Bike designs which should be binned

[Bmblbzzz]

Some do reject the UCI rules of course. But the UCI has the rule book which makes sport sport and it also has the pot of prize money. You might as well ask why people don't reject FIFA because they don't like the latest version of the offside rule. It happens, but then it makes a slightly new sport (eg rugby league v rugby union) and for most people it isn't relevant anyway.

[mattheus]

doubled triangle/diamond frames that's not to say they haven't been useful, and they shouldn't disappear, but with modern materials they aren't necessary and are holding back cycle design now. remember the Boardman/lotus bikes had the UCl not banned it we might be riding some very different creations today. So what I wnat to put in room 101 really is the UCI regulations

+1 perhaps if we had rejected UCI regulations years ago, we wouldn't have had to have witnessed that horrific bicycle crash in the Rio Olympics 2016.
I still don't understand why these regulations are not simply rejected. No one owes the UCI anything, and actually we're all free to draft our own rules about bicycle racing if we want and invite others to join in. The UCI is like some stupid stage hypnotist, making everyone believe that we're chickens.... or like the magician in the Wizard Of Oz. The moment you stop believing, is the moment they lose their power over you.

Because sport needs a (fairly) stable set of rules.

I have no doubt that modern soccer could be improved with major rule-changes, but the time/cost of getting a new agreed baseline in place would be enormous; and no-one would sign up for an experimental league under the new rules - or at least noone worth bothering with.

[Xpost with bmblbuzz!]

[cycle tramp]

I still don't understand why these regulations are not simply rejected.

Incumbent advantage... recumbent disadvantage.

Jonathan

If we accept that the human race was brought about through evolution, then we accept that evolution is a good thing and everything which prevents it is not so good.

Having accepted this then we must rejected the UCI regulations as preventing evolution. If we fail to reject the UCI at every level, then what we are effectively saying to them is 'we know nothing, tell me which bikes we should ride'

[cycle tramp]

Some do reject the UCI rules of course. But the UCI has the rule book which makes sport sport and it also has the pot of prize money. You might as well ask why people don't reject FIFA because they don't like the latest version of the offside rule. It happens, but then it makes a slightly new sport (eg rugby league v rugby union) and for most people it isn't relevant anyway.

I'll accept that the UCI has the money, and a set of rules, so what we need to find is a sponsor with a bigger pot of prize money, and different set of rules.

[Jdsk]

I still don't understand why these regulations are not simply rejected.

Incumbent advantage... recumbent disadvantage.

If we accept that the human race was brought about through evolution, then we accept that evolution is a good thing and everything which prevents it is not so good.

Having accepted this then we must rejected the UCI regulations as preventing evolution. If we fail to reject the UCI at every level, then what we are effectively saying to them is 'we know nothing, tell me which bikes we should ride'

I wasn't stating any preference for how this should have gone, or how it will go. Merely that it came out this way because of incumbent advantage.

Jonathan

PS: I wouldn't generalise about the morality of biological evolution either.

[jb]

You could say they try to keep bicycle design on the same planet as the ordinary end user. given free reign the machines they come up with could be so far away from anything that a normal person would use or find practical that the sport would have absolutely no benefit to the rest of us.

[cycle tramp]

One ultimate rule in bike racing could be this, and it's used in banger racing;

If you believe that another racer's machine (car or bike in this case) has given that team an unfair advantage, then you can race for your team using their machine.

Incredibly simple, and easy to adjudicate

[mattheus]

If we accept that the human race was brought about through evolution, then we accept that evolution is a good thing and everything which prevents it is not so good.

Having accepted this

Why would I accept it??

Seems like a seriously flawed assumption to me.

(for one thing, tech advances are a completetly different game to evolution)

[cycle tramp]

You could say they try to keep bicycle design on the same planet as the ordinary end user. given free reign the machines they come up with could be so far away from anything that a normal person would use or find practical that the sport would have absolutely no benefit to the rest of us.

You could, but I might not believe you. Aerodynamics are holding back bicycle performance not weight. However the UCI has stifled any such gains through better aerodynamics so the only thing that riders focus on is weight, and weight loss on a bicycle gets incredibly expensive. How much are a good set of carbon wheels?
As for being practical, why isn't a 3 wheeled recumbent practical? It's got three wheels so it's good in the rain, and the wind and for people with balance problems. Put a shell on it, and it goes faster and keeps the rider warmer and drier. Going back to Rio Olympics 2016, how much safer would the cyclists have been if they rode recumbent trikes.
The only thing that may be an issue is hill climbing.
2 wheeled recumbents might be more practical in flat areas with stronger head winds than an upright bicycle. In both cases, if you fell off from them, you actually have less far to fall and usually it's on your side, rather than hands shoulders and head.

