Campag turns it up to 11...

[giropaul]

There seems to be a growing view that the UCI hold back "progress".

The thought has just occurred to me that what we may have is a situation where different groups of people want/need different things.

There may be riders of bikes who derive their enjoyment from the riding itself, travelling to places etc. Something that makes this easier, more comfortable, quicker will appeal.

However, for the sport of cycing the bike is a piece of sports equipment. As an athletic pursuit it should be about the athlete, not the kit. I believe that the UCI stance is entirely correct, in fact I think they have already moved too far with timetrial bikes. My particular point was confirmed for me by attending schoolboy/girl races where the need for well heeled and generous parents seems increasingly important. To be competative in a time trial I guess one probably needs a minimum of a disc rear wheel (£1,000+) and for most courses a low profile bike (£3,000+), and of course spare wheels in case there is a strong side wind etc. I used to race competativeley as a schoolboy on what I could make on a paper round - I couldn't do that now.

Cycling is a widely diverse sport and past-time. In other sports the objectives are much more clear cut.

For example - no doubt a javelin would go further if fitted with flights - no-one wants that to happen.

We have had the case of the sprinter with the carbon prosthetics, I have great respect for him as an athlete, but do we want a situation where little Johny needs a set for the school sports day?

That is why I support the UCI stance of keeping the sports equipment - the bike - as standard as the modern world allows, and still within the finacial reach of most people.

[Blah]

To be competative in a time trial I guess one probably needs a minimum of a disc rear wheel (£1,000+) and for most courses a low profile bike (£3,000+), and of course spare wheels in case there is a strong side wind etc. I used to race competativeley as a schoolboy on what I could make on a paper round - I couldn't do that now.

I disagree with that. You don't need a disc to ride competitively. They can be had for less than £200 second hand on the bay. A low profile bike (I presume you mean a TT bike, with a low front-end and a steep seat tube) can be had for far less than £3k. My hardly used Cervelo frameset cost me £250ish on Ebay. I put together my Triathlon bike for around £700, and that includes a (second hand) HED 3 rear. I haven't found a suitable front yet, so am using the front of my training set which is Shimano 105. They are surprisingly quick wheels in their own right.

In the last triathlon I did, I overtook A LOT of people on their £3k+ bikes with their Zipp wheelset. In that same race, all the fastest times were on bikes similar to mine.

It's not about the bike.

I will agree with you though, that if you're wanting to win the Tour de France Prologue, you'll probably need all the lightest and fastest kit you can get your hands on. But by then you'll be sponsored anyway.

Until then, a less expensive bike will do.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

So if you don't like gears, don't buy a bike with them on. If you only like a handful, buy one with a handfull etc. In this country we have the ability to get what we want, so why shouldn't people be able to choose?

I want nice, reliable, durable gears.  The problem with twaddle like 11sp is that it drives good, reliable equipment off the market.  Try getting worthwhile 7sp or 8sp equipment nowadays.  Given the incredibly sensitive and short-lived 10sp Campag gears I've used (compared to 7sp and 8sp), I don't expect too much improvement with the change to 11sp.

[bobb]

I put together my Triathlon bike for around £700k

  That must be one BLINGING bicycle!!! 

[mattc]

I want nice, reliable, durable gears.  The problem with twaddle like 11sp is that it drives good, reliable equipment off the market.  Try getting worthwhile 7sp or 8sp equipment nowadays.

Exactly. When my 8sp campy derailleur wore out, I reluctantly switched to Shimano 8sp (and only have a choice of 2 cassettes, it seems). Dunno how long I'll be able to hold out.

People suggesting an upgrade to 9sp, cos it's "pretty reliable", miss the point that chains and block cost 60% more (do they last as long? I have no idea). Oh and I'm quite happy with my (indexed) DT shifter - I'm SURE it will last longer than my Bianchi's STI thingies.

[Blah]

I put together my Triathlon bike for around £700k

  That must be one BLINGING bicycle!!! 

Thanks Modified my post.

