-
at the beginning of the season the bikes are all homologated (really closely checked) against the rules for that class (think road, cx etc), and at the end of every race they carefully check the technical for compliance. Of course there are the logistics of lots of bikes to deal with, but I'm sure they could work something out
Who's gonna pay for that tho
Howard-
Festina
-
At virtually all levels of motorsport, the scrutineers are volunteers. they just follow a rule book written by the FIA (professionals). So for cycling, the UCI would administer the professional scrutineers would conduct the hologations (they already do this http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/60/87/ListofApprovedModelsofFramesandForks_English.pdf) at the season beginning while accredited volunteers would check the bikes at races.
pdlouche
TheArchitect
While I agree that 6.8 is a bit arbitrary, I don't think lighter bikes is necessarily a good thing as it will punish bigger riders. Also the most technologically advanced TT frames tend to be well over the weight limit anyway.
I think what Neal Rogers was really saying is that the UCI is WAAAAY too amateurish for the modern pro scene. If all the teams are in wind tunnels and the frames are built by Phd scientists, then clearly there needs to be a much more rigorous scrutineering protocol like exists in motorsport. for example, at the beginning of the season the bikes are all homologated (really closely checked) against the rules for that class (think road, cx etc), and at the end of every race they carefully check the technical for compliance. Of course there are the logistics of lots of bikes to deal with, but I'm sure they could work something out. Hoping that they get (presumably pissed of mechanics) anonymous tip offs is a stupid policy.