New UCI CX rules: Trad killer or step forward?

By Ian Landau

WHILE CYCLOCROSS RACING may still be three months away, it has been front and center the past week. The spate of early-summer tongue-wagging and tweeting comes after last Friday’s announcement by the UCI of significant changes to CX racing rules. Among the new dictates handed down by the Swiss-based world cycling overlords:

• Disc brakes are now legal in UCI competitions
• Tires widths may not exceed 33 mm
• Barriers may be a max height of 40 cm but can be lower
• Barriers may be spaced from 4 to 6 meters apart
• Officials may remove riders who are more than 80% behind the race leader’s lap time
• Feeds are allowed if the temperature is above 20 degrees C (68 degrees F), except during the first two and final two laps

At Wissahickon last year, Adam Myerson of team Cycle-Smart didn't need no stinkin' disc brakes. Photo: Daniel McMahon/CyclingReporter.com

To see the full list of changes, see this USA Cycling Web page with the news.

Now, rider reactions have been largely split between disgust with the UCI for meddling with hallowed cyclocross traditions and a more laissez-faire wait-and-see attitude. As expected, the equipment changes have provoked the strongest reactions.

“Disc brakes are for mountain bikes and motorcycles. Not cyclo-cross bikes,” tweeted pro CX and road racer Adam Myerson last Friday, succinctly outlining the traditionalists’ perspective.

Myerson, who’s raced more cyclocross than you’ve had hot meals, added shortly after: “Don’t blame me for any of this; I quit the UCI ‘cross commission last year!”

On the other side of the disc divide sits another New Englander-pro-roadie-pro-cross-racer, Jeremy Powers, aka J-Pow, of the mighty Cannondale-Cyclocrossworld.com team.

“I love my TRP brakes, but I’ll take the power of disc brakes for a nasty muddy race in a heartbeat!” Powers said on Twitter that same Friday afternoon, with a prudent shout-out to the team’s current brake sponsor thrown in.

Jeremy 'J-Pow' Powers is a little cooler with the whole disc-brakes thing than Myerson. Here, crushing it at Southampton in 2009. Photo: Daniel McMahon/CyclingReporter.com

All of this hoo-hah naturally prompts a question: Why did the UCI make the changes?

According to an unconfirmed report on Cyclingnews.com, the disc-brakes amendment was pushed by Shimano along with French bicycle manufacturer LaPierre. The pair allegedly “approached the UCI four or five months ago with a disc equipped cyclo-cross bike and a proposal for the rule change,” Cyclingnews.com reported.

Why the UCI decided to go along with the companies’ alleged suggestion remains a mystery; the text of the amendments includes no reasoning for the decisions. Shimano is listed on the UCI Web site as an “Official Partner,” yet it seems to stretch credulity that the world body would change its rules solely to suit the bottom line of one of its partners.

Then again, the UCI has done some pretty dumb shit in the past. Accepting “donations” from Lance Armstrong, some major debacles with the Pro Tour, and so forth.

Opinions online from ‘crossers seem to lean toward the idea that the UCI is supporting the bike industry’s desire to sell us more crap we don’t really need.

How long will it take for manufacturers to get disc-ready frames out to the market? As of today, the only disc-ready cross frameset we’re aware of is Redline’s basic Conquest frame, though it isn’t sold as a complete build with disc brakes just yet.

Van Dessel cycles will debut a new 29-er model with discs and drop bars called the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot in July. The New Jersey company says the new bike “can be a road bike, a cruiser, a fixie, a townie, a cross bike, a full-rigid 29-er.”

More models from the big guns—Giant, Specialized, Trek—are sure to follow.

One bike builder who’s intrigued by the possibilities that discs offer is Marty Walsh, proprietor of Geekhouse Bikes in Boston. In addition to building CX bikes, Walsh sponsors the Geekhouse Factory Cyclocross Team, so he’s got his hands deep in the New England scene.

