The UCI is dead! Long live cycling!

shedfull

Many are talking of the demise of the Tour de France and of cycle racing in general. I would argue that it is the Union Cycliste Internationale that has failed cycling spectacularly. It is time for cycling to ditch the UCI and start again.

The strength of the UCI derives from its close links with the International Olympic Committee, otherwise the cycle industry would have abandoned this discredited trade body ages ago. But now, after this final farce, surely even the IOC will lose patience?

The UCI's Pro-Tour 'initiative' was a blatant attempt to break the stranglehold of the likes of Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO): and why did the UCI not inform ASO about Rasmussen's failings?

Quite apart from the recent power-struggles between the three major national tours and the UCI, the UCI has been holding back cycling for 70 years since it decided (at the behest of the industry) to sideline the newer, faster breed of bikes with a different riding position. It continues to restrict riding positions (viz. Graeme Obree) and to hold back progress toward lighter bikes by imposing a minimum weight.

Now, with the UCI in its death throes after this fatal shot in the arm, the time is right to start again. A new golden age of cycling can begin. The Tour de France could survive but under a radically new governing body.

All we need is a visionary whom we can rally around and who has the courage and the influence to put the dying beast out of its misery. Cycling's Bernie Ecclestone, perhaps. Any suggestions?

Eurostar

I hope the UCI gets the chop. Hopefully then we'll see an end to their silly little rules about bicycle design and rider position, and we might get some real innovation in the industry. If it wasn't for the UCI the diamond frame wouldn't be a sacred cow.

LangerDan

I'd argue that a Bernie Ecclestone is tha last thing the sport needs at the moment. F1 has become a multi-billion beast that even that big manufacturers struggle to justify. We need to encourage more sponsors and teams, not fewer. Cycling a la Ecclestone would have a ProTour of maybe 4 or 6 teams - and one head guy getting very rich off the proceedings.

Don't lose sight of the fact that all the UCI controls is racing - its rules and equipment. There is nothing stopping people riding 5 kg bikes, using Obree "superman" positions or blatting around in recumbents - in their own free time. I'd agree that there are rules and regulations in place to pander to the requirements of the manufacturers on the various panels, but similarly the majority are logical. Also, don't forget that pro-racing is only a small element of what falls under the UCI remit and what appears to be irrelevant to a multi-million euro team racing in the continent is essential for,say, managing racing for schoolkids in Africa. If you were to create an organising body from the ground up, I'd bet that most of the regulations would be similar.

One of the big problems has been the cosistency in the application of technical rules but don't forget that for most (90% ?) situations, the rules are being applied by a group of volunteer officals and commissaires. Perhaps things could be better on the ground if these people were at least partially paid and better trained but that would require more money and you know how cyclists love parting with cash.

I believe a restructuring of the UCI would serve the sport better than a replacement. The may need to be a clear out at the top, particularly of those with close links to pro racing over the past 30 years. Perhaps the new board should be composed of several members with no links to the sport whatsoever.

As for worrying about the IOC and what they think? I'd lay strong odds that the IOC would make the UCI look

No, I'm not on the UCI, a commissaire or even a licence holder but I'd hate to see the whole thing flung in the bin because of what the pros are doing. To go back to your Ecclestone analogy - should the FIA be disbanded because of the cheating in F1?

Ste_S

Call me a traditionalist, but I'm actually glad the UCI restricts riders position.

Nowt wrong with recumbants, but for me they're a different beast and should probably have their own events.

Eurostar

Yes, people are free to ride a 'bent in their free time - but the reality is that 98% of the bike industry is controlled by Giant, Specialized and Trek who use racing as their principal marketing tool. That's why the stuff in the shops never changes. My 1984 racer is virtually the same as what's in Evans' window today. It's a joke. If the designers had a free hand we would see lots of innovation, some of which would eventually filter through to touring bikes and commuters. Wouldn't that be fun?

LangerDan

To be honest, Eurostar, I don't think things would change that much. The diamond frame is a very simple and effective mechanism. I'd guess that if there was a better all-round alternative, we'd see it used a lot more in non-racing applications such as commuting and touring, particularly in the custom-built field where designers and customers don't have the limitations of regualtion or cost . Recumbents and the like are faster but are generally heavier, more expensive and have their own limitations.

The fact that there hasn't been a significant change in the last 25 (or 50) years in shape is more to do with the fact that the original design (in place long before the UCI exisited, BTW) was pretty good. Occasionally you see theses rendered CAD images of what a bike of the future may look like, but they are essentially evolutions of what we have now.


Look at cars - there hasn't been a significant change for many decades now. A standard passenger car from the 50's isn't substantially different from what you have now. It may be better built, quicker and have more toys but its still a steel box on four wheels. No hover cars, no jet bikes, no personal rocket packs.

