Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Freewheeling => Topic started by: mzjo on 16 February, 2020, 12:47:02 pm
-
Today was the bike jumble at St Junien. As usual lots of racing kit of all ages and a bit of mtb. Racing here means massed start road racing (and a few sportives) even if the buyers are not competitors!
On the way home the thought crossed my mind that a lot of tt machines would fall foul of strict Eroica rules due to the cut-off date.
So why not an event for "vintage" tt bikes - but with rules a lot freer than Eroica. No limitations on indexing, hidden cables, automatic pedals other than what could have been available at the time. Some limitations on aero bars.and disc wheels again depending on availability and legality at the time. Extra liberty for riders using a frame that they had from new and modernised with the passing years, decades etc (ie a frame that the competitor had new in the 70's or 80's and had since fitted with new wheels, transmission etc to remain competitive). This last rule would obviously demand a lot of common sense and give-and-take from participants.
Would there be any enthusiasm for such an event? Should it be a real tt or just a fun meeting? Should the rules be aligned on UK or UCI rules (this would only serve for a guide to what was permitted on a given age of machine)? Would a cut-off date of 2000 seem appropriate to allow some of the interesting machines)? Should there be an age standard for bikes like for riders (with possibility to accumulate the two :) ) What distance? Does something like this exist already?
This isn't in the racing board because I'm not sure it would be a race!
Any thoughts welcome. I am not offering to organise!!!!
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
-
I don't really understand what you're aiming for, but
Road-bike TTs are thriving, and "non-aero" have also been popular. So there is demand out there for weird categories :-)
-
Something like this
https://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/is-the-1996-lotus-110-still-competitive (https://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/is-the-1996-lotus-110-still-competitive)
-
There are some absolutely beautiful 70s/80s TT bikes. There’s a guy on the TT forum that builds and restores them. I’d love one of the short wheelbase curved steel lo-pros with a 650 front wheel, but storage is an issue.
-
There are some absolutely beautiful 70s/80s TT bikes. There’s a guy on the TT forum that builds and restores them. I’d love one of the short wheelbase curved steel lo-pros with a 650 front wheel, but storage is an issue.
He has a nice garden too.
-
The Eroica spirit is that of freezing time to 1987... anything prior to that is game anything after is frawned upon.
With TT bikes is a bit different as 1987 is probably when you start seeing the first dedicated machines... so you need to define an era
-
So doesn't that make 1987 an appropriate point for Eroica TT too? IIRC 1987 was chosen originally as being more or less the beginning of indexed gearing, clipless pedals and so on. If it's also a turning point in TTs – a before and after point – then it makes sense to do Eroica TTs on pre-87 bikes. If an Eroica TT makes sense at all.
-
The first aerobars used in RAAM were mid-80s, well before the triathletes used them, so a 1987 date cutoff for TT bikes could be justifiable. There were plenty of low profile TT bikes in the mid-80s, so interesting to see.
https://www.triathlete.com/2010/07/culture/lifestyle/was-the-first-aerobar-really-not-the-first_11039
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
-
The Eroica spirit is that of freezing time to 1987... anything prior to that is game anything after is frawned upon.
With TT bikes is a bit different as 1987 is probably when you start seeing the first dedicated machines... so you need to define an era
Well that wasn't quite what I had in mind. I was more thinking of something where machines of all eras could be on the course at the same time (which is why I have my doubts about a "serious" race).
I think there needs to be a cut-off date if only to define the nature of the event. Otherwise there is nothing to stop half the field turning up on the latest machines which rather spoils the object of the exercise, especially if there is a field size of 120. But the cut-off date in my view has to be late enough to allow for example Mig's Pinarellos or some of Graham Obree's designs. What started the thought was the idea that Bernard Hinault's Gitane (I forget the year but mid-80's, inside the Eroica period) would be ineligible for an event under Eroica rules. It seems unreasonable that machines like that should be confined to museums rather than going out on the road from time to time. I don't see any reason why a 1950's fixed wheel shouldn't be in the same event as a 70's uswb machine or the Pinarello, provided that the thing is organised in the right spirit.