[Polar Bear]

There seems to be a growing view that the UCI hold back "progress".

The thought has just occurred to me that what we may have is a situation where different groups of people want/need different things.

There may be riders of bikes who derive their enjoyment from the riding itself, travelling to places etc. Something that makes this easier, more comfortable, quicker will appeal.

However, for the sport of cycing the bike is a piece of sports equipment. As an athletic pursuit it should be about the athlete, not the kit. I believe that the UCI stance is entirely correct, in fact I think they have already moved too far with timetrial bikes. My particular point was confirmed for me by attending schoolboy/girl races where the need for well heeled and generous parents seems increasingly important. To be competative in a time trial I guess one probably needs a minimum of a disc rear wheel (£1,000+) and for most courses a low profile bike (£3,000+), and of course spare wheels in case there is a strong side wind etc. I used to race competativeley as a schoolboy on what I could make on a paper round - I couldn't do that now.

Cycling is a widely diverse sport and past-time. In other sports the objectives are much more clear cut.

For example - no doubt a javelin would go further if fitted with flights - no-one wants that to happen.

We have had the case of the sprinter with the carbon prosthetics, I have great respect for him as an athlete, but do we want a situation where little Johny needs a set for the school sports day?

That is why I support the UCI stance of keeping the sports equipment - the bike - as standard as the modern world allows, and still within the finacial reach of most people.

But sport at the top is about assistance,.   Athletes wearing skin suits, swimmers wearing suits that reduce water drag, cyclists wearing stupid helmets on TT's.   Given al the performance aids I don't know why they make such a big fuss about drugs.

Thankfully with Shimano and SRAM doing MTB we are not limited to racing kit so us less-inclined-to-race types are not left without choice.

[hubner]

There seems to be a growing view that the UCI hold back "progress".

The thought has just occurred to me that what we may have is a situation where different groups of people want/need different things.

There may be riders of bikes who derive their enjoyment from the riding itself, travelling to places etc. Something that makes this easier, more comfortable, quicker will appeal.

However, for the sport of cycing the bike is a piece of sports equipment. As an athletic pursuit it should be about the athlete, not the kit. I believe that the UCI stance is entirely correct, in fact I think they have already moved too far with timetrial bikes. My particular point was confirmed for me by attending schoolboy/girl races where the need for well heeled and generous parents seems increasingly important. To be competative in a time trial I guess one probably needs a minimum of a disc rear wheel (£1,000+) and for most courses a low profile bike (£3,000+), and of course spare wheels in case there is a strong side wind etc. I used to race competativeley as a schoolboy on what I could make on a paper round - I couldn't do that now.

Cycling is a widely diverse sport and past-time. In other sports the objectives are much more clear cut.

For example - no doubt a javelin would go further if fitted with flights - no-one wants that to happen.

We have had the case of the sprinter with the carbon prosthetics, I have great respect for him as an athlete, but do we want a situation where little Johny needs a set for the school sports day?

That is why I support the UCI stance of keeping the sports equipment - the bike - as standard as the modern world allows, and still within the finacial reach of most people.

But sport at the top is about assistance,.   Athletes wearing skin suits, swimmers wearing suits that reduce water drag, cyclists wearing stupid helmets on TT's.   Given al the performance aids I don't know why they make such a big fuss about drugs.

Thankfully with Shimano and SRAM doing MTB we are not limited to racing kit so us less-inclined-to-race types are not left without choice.

I agree with Giropaul, bikes used in cycle sport should all be similar in performance, and should be based on history.

Any advances, in the sense of anything makes makes you ride faster, is only an advantage if you're the only rider in the race who's got it. Once everyone's got an aero helmet, disc wheel etc, it is no longer an advantage. So for racing, "progress" is not relevant.

However, for non-racing it is entirely different, anything that makes cycling easier or faster is an advantage. The UCI only regulate bikes used in their races, there nothing to stop anyone putting eg, disc brakes, fairings, suspension, engines etc on road bikes.