Usac does not follow any of the UCI equipment rules except for national championship races. The only usac rules are one brake per wheel and bar end plugs required. I posted the usac rule book above (1 of 2 pages on bikes). There is no 6.8kg, no 33mm cx tire, 4/1 or 3/1 tube shape, dimensions for saddle to bottom bracket, etc.
1 Like
Thoughts on the proposed gearing rule essentially banning anything over 28mm if you are running 54/11 (and following the letter of the rules).
Stupid stacked on top of stupid with a few unforeseen consequences sprinkled in.
4 Likes
Thoughts on 30mm tyres banning gears bigger than 50:11?
1 Like
Well it’s quite simple. Bigger tires are more comfortable. If you’re more comfortable you save energy. And if you’re more comfortable and have more energy at the end of the race, you can sprint faster, which is unsafe. So you make the tires uncomfortable so the riders have less energy to use in the sprint.
/s
1 Like
As long as it makes racing safer! 
The UCI should channel its inner Andy Schleck and ban all downhill segments 
2 Likes
Time taken at the top of all climbs, neutral to the bottom, then restart as a group. Anything >5% descent is neutralized.
1 Like
Same number of teams but fewer riders per team, surely that would help make it safer too. Why not have six riders per team as a max?
1 Like
Conspiracy theory. UCI is bought out by Big Cyclist. (Half satire comment half 100% genuine thought. When you tell me which part is which, let me know).
Big cycling companies are paying UCI behind closed doors to help them sell products. For example, Companies like Specialized and Trek are paying of UCI to make XC more demanding. This gives them the ability to sell “New XC race bikes that are faster for the new demanding and challenging race course”.
Shimano is paying of UCI to ban some gear options. This way, they can cut at Sram. Other companies are paying UCI to ban bar widths so that they can sell more bars. Or wheels ect.
We will go 5 to 8y from now and UCI will “realize” or find ways to make them safe again thus making us buy more stuff.
With that, I leave yall do debate the only thing I have added to society within the last decade.
We went down this path when Grand Tour teams were dropped from 9 to 8 riders, and then over the last several years the number of teams were bumped up, so we are back with the same size peloton (or it might be slightly larger)
I’ve been saying this for years but not for safety. Just think it would make the racing more dynamic with teams not having total control over the peloton. Harder to chase down moves. Maybe less likely to pull back breaks. Really have to think hard about the makeup of the team roster (stages vs GC vs sprints). The safety aspect would be an added benefit.
3 Likes
Mountain descents are not the most dangerous spots. It’s city finishes and unmarked bollards and things like that. The UCI has a history of completely missing those, and riders have almost died as a result. If they put half the effort into course safety as equipment regulation, that would make things safer than any equipment rule they’ve ever made. (Well, perhaps not having 2 brakes that need to work).
1 Like
They are both important, but the likelihood of dying is significantly higher on a mountain descent vs hitting a bollard. Severity is higher for the descent. Frequency of occurrence is higher for the bollard. Both are way more important than most other factors.
1 Like
Nah, they should set it at a w/kg limit! Can’t have a threshold over 5w/kg. See if they let me in
1 Like
I think it’s a case of and as opposed to either–or: the UCI should think of ways to make both safer. Descents is a really tricky thing, because good descenders (think Tom Pidcock) make for great TV. IMHO it is a part of the sport. But just like racing the Nürburgring in the 1970s was not deemed safe enough, we can do similar things nowadays.
E. g. are downhill sprints to the finish a good idea? What about unsafe spots and segments, can these be selectively neutralized?