Talk:Cyclo-cross bicycle

General Improvements
The writing could generally use some improvement, and someone with time should go through and link the various specific bicycle components to their relevant wiki pages. Some sections like components could be further improved and organized in a logical fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.86.180 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

References are also needed for a bunch of the info on disc brakes. Most of it is derived from bicycle news sites like bikerumor or cyclingnews.

The section regarding disc brakes needs a major overhaul. Naming manufacturers and upcoming products lines smacks of commercial propaganda and is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.52.224 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Rules
Does the UCI ban disk brakes? If so can we have a statement? Nick Wallis 12:03, 07 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. From the UCI Rules Part 1, General Organisation of Cycling as a Sport: "Disk brakes are forbidden in cyclo-cross training and competition". A rules section is one of the next items on my agenda. Will.law 17:35, 09 Mar 2006 (UTC)

The UCI has changed the rules regarding disc brakes as of 2011. "UCI allows disc Brakes for Cyclocross." Cycling News, june 22nd, 2010 It would be a good to have a paragraph contrasting advantages/drawbacks of discs vs. cantilevers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.52.224 (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I took out some discussion regarding different manufacturers of disc breaks and v-brakes. The reason for this are: 1. they appeared to have been pasted straight from industry source and read like a product advertisement, 2. the information already looked dated, and 3. the section was getting way too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.95.97 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to have a photo of a bike with a $3700 (USD) wheelset representing the typical cyclocross bike? Lightweights (made by carbon-sports.de) are very far from ordinary equipment. Thewalrus 09:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't taken the exact wheelset into consideration, but deep, full carbon rims are very common at a professional level. However, I agree that it is not a typical bike in the grand scheme of things. I propose keeping the x night photo and adding an additional photo of a more typical amateur level bike. Will.law 15:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Crosscheck in the main article better represents to my eye, a typical cross bike. However, even at the amateur level, carbon and high end aluminum bikes are becoming the norm. Nonetheless, the bike featured has compact geometry and looks plain wrong. It has the appearence of a hybred, rather than a cyclocross bike Further, it is sporting ROAD TIRES rather than 'cross tires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.52.224 (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Will! Kellen T 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! Will.law 16:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Minimum Bicycle Weight. UCI Cycling Regulation 1.3.019 currently states the following:

"b) Weight" "The weight of the bicycle cannot be less than 6.8 kilograms."

Note that nowhere does UCI Cycling Regulation 1.3.019 stipulate the bicycle's minimum 'weight' (actually mass) in pounds. UCI Cycling Regulation 1.3.019 does not state that The weight of the bicycle cannot be less than 14.99 lb, which is the implication of the current erroneous statement in the Wikipedia article. It follows from UCI Cycling Regulation that in the case of any dispute over the weight/mass of the bicycle, then the mass of the bicycle must be at least 6.8 kilograms when weighed on a properly calibrated metric scale. Note, not 6.80 kg (to 3sf), not 6.800 kg (to 4sf) etc but 6.8 kg (to 2 sf). In other words, the bicycle mass must be measured to just two significant figures - not to three (or more) or just to one. In converting this measurement to any other system of units, the number of significant figures must be maintained - neither reduced nor increased. Hence, if stipulated in pounds for the convenience of US readers and others more familiar with pounds than kilos, the minimum bicycle mass should still be stipulated to 2 sf not to 4 sf as it is at present. The minimum bicycle mass of 6.8 kg if converted into pounds is 15 lbs (to 2sf), therefore, not 14.99 lbs (to 4sf) as currently stated. I am amending the non-metric value accordingly to read 15 lbs (to 2 sf). Including the qualifier of 'to 2 sf' makes it clear that the equivalent value in pounds is a conversion rather than stipulated per se in UCI Cycling Regulation 1.3.019. In any case, technicalities aside, as a convenient aide mémoire, 15 lbs surely makes more sense in this context than 14.99 lbs. 101.163.21.119 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Post script. I appreciate that the value of 14.99 lbs was calculated from 6.8 kg automatically using the built in Wikipedia template for making such conversions. This merely highlights, however, that the Wikipedia template for making such conversions is faulty and needs to be amended accordingly because the number of significant figures must be maintained always in any such conversion. 101.163.21.119 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, it would appear that the reason that the Wikipedia template for making such conversions is faulty is because whoever wrote it failed to differentiate correctly between the number of significant figures in a value and the number of decimal places, a different thing entirely. 101.163.21.119 (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

