Canyon, Innovation, UCI, Article

[sfo1]

Interesting read this AM in Forbes.

I have to agree; why limit innovation? UCI is bad for riders; more so for innovation. I know they don't want 'rich vs poor' teams, but that ship left the harbor years ago.

Snubbing Cycling’s Governing Body Canyon Unveils 13lb 11oz Bicycle

Canyon's new "UCI-illegal" road bicycle.

The world’s governing body for cycle sport—the Switzerland-based Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)—rules that road bicycles raced competitively must weigh above 6.8kg or 14.99lbs. The regulation was established in 2000 with the ratification of the UCI’s so-called Lugano Charter of 1996.

The minimum weight restriction was imposed to ensure that teams compete on relatively similar machines to avoid disadvantaging cyclists from poorer nations.

“The real meaning of cycle sport,” argued the UCI in 1996, “is to bring riders together to compete on an equal footing and thereby decide which of them is physically the best.”

The UCI also believed the restriction would prevent manufacturers from dangerously downgrading the structural integrity of bicycle frames.

However, advances in technology mean the stipulation is long past its sell-by date—manufacturers can now easily build carbon-composite-framed bicycles that are well under the weight limit. Those team bikes that flout the rules have to be made heavier for use in competition through the use of weights attached to the frame, a ludicrous situation.

On August 11, Canyon, the world’s largest direct-to-consumer bicycle supplier, released a CFR (Canyon Factory Racing) version of its Ultimate road bike with a complete bike weighing just 13lb 11oz (6.2kg).

The German manufacturer admitted in a press release that it was producing a “UCI-illegal” bicycle.

While the Ultimate CFR can’t be raced in competitions sanctioned by the UCI, it may help to force the organization to shift on its 24-year-old rule.

“If we forget that the technology used is subordinate to the project itself, and not the reverse,” argued the Lugano Charter in 1996, “we cross the line beyond which technology takes hold of the system and seeks to impose its own logic.”

High-end bicycle manufacturers have long argued that the UCI’s stance prevents them from introducing technological improvements, which has hindered cycle sport. Innovations from cycle sport often filter down to consumer machines.

“Prototypes can be developed [that do not] have to take into account constraints such as safety,” argued the UCI’s Lugano Charter, fearing “radical innovations prepared in secret.”

“The Ultimate CFR is all about delivering unparalleled stiffness-to-weight for absolute efficiency,” says Canyon.

“Lightness is essential to these builds, but so is durability, which is why all 675g frames and 285g forks exceed our rigorous testing standards.”

The company statement adds: “This incredible weight is achieved by applying quality ultra-high modulus pitch-based carbon fibers rarely seen in the industry. The material is so special, we initially had to be granted exclusive permission by the Japanese Ministry of Defence just to gain access to it.”

Canyon started using these Japanese fibers in 2017 via the Chinese frame-maker Quest Composites. The exclusivity has since lapsed, and Quest Composites now also produces high-end frames for Trek USA using the same fibers.

There’s another connection with Trek: Canyon was spun out from what was once the largest Trek dealership in Germany.

Canyon Bicycles GmbH was formed in 2001 by the current CEO, 58-year-old Roman Arnold, and was the new company name for Rad-Sport Arnold, a large bike shop in Koblenz founded in 1985 as RTI Sports, a distributor of Italian road-bike parts. (RTI Sports was co-founded by Roman’s brother Franc, who later founded Ergon, the grips-to-saddles brand, also based out of Koblenz.)

Rad-Sport Arnold sold an own-label bike line called Radical, the name of which was changed to Canyon in 1996. The company started designing its own Asia-made bikes in 1998.

The brand has a clinically-clean, high-tech, new-build factory outside the city limits of Koblenz.

The Ultimate CFR is available online from today in two builds. The Ultimate CFR Disc Di2 (£7,149) is fitted with a Shimano Dura-Ace Di2 groupset and 50mm deep DT Swiss ARC 1100 DICUT wheels. The Ultimate CFR Disc EPS (£8,499) sports a Campagnolo Super Record EPS groupset and DT Swiss PRC 1100 25Y Anniversary wheels.

[Mark McM]

I'm all for safety standards and strength/endurance regulations for racing equipment. But an arbitrary weight limit makes no sense. Especially when that arbitrary limit is almost 25 years old.

Of course, the only people that are limited by UCI requirements are competitors in UCI racers. Here in the US, only professonal racers and top amateurs are limited to UCI rules - most racers are lower category amateurs, and race under USAC rules (which has no bike weight limit regulations). And unlike professional racers, we amateurs have the luxury of being able to chose our own bikes, so many US racers are already using bikes that are under the UCI weight limits. And of course, most cyclists don't race at all, so they can ride whatever they want.

I wonder though - if the weight limit were to be removed, what would happen to the push for disc brakes on racing bikes? Disc brakes add an additional 1 to 1 1/2 pounds to a bike, which hurts uphill performance. Would we see riders going back to rim brakes for hilly races? And if so, what would happen to those claims that disc brakes allow one to go faster on descents.

[m_sasso]

Most forms of racing have a minimum weight limit from Keirin, Pinewood Derby, IYRU/World Sailing, Autocrossing/Solo racing to F1 and most vehicles are ballasted. Why should road cycling be any different? It some what equalizes the competition and in no way beyond incentive restricts development.

