UCI wheel regulations

[sogood]

This is funny. Mavic R-SYS wheelsets are on the approved list.

Yeah. What's that about? R -SYS spoke fragility a myth?

They passed the test and splintered on the ride.

[fredown]

Cycling Australia have announced an amendment to their stance on this matter:-

"The following ammendments were approved by the recent CA Board with immediate effect:

*
A 'Standard' wheel is defined as a wheel manufactured entirely of metal and having 16 or more spokes.
*
It shall be the sole responsibility of all competitors to ensure the wheels used in any mass start road competition comply with Annexure 6 of Cycling Australia's Technical Regulations - UCI Bike Regulation 1.3.018. Should a competitor use a wheel which is in breach of this regulation and that wheel is found to have caused injury to any person or damage to property, the competitor using these wheels may be liable for all costs arising from the incident."


This would seem to mean that any all metal wheel with at least 16 spokes is legal but that you can ride anything provided you accept liability for any damage caused.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Cycling Australia have announced an amendment to their stance on this matter:-

"The following ammendments were approved by the recent CA Board with immediate effect:

*
A 'Standard' wheel is defined as a wheel manufactured entirely of metal and having 16 or more spokes.
*
It shall be the sole responsibility of all competitors to ensure the wheels used in any mass start road competition comply with Annexure 6 of Cycling Australia's Technical Regulations - UCI Bike Regulation 1.3.018. Should a competitor use a wheel which is in breach of this regulation and that wheel is found to have caused injury to any person or damage to property, the competitor using these wheels may be liable for all costs arising from the incident."


This would seem to mean that any all metal wheel with at least 16 spokes is legal but that you can ride anything provided you accept liability for any damage caused.

I don't read it like that.

for example:
1. a commissaire may prevent you from starting in the first place if using a non-conforming wheel (so why risk not racing).
2. a competitor may, rightly, lodge a protest against your result if you were using a wheel that didn't conform to the regulations. It has already happened in the UK when Brad Wiggins 1st place result from a UK TT (which have their own wheel regs) just prior to the TdF was turned into a DQ because his front wheel did not meet the regs.

[fredown]

Alex,
Yes you are right. I have received this clarification from CA:-

The difficulty Cycling Australia faces in scrutineering all competitors bikes prior to every race would place an unrealistic workload upon our officials and so CA obtained legal opinion to make the competitor responsible in a legal sense for any damages or injury arising out of an incident cased by a rider using non approved wheels.
It does not mean that commissaires will not enforce the requirement. If a rider is found to be using a non approved wheel they could be prevented from competing or if they have competed they can be disqualified, suspended or fined or a combination of all 3.
Cycling Australia, may also conduct random scrutineering of competitors bikes in much the same way as random drug testing is conducted.
It would be foolish to think a commissaire will not act if they spot a non approved wheel.

[twizzle]

So the bit about 'standard wheels' is meant to mean that all wheels with more than 16 spokes are legal again, despite the UCI rules?

[Richard.L]

God dam i needa rethink my wheel choice now.....(Was really interested in Easton)

[Alex Simmons/RST]

So the bit about 'standard wheels' is meant to mean that all wheels with more than 16 spokes are legal again, despite the UCI rules?

No. Perhaps you should read the UCI rule. The CA rule is consistent with that.

1.3.018 Wheels of the bicycle may vary in diameter between 70 cm maximum and 55 cm minimum, including the tyre. For the cyclo-cross bicycle the width of the tyre shall not exceed 35 mm and it may not incorporate any form of spike or stud.

For massed start competitions in the disciplines road and cyclo-cross, only wheel designs granted prior approval by the UCI may be used. Wheels shall have at least 12 spokes; spokes can be round, flattened or oval, as far as no dimension of their sections exceeds 10 mm. In order to be granted approval wheels must have passed a rupture test as prescribed by the UCI in a laboratory approved by the UCI. The test results must show that the rupture characteristics obtained are compatible with those resulting from an impact sustained during normal use of the wheel. The following criteria must be fulfilled:
• On impact, no element of the wheel may become detached and be expelled outwards.
• The rupture must not present any shattered or broken off elements, or any sharp or serrated surfaces that could harm the user, other riders and/or third parties.
• The rupture characteristics must not cause the hub to become separated from the rim in such a way that the wheel becomes detached from the forks.

Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A traditional wheel is deemed to be a wheel with at least 16 metal spokes; the spokes may be round, flat or oval, provided that no dimension of their cross sections exceeds 2.4 mm; the section of the rim must not exceed 2.5 cm on each side.

