Confuzed on UCI new aero ruling

Can anyone put this into layman's terms as to what is legal and what
is not as far as aero bars go??
Cheers,
Rick in Tennessee

cycledogg wrote:
Can anyone put this into layman's terms as to what is legal and what
is not as far as aero bars go??

No.

On Mar 14, 10:28*am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
cycledogg wrote:
Can anyone put this into layman's terms as to what is legal and what
is not as far as aero bars go??

No.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you Chung-nut

"cycledogg" wrote in message
...
Can anyone put this into layman's terms as to what is legal and what
is not as far as aero bars go??

Apparently your hands can't be in front of the front axle and the aero bars
cannot be "streamlined".

In article
,
cycledogg wrote:

On Mar 14, 10:28*am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
cycledogg wrote:
Can anyone put this into layman's terms as to what is legal and what
is not as far as aero bars go??

No.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you Chung-nut

As always, however unpleasant, Chung is right.

But the best one can say is that there's a rule that says that, more or
less, streamlined forms are allowed as long as they have a
length-to-width ("aspect") ratio of 3:1 or less.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ero_rules_resp
onse09

The big deal is that the UCI is now clarifying that they think this
applies to handlebars, while formerly many teams were working on the
assumption it applied to frames and forks, but not bars.

If you want to be unimpeachably legal, measure the fore-aft length of
the streamlined part of your bars. Then measure the thickness. If the
bars are less than 1/3 as thick as they are long, you're in trouble.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article
],
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article
,
cycledogg wrote:

On Mar 14, 10:28*am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
cycledogg wrote:
Can anyone put this into layman's terms as to what is legal and what
is not as far as aero bars go??

No.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you Chung-nut

As always, however unpleasant, Chung is right.

But the best one can say is that there's a rule that says that, more or
less, streamlined forms are allowed as long as they have a
length-to-width ("aspect") ratio of 3:1 or less.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ero_rules_resp
onse09

The big deal is that the UCI is now clarifying that they think this
applies to handlebars, while formerly many teams were working on the
assumption it applied to frames and forks, but not bars.

If you want to be unimpeachably legal, measure the fore-aft length of
the streamlined part of your bars. Then measure the thickness. If the
bars are less than 1/3 as thick as they are long, you're in trouble.

What is the difference between tax evasion and tax fraud?
Whatever the IRS says. (or Inland Revenue or CRA or ...)

--
Michael Press

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:05:24 -0700, Michael Press
wrote:

What is the difference between tax evasion and tax fraud?
Whatever the IRS says. (or Inland Revenue or CRA or ...)

That would be more applicable if you asked, what is the difference
between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal? Both fraud
and evasion are illegal. Just being technical, in the spirit of the
thread.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

In article ,
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:05:24 -0700, Michael Press
wrote:

What is the difference between tax evasion and tax fraud?
Whatever the IRS says. (or Inland Revenue or CRA or ...)

That would be more applicable if you asked, what is the difference
between tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal? Both fraud
and evasion are illegal. Just being technical, in the spirit of the
thread.

Noted.

--
Michael Press