Starting in 2014, UCI events will limit wheel depth to 65mm

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Until you (or anyone) offers something better than anecdotal evidence, I think I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion without being told I am wrong.

Why I should be expected to accept the counter argument is beyond me, sorry. Happy to accept I am wrong if someone posts some credible evidence to show that I am. Has anyone got any data to counter the braking figures from the lab test posted previously?

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8457
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

Missed

viewtopic.php?p=995624#p995624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ignored. Whatever.

(others that were also posted notwithstanding)


And seems your anecdotal evidence flies, but not other peoples.

Which is fine, just keep your stance in mind when other people disagree with you.

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Missed that link. Thanks TP.

Interesting. Sadly, there is from what I can see, no "control" re braking and crosswind performance. Sorry if this sound like a worn out record but, if the control were to offer say 20/20 and 10/10, then all of the wheels tested would be compromised to varying degrees. The control in the German test I posted was an aluminium rim. Sadly that appears to be missing here.

If there is no control then where do they get their reference point for in order to score the wheels on test?

Brake performance was disappointing on all those tested bar the home grown Enve according to the text.

My only point all along has been that there is a possibility that these wheels contribute to accidents in the peloton. You are seemingly telling me there isn't? Yet all tests so far show delayed braking response (including your own link). We obviously have different opinions and both at this time.

I suggest that until someone tests these things properly and publishes the result we just agree to disagree on this.

Causidicus
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:20 am

by Causidicus

.
Last edited by Causidicus on Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
sugarkane
in the industry
Posts: 1800
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 am
Location: SYD
Contact:

by sugarkane

Does it mean I won't be able to race my evne 6.7s in my local crit racing series?
I already flaunt the weight limit by a kilo but the rim depth will be a little harder to get away with..

Rob1519
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:29 pm

by Rob1519

So what's next, rim width limits?

CarlosFerreiro
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Location: Shetland, Scotland

by CarlosFerreiro

Maybe move 1 towards "UCI approved" wheel stickers?

54x11
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 am

by 54x11

sugarkane wrote:Does it mean I won't be able to race my evne 6.7s in my local crit racing series?
I already flaunt the weight limit by a kilo but the rim depth will be a little harder to get away with..


I'm not sure which country you're from but here in Australia we would get away with running them in club level events but not state or national level.

User avatar
sugarkane
in the industry
Posts: 1800
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 am
Location: SYD
Contact:

by sugarkane

I'm in strala mate! I hope so, my local crit series is always very windy. The 6.7s hands down are easier to ride in heavy cross winds than my 1.45 wheel set

User avatar
elviento
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: In the industry
Contact:

by elviento

Reynolds use 66mm. Wonder what the rationale was behind the magic number of 65.
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal

thisisatest
Shop Owner
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Location: NoVA/DC

by thisisatest

Rationale? We're talking UCI. There's no rationale for the rule as a whole, I wouldn't bother questioning one small aspect of it.
The general actions of the UCI just make me cringe, every time.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta

User avatar
Waldo
in the industry
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:45 pm
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

by Waldo

The original proposal from the UCI was a 50mm limit. They were considering solely rim depth as the indicator of a wheel with inherent handling issues.

The committee alluded to in the BR article is one of the World Federation of Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) groups. Members are associated with many of the more well-known manufacturers of frames, wheels, forks, and other components. While the stability of the person in the UCI's techincal coordinator position has not been great (the third person to have this role in the last 4-5 years just started), the WFSGI group has been able to meet with this representative over the past two years.

This is a great step forward from us individually discussing concerns about the current wheel test, frame/fork certification, 6.8 kg, etc. In this case, although we and a couple other manufacturers actually presented some of the data regarding the parameters that affect the handling of a wheel, there was not much additional discussion, but we were able to at least align on 65mm instead of 50mm.

I'm cautiously optimistic that genuine improvements in the current testing and approval process over the coming years will lead to the UCI endorsing appropriate tests for all bicycle components, and hopefully safer (and lighter) bikes for anyone in a UCI-sanctioned race.
ENVE contract engineer | Former Zipp test engineer

User avatar
elviento
Posts: 1235
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Location: In the industry
Contact:

by elviento

But seriously, how much of the rules was really for "safety"? Are there recent cases of deep rims causing injuries etc.?

When I was at the Giro this year and witness the entire bike weighing and techinical checking session at a TT stage, honestly the UCI guys were pretty clueless and confused as to what they were doing (I am sure they are all nice people and all...).
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal

User avatar
Waldo
in the industry
Posts: 340
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:45 pm
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

by Waldo

The UCI's contention was that they had received feedback via their riders' commission that some riders were concerned about the effects of some deeper wheels on windy races or when tightly grouped and relying on someone to hold their line. Some riders also mentioned wheel depth decisions being at least somewhat dictated by sponsors (not a problem we've had; no amount of data will convince Contador to run 303s, much less 404s, once things tilt upward).

This proposed rule wasn't even originally up for discussion. As such, I think most of the industry was pretty satisfied to at least have the arbitrary "safe" rim depth extended to 65mm.

This is why I mentioned a hope for genuine improvements in my post. Having a discussion of a questionable rule and making improvements, even within a limited scope, is a tremendous step forward. My hope is that in the future we can avoid initial proposals of such rules and focus on issues that truly affect safety.

I'm not the biggest fan of some of the UCI's rules and tests, or the recent issues with doping, but I think there is a chance to make some legitimate progress in the next few years.
ENVE contract engineer | Former Zipp test engineer

spartan
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am

by spartan

thanks for the update waldo. is the UCI going to perform a test on braking power?

the last three years the performance of brake pad of improved. looking at the test cork pads should be outlawed(are you listening bontrager)

2011 test conducted by roadbike.de

Image


2012 test


Image

for 2014. reynolds new power blue pads braking are rumored to equal/exceed aluminum rim pads.

"They also have 50% more braking surface, which effectively makes them act like you have a third brake pad. Besides more power, it also gives them slightly better heat dissipation. Lastly, the additional water grooves slice rain off the rims quickly. The combination of increased pad contact area, new compounds and reduced surface wetness have everyone there pretty excited. Word is the testers that have them have vehemently refused to give them up for other employees to try. Lew himself says he thinks they best alloy rim brake performance."

Image
Current Rides:

2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL 0 DI2 9150

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post