Comments on: Is the UCI just misunderstood?

By: station44025

station44025 — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:51:32 +0000

“He was using technology that was available to anyone and operating on a lower budget that the cost of most pro bikes?” …Exactly why they had to shut him down.

By: station44025

station44025 — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:47:14 +0000

“If anyone is to blame for any perceived lack of development it is the consumer. Full stop. The manufacturers will gladly follow the money. Alas, apparently there isn’t a mob of recumbent riders threatening to rush the gates of Castle Trek or any other such manufacturer. Wanna know why? It’s because interest in recumbents isn’t there.”

This is EXACTLY the line of reasoning that Detroit used for decades to justify their sole focus on SUVs and gas guzzlers, btw. We all know how well that worked out. Consumers pick from among the choices they have, and the major manufacturers don not have an incentive to expand those choices. I recommend reading Tim Wu’s Master Switch for a historical look at how corporations undermine technological innovation to preserve their market dominance, usually through the use of regulatory bodies, and always with the claim that they’re looking out for the customers’ best interests.

By: station44025

station44025 — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 15:45:47 +0000

To put it more succinctly, there is no other governing body that I can think of that has such influence over an entire category of sport and an industry. The IOC might be the only other organization with comparable influence over multiple sports. There is no global organization issuing rulings for, all motor sports, all sailboats, all sports-played-with-balls, all-kinds-of-running, sliding-on-snow-sports, board games, etc.. But nearly all kinds of bicycle racing, from BMX to TT to CX to velodrome are controlled to a large degree by decrees from a single organization, and that fact necessarily stifles innovation and protects business interests. A bike is not like a soccer ball in that it is a functional mode of transportation first, and an arbitrary piece of sports paraphernalia second–much like a car or a boat. All sports have to have arbitrary rules, but it is unfortunate that due to the structural reality of cycling, the sport ends up effectively holding back development elsewhere instead of pushing it forward.

By: epicyclo

epicyclo — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:58:15 +0000

If he is telling the truth, could he explain why they were down on Graeme Obree like a ton of bricks.

He was using technology that was available to anyone and operating on a lower budget that the cost of most pro bikes?

I call bullshit!

By: station44025

station44025 — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 05:55:44 +0000

The comparison to sailboat racing is interesting, because it illustrates exactly what the “problem” is with the UCI. While sailing can’t possibly be as ubiquitous as bike riding in the world, there are hundreds of recognized sailboat classes of all different sizes, shapes and budgets (raced in any number of combinations) compared to a relative handful of bicycle “classes.” It is interesting that the UCI requires all equipment to be available to consumers, unlike F1, NASCAR, America’s Cup, etc., and obviously this symbiotic relationship with the major manufacturers is part of the equation. There is no room for “one design” upstarts to compete with Trek and Specialized et al. for a reason. In my opinion, the requirements of the courses and tactics would probably keep bike designs relatively close to where they are even if the UCI were to open up some of the more arbitrary seeming restrictions like seat tube angles. TT seems to be where the real technical arms race is, and maybe that should be allowed to become more of an incubator for new design. For whatever reason, the UCI has far more influence over general bike design than any of the other racing organizations do over their respective technologies. This is partly economic, and partly cultural. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say “if X is so great, then why don’t they use it in the Tour de France?”

BTW, as for triathlons, USAT rules specify “Any unusual bicycle construction or equipment to which the specifications in Section 5.11 cannot easily be applied shall be illegal unless prior approval is received from the Head Referee before the equipment is used in the event. Any violation of this Section shall result in disqualification.”

and ITU rules state “j) Non-traditional or unusual bicycles or equipment shall be illegal unless prior approval has been received from the Chief Race Official prior to the start of the competition.”

Even tri bikes from years past now fall afoul of rules governing different wheel sizes, fairings, geometry, etc..

By: Nick F

Nick F — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:25:12 +0000

“…is like saying that NASCAR really should be doing more to push hybrid development.”

This is exactly what I’m saying.

If cars were as popular as bikes (meaning: not very – only a few percent of people used them to commute) I think NASCAR would have an obligation to use their racing “product-development machine” to make cars which could eventually improve the comsumer’s life.

By: art

art — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 18:13:27 +0000

The problem is that you’re looking at this from the very narrow perspective of an amateur racer. We really aren’t as important as we think we are, and the UCI is not the biggest driver of most bicycle companies’ efforts. The average customer walking into a bike shop simply doesn’t care what’s race legal. Most of them aren’t even buying road bikes. Saying that the UCI has anything to do with “infrastructure of the world and the human experience” is like saying that NASCAR really should be doing more to push hybrid development.

By: Nick F

Nick F — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:51:37 +0000

Sure, but even in triathlons, the highest level follow UCI frame regulations… and I think it is the nature of the competitive athlete to at least hold on to the possibility that they may one day perform at that level… making it less desirable to have technology that will eventually be unusable.

At this point in the argument, the specifics become irrelevant, and it hinges on whether you think the UCI, as the biggest driver of bike companies’ effort and the biggest reason a consumer buys an expensive bicycle, should be pushing for innovation or keeping things static.

I simply think that given the enormous potential for bicycles to improve both the infrastructure of the world and the human experience, everyone involved with them should push to advance their technology and make them more accessible to all.

By: art

art — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 14:25:44 +0000

Were allowed? Beam bikes are still legal for almost all triathlon events as well as local, non-USCF road and time trial events. The number of racers for whom these bikes are illegal is a small percentage of the market. So, most of the thousands of amateurs who bought those bikes to race would probably still be doing so if they weren’t so terribly heavy. The technology trickled more sideways than down to get to you.

By: Nick F

Nick F — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:59:34 +0000

Right, but in this case, the UCI doing something like allowing thicker tubing sections, or allowing something like a beam bike back into races *wouldn’t* add any development cost and *would* benefit the consumer tremendously.

And of course technology trickles down. I wasn’t able to buy a cheap used softride for commuting on rough roads because thousands were made for that particular use… I was able to buy one cheap because for a while, they were allowed in races, and my frame is a cast-off from that era.

I don’t think softrides are the greatest bikes ever made, but they certainly have a lot of advantages and it is a shame that the technology never had a chance to mature because of a rule change.