“It’s good and bad,” Walsh said of the UCI brake amendments. “I like that the brakes are going to work a lot better, and I’m really excited for SRAM and Shimano to come out with hydraulic brifters.”

But Walsh also echoes the concerns of Myerson and others about the potential for diluting the uniqueness of cyclocross. “If [the UCI eventually allows] riser bars, what differentiates it from mountain bikes?” he asked. “I do in fact like the nostalgic nature of cantis and drop bars. That’s what keeps ‘cross ‘cross. That’s what keeps it different from mountain bikes.”

One area elite team that won’t be switching to disc-equipped bikes for the 2010 season is the new Philadelphia Cyclocross School squad Cyfac-Champion System p/b Revolution Wheelworks, whose featured rider is 2009 Mid-Atlantic Cyclocross Series champ Valentin Scherz.

“Our Cyfac frames, wheels, and components have been ordered, and we’re certainly not jumping into disc brakes,” said team co-founder and co-director Jed Kornbluh.

Regardless of the timing of the announcement, Kornbluh is skeptical of the need for discs in ‘cross anyway. “Disc brakes have far more stopping power than will ever be required for cross,” he told CyclingReporter.com. “Discs bear a significant weight penalty that a mud-bogged rider doesn’t need. Canti brakes do a fine job slowing any rider through technical sections, but in reality it’s the rider who just feathers his brakes that wins the race. If you’re worried about stopping, then you aren’t really racing.”

Ryan Trebon isn't at all keen on the new barrier changes. Here, at Wissahickon, he follows Timmerman, who retired this year. Photo: Daniel McMahon/CyclingReporter.com

Right behind the equipment changes are the course rulings, with the potential for lowered barriers the obvious focus. Every year fans go nuts when anyone is able to bunny-hop the barriers, and now promoters are able to encourage this trickery with shorter obstacles. One pro on record against this change is two-time national champ Ryan Trebon. “Bunny hopping is lame. Way more skill to hit the barriers 20 mph running. Why not just remove them completely?” the long-legged Oregonian wrote on Twitter last week.

Meanwhile, Kornbluh, who co-founded the Staten Island Cyclocross Race and had a hand in its course design, is more sanguine about the course amendments than the equipment changes. “I was reluctant to get behind the changes at first, making false assumptions that these major rule shifts would severely affect course design, like lower barriers, more sand pits,” he said. “But I think dropping the height requirement of 40 cm to a height maximum of 40 cm will introduce some West Coast-style (read: PDX) 20 cm 6-pack barriers, and will ultimately showcase some of our MTB brethren and their incredible technical abilities, which are often lost on typical, wide, sweeping courses.”

Another take on the course amendments comes courtesy of Myles Romanow, race director of the Whitmore’s Landscaping Super Cross Cup in Southampton, New York, a UCI race weekend that’s part of the MAC Series.

Romanow said barriers serve several purposes in CX races. “I could see some people opting to use lower barriers, but why?” he said. “If your course is well thought out, there are likely only one or two places that barriers make sense. You really don’t want to disturb the flow of the course and muck it all up.

“Barriers also help separate riders on the course. That can be huge at some of the bigger New England races. So if you cut them down in size and make them easier to ride over, or bunny hop, what’s the point? While I think that you don’t need to have barriers on a cyclocross course, frankly, it’s likely one of the oldest traditions in this sport, and as such I feel they need to be there.

“And again, if they are properly placed, they won’t disturb the riders flow on the course. Now, Southampton can be blindingly fast, with barriers and an additional dismount, but it still flows well, and allows riders to maintain momentum.”

So, as ever, change in the cycling world like elsewhere comes with some folks cheering and some grumbling.

For our part, we’re not in a rush to switch to discs, as if we had the money to make the change anyway.

The course changes sound like they’ll give designers more flexibility, which surely can’t hurt. But far and away the best view of the impending changes comes from a poster to the New England Cyclocross Yahoo Groups e-list, who said: “The BEST thing about the UCI ruling is that it’s gotten us all talking about ‘cross in June.”

Well said.