RZR 46 T UCI Homologation

In early June I departed Salt Lake City, Utah to travel to Liege, Belgium to qualify the RZR 46T to meet the standards of the UCI Homologation protocol. The timing was critical because Reynolds wanted to make sure the RZR 46T wheels were homologated in time for use in the 2010 Tour De France.  Reynolds sponsors two teams, AG2R and Footon Servetto in the 2010 Tour De France who intend to race the RZR 46T wheels, so a passing score for UCI Homologation is critical.

 It is common to ship the wheels to be tested in advance via air-freight, but in this case I was hand-carrying the RZR wheels to be tested.  This meant that I was hand-carrying four wheels (UCI requires testing four wheels per model).  Having logged over 70,000 air miles in the last year (including Rwanda, Africa; Reynolds is a sponsor of the Rwandan National Team), the privilege of the priority line to the ticket counter was welcomed since I had four wheels plus my luggage.   My joy was quickly overcome with disappointment when the ticket agent informed me that my boxes exceeded the dimensional requirements by three inches each box.  I was informed that I could re-box them in a smaller box (not an option at this point), purchase a first-class ticket on-the-spot (I was sure this was a no-go with my Reynolds management), or take my boxes to the airline freight terminal.  The freight terminal seemed like my best option at this point, but this presented unknown variables which I was unprepared to consider.

Faced with what seemed to be only one option, I decided to ask the ticket agent if the possibility existed to somehow waive the maximum sixty-two inch regulation in favor of a sixty-five inch regulation.  She replied, “so you want me to make-up the rules as I go?”  I said, “well, yes, and PLEASE?”  Surprisingly she replied, let me go get my supervisor, and see if he would be willing to make an allowance.  After waiting nearly ten minutes, her supervisor appears and asks, “what is in the boxes?” (the boxes are marked only with my name and address; no where do the boxes say Reynolds or bicycle wheels)  I reply, “bicycle wheels.”  He asks, “Are you going to a race?”  I reply, no, I am an engineer for Reynolds Cycling, and I am taking these wheels to Belgium for a UCI laboratory test.”  He replies, “What model are the wheels?”  Surprised, I answer, “RZR 46T.”  He replies, “Those are the really expensive ones, huh?”  I replied, “You are familiar with Reynolds RZR wheels?”  He says, “I ride Reynolds wheels; I can get you taken care of… (walking away) he says, “have a nice day.”  The ticket agent printed out my baggage tickets, stuck them on the boxes, and the wheels went onto the scale, and then down the conveyor, and I was off to Atlanta, and then Brussels.  Of course I was still concerned about the wheels making the connection in Atlanta, but for now things were looking good. 

The flight to Atlanta was four hours.  I arrived in Atlanta and I only had a short time to get to my international gate.  With no time to spare I boarded the flight to Brussels.  The flight to Brussels was eight-and-a-half-hours.  After a short night, and arriving in Brussels at about 10 AM local time the next day, it was time to claim my wheels, pick-up the rental car, and drive the approximately 100 Km to Liege.  When traveling, there are many variables out of your control, and I was about to meet one.  I waited at baggage carousel #3 until it stopped—no wheels.  Surely, the wheels made it, I thought to myself, they must be in an oversized baggage holding area.  Surely, they’re not still in Salt Lake City, having somehow made it beyond the ticket counter, only to be rejected for their oversized dimension before being loaded onto the aircraft!

I went to the baggage office to ask to be directed to the over-sized luggage area.  The agent told me that if there was any oversized luggage that it would be here, in front of the office.  There was not one bag or box.  The agent in the baggage office initiated a claim.  This is trouble.  I am in Brussels, with less than 24 hours before I am scheduled to conduct a very time-sensitive, critical test (this is our only opportunity to qualify the RZR 46T wheels for the 2010 Tour De France; miss this opportunity, and we have to wait until the 2011 Tour De France).  I wait for approximately 15 minutes, and the baggage agent says, “the good news is, the system says your wheels are in Brussels, the bad news is no one knows how this is possible because they are nowhere to be found.”  Finally, the baggage agent says, “give me the name and address of your hotel, and we’ll deliver them when we find them.”  I ask, “are you sure they’re in Brussels?”  The agent replies, “no, there could be an error in the system.”

While I was tempted to drive to the hotel, and find a pub, and calm my frustration in some great Belgium beer, I decided I’d better stay alert, and prepare to drive back to Brussels to pick-up my wheels if necessary.  No Belgium beer today for me.  After repeated calls to the baggage office from my hotel in Liege with no word of the wheels, finally, I receive a call at approximately 5 PM from the baggage agent.  My wheels ARE in Brussels, and they are going to put them in a van and drive them to my hotel.  The wheels arrive at 8:10 PM.  I inspect them, they are in great condition, and ready for testing in the morning. 

Sirris is located in the Liege Science Park.  It is a large independent building which houses state-of-the-art testing and evaluation equipment, and the associated personnel.

Sirris, located in the Liege Science Park

Upon arrival to Sirris, you are greeted in the lobby area where the unique products and technologies of the Sirris are displayed.  Sirris is an organization with a broad spectrum of capabilities.  They interact with both government and private sectors, and conduct manufacturing and testing in the field of material science, including their newest endeavor, nano-structures.

