We don't know whether recumbents are faster than uprights in events such as stage races. We probably never will, because the UCI are too chicken to want to find out
Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
Re: Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
I can't see why we recumbent racers should feel any very pressing need to be included in the UCI's events. We have a very enjoyable sport of our own, thanks - an inclusive one, in which the best riders (people like Sam Whittingham and Barbara Buatois) are athletes of real stature, but in which mere mortals like me are welcome to compete too.
We don't know whether recumbents are faster than uprights in events such as stage races. We probably never will, because the UCI are too chicken to want to find out
We don't know whether recumbents are faster than uprights in events such as stage races. We probably never will, because the UCI are too chicken to want to find out
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
I can't claim to know much about the policy making of the current UCI but it's my impression that they've moved right away from trying to preserve what might be called the traditions of the sport, particularly in track racing. The only criterion now seems to be "How well will it go down on american telly?" If it's likely to last for more than a few seconds or if it needs any explanation - scrap it. Even the sprint - which could last indefinitely - and which is not easily explained to anybody who's not interested, has been curtailed.
On that basis, new forms of racing might easily win favour, so long as they could be easily understood, and lasted know more than a few seconds.
On that basis, new forms of racing might easily win favour, so long as they could be easily understood, and lasted know more than a few seconds.
Re: Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
thirdcrank wrote:I can't claim to know much about the policy making of the current UCI but it's my impression that they've moved right away from trying to preserve what might be called the traditions of the sport, particularly in track racing. The only criterion now seems to be "How well will it go down on american telly?" If it's likely to last for more than a few seconds or if it needs any explanation - scrap it. Even the sprint - which could last indefinitely - and which is not easily explained to anybody who's not interested, has been curtailed.
On that basis, new forms of racing might easily win favour, so long as they could be easily understood, and lasted know more than a few seconds.
When insulting the intelligence of Americans can we try to use the correct version of "no", just seems appropriate
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Re: Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
That would be the 200m flying start then: 200m at 82.8mph takes a bit over 5s - mind you the run up takes a bit longerthirdcrank wrote:On that basis, new forms of racing might easily win favour, so long as they could be easily understood, and lasted no (edited to remove embarrassment) more than a few seconds.
(Nice vid here.)"42"
-
thirdcrank
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
squeaker
I can spell - usually very well. I do find that when using a keyboard I tend to be careless, both in respect of which keys I hit and then in checking what I've written. There are some words where I've always been a bit mix 'n' match - there / their being a couple of obvious examples where I know which is which but do not always reflect that in the output.
No excuses, although it does seem to be getting worse as I get older. (A few years ago I went through a period where I frequently replaced the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next when writing by hand. Others explained it as thinking ahead but it had me worried until it stopped.)
Back to the UCI, I think you may have the winning formula. especially if you include young women, beach volley ball style. The occasional spectacular crash can go down well on telly.
I can spell - usually very well. I do find that when using a keyboard I tend to be careless, both in respect of which keys I hit and then in checking what I've written. There are some words where I've always been a bit mix 'n' match - there / their being a couple of obvious examples where I know which is which but do not always reflect that in the output.
No excuses, although it does seem to be getting worse as I get older. (A few years ago I went through a period where I frequently replaced the last letter of one word with the first letter of the next when writing by hand. Others explained it as thinking ahead but it had me worried until it stopped.)
Back to the UCI, I think you may have the winning formula. especially if you include young women, beach volley ball style. The occasional spectacular crash can go down well on telly.
Re: Why did the UCI ban recumbents?
If that's the only 'problem' you have, then you are doing wellthirdcrank wrote: There are some words where I've always been a bit mix 'n' match - there / their being a couple of obvious examples where I know which is which but do not always reflect that in the output.
I am frequently amazed / annoyed / embarrassed by what I commit to the interweb 
"42"