BikeBiz

What a plonker!! It's somewhat worrying how an organisation that is making the regulations has no idea of the manufacturing costs, R&D etc undertaken by these factories. If the quality and experience was not there in the china factories the big brands would not be sourcing form them! That said there are some smaller China carbon producers that really are rubbish but they will generally be selling out direct through Ebay or to smaller brands who have not done their research!

This just goes to show what out-of-date, blinkered and ill informed morons the UCI really are. Does he really think manufacturers are not testing these frames to at least the same standards as other materials? Thank God most of the industry can by-pass these dinosaurs and get on with innovating and pushing materials and manufacturing technology. "They don't have the same reactions as when we had the old steel bikes" - eeeh it were all fields round here when I was a lad! Perhaps if he took his nose off the tarmac for a second and visited an MTB World Cup race and saw what potential the material really has. But then again the further away he is, the better!

Question - Is the UCI affiliated to FIFA? Personally I believe they are as they have a great deal in common i.e. a combined IQ of less than 10.

Seems to me, as a highly qualified engineer of 25 yrs experience working with steel, aluminium, titanium and carbon fiber currently within bicycle design & manufacture- and is in contact with one of the top CFC manufacturers over there- that the artical is a muddle. Firstly: "Our problem is, this initial frame, of twenty or thirty or forty dollars, sport..... There's a whole change that has happened which is making racing less safe and causing more crashes." A US specifier told BikeBiz.com: "It costs about $375 for the naked frame... Once painted and ready, the frameset cost is closer to $500 for frame and fork." This is about what i have to pay for a frame so i can further validate this cost. However the specifier seems to be talking about the charge the manufacturer makes per frame- the UCI guy was talking about the actual manufacturing costs which are much less than the purchase charge! The average skilled worker in China where they are made, is approx $250 a month which equates to $10 per day. A skilled asian worker can often make a frame in a working day- they work hard and efficiently. The materials are cheap esp when bought in the bulk that the frame makers buy them in, say $15 per frame. Then theres the overheads so double what you already have and you still only have a per frame manufacturing cost of $50. Development costs are spread over the many thousands of frames that they make so double it again and you still have a very large profit margin. I think all parties involved in the financial discussion should check their facts!! This is bourn out by the vast profits that these companies are making- look them up it is on the net. The main point is the article contributers appear unable to differentiate between the two and tried to compare one figure with the other to create conflict. Next the testing: The the UCI is correct in that these testing procedures- the torture chambers as they are refered to- are derived for testing homogenious material structures i.e. metals! CFC products should not be tested in the same way so new CFC specific testing systems do indeed need to be developed- however even the aviation industry is having problems with that. Also it is simple human nature that if a frame is to be sent to an independant lab for testing the very greatest care will be taken during it's manufacture, care above and beyond that taken generaly, thus the test results reflect the potential of the design and not always the reality of the mass produced product. The fact that 99% of the products are good and safe for many miles means nothing to the poor riders who suffer serious injury due to the few failures under normal loading conditions. Also due to it's very nature CFC will always have a degree of unpredicaability- at present there are NO RELIABLE methods of predicting a CFC components fatigue unlike for metals which can be calculated down to the nth degree. Tim Jackson of the US said: "The UCI is heading ramrod into a wall of denial and arrogance."- This statement seems to be misinterpreted or miss quoted since what Tim Jackson's words are actually saying is that those people who are in opposition to the UCI are going to be in denial and arrogent which implies that Tim Jackson agrees with the UCI. Otherwise it should read ".....into becoming a wall of denial......" Finally the statement that these proposed changes are marketing driven is I believe absolutely the case, no decent engineer would want to push the envalope of safety on consumer products- racing (as in actual competion) bikes yes- after all nobody in their right mind would want to drive around the commuting roads in an F1 car, a death trap in motion on the roads. But this is the principle that most punters will buy super light CFC bikes on! Unfortunately the UCI have, for once, got the right concerns but have gone headlong into the problem without thinking the presentation of the argument and it's implications through properly, and the knee jerk reaction of punters and other industry people (who have financial gain from making lighter bikes) merely serves to increase confusion and stir up emotions!

When have carbon "parts" ever cut someone in a crash? When have carbon bikes bounced around more than steel bikes? When did the governing body of the UCI become so irresponsible and backwards thinking to think that they apparently know more about carbon fiber bike production than the engineers, designers and manufacturers who have built their lives, careers and educations around it? It is sounding more and more that Pat McQuaid and his cohorts flip through the pages of their own outdated rulebook and enforce it just to have their two-cents heard.