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
I am not sure that the role of the UCI in changing the construction rules is a major point. At any era the bikes are what they are because of the circumstances in which they were built and used. The moment that one accepts that from a purely nostalgic point of view the bikes are presented such as they are the rules become irrelevant. The only real reason for wanting to free the period conformity thing up is so that bikes can be seen and used as they really were, rather than forcing wholesale rebuilding to make them "authentic". (and there really shouldn't be any serious conformity rules that could create arguments; it should remain a fun thing. If not done for the pleasure then there's not much point to it)
-
Why not indeed Jo??? To the real fans frames aren't cheap however lots of bargains on Uk ebay if you look.... ;)
-
Then go for 'last century' machines. Lots of interesting TT options.
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
-
So doesn't that make 1987 an appropriate point for Eroica TT too? IIRC 1987 was chosen originally as being more or less the beginning of indexed gearing, clipless pedals and so on. If it's also a turning point in TTs – a before and after point – then it makes sense to do Eroica TTs on pre-87 bikes. If an Eroica TT makes sense at all.
I did the retroronde twice... the second time they had a criterium race for period bikes on the cobbled town centre of Oudenaarde... loved it...
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
I think the problem is that the super shoes haven't been banned
-
What started the thought was the idea that Bernard Hinault's Gitane (I forget the year but mid-80's, inside the Eroica period) would be ineligible for an event under Eroica rules. It seems unreasonable that machines like that should be confined to museums rather than going out on the road from time to time.
Agreed it seems unreasonable to confine any bike that is in a fit state to ride to a museum, but what is there in the Eroica rules that would ban Hinault's Gitane? I don't know offhand what bike we're talking about but google suggests this one?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/iFFehq8ParneVd0xomQtfZG3PK_MoI3qJOZhJL4YdBXCuCKpZbzJzQAdgEa9XDhBUMJXnW7wC4HqpP5uCRF-r-UZtpsYdM4_LGDncwcB61oXb4DUQ9I)
-
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
I'm not sure how an event that specifies a type of bike that isn't used in the mainstream events *isn't* about the technology. Just because it's based in nostalgia or accessibility rather than performance gains (HPV racing is that way -->) doesn't change that...
-
Then go for 'last century' machines. Lots of interesting TT options.
Sounds like a plan :thumbsup: So 2000-12-31 or earlier, yeah?
-
What started the thought was the idea that Bernard Hinault's Gitane (I forget the year but mid-80's, inside the Eroica period) would be ineligible for an event under Eroica rules. It seems unreasonable that machines like that should be confined to museums rather than going out on the road from time to time.
Agreed it seems unreasonable to confine any bike that is in a fit state to ride to a museum, but what is there in the Eroica rules that would ban Hinault's Gitane? I don't know offhand what bike we're talking about but google suggests this one?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/iFFehq8ParneVd0xomQtfZG3PK_MoI3qJOZhJL4YdBXCuCKpZbzJzQAdgEa9XDhBUMJXnW7wC4HqpP5uCRF-r-UZtpsYdM4_LGDncwcB61oXb4DUQ9I)
The Gitane Delta was the interesting mid-80s TT bike, not the Gitane Profil above.
http://velos-mont-valerien.over-blog.com/article-le-gitane-delta-tt-83149429.html
-
Because of the wing bars, presumably. As they're period correct, though not typical, I'm not sure why they wouldn't be allowed in Eroica?
-
What started the thought was the idea that Bernard Hinault's Gitane (I forget the year but mid-80's, inside the Eroica period) would be ineligible for an event under Eroica rules. It seems unreasonable that machines like that should be confined to museums rather than going out on the road from time to time.
Agreed it seems unreasonable to confine any bike that is in a fit state to ride to a museum, but what is there in the Eroica rules that would ban Hinault's Gitane? I don't know offhand what bike we're talking about but google suggests this one?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/iFFehq8ParneVd0xomQtfZG3PK_MoI3qJOZhJL4YdBXCuCKpZbzJzQAdgEa9XDhBUMJXnW7wC4HqpP5uCRF-r-UZtpsYdM4_LGDncwcB61oXb4DUQ9I)
The Gitane Delta was the interesting mid-80s TT bike, not the Gitane Profil above.
http://velos-mont-valerien.over-blog.com/article-le-gitane-delta-tt-83149429.html
I like how already back then they were coming out with over inflated power saving figures... :thumbsup:
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
I think the problem is that the super shoes haven't been banned
OK - under consideration is the latest. The principle stands though, should every club runner have to spend ££££££ just to be competitive?
