Cyclocross Magazine - Cyclo-cross News, Race Reports, Bike Reviews, Forums and More

Here's the way I see it:

1) USA Cycling needs to be more clear with their communications on items like this. A rule change in the middle of the season should be fully explained, justified, and made very clear. In this case, it was not explained when announced initiially, was always confusing, and was never justified. When they flip-flopped, they again did not explain. The news came in a couple of poorly written sentences buried in press releases with headlines on other topics. The result is unnessasary costs and hassles for many riders.

2) This highlights the underlying issue of UCI governanace of cyclocross vs. the sport in the USA. There are many UCI rules that don't make much sense in the US. Especially if imposed in situations so far removed from the rule-making process. Length of sandpits, number of obstacles, height of obstacles, number of catagories allowed in a day, tire width, disc brakes, etc. These rules have come and gone, changed without warning, and force US riders, race promoters, and manufacturers to continually change courses and equipment without justification or understanding.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but USA Cycling, local associations, and the UCI need to get on the same page, or at least communicate better.

so the "emergency singlespeed legislation" had singlespeeds at nats restricted to eiher cats 1-2 only, or cats 1-3 only (they didnt seem to be sure), and now its open to all. this makes me very happy, but makes me wonder about next year? is this a permanent ruling, that singlespeed is a class unfettered by racing category? or will they be bringing back the cat 1-2 or cat 1-3 restriction next year - or, more importantly (to me) for any races that might conceivably be held in conjunction with worlds in louisville?

I was under the impression from the start that the rule was to be enforced for UCI categories only. Thats what's happening now. I never got rid of the 34's.
Before any of this nonsense started there was a rule that the max width would be 35mm, but did anyone ever see an official measuring tire width at a race before this year? They seem to get all excited by "new" rules.
Most of the UCI races I've done this year don't comply with UCI regulations in one form or another, why then is this rule so cut and dry when they don't even enforce their own guidelines?

For tubies, tire width is a function of inflation pressure. It's a balloon and it gets bigger when you pump it up. We measured a few 34s. Fango 34s measured within spec at 20 ish psi but at 32 they were over. Vittoria XMs in 34 would not make it at even at 20 psi.

If it's an ice fest in bend, 34s at low pressure would probably be the best choice as long as they pass the caliper test.

I assume the rule is interpreted to mean the tires as raced - the measurements be taken at the racing pressure.

CX magazine should do a test and plot some graphs of width vs. inflation pressure for the various offerings.

I agree with skibike in theory but probably not so much in vulgarity. deep mud in bend in winter, not likely. your wheels would be fine in Bend. as for tire width, thats a wash. pressure is far more important than 34 vs 32c tires. just dial in your pressure and stop whining. if you lose nats by 2 cm i'll eat my words. the rider rides the bike. look at Nys, he doesn't have the engine any more but his bikehandling is incredible.

To the racers that bought new wheels due to the tire rule change: you're stupid. Just use your old wheels and put 32mm tires on them.

To the racers that are complaining about having to buy new tires due to the tire rule being rescinded: you're also stupid. Shut up and race on your 32mm tires.

Yeah, the handling of the rule change hasn't been ideal. But are the people griping about it really going to be contenders for a national championship? Probably not. We're amateur bike racers. Even if you do win, not that many people will care except you, your mother, and your significant other. And that last one only until you tell the story for the third time or use it to try and justify yet another wheelset when the living room furniture needs to be replaced. It's a hobby. You're not making a living at it, so relax.

I've found this issue to be very, very frustrating from the get-go, and I believe that those UCI representatives who met and decided on that original rule change could have done a much better job of meeting their goal if they would have taken more time and more thought to making that decision than they did.
At the end of the season, I'm curious to hear the thoughts of riders on all levels - especially those European junior riders who this legislation was originally targeted at - on how they changes affected them and whether they found this ruling to be on the mark.

With tire prices being what they are, the holiday season among us, travel plans to Bend being budgeted for, and the world economy still generally in poor-to-fair shape, it won't be easy for many riders who had followed the news and obliged by USAC's rule changes earlier in the year to shell out an added $100-400 for new tires in preparation for one or perhaps two races.

The UCI decision has, as expected, led to a trickle-down effect on tire-width rules by smaller federations, such as USAC. The recent proposal on junior equipment restrictions voted down by the USAC seemed to be more on target with the goal the UCI had originally set - leveling the playing field for junior riders. And now, USAC, for whatever reason, with respect to many riders, has decided to rescind their rule change from just a few months ago. I can appreciate USAC's efforts to try and do the right thing; however, ironically, what they've just done with this most recent flip-flop is very similar to what the original UCI ruling was trying to prevent - providing another avenue for wealthier riders to gain a leg up on the rest of the field.

The UCI created the new tire restriction to prevent junior riders in Europe from stockpiling large quantities of wheelsets. In so doing, they created a great deal of controversy and disdain among riders at many different levels. Also, in the process of implementing that rule, they threw a wrench in the cogs of a handful of pretty small, dedicated tire manufacturing companies (I count at most nine tubular cyclo-cross tire manufacturers - if Specialized, Schwalbe, and Continental are included) in the month or two leading up to the cyclo-cross season.

when the UCI came out with their new skinny tire rule I did wonder why they didn't want bigger racers doing cross?
maybe they hate Americans?
maybe they want cross to stop growing? (in America?)

I am so pissed! I live in Colorado where riding a 34mm tire makes sense 99% of the time. (At least it's not usually a disadvantage.) I went out and acquired two new sets of wheels and tires for CX Nats and now I get punked by them in the 11th hour. Who in the hell is making these decisions? !@#%! USAC is a complete sham. How about refunding my money for the wheels?

YES!