Ratkilla

The UCI are as useful as a chocolate fireguard. All these schnapps sodden old gits in their blazers running about with their hair on fire blithering on and on and blaming everyone but themselves. Totally inept. They should retire.
What the UCI will have to deal with is the fact that ASO stitched them up politically and so adeptly. So much so that the UCI are on the verge of irrelevance.
Never mind the credibility of the Tour. The crediility of the UCI as a governing body is shot to pieces. The sooner the blazers are put out to pasture the better.
What we need is a Platini style figure as president not some career administrator type who has lost contact with reality.
The UCI, IOC, FIFA are all the same. Populated by old men raging against the dying of the light.
As long as they have their junkets to wherever with free booze and prostitutes on tap they're happy.
I applaud ASO for their excellent coup d'etat! Well done.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27072007/ ... k-uci.html

HippyFergus

Ratkilla wrote:

I applaud ASO for their excellent coup d'etat! Well done.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27072007/ ... k-uci.html

Yeah, I'd spotted that too Ratkilla - it's a pretty bold (but not unexpected) move and ASO has been relatively pro-active in the past couple of weeks; I'd like to see what comes of it. With the Vuelta coming up it'll be interesting to see if Unipublic follows siut and leaves the UCI/Protour under threat...

Eurostar

LangerDan wrote:

I'd guess that if there was a better all-round alternative, we'd see it used a lot more in non-racing applications such as commuting and touring

I expect you're right. But I have a fantasy about bizarre contraptions being built to win a time trial up Alpe d'Huez - things which overcome the climbing limitations of today's bents. Just imagine what would happen to bents if the resources of the big 3 manufacturers were redirected into them. Then I imagine these contraptions eventually filtering down to the Carradice saddlebag brigade with their long socks. That end of the market is so conservative that it holds back progress as much as the UCI. In fact I bet the gents of the UCI still use toe-clips with their clunky black nuns' style Carnac touring shoes.

I object on principle to the UCI interfering with what ought to be a free market, and I suspect that if the original designers of the DF had known about aerodynamics and had access to today's materials and manufacturing techniques bikes would be very different today.

trailtrash

For goodness sake, don't tel the UCI that are some young ladies that ride bikes with proper crossbars these days then!!

LangerDan

Don't forget that the two (possibly) three positive tests came up during the race, on ASOs watch. The only thing that the UCI let run out was the Rasmussen affair.

Does anyone honestly believe that ASO /WADA will put in place - and more importanly fund - a full testing regime for all levels of the sport throughout the year, regardless of whether or not riders are taking part in ASO events? The UCI will continue to exist at most levels, if not ProTour. ASO are just like Sky, looking to create a Premiership of riders and events. In order to recover their investment, you can probably look forward to some Pay per View arrangements(not to mention the appearance of a new "prawn baguette" type of corporate supporter!)

A pox on all their houses.

afx237vi

^^ What he said.

What does anyone think the ASO will do that the UCI will not? Does anyone trust the ASO to do more against doping than the UCI already are? The ASO are the ones who invited Astana!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

LangerDan

McQuaid is currently being interviewed on eurosport. He's made the comment that much of the out-of-competition testing of targetted riders during the run up to the Tour was agreed with ASO - they even jointly agreed the list of riders to be targetted. I think we are being spun every which way at the moment.

ricadus

With the ASO (and presumably the other race owners in Italy and Spain) removing races from the ProTour will this mean less races on the TV, or at least Eurosport, since each of the race owners will want to maximize the profit they earn from selling TV rights? Eurosport, for example, probably doesn't sell enough ad space to buy in races from different owners if each wants to hike their prices.

I also see the move as a potentially parochializing one, since French owners may want more French teams, Italian owners more Italian riders in their respective races.

I rememeber in past years the Milan-Sanremo and Tour of Lombardy races, as well as the Giro d'Italia itself, have been affected by disputes with their owner over the price of TV rights, so I am not confident that the blanket coverage of the cycling season we have had in the last couple of years would be certain to continue.

OffTheBackAdam

Will we have the ludicrous situation, as with boxing and several martial arts, where there are 3 or 4 "World Champions" being touted round for each division? (For division, read weight/age/sex).
Their are problems at many levels here. The race organisors, ASO being the largest, naturally want what's best for their finances. The French public want to see French teams & riders (I noted Roche's statement that Boogard should've got the most aggressive award, not stage winner Casar!) in the TdF (and other French races, I've no doubt.) The Italian public, Italian teams & riders (How many times did the Giro get fixed, either by route design or actually during the race, to get the right, ie Italian, winner?) and ditto Spain.
To gve the UCI their just recognition, they have tried to expand cycling beyond the shores of mainland Europe.
Have they restricted cycle design? Probably, but material technology has circumvented some of these restrictions, disc wheels being a shining example here, but do we see commuter bikes equipped with disc wheels? No, we don't, because they aren't safe for everyday use.
Apart from fairing around rider & bike, which would undoubtbly improve flat/downhill performance, but probbaly cook the rider going up the Galibier and prove lethal in crosswind conditions and recumbants, which again I assume would lead to flat/downhill improvements but hinder climbing severely (?) there's little to do to alter the basic design.
The diamond frame has survived so long because it is a highly efficient design.

