The point isn't that particular bike, nor the fairings, nor the tire clearance but if we must focus on that...OK, so there are min tire clearances, make the tire clearance or re-engineer it so it will work and then what? You'd probably still get a good amount of aero benefit from the front fairing alone, but still, all you've got is just a model bike.

The point is things like this have no way to get out of a pure design phase because UCI regs effectively limits innovation. I think it's safe to say that the semi-pro and amateur racers are probably where the OEMs are making most of their per unit profit. These cyclists will focus in on the big dollar halo bikes and will probably replace them more often, whether through use or just getting the latest/greatest, than the average cyclists. They wouldn't spend that kind of $$$ on something that they can't compete in.

As the OP pointed out, if they're concerned about keeping it "pure" and all about the athlete, then keep the steeds metal with round tubes and keep the drivetrain analog. Or better yet, put out a spec bike and be done with it. That they keep using "pureness of the sport" as some excuse is laughable.

Maybe I'm just expecting too much to happen too fast but the conspiracist in me says otherwise. *edit* and along that vein it's probably the drug and drug testing companies money that are also lining UCIs pockets