CX chainrings

The spirit of Grav-lo-cross. No but seriously, cyclocross and gravel go here!

Moderator: Moderator Team

kgcx
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:16 pm

by kgcx

There is an entire thread on people running the 12 speed xtr/dura ace chain on the 11 speed groupo. The pro's were also running 11 speed cranks with the new 12 speed while availability was low for 12 speed cranks.

blaugrana
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 9:49 pm

by blaugrana

It's still quite shocking that manufacturers and pro teams can just blatantly ignore UCI rules and the UCI does nothing about it. Why mandate that all equipment must be commercially available if you aren't going to enforce it? At the end we have most pro racers using chainrings that are not for sale, and amateurs who might want to buy them are out of luck.

Not that I personally mind, since 1x GRX is perfect for the courses I ride (and let's be honest, my top speeds on CX courses are quite a bit lower as well), but this is exactly why the rule is there in the first place. No one should ever be at a disadvantage because they are not in a team with enough status to get access to special equipment.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
robbosmans
Moderator
Posts: 2780
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:40 pm
Location: Central Belgium
Contact:

by robbosmans

Also Stronglight has chainrings from 44t to 55t for dura ace r9100 cranks. They will probably also have it soon for the new cranks

User avatar
ms6073
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

by ms6073

blaugrana wrote:
Sun Oct 30, 2022 1:15 am
It's still quite shocking that manufacturers and pro teams can just blatantly ignore UCI rules and the UCI does nothing about it. Why mandate that all equipment must be commercially available if you aren't going to enforce it?
I think that only applies to UCI approval for framesets. Obviously the motivation for manufacturers is typically to make things for mass production and lots of sales, but I think component manufacturers are free to prototype components with no requirement to make them available for public distribution.
- Michael
"People should stop expecting normal from me... seriously, we all know it's never going to happen"

blaugrana
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 9:49 pm

by blaugrana

ms6073 wrote:
Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:33 pm
blaugrana wrote:
Sun Oct 30, 2022 1:15 am
It's still quite shocking that manufacturers and pro teams can just blatantly ignore UCI rules and the UCI does nothing about it. Why mandate that all equipment must be commercially available if you aren't going to enforce it?
I think that only applies to UCI approval for framesets. Obviously the motivation for manufacturers is typically to make things for mass production and lots of sales, but I think component manufacturers are free to prototype components with no requirement to make them available for public distribution.
The UCI regulation for framesets is more strict and requires pre-approval (for the famous sticker) unlike most components, but everything is still subject to the commercial availability rule, as far as I know.

ARTICLE 1.3.006
Equipment shall be of a type that is sold for use by anyone practicing cycling as a sport.

Any equipment in development phase and not yet available for sale (prototype) must be
subject of an authorization request to the UCI Equipment Unit before its use. Authorization
will be granted only for equipment which is in the final stage of development and for which
commercialization will take place no later than 12 months after the first use in competition.
The manufacturer may request a single prolongation of the prototype status if justified by
relevant reasons.

When assessing a request for use of equipment which is not yet available for sale, the UCI
Equipment Unit will pay particular attention to safety of the equipment which will be
submitted to it for authorization.

The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance
(record or other) shall be not authorised.

Upon expiry of the authorized period of use of a prototype (equipment not yet available for
sale), any item of equipment must be commercially available in order to be used in cycling
events. The requirement of commercial availability shall be understood as equipment having
to be available through a publicly available order system (whether with manufacturer,
distributor or retailer). Upon an order being placed, the order shall be confirmed within 30
days and the relevant equipment shall be made available for delivery within a further 90-day
deadline. In addition, the retail price of the equipment shall be publicly advertised, shall not
render the equipment de facto unavailable to the general public and shall not unreasonably
exceed the market value for equipment of a similar standard.

Any equipment which is not commercially available and is not authorised (not authorised by
UCI Equipment Unit or authorised period expired), may not be used in cycling events
governed by the UCI Regulations. Any such unauthorised use of equipment may be
sanctioned by disqualification of results obtained when using the equipment and/or a fine
ranging from CHF 5’000 to 100’000.”
Text modified on 15.10.18
I really don't see how you could justify that this situation with the CX chainrings is legal. It would be OK to have them be pro only for a short while after a new groupset has been released, for example, but to use something that isn't ever released to the public is clearly against the rules.

User avatar
ms6073
Posts: 4289
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

by ms6073

blaugrana wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:08 pm
The UCI regulation for framesets is more strict and requires pre-approval (for the famous sticker) unlike most components, but everything is still subject to the commercial availability rule, as far as I know.

ARTICLE 1.3.006
The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance
(record or other) shall be not authorised.
So how is it that Ganna's recently accomplished hour record does not run afoul of this section since he used a one-off 3d printed frame manufactured specifically for setting the hour record?
- Michael
"People should stop expecting normal from me... seriously, we all know it's never going to happen"

blaugrana
Posts: 457
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 9:49 pm

by blaugrana

ms6073 wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:00 pm
blaugrana wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:08 pm
The UCI regulation for framesets is more strict and requires pre-approval (for the famous sticker) unlike most components, but everything is still subject to the commercial availability rule, as far as I know.

ARTICLE 1.3.006
The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance
(record or other) shall be not authorised.
So how is it that Ganna's recently accomplished hour record does not run afoul of this section since he used a one-off 3d printed frame manufactured specifically for setting the hour record?
Actually I was wondering that exact same thing when the record was set. Track national teams have been really pushing things in the last few years by just putting their frames for sale on special order at exorbitant prices, but that 3d printed frame goes a step further. Maybe they'll claim that you can order one like it at the same company and they'll make it for you, I don't know.

User avatar
MrCurrieinahurry
Moderator
Posts: 4825
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2020 3:01 pm
Location: London

by MrCurrieinahurry

ImageImage

Sent from my M2101K6G using Tapatalk

Formerly known as Curryinahurry

Karvalo
Posts: 3444
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:40 pm

by Karvalo

ms6073 wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:00 pm
blaugrana wrote:
Tue Nov 01, 2022 3:08 pm
The UCI regulation for framesets is more strict and requires pre-approval (for the famous sticker) unlike most components, but everything is still subject to the commercial availability rule, as far as I know.

ARTICLE 1.3.006
The use of equipment designed especially for the attainment of a particular performance
(record or other) shall be not authorised.
So how is it that Ganna's recently accomplished hour record does not run afoul of this section since he used a one-off 3d printed frame manufactured specifically for setting the hour record?
I suppose because it's a dumb and unenforceable rule. Instead of announcing a new hour record bike you just announce a new very fast track bike which you will also use for an hour record attempt. They did make a slightly more consequential rule change after Ganna's hour that bikes used for records now have to be in production and on the market already, you can't use the prototype authorisation for those attempts anymore. But even then for a custom printed £75k bike there's no practical difference really.

Post Reply