The Wuhan Weapon

[duff_duffy]

Interesting story on fake UCI stickers, Saint Piran in Hot Water Over Allegedly Fake UCI Stickers on Unapproved Frames

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/oth...5131722&ei=167

[jimcav]

but who doesn't hate "moaners".

In all seriousness, can that fine crash a continental team? What does the official UCI sticker cost a team. This kind of cheat makes me think running a team must be very tough without a deep pocket sponsor.

[benb]

How long has this been a thing? The only bike I've ever had that had it is my 2016 Domane.

I am almost certain the BH G5 I had before the Domane did not have the UCI approval badge on it and that bike was definitely used in Pro racing in Europe.

It's not about the team, I don't think they would have been able to get the bike approved. They would have had to work with the Chinese manufacturer + UCI to get the bike approved and then probably have to get new frames built with the logo applied at the factory. You'd think there would be a waiver program for this though where they do a quick inspection of the frame and decide if it is approved and don't make them get bikes with the logos factory applied.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by benb

How long has this been a thing? The only bike I've ever had that had it is my 2016 Domane.

I am almost certain the BH G5 I had before the Domane did not have the UCI approval badge on it and that bike was definitely used in Pro racing in Europe.

It's not about the team, I don't think they would have been able to get the bike approved. They would have had to work with the Chinese manufacturer + UCI to get the bike approved and then probably have to get new frames built with the logo applied at the factory. You'd think there would be a waiver program for this though where they do a quick inspection of the frame and decide if it is approved and don't make them get bikes with the logos factory applied.

The UCI frameset approval program has been in place since 2011. Largely due to the UCI Equipment Commercialization rules, submission for UCI frameset approval is done by the manufacturer. Even if the the team wanted to submit the frames for approval on their own, they may not have had the information required (it requires submitting technical drawings of the frame), and may not have been able to afford it (it the fee is $5,000 CHF per model, plus submitting actual frames for testing). Or the team may simply not have had the time to go through the entire process of getting a frame approved.

Here's the UCI FAQ regarding the process:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/761l7gh..._FRAMESETS.pdf

[vertr]

Bait and switch thread title of the year!

[Dude]

It's the manufacturers responsibility to get it approved and the teams responsibility to verify frames they are racing on are uci approved. Many of the aliexpress bikes (or velobuilds or wherever this came from) claim that the frame is uci approved.

If i recall, the cynical part of it is the UCI trying to control everything but the optimistic part is to ensure frames maintain safety standards so frames aren't crashing the whole peloton or paralyzing riders.

[unterhausen]

I feel like the problem is they can't possibly get them approved, not so much the cost. I thought about getting my frames approved back when the effort was much lower and it cost a more reasonable amount. Not that a pro would ever ride one of my frames.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Dude

It's the manufacturers responsibility to get it approved and the teams responsibility to verify frames they are racing on are uci approved. Many of the aliexpress bikes (or velobuilds or wherever this came from) claim that the frame is uci approved.

It is easy to find out if a UCI approved sticker is genuine. The UCI publishes a list of approved frame+fork modules, so if a bike has a sticker but it isn't on the publicly published list of approved frames, the sticker is bogus. (The UCI also has an approval process and stickers for wheels also, and publishes a list of approved wheels.)

Originally Posted by Dude

If i recall, the cynical part of it is the UCI trying to control everything but the optimistic part is to ensure frames maintain safety standards so frames aren't crashing the whole peloton or paralyzing riders.

You should put that optimistic side in check. The Frame/Fork approval process primarily only checks dimensions. They don't do any kind of strength or impact testing, or brake performance testing, or any of the other kinds of things you might expect for a safety check. The kinds of things they check is that the the frame tubes don't exceed a particular profile and that the wheelbase isn't too long. Mostly, the UCI has their own idea of what bike should look like, so the the UCI approval process just confirms that the bike looks right.

As far as safety, they only require that the bike has been certified to ISO 4210 - but manufacturers may self-certify to this standard, so all the UCI knows is that the manufacturer claims that it has been certified to ISO 4210.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

You should put that optimistic side in check. The Frame/Fork approval process primarily only checks dimensions. They don't do any kind of strength or impact testing, or brake performance testing, or any of the other kinds of things you might expect for a safety check. The kinds of things they check is that the the frame tubes don't exceed a particular profile and that the wheelbase isn't too long. Mostly, the UCI has their own idea of what bike should look like, so the the UCI approval process just confirms that the bike looks right.

As far as safety, they only require that the bike has been certified to ISO 4210 - but manufacturers may self-certify to this standard, so all the UCI knows is that the manufacturer claims that it has been certified to ISO 4210.

seems like this is just a way for UCI rake ibn $5000 per team

[Dude]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

You should put that optimistic side in check. The Frame/Fork approval process primarily only checks dimensions. They don't do any kind of strength or impact testing, or brake performance testing, or any of the other kinds of things you might expect for a safety check. The kinds of things they check is that the the frame tubes don't exceed a particular profile and that the wheelbase isn't too long. Mostly, the UCI has their own idea of what bike should look like, so the the UCI approval process just confirms that the bike looks right.

That kind of tracks when it comes to optimism for the UCI.

[Philster]

It seems like safety is the least believable rationale for certification. Next is sporting fairness and, most likely, a desire for control and more Swiss running around doing Swiss things. Of course the sport’s participants ultimately pay for it.

I wonder what they do with the samples? Does every official get a new bike to “test” each year? Maybe they are sold out the back door.

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by vertr

bait and switch thread title of the year!