THE RULES

The UCI’s technical rules and regulations have made innovation tougher than ever, but Hannah Bussey discovers there are still some finding ways to push the limits

- Hannah Bussey

AMBIGUOUS RULES CAN GO ONE OF TWO WAYS: THEY CAN CREATE A STRICT REGIME OR ALLOW A LIBERAL DEGREE OF FREEDOM; AND THINGS DON’T GET MUCH MORE AMBIGUOUS THAN GUIDELINES DEFINED BY ‘ SPIRIT’.

“Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport,” says the UCI’s Principle 1.3. “The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine.”

Over the years, the ‘spirit claxon’ has sounded on multiple occasions, creating a history book of outlawed bicycles and endless clarifications to the guidelines within the UCI Technical Regulation.

The evergrowing Clarification Guide of the UCI Technical Regulation is now so expansive that much of the vagueness has been hoovered away, and we’re left with an illustrative guide on geometryexplaining in exacting detail what a bike should look like, how much it should weigh (no less than 6.9kg) and more, including the height of its rider’s socks.

The UCI and its rulebook is repeatedly blamed for a lack of technological progression in cycling, but not everyone is so critical.

“It’s very difficult to regulate any sport and I think they actually do quite a good job of restricting technology, so we don’t end up with human torpedoes, but allowing for freshness,” says Tony Purnell, head of technology at British Cycling.

“They’re not perfect, but, if you look at the regulations, really look, you’ll see there is a lot of scope within the restrictions.”

Indeed, a simple glance and following Principle 1.3 verbatim would end up with bikes being punched out of symmetrical moulds. But there’s room for creativity for the brave.