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
This is just odd to me. Cycling is a technology sport, it's the quintessential industrial-era form of athletics. The entire point of cycling is to marry technology to the human, to gain speed and performance someone just running around wouldn't be able to sustain. The pursuit of elite performance on cycles should be encouraged to innovate in order to drive improvements for cycling at large in a trickle-down way. I don't think it's a coincidence that road cycling innovation has stifled since the UCI introduced their frame proportion rules, and all the new ideas seem to be pinched from MTB etc. We can also see how prescriptions on bike specification such as the NJS system for Kierin actually makes the products less accessible over time. An NJS compliant Dura Ace kierin track drivetrain (chainset, BB, cog) is nearly double the cost of Campagnolo Record Pista set.
The idea that the 'non compliant' bikes are 'dangerous' can't be right, triathletes use non compliant bikes and components all the time and it does them no harm. See e.g. the Felt IA disc or the Diamondback.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0021/5701/9254/products/BBHCA05_IA-FRD-DISC-MATTE-BLK_600x.jpg?v=1562783624)
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/1/articles/2018/02/diamondback-andean-1-bike-profile-0-1519915682.jpg?resize=480:*)
In my view the act of stifling innovation has been a huge boon to the big bike manufacturers; it lets them collect rents on the cycling industry since the barrier to entry for new suppliers is higher.
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
I think the problem is that the super shoes haven't been banned
OK - under consideration is the latest. The principle stands though, should every club runner have to spend ££££££ just to be competitive?
Yes... it's capitalism, innit?
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
This is just odd to me. Cycling is a technology sport, it's the quintessential industrial-era form of athletics. The entire point of cycling is to marry technology to the human, to gain speed and performance someone just running around wouldn't be able to sustain. The pursuit of elite performance on cycles should be encouraged to innovate in order to drive improvements for cycling at large in a trickle-down way. I don't think it's a coincidence that road cycling innovation has stifled since the UCI introduced their frame proportion rules, and all the new ideas seem to be pinched from MTB etc. We can also see how prescriptions on bike specification such as the NJS system for Kierin actually makes the products less accessible over time. An NJS compliant Dura Ace kierin track drivetrain (chainset, BB, cog) is nearly double the cost of Campagnolo Record Pista set.
The idea that the 'non compliant' bikes are 'dangerous' can't be right, triathletes use non compliant bikes and components all the time and it does them no harm. See e.g. the Felt IA disc or the Diamondback.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0021/5701/9254/products/BBHCA05_IA-FRD-DISC-MATTE-BLK_600x.jpg?v=1562783624)
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/1/articles/2018/02/diamondback-andean-1-bike-profile-0-1519915682.jpg?resize=480:*)
In my view the act of stifling innovation has been a huge boon to the big bike manufacturers; it lets them collect rents on the cycling industry since the barrier to entry for new suppliers is higher.
My eyes.....
I thought the Cervelo P5X was fugly….
-
I used to have that attitude. But in time I began to revel in the disregard for the tyranny of the UCI's stifling rules, with their ghastly measuring tapes and wagging fingers. Why should some Swiss-resident technocrat with fixations on 'podium girls' and sock heights be in charge of the shape of bikes? To blazes with their 'authority' that's what I say.
Probably worth bearing in mind that many excellent production bikes like Moutlons are banned by the UCI too. Moultons were being raced pretty hard until the UCI banned them. http://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/heritage.html#recordsracing
(https://scontent-lhr8-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/86378077_10157831109390446_3328677964538707968_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ohc=UPjBxZ_LlJQAX_78d7a&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-1.xx&oh=83588ad2e709ef28c236b9db1765fa5f&oe=5EBF2559)
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/86180119_1530672983754254_713275616962543616_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=FiGTSQiZ0CEAX-agwfY&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=f834667be70e1abec66311866782ce81&oe=5EC7E8AA)
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/73281445_3264587496914867_7300414397027975168_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ohc=eQmsG3O__BAAX_0budX&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=12c1bbe29b621e4ba159fe8b62c37aed&oe=5EB917BB)
(http://www.moultonbicycles.co.uk/images/IronManC.gif)
-
Surely railing against the UCI is a bit of a misnomer. UK TTs aren't UCI regulated so you just need to comply with CTT regs. For the record I couldn't use my current race bike as it's fixed.
