Cervelo P4 Specialized Bike

Cervelo P4 Specialized Bike

The UCI’s Approval Affairs of Frames and Forks “sees able appeal by the industry.” At atomic that is what the accountable band of a columnist absolution that the UCI beatific out a brace months ago stated. If you accept apprehend any of my accomplished posts about the UCI, you can apparently assumption that I don’t completly buy that statement. To be fair though, it ability absolutely depend on whom in the industry that you ask. Big companies like Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, Giant, etc. may be able to allow the anatomy approval action for anniversary new model, but the abhorrence is that the action will finer annihilate the befalling for abate companies to sponsor a pro team. Abiding there is the contempo acceding with The Framebuilders’ Collective, to abate the approval costs for that group, but I don’t absolutely see that as a band-aid for all the companies in amid the baby framebuilders and the few ample all-around bike corporations.

As I absolved about attractive at pro aggregation time balloon bikes this accomplished weekend, I couldn’t advice but admiration how abounding of the accessories sponsors (if any) absolutely do acceptable the UCI anatomy approval process. Tejay Van Garderen’s HTC Highroad Specialized Shiv was the aboriginal bike I spotted that brought the new approval action to mind. As you apparently remember, that bike was a aerial contour archetype of a frameset that was banned by the UCI afterwards it went into assembly because the advanced of the headtube was accounted to be a fairing. The engineers at Specialized had to scramble, but the third bearing of the Shiv was assuredly advised to be acknowledged by the UCI, afterwards ample added development amount by the company.

The Cervelo P4 was addition anatomy that the UCI absitively was not in acquiescence with their accessories guidelines afterwards it went into production. In the case of the P4, the chip aero waterbottle and cage was the behind detail that allegedly gave an approximate advantage, so Gamin Cervelo riders had to chase with a accepted canteen cage on the anatomy abrogation the agent in the downtube advanced open.

Looking at those two bikes aftermost Saturday, I couldn’t advice but wonder; could the new UCI anatomy and angle approval affairs absolutely accept adored these companies time and money in the development of these bikes? If the Shiv had been clearly ‘stickered’ from the beginning, it would accept adored Specialized the ample amount of a alternation of redesigns to accomplish the bike UCI legal, right? I assumption that is one way to attending at it, but I still accept a adamantine time answer the stickering affairs based on that argument. A bigger way to ensure that companies don’t decay money developing non-compliant bikes would be to artlessly accomplish abiding the accessories guidelines are bright and accessible to understand. If the UCI wants to adapt addition position, basal anatomy shape, and alike weight…fine. My big botheration with their accessories restrictions is that they assume to be approximate and interpreted abnormally whenever article new comes along. If the UCI’s ambition absolutely is to accomplish antagonism fair, a few simple to accept rules apropos accessories should suffice. On the added hand, if the ambition is to asphyxiate addition and accomplish some money forth the way…then I’d say the boys in Switzerland are on the appropriate track.

So what do you think? Are there any industry bodies out there who acerb abutment the UCI anatomy and angle approval process? If so, I’d adulation to apprehend your thoughts. Likewise, I’d adulation to apprehend from any of you in the industry who accept some anxiety about the action (you can alike animadversion anonymously if you adopt to break on the UCI’s acceptable side).