[cycle tramp]

If we accept that the human race was brought about through evolution, then we accept that evolution is a good thing and everything which prevents it is not so good.

Having accepted this

Why would I accept it??

Seems like a seriously flawed assumption to me.

(for one thing, tech advances are a completetly different game to evolution)

No its not. Evolution is the state of everything. From culture to technology to language. Improving the efficiency of anything, making it work better, is part of human nature because we have recognised that the same process in nature created us. The only people who fail to recognize this are the UCI which like a group of spoiled children cling onto the diamond frame bicycle, in a vague hope of attempting to stay relevant to a disappearing audience.

[rareposter]

I still don't understand why these regulations are not simply rejected.

For the same reason that [insert F1 team of choice] haven't rejected the FIA and gone and set up their own league.
For the same reason that [insert football team of choice] haven't rejected FIFA and set up their own league.
etc

Currently (and you can argue the rights and wrongs of it...) there is a set-up whereby the UCI (and, related, National Governing Bodies such as British Cycling) have a worldwide set of rules, bike manufacturers work within those rules for bicycles that are intended to be raced in UCI competition and riders / teams sign up to those rules, broadcasters and race organisers work with them.

Technically, there's nothing stopping anyone from setting up a "rival" organisation but what does that gain for anyone? Who is going to sign up to it, manage it and in what way will it be better than what exists already?

You can go out and buy bikes that are completely outside of UCI spec for racing - recumbent bikes, triathlon bikes, cargo bikes and so on. You can even buy "non-UCI spec" road bikes like the new Specialized Aethos which is under the UCI weight limit. I mean you could probably go and set up a cargo bike racing league if you really wanted. But the fact that these bikes exist is an indication that the UCI do not rule over everything with an iron fist and actually innovation within the industry is carrying on just fine.

[Jdsk]

For use where UCI regulations don't apply we're free to buy a wide range of designs and vendors are free to sell them and designers are free to come up with even more.

I doubt that the continued dominance of uprights is due to the behaviour of the UCI, although there may be some pull towards HPVs that are like what the racers use... as in some of the other suggestions about components above.

(Same point as rareposter's above.)

Jonathan

[cycle tramp]

I still don't understand why these regulations are not simply rejected.

Currently (and you can argue the rights and wrongs of it...) there is a set-up whereby the UCI (and, related, National Governing Bodies such as British Cycling) have a worldwide set of rules, bike manufacturers work within those rules for bicycles that are intended to be raced in UCI competition and riders / teams sign up to those rules, broadcasters and race organisers work with them.

You can go out and buy bikes that are completely outside of UCI spec for racing - But the fact that these bikes exist is an indication that the UCI do not rule over everything with an iron fist and actually innovation within the industry is carrying on just fine.

No, you're right within the field of bicycle design the UCI are something of a paper tiger. However where they do have influence is through broadcasting and by rejecting everything but the diamond frame UCI have failed to bring other designs of bicycles to the attention of the non-cycling public who do watch sporting events on television, and might have been tempted to try riding one.

[cycle tramp]

You could say they try to keep bicycle design on the same planet as the ordinary end user. given free reign the machines they come up with could be so far away from anything that a normal person would use or find practical that the sport would have absolutely no benefit to the rest of us.

And the other argument is that given the amount of performance related drugs that the cycling teams say they don't use... unless you have the same drugs suppliers, sorry medical staff, as the professional teams the sport of bicycle racing is far away from that of a normal person. The winning team in tour de France or any other bicycle race as far as I can see, wins because it has managed to out wit the drugs testers (which given some of the statements doesn't appear that hard to do) rather than any other ability.

[cycle tramp]

I still don't understand why these regulations are not simply rejected.

Technically, there's nothing stopping anyone from setting up a "rival" organisation but what does that gain for anyone? Who is going to sign up to it, manage it and in what way will it be better than what exists already?

What's in it? - it will bring a wide range of bicycles to the public's attention, which is a good thing. It may even settle the argument of can recumbents climb hills. It may even bring new technology to the everyday cyclist. Perhaps even revolutionise braking systems so rather than produce heat the brakes provide electrical energy fed into a light weight capacitor ready to spin an equally lightweight motor to help climb the next hill. We may see differences in crank length, rider position, tyre size and gearing. The amount of performance data which could be generated by just one tour de france without UCI rules, which could then be made available to the everyday and want to be cyclist could be staggering...
..but no, it's not going to happen... so we struggle on in the dark, asking ourselves what gearing, what crank length, what position bests suits us.. the disappointing thing is that with a bit of though the UCI has it in its power to answer all these questions, to be a stronger voice for cycling. But no.... not if it means changing their minds.