Of the current super bikes I like the Giant Trinity and the Trek Speed Concept. Still quite aesthetically pleasing whilst aero.
-
I mean there are all sorts of reasons to despise the UCI, their mailed-fisted grip on the cycling industry with their stupid rules is but one.
-
The idea that the 'non compliant' bikes are 'dangerous' can't be right, triathletes use non compliant bikes and components all the time and it does them no harm. See e.g. the Felt IA disc or the Diamondback.
Surely anything used by a triathlete has to be road legal and therefore will have passed tests and/or comply with standards for road bikes prescribed by the EU, US, etc? That, plus the manufacturers' concern for their reputations and legal costs etc, and normal engineering concerns, should keep them safe regardless of anything the UCI might rule.
-
Isn't the bar for road-legality basically "appropriate brakes and doesn't immediately fall to bits"? I mean, we're all at liberty to buy or molish a road-legal pedal cycle of a type that even the HPV racers[1] wouldn't permit without modification.
Mass-produced machines are going to be governed by liability, and given the average bike spends most of its life rusting in a shed, it's only the high-end minority that are likely to have a reputation worth protecting and get ridden enough to injure anyone.
[1] We're less fussy about brakes and falling to bits, but have a rule about spiky bits.
-
I mean there are all sorts of reasons to despise the UCI, their mailed-fisted grip on the cycling industry with their stupid rules is but one.
I have a lot of things in my life to be angry about. This is not one of them.
-
Isn't the bar for road-legality basically "appropriate brakes and doesn't immediately fall to bits"? I mean, we're all at liberty to buy or molish a road-legal pedal cycle of a type that even the HPV racers[1] wouldn't permit without modification.
Mass-produced machines are going to be governed by liability, and given the average bike spends most of its life rusting in a shed, it's only the high-end minority that are likely to have a reputation worth protecting and get ridden enough to injure anyone.
[1] We're less fussy about brakes and falling to bits, but have a rule about spiky bits.
Sloppy writing on my part, sorry. There's a difference between road legality, as you describe, and CUR or whatever the term is for pedal cycles; the ENxxxx that has replaced BS6102, which does include requirements for things like frame strength.
-
There's a difference between road legality, as you describe, and CUR or whatever the term is for pedal cycles; the ENxxxx that has replaced BS6102, which does include requirements for things like frame strength.
Gosh, how had I not come across this before?
Presumably the average BSO is able to comply...
-
I am wiping the blood off my keyboard... I think the point was that safety comes from manufacture not UCI compliance.
-
I am wiping the blood off my keyboard... I think the point was that safety comes from manufacture not UCI compliance.
Sure, but safety in a competition environment isn't necessarily the same as safety on the road, and there's plenty of precedent for competition organisers/insurers/governing bodies to impose all sorts of rules on the grounds of avoiding things that may cause bikes to handle differently in ways that aren't desirable in a close group, or to avoid having too much stabby stuff around during a pile-up. See also: Mandating PPE.
Not saying it's necessarily sensible, or effective.
-
Yes... I think we're in furious agreement here...
-
I used to have that attitude. But in time I began to revel in the disregard for the tyranny of the UCI's stifling rules, with their ghastly measuring tapes and wagging fingers. Why should some Swiss-resident technocrat with fixations on 'podium girls' and sock heights be in charge of the shape of bikes? To blazes with their 'authority' that's what I say
Until recently the responsible manager at the UCI was from Nuneaton and Lived in France. He lost the job when the Presidency changed, but now works with manufacturers to secure approval for new products. The sock height rule is about maintaining a level playing field aerodynamically. I don’t know his views on podium girls as this is nothing to do with the UCI, but is the responsibility of race organisers. He did, by the way, qualify for PBP
Within CTT and Triathlon there are much fewer rules - and it’s generally accepted that competitors can buy speed . When I was young I had one affordable race bike for road races and time trials. Now schoolboys and juniors need parents with very deep pockets to compete in time trials. Less fortunate youngsters, and adults, are excluded for financial reasons. That can’t be good for the sport.
-
It is to do with the UCI. They are responsible for the sport, they could outlaw them as they do high socks and whatever else as a condition of being UCI-certified, but they don't. It's a sick joke. The best they could do was make rules about 'more respectful' podium ceremonies. https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-roll-out-guidelines-for-more-respectful-podium-ceremonies/
-
...