Notwithstanding this article, the choice and use of wheels remains subject to articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.003.

[othy]

So the bit about 'standard wheels' is meant to mean that all wheels with more than 16 spokes are legal again, despite the UCI rules?

No. Perhaps you should read the UCI rule. The CA rule is consistent with that.

1.3.018 Wheels of the bicycle may vary in diameter between 70 cm maximum and 55 cm minimum, including the tyre. For the cyclo-cross bicycle the width of the tyre shall not exceed 35 mm and it may not incorporate any form of spike or stud.

For massed start competitions in the disciplines road and cyclo-cross, only wheel designs granted prior approval by the UCI may be used. Wheels shall have at least 12 spokes; spokes can be round, flattened or oval, as far as no dimension of their sections exceeds 10 mm. In order to be granted approval wheels must have passed a rupture test as prescribed by the UCI in a laboratory approved by the UCI. The test results must show that the rupture characteristics obtained are compatible with those resulting from an impact sustained during normal use of the wheel. The following criteria must be fulfilled:
• On impact, no element of the wheel may become detached and be expelled outwards.
• The rupture must not present any shattered or broken off elements, or any sharp or serrated surfaces that could harm the user, other riders and/or third parties.
• The rupture characteristics must not cause the hub to become separated from the rim in such a way that the wheel becomes detached from the forks.

Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A traditional wheel is deemed to be a wheel with at least 16 metal spokes; the spokes may be round, flat or oval, provided that no dimension of their cross sections exceeds 2.4 mm; the section of the rim must not exceed 2.5 cm on each side.

Notwithstanding this article, the choice and use of wheels remains subject to articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.003.

I read it completely differently. They say 'ammendment' and the following :

The following ammendments were approved by the recent CA Board with immediate effect:

*
A 'Standard' wheel is defined as a wheel manufactured entirely of metal and having 16 or more spokes.

If this isn't a change from the width x depth etc requirements, to just a 16 spokes + metal then what are they actually ammending? The above is a meaningless statement otherwise, which is entirely possible given the bureaucracy.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

The following ammendments were approved by the recent CA Board with immediate effect:

*
A 'Standard' wheel is defined as a wheel manufactured entirely of metal and having 16 or more spokes.

If this isn't a change from the width x depth etc requirements, to just a 16 spokes + metal then what are they actually ammending? The above is a meaningless statement otherwise, which is entirely possible given the bureaucracy.

You are reading one sentence out of context. You must also read the following paragraphs which specify compliance with UCI regulation 1.3.018 is also required.

the idea is simply to remind people that if the wheel has fewer than 16 spokes and/or is made of something other than metal then there is a fair chance an official will want to check it against the UCI list. I do not know what they are specifically amending in cycling Australia's technical regulations, but it is typical for cycling Australia to regularly update their own technical regulations to align and/or normalise with the UCI.

In the end I simply suggest people turn up to races run under the auspices of the UCI or cycling Australia with wheels that either meet the UCI specification as being exempt from requiring a rupture test or a wheel that has passed the UCI's rupture test. be careful, many of the wheels currently advertised in the popular magazines do not meet the specifications.

[twizzle]

Wheel reg change

"Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A standard wheel is defined as a wheel manufactured entirely of metal and having 16 or more spokes, Notwithstanding this article, the choice and use of wheels remains subject to articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.003."

I take that as "If it's metal, and has 16 or more spokes, you can run it." So my DeepV's are now legal.

[othy]

Yes twizzle - the regulation 1.3.018 Alex has posted and the one on the CA website are inconsistent.

CA:

Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A standard wheel is defined as a wheel manufactured entirely of metal and having 16 or more spokes, Notwithstanding this article, the choice and use of wheels remains subject to articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.003.

Alex's (UCI I presume)

Without prejudice to the tests imposed by the laws, regulations or customs, standard (traditional) wheels are exempted from the rupture test referred to above. A traditional wheel is deemed to be a wheel with at least 16 metal spokes; the spokes may be round, flat or oval, provided that no dimension of their cross sections exceeds 2.4 mm; the section of the rim must not exceed 2.5 cm on each side.
Notwithstanding this article, the choice and use of wheels remains subject to articles 1.3.001 to 1.3.003.

Which would explain their ammendment.

[fredown]

Saw several "illegal" carbon wheels being used in club events on the weekend without any comment from commissaire. Commissaire seemed blissfully unaware of any crackdown.

