Some of you may remember a couple of years ago when I posted a Hotta time trial bike that was forwarded to me by a reader. In that post, I mentioned how much I love those early 90’s British time trial bikes (designed prior to the Lugano charter) from companies like Hotta and Lotus.
Recently, a reader named David sent me pictures of his older monocoque time trail bike. Despite the fact that the bike is labeled as a Proteus, David believes that it was made by a company called Infinity. I have never heard of Infinity, but supposedly the monoblade rear chainstay is what pegs this bike as Infinity and not a later Hotta with an almost identical frame shape. I still have found no information on Infinity as a predecessor to Hotta, so if anyone knows anything about the brand, please let me know. Regardless of who really made this bike, it is pretty nice looking. The milled taper lock rear axle alone is an interesting detail on a bike that is probably 15 to 20 years old at this point.
Since I am on the subject of time trial bikes and the UCI, I will point out a couple of recent tech articles about the effect of the UCI’s new rules on the time trial bikes in the Tour this year. This VeloNews article shows how some of the bikes were modified weeks before the race to comply with the new rules. A little extra tape required here, extra material there…but in the end all of the teams bikes were allowed to start in Monaco a couple weeks ago. The CyclingNews article is the one that I really liked though. Using one particular regulation banning the use of “handlebar extension assemblies constructed on two levels’ as an example, they illustrate the confusion caused by the UCI’s poorly worded and ambiguous regulations. You can read the UCI document titled “Technical Regulations for Bicycles: A Practical Guide to Implementation” for yourself to see if any of the rules are a bit unclear.