<:: Welcome to Slowtwitch.com ::>

In the recent reckoning of certain time trial bikes of major stars illegal—in each case right before the intended use of these bikes—the Union Cycliste Internationale has gone past just incompetence. Now it's sticking its finger in the eye of the very companies, and their customers, keeping its sport alive and afloat.

The funding for Pro Tour and Continental teams is shifting away from non-endemic toward endemic sources. As company after company leaves cycling and its drug problems, brands like Specialized, Trek, Cannondale, Scott, Cervelo and others are taking up the slack.

I don't think this means the UCI should allow the use of illegal bikes only because bike companies are paying pro cycling's freight. Rather, that the UCI should, at the very least, treat these companies as decently as the gardening contractor that maintains the grounds at its headquarters; or the company that cleans its offices and vacuums its floors.

I wrote the UCI's technical chair, Jean Wauthier, on the 19th of January, 2010, explaining that we're hosting an online discussion—several hundred comments long and growing—on the legality of specific TT bikes. This, because among our readers are a lot of riders who—while not World class athletes—will still consider UCI legality before purchasing a Specialized Shiv, Scott Plasma3, or Giant Trinity Advanced bike. I wrote him this:

"All these bikes have been public (if not yet quite for sale) for several months now, so, it seems reasonable that end-users, and the retailers who'll look to purchase the bikes, should know their legality status. Are they legal or not, according to the UCI? And, please, I hope you won't answer by simply referring me to the rules... Can you please help by answering this question of legality as regards these three bikes, in their current forms?"

Mr. Wauthier was kind enough (as he always is) to answer my email, but what he did not do was answer my question. He wrote,

"Our technical regulation did not change since the year 2000... The rules are known, available for all on our site."

He added, though,

"We received most manufacturers of bicycles during 2009 and, theoretically, there should not be main issues in 2010 with the new models of time trial bicycles. However, as for all the laws and rules, we are not safe from transgressive behaviors."

What does this mean? That the Specialized Shiv is legal in its 2009 form, but, Specialized committed a "transgressive behavior" as regards this bike's design between 2009 and 2010? Did this bike change? Mr. Wauthier also added,

"There can always be a doubt or a complementary question (infallible with a technical regulation), there is an 'UCI materiel unit' able to give the correct information."

I take this to mean that, if you can't determine on your own whether your bicycle is illegal notwithstanding the rules which have remained unchanged for a decade, there is a "UCI materiel unit" that can answer your question. I must assume Specialized has attempted to access this "UCI materiel unit" and, failing anything else, I should think that I accessed it on behalf of our readers by asking Mr. Wauthier for his clear and unequivocal statement as to the legality of these bikes.

I don't really care whether the TT bikes by Specialized or Giant are UCI legal. In fact, these are the two major bike manufacturers that don't advertise on Slowtwitch, so, I gain nothing by going to bat for either. But it's just bad form to wait for the moment of maximum inconvenience for these prime bike industry sponsors; their retailers; their end users; their teams; their riders; to announce the illegality of these bikes! Especially when they've been legal in the past under the very same rules!

This is not simply incompetence. Now it's bad manners.

I reminded Mr. Wauthier, during my January 19th email, that we'd corresponded before. On the 4th of December, 2007, I forwarded to him proposed new text for 1.3.013 of the UCI rulebook, which states that saddle noses may not protrude more forward than 5cm behind the bottom bracket. My suggested rule language was as follows:

"1.3.013: The nose of the saddle shall protrude no further forward than 17 centimeters in front of a line passing through the bottom bracket spindle and inclined rearward at an angle of 77 degrees from the horizontal."

I suggested to Mr. Wauthier that 77 degrees could be 78, 76, whatever his organization chose. The point, in any case, is that this new rule would finally cease to discriminate against women, and, against those of shorter stature. It finally applies an angular rule to an angular world. It also guards against "gaming" the rule through the use of a saddle with an overlong nose.

I attached a schematic to show the ease with which a fixture could be built and used. You could test bikes so quickly that they could be rolled past the fixture without stopping. I offered to build and send the UCI such a fixture.

Mr. Wauthier, it must be noted, has always replied to me and, for that, he is a gentleman. Nevertheless, those he oversees are not so cordial.

"Your suggestion will be analyzed by our material and equipment unit next year," he explained, "because it is not possible to change or modify our rules during both olympics and pre-olympics years."

Of course, "next year" came and went, with no correspondence from his material and equipment unit forthcoming. The cycling world still lives under an inequity so striking that some women actually road race on illegal bikes according to 1.3.013 (because mass start races do not feature bike testing), but these same ladies must enter timed races with bikes even slacker than their mass start bikes, just to conform to this blatantly discriminatory rule.

I've co-authored rules that are in force today at world and national governing bodies, including triathlon's version of 1.3.013. The rule I suggested to the UCI (and still suggest) is an improvement on the triathlon-specific rule I wrote upwards of two decades ago. This is not to suggest that my language is the best; rather, that rational cycling rules can be successfully executed by governing bodies, and someone Mr. Wauthier respects (I'm clearly not that man) needs to prevail upon him or his "material and equipment unit" to address the clear message the UCI sends to its female, short-of-stature, and masters riders: you do not matter.

At a certain point, then, it must be acknowledged that the good habit of returning correspondence is not enough, whether it's about rule inequities or the simple question of whether an industry can depend on the legality of a particular, high-profile, well-known, model of bike. The return of correspondence must include substance. To do less is transgressive behavior.

And, bad manners.