I also note that Bouwmeester Wheels' website has a piece about the choice of its wheels available to its sponsored rider in the upcoming Grafton to Inverell. As Bouwmeester do not have UCI approval they must be confident the regulations will not be enforced.

So it seems the status quo of the last six years will continue with no active enforcement and CA merely confirming the regulation to protect its legal liability.

[Parrott]

Great news, at least there is some common sense being applied at a local level. Can't see why I should have to throw away my tokens because of some stupid bureaucratic decision. Sure I'd like to run Zipp 404's which are a better wheel than my tokens anyway but I am an amatuer no a pro and can't afford to. Without them I'll be just pack filler against the guys who can afford to run them. On flat fast circuits like ours they make that much difference.

Just phoned the fellas at jetblack who are the aussie importers of token products and their carbon wheels have all been submitted for testing for UCI approval just waiting to hear back from them

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Saw several "illegal" carbon wheels being used in club events on the weekend without any comment from commissaire. Commissaire seemed blissfully unaware of any crackdown.

I also note that Bouwmeester Wheels' website has a piece about the choice of its wheels available to its sponsored rider in the upcoming Grafton to Inverell. As Bouwmeester do not have UCI approval they must be confident the regulations will not be enforced.

So it seems the status quo of the last six years will continue with no active enforcement and CA merely confirming the regulation to protect its legal liability.

Actually I got some clarification on this late last week.

The CA regs are actually (deliberately) different to the UCI regs.

[Parrott]

Actually I got some clarification on this late last week.

The CA regs are actually (deliberately) different to the UCI regs.

What is the difference Alex?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Actually I got some clarification on this late last week.

The CA regs are actually (deliberately) different to the UCI regs.

What is the difference Alex?

In essence the rim depth, not having been specified in CA's regs, means that in CA races (but not UCI races), metal wheels such as Velocity Deep V are considered "standard" and are not subject to the UCI rupture test. Note that this applies only to mass start road and cross racing. TTs and track are different.

[Parrott]

In essence the rim depth, not having been specified in CA's regs, means that in CA races (but not UCI races), metal wheels such as Velocity Deep V are considered "standard" and are not subject to the UCI rupture test. Note that this applies only to mass start road and cross racing. TTs and track are different.

Thanks Alex. So my carbon wheels still need testing approval should the commissaire choose to enforce this rule?

[Richard.L]

Thanks this helps alot, Alex
so that means nearly all wheels are pretty much legal for State/Australian races??

[Parrott]

metal wheels such as Velocity Deep V are considered "standard" and are not subject to the UCI rupture test. Note that this applies only to mass start road and cross racing. TTs and track are different.

Thanks this helps alot, Alex
so that means nearly all wheels are pretty much legal for State/Australian races??

I read Alex's response as for metal wheels not carbon

[sogood]

That's it, I am going to the local blacksmith and bang up an 80mm deep aero rim (16 spokes) for my race wheel. DIY and legal.

[Parrott]

That's it, I am going to the local blacksmith and bang up an 80mm deep aero rim (16 spokes) for my race wheel. DIY and legal.

Should be fast down hill

[sogood]

Should be fast down hill

Fast and utterly unstoppable!

[Alex Simmons/RST]

In essence the rim depth, not having been specified in CA's regs, means that in CA races (but not UCI races), metal wheels such as Velocity Deep V are considered "standard" and are not subject to the UCI rupture test. Note that this applies only to mass start road and cross racing. TTs and track are different.

Thanks Alex. So my carbon wheels still need testing approval should the commissaire choose to enforce this rule?

Correct, however I suspect this will more than likely end up being a "self-policed" matter. IOW riders may choose to bring a non conforming wheel to the attention of a commissaire, who would then have to presumably take appropriate action.

The CA regs are also pretty clear about there being no liability on their part if a rider is injured despite using a non-conforming wheel.

[fats]

I guess it's not the point, but when was the last time anyone saw a wheel disintergrate during a race? Tyres, yes. Chains, yes. A spoke maybe. But rims collapsing is a pretty rare occurrence isn't it? Or is it the tyre/rim interface at question?

[sogood]

I guess it's not the point, but when was the last time anyone saw a wheel disintergrate during a race? Tyres, yes. Chains, yes. A spoke maybe. But rims collapsing is a pretty rare occurrence isn't it? Or is it the tyre/rim interface at question?

Try this,
http://www.velonews.com/article/93054

For risk management, one has to consider both the frequency of an event and the effect of an event.