When I was young I had one affordable race bike for road races and time trials. Now schoolboys and juniors need parents with very deep pockets to compete in time trials. Less fortunate youngsters, and adults, are excluded for financial reasons. That can’t be good for the sport.
hear hear.
-
I used to have that attitude. But in time I began to revel in the disregard for the tyranny of the UCI's stifling rules, with their ghastly measuring tapes and wagging fingers. Why should some Swiss-resident technocrat with fixations on 'podium girls' and sock heights be in charge of the shape of bikes? To blazes with their 'authority' that's what I say
Until recently the responsible manager at the UCI was from Nuneaton and Lived in France. He lost the job when the Presidency changed, but now works with manufacturers to secure approval for new products. The sock height rule is about maintaining a level playing field aerodynamically. I don’t know his views on podium girls as this is nothing to do with the UCI, but is the responsibility of race organisers. He did, by the way, qualify for PBP
Within CTT and Triathlon there are much fewer rules - and it’s generally accepted that competitors can buy speed . When I was young I had one affordable race bike for road races and time trials. Now schoolboys and juniors need parents with very deep pockets to compete in time trials. Less fortunate youngsters, and adults, are excluded for financial reasons. That can’t be good for the sport.
More regulation makes it more expensive to compete, not less. Anyone with a good brain can invent equipment that is better than what already exists, but to invent something that is better but still looks the same as the old equipment, and then to put it through all the raft of tests required before it's allowed to compete: that takes serious financial resources.
-
...
When I was young I had one affordable race bike for road races and time trials. Now schoolboys and juniors need parents with very deep pockets to compete in time trials. Less fortunate youngsters, and adults, are excluded for financial reasons. That can’t be good for the sport.
hear hear.
There's ways round this, though. One of our best espoirs, and now double transcontinental winner, shattered our club 10 and 25 records on a bike he borrowed from one of the coaches. There's also a very good article where Aerocoach built Richard Bussell a bike for under a grand that he won the National 10 champs on. I agree it's not cheap but you can race on a budget.
-
More regulation makes it more expensive to compete, not less. Anyone with a good brain can invent equipment that is better than what already exists, but to invent something that is better but still looks the same as the old equipment, and then to put it through all the raft of tests required before it's allowed to compete: that takes serious financial resources.
Exactly. It doesn't make sense at first glance, but regulating the kit has correlated with the racing becoming more expensive and less accessible. It's the same with motor vehicles; the top tiers of motoring (i.e. F1) has led to innovations that makes motoring cheaper down the 'grade'. Indeed it wasn't long ago that driving was a hobby pursuit for monied gentlemen, now every other bugger has a car and for not a lot of dough you can have one that is very quick indeed.
Contrast this with NJS-regulated Keirin, which has made 'standardised' bikes ludicrously expensive. The cheapest NJS-certified track frame I can find online is £580 and this is a design and manufacture that hasn't changed in decades. https://alexscycle.com/collections/njs-frames/products/lightning-njs-frame-fixie-edition-1
If the idea was really to measure 'pure athletic performance' then we should just mandate everyone uses plain gauge aluminium frames with cheapo steel forks, 26" wheels and v brakes with a minimum weight of 13 kg and just call it a day.
-
There is a fun UCI Bandit Bike Facebook group which is full of people posting pictures of old school TT speed machines before the UCI came and ruined everything.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/1798978930380412?refid=0
Ruined?
I can’t altogether get the anti-UCI stance. The UCI are concerned to
- keep cycling as an athletic rather than technology sport ( note, the “super shoes” for the recent marathon record have been banned for similar reasons)
- ensure that cycles are safe - so no dangerously fragile components, dangerous positions etc
Obviously companies frequently test the limits, but at least so far cycling is about the riders performance.
The “ road bike” or “eroica” events fit these guidelines anyway. I was saddened to see a triathlon aimed article in a magazine about how to buy speed!
I think the problem is that the super shoes haven't been banned
OK - under consideration is the latest. The principle stands though, should every club runner have to spend ££££££ just to be competitive?
They've banned 'prototypes' and allowed stack height of up to 40mm(!!), which somewhat fortuitously allows the latest Nike alphafly next % ...
personally id limit stack height to something under half that (5 or 6mm would suit me, but) and ban what ever plate structure seemed to give the advantage:)