Starting in 2014, UCI events will limit wheel depth to 65mm
Moderator: robbosmans
Great. Then maybe you wouldn't mind if the UCI banned all those useless expensive trinkets from competition?
BTW. 7.5kg vs 6.8kg up Alpe d'Huez would make about 40 seconds difference for most good riders. It would also allow 105 to be run instead of DA or a steel frame to be run against a Cervelo RCA.
BTW. 7.5kg vs 6.8kg up Alpe d'Huez would make about 40 seconds difference for most good riders. It would also allow 105 to be run instead of DA or a steel frame to be run against a Cervelo RCA.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Interestingly, when UCI weighed the pros' bikes, most were above 7kg. In fact, many were above 7.3. So...
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal
airwise wrote:Great. Then maybe you wouldn't mind if the UCI banned all those useless expensive trinkets from competition?
BTW. 7.5kg vs 6.8kg up Alpe d'Huez would make about 40 seconds difference for most good riders. It would also allow 105 to be run instead of DA or a steel frame to be run against a Cervelo RCA.
I wouldn't mind if they banned airattack and deepwheels, but it's only because I don't like the looks of them. Most people don't race up alpe duez. Do you?
Murphs wrote:Ksyriums are worse than most deep carbon wheels in cross winds, so that argument is invalid
Agree!
I rode a set of Fulcrum Racing 1 and the bladed spoke in cross winds was scary! Bladed spokes were effected by wind way more than the Enve 65's that I put on my bike next.
Custom Steel is the ONLY way to roll!
http://beyonddork.blogspot.com/
http://www.kelsonbikes.com/
http://www.bikewagon.com/
http://beyonddork.blogspot.com/
http://www.kelsonbikes.com/
http://www.bikewagon.com/
- carbon2329
- Posts: 753
- Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
- Location: Utah
Whether this happens or not I do not know, but....
am I missing something.
When you look at the peloton 90-95% of the riders are on less than 65mm rims. The deepest rims used seem to be Bora's (at 53mm, right). Others are on:
-carbones (cosmic or Ultamite) and those are about 45-50.
-cormas being used are about 45-55, correct?
-Reynolds 46 (mainly)
-Shimano 50mm
-Hed 5's or 6's usually
-Zipp 303 & 404
-Lightweight 47-53
So that only leaves about 5% of the peloton (Cav and a few others, right?).
Sure there are some that ride deep reims, but in the pro peloton, that has got to be only about 5%. Just not that big of a change.
am I missing something.
When you look at the peloton 90-95% of the riders are on less than 65mm rims. The deepest rims used seem to be Bora's (at 53mm, right). Others are on:
-carbones (cosmic or Ultamite) and those are about 45-50.
-cormas being used are about 45-55, correct?
-Reynolds 46 (mainly)
-Shimano 50mm
-Hed 5's or 6's usually
-Zipp 303 & 404
-Lightweight 47-53
So that only leaves about 5% of the peloton (Cav and a few others, right?).
Sure there are some that ride deep reims, but in the pro peloton, that has got to be only about 5%. Just not that big of a change.
- prendrefeu
- Posts: 8580
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Glendale / Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
I don't see this ruling dramatically affecting anything.
The only ruling from the UCI that seemed to have generated the most contention is the 'lawyer tabs' or 'lips' on the forks. Everything else has come with a general response from the peloton/teams as "meh" or indifference.
The only ruling from the UCI that seemed to have generated the most contention is the 'lawyer tabs' or 'lips' on the forks. Everything else has come with a general response from the peloton/teams as "meh" or indifference.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.
airwise wrote:Kraaf wrote:p.s. the above mentioned tests of braking performance are outdated. Most manufacturers have gotten much better at getting that part right, some pretty much equalling alloy rims. (Try Tour Magazin, for instance.)
Could you possibly post the results of the scientific tests showing carbon rims to offer the same braking force and reaction times as their aluminium counterparts please?
Yes, I could. But instead, I'm going to be lazy and just quote from page 51 of Tour 5/2013 "Lightweight and Zipp have mastered the issue of braking on carbon rims; the numbers are partly better than some aluminum rims."
The fact that other manufacturers haven't mastered this yet (like my 'old' Edge 1.38s when wet), says little about carbon. This just proves again that blanket statements about a material just don't hold up. It depends. And blanket (uninformed, arbitrary) rules don't make cycling better or safer.
As a sidenote, as an organization that has drastically reduced the number of doping controls while boasting about their anti-doping program and then attacked those who dared to mention this, any action on their part should be viewed with the greatest skepticism. Stop changing the freaking rules and keep your hands off our bikes. That should be the general response.
P.s. I'm not going to debate Tour's testing. Their protocols can be easily found. I used to think I was a geek.
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________
prendrefeu wrote:I don't see this ruling dramatically affecting anything.
The only ruling from the UCI that seemed to have generated the most contention is the 'lawyer tabs' or 'lips' on the forks. Everything else has come with a general response from the peloton/teams as "meh" or indifference.
Assuming this is the case, again, we're talking about a handful of pro's. Vastly outnumbered by all the other categories. I'll keep saying it. Stop messing with the goramn bikes. They ain't broke.
p.s. Having a little personal experience with bike-checks helps to get into this state of mind. 'Kafkaesque' is a good word there.
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________
- Tinea Pedis
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
- Contact:
airwise wrote:This is somewhat misleading TP. If exotic wheelsets were banned in the first place and minimum weights increased to 7.5kg, it would be massively cheap for "people trying to earn a living from cycling" to compete with anyone out there. They could just rock up with a 105 equipped ali frame and compete on an equal footing. Hey kids and their dads could compete. Isn't that a good thing?
It's not misleading at all. As it's not even what is being debated here.
The current rules are also not what is hurting participation rates. I'm on my local club's committee, work in with my State and National body, have raced around my country and overseas. Bike weights and wheels are not issues.
You had a go at someone in your thread of going down the Sarenne, where he theorised something about you not going at the pace of Pro's - yet you had evidence otherwise.
However here you are doing precisely what he was doing, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Deep wheels are not inherently dangerous, slow to brake or any of the subsequent issues you've thrown up about them. This is the UCI again missing the boat on what should be a priority to fix.
And Twitter seem to agree
https://twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis/status/ ... 3126874112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- HammerTime2
- Posts: 5814
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
Before we get too carried away stating this impending rule change as fact, can we attempt to get verification beyond what some guy on a website says that the illustrious Paul Lew said?
As of yet, over 2 days later, he has made no follow-up comment in that article.In a comment at http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/06/19/reynolds-updates-attack-assault-strike-wheels-new-aero-profile-disc-brake-options-more-new-rims/, in reference to the statement in the article Starting in 2014, UCI events will limit wheel depth to 65mm for mass start events, article author Tyler Benedict wrote:Matt- That comment came from Paul Lew, who reportedly sits on some related commission or board at the UCI (along with folks from many other wheel brands). Maybe the UCI is just waiting to surprise everyone with that rule on a start line (kidding). I’ll see what I can find out.
- Tinea Pedis
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
- Contact:
I've had a chat to someone here in Australia, he said this was "old news".
Verifying if "old news" means "it's well known to be happening" or is "was suggested but won't be enacted".
Either way, is not Paul Lew off on a tangent.
Verifying if "old news" means "it's well known to be happening" or is "was suggested but won't be enacted".
Either way, is not Paul Lew off on a tangent.
Did anyone read down to the last paragraph of that article:
"Unrelated but interesting given current trends, Lew says as a general rule, disc brakes double the drag of your wheels".
That's along the lines of what I heard rumors of elsewhere such as from Cervelo - discs are something I don't need, something that is heavier, and something that negates all the nice aero we've worked toward - so please don't force it onto me.
"Unrelated but interesting given current trends, Lew says as a general rule, disc brakes double the drag of your wheels".
That's along the lines of what I heard rumors of elsewhere such as from Cervelo - discs are something I don't need, something that is heavier, and something that negates all the nice aero we've worked toward - so please don't force it onto me.
Tinea Pedis wrote:Deep wheels are not inherently dangerous, slow to brake or any of the subsequent issues you've thrown up about them. This is the UCI again missing the boat on what should be a priority to fix.
I agree with your point that they aren't dangerous but is that what is being implied with the rule change? In the absence of any official announcement I will predict it will be a mixture of curbing aerodynamic influence and aesthetics.
In any case I agree with the change if it goes ahead.
Tinea Pedis wrote:However here you are doing precisely what he was doing, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Deep wheels are not inherently dangerous, slow to brake or any of the subsequent issues you've thrown up about them.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I've seen enough evidence to suggest that my points have some merit, and none to suggest they are not.
Sadly I can't find any data from tests regarding stability in gusts but I've yet to ride a high profile rim that does not make me aware of wind direction and cause corrections.
Maybe someone can recommend one to try. So far I've ridden Zipps 404 FC, LW Std C, Reynolds DV46 and Mavic CCU amongst others - all over the past 24 months so happy that they are current models. But sadly I have nothing from a lab to offer up here - only anecdotal evidence.
I still don't understand the argument in favour of keeping them in UCI sanctioned events though. Sorry.
- Tinea Pedis
- Posts: 8616
- Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
- Contact:
As stated, ad nauseum, you are not a professional bike rider. Your point was based on professional bike riders. Nothing you have proves your point. Mine and others can however attest to the contrary. Yet, as mentioned, you refuse to accept it.
(maybe keep this in mind next time someone disagrees with you)
You're staunchly anti-aero. Always have been. For what reasons I have no idea. However coupled with hearing that this is that is coming, short of a new president deciding against it, debating this (I use that term loosely) is pointless.
Grazie UCI.
I'm out.
(maybe keep this in mind next time someone disagrees with you)
You're staunchly anti-aero. Always have been. For what reasons I have no idea. However coupled with hearing that this is that is coming, short of a new president deciding against it, debating this (I use that term loosely) is pointless.
Grazie UCI.
I'm out.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com