Recumbent racing was marginalized by the 1934 post facto decision of the UCI. But it is going on, and it also has numerous rules, mostly classifications so that like bikes race against like bikes. Like any classification there can be some interesting discussions about them.

As a recumbent rider and recreational recumbent racer I am interested in how this recent UCI decisions fall out.

looknicefab@gmail.com

Also, weight limits do not ensure safety or reduce costs, they just allow the freedom to decide where the weight will be. For example by using power measuring equipment during races.

Chris, you are right. The cost of equipment has escalated quite a bit in recent years. When I started racing in the late eighties, 1,000 bucks (or less) could buy a dream bike that was just like the ones all of the pros were riding. Today, the price of a pro level bike is out of reach for most people, but I think the technological benefit has trickled down to the point that riders who chose mid range road bikes benefit from racing technology . Personally, I would rather be riding a new 105 equipped bike today than the Dura-Ace equipped bike I rode back in the 80s. The second and third tier groups from Shimano, Campy, and SRAM all work pretty well these days, so their should be no shame in racing with a lower end group.

Yeah, the elitist roadie snob factor is there, but it is possible to use that to your advantage as well. I remember a guy in the early 90s who used to race an old, extremely dirty yellow Torpado with worn out Campy 6 speed, torn bar tape and mismatched used tubulars. That bike looked like a beater, but no one was sneering at it when he was consistently winning races from a solo breakaway. I guess my point is that equipment is great, but it doesn’t make THAT much of a difference. Yes, if you can afford it, it is nice to have a slight edge. If you are younger though, it is great to be able to just train a little harder and beat all those older (and richer) guys on their top of the line bikes. By saying that, I am not at all knocking the masters racers who show up at local races on pristine 8,000-dollar bikes. I would do that too if I could afford it, but a pro level bike is certainly not something you NEED to compete.

Up until recently, most folks with a little disposable income could ride a bike that was virtually identical to what the pros were riding, with the exception of the handmade tubulars. Now a kid with a dream of being the next Contador will have a very hard time affording a Contador setup. And it’s a drag, especially when you’re young, to show up at a race where others are passing judgment on your ride, and where you’re paying a weight/aero penalty, even if much of that is psychological.

Stifling innovation? Yes. But nearly all of the recent innovations have little practical carryover outside of racing where aero and a few lbs don’t mean much.

So I’m all for double diamonds, limited aerodynamic aids, and a weight limit–the latter should be even higher so that the components will be more durable.

If there’s then another racing league that’s entirely open, that might be ok too. I just don’t want to see the biggest stars of the sport riding throwaway 12 lb. bikes that require extreme flexibility and that cost as much as a car. We’re far to close to that already.

Chris

where equipment rules make the most sense is at the bottom level of racing – juniors, entry level categories (cat3,4,5). at this level i believe that riders should race a standard road bike with no special TT equipment or disc wheels. at this level, money can buy speed and if we want the best riders (not the richest) to prosper and be competitve this would be a step in the right direction.