bikes that violate UCI regs
i don't reallty understand the point in this paragraph. yes, of course it is possible to modify a stock bike to be illegal by uci rules!

the point is that a number of stock "cyclocross" bikes you can walk into a store and buy violate UCI regs without modification by the customer(lemond poprad disc, various salsa models with disc brakes, etc). Thewalrus 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the point is "without modification". imho, it would be enough to just make a point of disk brake equipped bikes being available.  the parts about tire width & studs aren't really necessary. --Will.law 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"a number of forks and frames can accomodate tires up to 40 mm wide", yes and a lot of cyclocross stems accept mountain bike handlebars that are well over 19.5" wide too! you could also fit a <12 spoke wheel in a standard cyclocross frame and fork but do we need to make a point of this? no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will.law (talk • contribs)

Wheel Diameter
Do cyclocross bikes use 26" 29" or road bike diameter wheels?

They use 700c road (29") wheels. --NextMerckx

Conversion
I felt it necessary to remove the "for riders in the lower ranks" from the explanation that cross bikes can easily double as suitable road rigs. UCI ProTour riders can commonly be seen on cross bikes in the Spring Classics, given the often muddy conditions that favor cantis for mud clearance. There aren't any ranks higher than those, so obviously 'cross bikes make suitable race rigs for any rider.

Cyclocross frames for general use
I have noticed a lot of 'cross frames being used by people who don't actually do cyclocross, but who just want a nice road bike they can fit wider tyres on and tackle the odd bit of light off-road without risk of puncture. Other than cyclocross frames, it can be hard to find a nice new frame with good fork clearance for mudguards and wide tyres.

The article should probably reflect this trend, but I don't have any sources and don't want to just add my original research. Anyone know what I can use to back this claim up?

WikianJim 12:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is a trend but it's kinda tricky. The thing is, cyclocross frames aren't necessarily that good for general purpose riding.  Of course some are but a lot aren't.  Most real cyclocross frames are designed to be as rigid and minimalist as possible for an hour of hard racing.  Most dont have fender/rack mounts and a lot don't even have water bottle bosses.  Of course there are some that have appeared recently that are a more general purpose hybrid (like the specialized tricross which is marketed as a freeroading bicycle) but it's at the sacrifice of their cyclocross racing performace.  Tricky subject. Will.law 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the driver for this trend is more the growing unsuitability of road racing bikes for anything other than racing. The frame in one of the article's pictures, the Surly Cross Check; I've seen a lot for general commuting work and it seems to be a good choice (mudguard mountings etc). In the 70s and 80s if you wanted a general road use bike you'd get a "racer" and modify it a bit, which was easy because the forks had plenty of clearance for mudguards, racks etc. Today you can do the same, but you start from a 'cross frame instead. Certain 'cross frames are very similar to racer frames from about 20 years ago.


 * I ride on cyclocross tyres at least 50% of the time, (Vittoria XN, which are not very knobly, more of a lightly treaded touring tyre) because when the traffic is busy I take a shortcut down an old disused railway line, and I like to be able to ride reasonably quickly on or off road, just in case. The frame I use for this is an old (1980s) steel Peugeot with a modern Campag Mirage groupset, but if I were to build the bike again using new components, I'd probably get a Cross Check.


 * I don't really know how to write well about this trend, but I think it would be a good thing to include in the Cyclocross bicycle article.

WikianJim 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any expansion of "UCI" anywhere -- what does this stand for? Is there a page that should be linked to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.105.94 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Link added. It stands for Union Cycliste Internationale btw! Will.law (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)