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by m_sasso

Most forms of racing have a minimum weight limit from Keirin, Pinewood Derby, IYRU/World Sailing, Autocrossing/Solo racing to F1 and most vehicles are ballasted. Why should road cycling be any different? It some what equalizes the competition and in no way beyond incentive restricts development.

I would argue that there is a marketing angle (as exploited by Canyon above) to being able to claim a bike so awesome you can't race it because it's cheating. (which isn't true, as you point out - you just put some weights in the bottom bracket).

As for weight, disc brakes, going up and going down, that's just a math problem right? You're going to spend way more time climbing than descending - does the reduction in weight on the ascent make up for being able to brake a second or two later on the descent? Probably yes - there is a reason many stages/GC are won on uphill attacks where someone puts a minute+ into a rival over the course of 5k.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by m_sasso

Most forms of racing have a minimum weight limit from Keirin, Pinewood Derby, IYRU/World Sailing, Autocrossing/Solo racing to F1 and most vehicles are ballasted. Why should road cycling be any different? It some what equalizes the competition and in no way beyond incentive restricts development.

The types of racing you mention usually have different equipment classes (and Pinewood derby has a maximum weight rule). For example, FIA auto racing has Formula 1, Formula 2, Formula 3, Formula E, Formula Vee, etc., all racing on the same courses with different equipment rules The idea is to to recognize that there are different levels of competition, each with different levels of equipment restriction to maintain parity within that level.

Bicycle racing has different team and racer classes, but not different equipment classes. If they wanted to formulate equipment rules to better balance competition, they would have different equipment rules for each team or racer category.

[johnmdesigner]

£8000 is a pre-owned car or a partial down payment on a new living abode.
So I don't really care.

[Toddykins]

Originally Posted by johnmdesigner

£8000 is a pre-owned car or a partial down payment on a new living abode.
So I don't really care.

Its a good deal cheaper than an SL7/Emonda/etc. Bike pricing may well be out of control, but Canyon is not the one pushing this...

[Big Dan]

Originally Posted by Toddykins

Its a good deal cheaper than an SL7/Emonda/etc. Bike pricing may well be out of control, but Canyon is not the one pushing this...

Hey back in the day Serotta was a pioneer on the subject.

[reuben]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I'm all for safety standards and strength/endurance regulations for racing equipment. But an arbitrary weight limit makes no sense. Especially when that arbitrary limit is almost 25 years old.

Good to know that the weight I've put on in the last 25 years is OK. That was an arbitrary limit, too.

[Coffee Rider]

Originally Posted by Big Dan

Hey back in the day Serotta was a pioneer on the subject.

I had heard that having the most expensive bikes was also linked ego for Serotta, though I don't think that was a huge part of the price, though I recall a Serotta Legend being way more than a Seven Axiom in 2003.

[vincenz]

Really impressive what they’ve been able to achieve here with those weight numbers for the frame and fork. And the price is actually “reasonable” for an absolute top of the line superbike.

[duff_duffy]

I thought Cannondale made a UCI illegal frame years ago. Wasn’t the six13 team too light?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by duff_duffy

I thought Cannondale made a UCI illegal frame years ago. Wasn’t the six13 team too light?

The frame wasn't illegal, the bike was (The frame is typically only 15-25% of the weight of a bike, after all). A number of companies have produced and sold bikes under the UCI weight limit - many of them with UCI approved frames. For example, the top model in the Trek Emonda line has been under the UCI weight limit straight off the showroom floor for a number of years.

[martl]

Didn't know Forbes did paid product placement. What's this supposed to be, a Canyon ad?

The discussion is old, all the arguments have been exchanged.
A race ready bike under UCI limit is old news since 2000 at least.

Yep, they could adjust the weight limit (didn't they plan to do that some time) a bit to what is achievable with a high end frame, that would be maybe half a kilo less, who cares?

If you ask me, a regulation that favors rider performance over technology is a good thing, cycling is not only Froome racing the tour but also 18 year old Catalyn from Lithuania racing a weekend criterium on a very tight budget and possibly *not* with access to the latest S-Works.
Wanna see a designers contest, watch a HPV race. Oh the guy with the best CFK fairing has lapped the field yet again, oh the joy

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by martl

Didn't know Forbes did paid product placement. What's this supposed to be, a Canyon ad?

The discussion is old, all the arguments have been exchanged.
A race ready bike under UCI limit is old news since 2000 at least.

Yep, they could adjust the weight limit (didn't they plan to do that some time) a bit to what is achievable with a high end frame, that would be maybe half a kilo less, who cares?

If you ask me, a regulation that favors rider performance over technology is a good thing, cycling is not only Froome racing the tour but also 18 year old Catalyn from Lithuania racing a weekend criterium on a very tight budget and possibly *not* with access to the latest S-Works.
Wanna see a designers contest, watch a HPV race. Oh the guy with the best CFK fairing has lapped the field yet again, oh the joy

Of COURSE it is....bet Canyon is jumping up and down with this 'ad'. Remember, all you can really 'measure' is weight and price so light and expensive? Gotta be great, right? About a kilo 'under' the UCI limit...for a weekend warrior who weighs 90k..but, those guys will eat this up so on Sunday, his buddies can walk over and lift it up(the universal test for bike goodness) and proclaim...oooo, ahhh...