floatman

I can't understand why so many people appear to spport the UCI's luddite restrictions on bicycle design with the argument that the diamond shape is the most efficient and nothing much would change if it were removed. If that were true what on earth is the point of having the restriction!! What do we have to fear from giving human inventiveness and innovation free reign with the design and build of human powered vehicles for racing?

pigman

why does the UCI have to control bike racing? Who says so?
If we go back 20 yrs ago to domestic racing, the BCF had all control and say so. Someone (TLI) challenged this and set up their own races, as did the LVRC. I remember the BCF tried to threaten their members by saying that if you were caught in a TLI event, then your BCF membership would be cancelled - people ignored it and we are now where we are. Nowadays there are probably more of these events than BCF (BC) events. Why did the BCF have to control bike racing? Who said so?
I acknowledge the grand tour organisers are trying to do a modern-day TLI (larger scale of course) and good luck to them, but why does the UCI still have hold over the racing scene. Is it down to the fact that all the domestic federations (like BC) subscribe to the UCI? Can the grass roots memebership not change this, by insisting that the BC's of the world don't subscribe to the UCI?
I dunno though, maybe someone else does, I'm not a BC member - the CTC's better for me and the kids.

DaveP-SSL

shedfull wrote:

Many are talking of the demise of the Tour de France and of cycle racing in general.

Richrd2205

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Apart from fairing around rider & bike, which would undoubtbly improve flat/downhill performance, but probbaly cook the rider going up the Galibier and prove lethal in crosswind conditions and recumbants, which again I assume would lead to flat/downhill improvements but hinder climbing severely (?) there's little to do to alter the basic design.
The diamond frame has survived so long because it is a highly efficient design.

Aye, the DF is a highly efficient design, but the idea that a Fujin SL-II (at 8.4kg) would "hinder climbing severely" is a bit of a joke: any losses would easily be made up on the downhill...
These are designs with a tiny fraction of the budget & experience behind them that DF designs have...

The UCI nearly banned compact frames, how many of us now ride them? C'mon, we can surely encourage more frame types & innovation...

LangerDan

Richrd2205 wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Apart from fairing around rider & bike, which would undoubtbly improve flat/downhill performance, but probbaly cook the rider going up the Galibier and prove lethal in crosswind conditions and recumbants, which again I assume would lead to flat/downhill improvements but hinder climbing severely (?) there's little to do to alter the basic design.
The diamond frame has survived so long because it is a highly efficient design.

Aye, the DF is a highly efficient design, but the idea that a Fujin SL-II (at 8.4kg) would "hinder climbing severely" is a bit of a joke: any losses would easily be made up on the downhill...
These are designs with a tiny fraction of the budget & experience behind them that DF designs have...

The UCI nearly banned compact frames, how many of us now ride them? C'mon, we can surely encourage more frame types & innovation...

Even if bikes like the Fujin were to get to the 6.8 kg limit I think that they still wouldn't be the best devices for climbing. There's a lot to be said for being able to stand up on the pedals!

I think most riders are already at the limit on the down-hill sections of the bigger climbs - going faster would be impractical. Apart from anything else there would be an issue of heat build-up in the braking systems.

The recumbent would be best on flat / slightly rolling stages but would probably have all the excitement of an F1 race.

IIRC, the reason the UCI looked to ban the comapct frames was a belief that it would increase manufactuing costs. In the end, Mike Burrows had to make a submission to the UCI to show that just three frame sizes (S, M,L) would cover the vast majority of rider sizes and was in fact a cheaper way of making frames.

In any case, I think the UCI permitted the frames so that shortarses could go racing too!

Kléber

Bike design is the least of the UCI's problems right now. But maybe it's related to doping: the fans want to see a credible race, with riders on an equal basis, both in terms of training and kit.

It seems much of the sport is linked to suffering, the legends of the sport are based on rides done over the highest mountains or roughest cobbles. Maybe it boils down to about man overcoming his environment by strength?

So sitting down or riding behind a fairing takes riders another step away from their environment and makes it easier. Of course, you "suffer faster" but the point for the average fan - and not for those of us buying aerospace spin-offs for our enjoyment - is that cycling is a simple tale of man and machine. Make the machinery any more important and the human element diminishes.

That said, some rules don't seem to change. The 6.8kg limit could easily move to 6.5kg now and it's arbitrary, ignoring rider weight or size etc, the same goes for position rules.