote:
I don't see why this would make any difference other than making the bikes uglier. Of course it will make a good argument for "last years aero bikes suck" but thats just marketing.

Sent from mTalk


Spot-on :beerchug: :thumbup:


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 109
CarlosFerreiro wrote:
Sorry, bad wording in my post above, the 25mm permitted on the main tubes is a minimum and doesn't seem to be changing at the moment, so there doesn't seem to be a chance coming to make the tubes narrower.

Before the longest cross section you could do was 80mm x 26.67mm <-> 75mm x 25mm, limited by 80mm max, 25mm minimum and 3:1 max ratio.
Now it looks like you will be able to have up to 80mm x 25mm, limited just by the 80mm max, 25mm minimum box that seems to be staying in place, and the old 3:1 ratio limit goes away.

The parts of the frame that were limited purely by the 3:1 ratio before were fairly limited too - the middle sections of the main tubes basically.
Headtubes, BBs, gussets, dropout allowances etc took that limit away from a lot of the rest of the frame.
Still waiting to see all the new words though ;)


Ah, explained that way, you're right it doesn't seem like much is changing or will be. Really the ratio rule could go with zero change to the effectiveness of the rule due to it being somewhat redundant.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:04 pm
Posts: 109
Calnago wrote:
A few things to consider.... 1) moving objects experiencing winds at any other angle than head on (zero yaw) can benefit aerodynamically from "shapes" on the sides, so just saying "the narrower the better" is not true in most cases


I did say all things being equal, that is the narrower shape still gets a "shape". Also, isn't most testing today showing that most fast guys are <5º wind angle than the previous conceived notion that yaws of >10º were common?

Calnago wrote:
2) handling in cross winds is severely affected as you expose more surface area to them, so simply increasing the "3" part in the ratio negatively affects handling.


Shaping has to help here, as I don't find this to be the case at all between my AR and 7 (aero frame vs round tube); however, I agree that a broad flat shape would effect handling aversely.

Calnago wrote:
Basically, nothing is free and it's always a challenge to get that perfect combo of everything that works in all conditions. I really don't think the rule change is going to make things all that different performance wise than they are today, but it will give the marketers a little more leeway in their "spin" on things. They must be getting somewhat bored.


Agree 100%


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 4:44 am 
Offline
in the industry
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:05 am
Posts: 398
Location: boston usa
i have seen nothing from the uci indicating that they are going to implement this change. all of this banter is simply based on some quotes from one person who may or may not have any insight. the uci has always consulted with folks in the industry- but none of this stuff seems to be based on any thing other than some banter.

_________________
the jerk is always right!
the jerk thinks your stem is too short!


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:18 am
Posts: 726
Location: Cambridge, New Zealand
I was at the eurobike WFSGI meeting, the rule change was based on consultation with the industry. The uci rep explicitly stated that 3 to 1 is gone on Jan 1st.

I don't think it's a good rule change, it doesn't accomplish anything. Main sections of tubes are not creating much drag now and many bikes have wide DT to shield bottles for best realistic performance and that's not going to change.

It just allows manufacturers to claim that your bike that was limited by the old rules is now too slow to bother showing up to race. The speculation in the cw article is just flights of fancy.

_________________
http://www.speedtheory.co.nz
http://www.velogicfit.com - 3D Motion Capture and Frame Finder Software


Top
   
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 5:52 am 


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. UCI weight rule and cyclocomputer?

in Road

2lo8

7

979

Tue Jun 07, 2016 5:55 pm

lewolive View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Shoes: Velcro? Lace-up? BOA? One shoe to rule them all

in Road

kkibbler

1

394

Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:43 am

Nefarious86 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Aiming to participate in next L'etape, need clarification on interpreting equipment rule

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

ninjasloth

27

1507

Sat Apr 15, 2017 12:53 am

964Cup View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Another Pedal Thread..

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

in Road

3Pio

86

6771

Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:04 pm

3Pio View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Scott Centric plus advice/opinion thread

in Road

Sweetbabyj45

1

195

Thu Mar 02, 2017 6:44 pm

wingguy View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fitty4, Google [Bot], Ritxis, TiCass and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited