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.
Will they also enforce their rule that tape for covering the valve opening in a disc wheel can only be from the wheel manufacturer?
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
`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.
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.
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:
The NJS standard is to ensure that no rider will have any advantage or disadvantage based on equipment and does not necessarily relate to quality or standard of manufacture
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.
"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.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=111825&p=955235#p955235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Posts: 8609
- Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
- Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
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.
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.
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.