 
Sirris Lobby Entrance Reception Window

 
Material science display cases in the Sirris Lobby

After about a five minute wait, I recognize the familiar faces of Michèle Gasparini, Responsible Laboratoire, and Francine Schoumaker, Responsible Essais.  They are the individuals responsible for managing the laboratory facility and conducting the test on behalf of UCI, and over the last few visits we have become familiar faces to one-another.  We discuss protocol, and we exchange some technical details, and then we proceed to the test laboratory.  The test laboratory is in a second-floor, stand-alone, purpose-built unit.  It houses the trolley system for conducting the UCI test, and several other pieces of mechanical testing equipment for testing frames, forks, handlebars, and stems.  Sirris tests these manufactured products to ensure they conform with CEN standards.

After a brief inspection and discussion of the four wheel samples, the testing begins.  Four tests were conducted, lasting a total of approximately 25 minutes (total time for four tests).  Upon each individual test run, an inspection and discussion followed. 

Tire pressure is validated to be 7 bars prior to impact test

 
Francine Schoumaker mounts the first of four RZR 46T wheels to be tested

The UCI has established structural standards that are based upon guidelines intended to encourage manufacturers to design and manufacture wheels that, in the event of a crash, do not create a danger to riders.  The UCI standards to not specifically address wheel performance such as fatigue (aging), deflection, or mass.  UCI is only concerned with the potential adverse interaction the wheel may create in the event of a crash.  While this may seem ambiguous at first glance, this requirement creates a clear, but complex engineering challenge.  Each of the four samples will be tested to destruction.

The goal of the test, much like an automobile crash test, is to determine the failure mode of the wheel when impacted in a typical and common impact scenario.  The four impact tests are as follows:

1)    Impact of the wheel at curb level.  The point of impact is the rim span between an individual spoke.

2)    Impact of the wheel at curb level.  The point of impact at the rim in the location of an individual spoke.

3)    Impact of the wheel head-on into a sold wall.  The point of impact is the rim span between an individual spoke.

4)    Impact of the wheel head-on into a sold wall.  The point of impact at the rim in the location of an individual spoke.

The wheel is mounted securely, and does not rotate.  A ballasted trolley configured with either a curb shaped nose in a low (ground-level) location, or a flat plate (wall simulation) accelerates on a rail to impact the wheel. 

The test is intended to expose the potentially dangerous result of a high-energy impact.  The force (F = Mass x Acceleration) of the impact is designed to fail all known competition bicycle wheels.  There is not an expectation that a wheel will survive the impact and maintain integrity suitable for riding.  The UCI clearly defines the parameters of the test to all manufacturers so that they can design their wheels to comply with UCI expectations. 

The UCI requirements for a passing score are as follows:

1)    No part of the wheel may be ejected.  This means no individual flying wheel parts.  For example, if a spoke were to detach from the wheel as a projectile upon impact the wheel will fail the test.

2)    No part of the wheel can separate to create a free end.  For example, if a spoke were to remain attached at one end, but detached at the other end, the free end could puncture a rider like a dagger, and this is not acceptable.  Furthermore, if a spoke were to break and create two free ends, this is also unacceptable.

3)    The hub must remain attached to the rim.  The hub may not detach as a separate component from the wheel.

4)    The rim must remain in a single annular form.  If the rim fails in a manner that creates two free ends, this is considered dangerous, and the wheel will not receive a passing score.

5)    The rim may not crack or fracture in a way so as to expose sharp or jagged protrusions.  While the wheel may remain completely intact, this visual inspection determines the likelihood that the cracked wheel or rim could present sharp or jagged pieces that could injure the cyclist. 

The criteria for receiving a passing score are rigorous.  Particularly, difficult is the ability of a carbon fiber wheel to pass the test—and as a wheel drops in mass, the difficulty to pass the test increases.  The RZR wheel design presents a particularly challenging engineering effort.  Not only does the low mass create structural challenges, but the composite spokes complicate the equation in a way not typical to metal spokes.  It seems possible that the ultra-low-weight RZR wheel design, with its composite spokes would be smashed into oblivion upon impact. 

Reynolds engineers created special interlaminate isloated “impact” layers in rim, hub, and spokes of the RZR wheel, and upon impact these interlaminate isolated layers transition from a structural feature to a containment feature.  In all four tests, the RZR wheel not only complied with the UCI requirements, but exemplified impressive after-impact strength.  The unique structure of the RZR wheel was impressive.  Particularly impressive was the performance of the composites spokes, which drew comment from the test personnel who commented how amazing it was to see such an impact without seeing even one broken or cracked spoke in the wheel.

Upon completion of the test, Michèle Gasparini stated that the RZR 46T has met the rigorous criteria, and that it was awarded a passing score.  The RZR 46T will be added to the family of the Reynolds wheels currently on the UCI homologation list.  Reynolds’ family of wheels have been listed on the UCI homologation list since the UCI first developed safety criteria.  Reynolds continually designs and develops all of its products to conform to performance and safety standards to exceed all known CPSC, CEN, and UCI criteria.