Freestyle Recumbent BMX competitions or bust!

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 :lol:

Does anyone seriously believe that the reason manufacturers don't attach farings to bikes is because the UCI doesn't allow it? That's not difficult technology--people just don't want it.

I do think if the bike race riders had fairings that suddenly they'd become fashionable unless they were horribly ugly. I mean look what bike racing has done for lycra.

OK, last time I'm going to talk about fairings, I wasn't intending this to be about fairings.

No, fairings are not hard tech but to pull it off in an aesthetically functional way does require effort.

I firmly believe if the Pro's were significantly cutting down their times in a semi-attractive package, we'd see the amateurs adopt it and then the road bikers etc. and eventually it just becomes the norm.

Just look at STIs/brifters. Remember how bulbous and weird looking they were? 30 years later however they are completely mainstream.

The idea that everything trickles down from racers is just wrong. Disc brakes and flat bars, for example, flowed from mountain biking, and really are descended more from motorcycles than any kind of UCI racing. Faring is used a bit in motorcycles, but it definitely isn't the norm. Never used it myself on a bicycle, but basically it looks like it would be awkward and inconvenient, and the nature of the item is going to require a fairly large minimum size.

Nah, it really doesn't. What wins on Sunday has scant little effect on what sells Monday anymore. Out of the dozens of platforms I've seen since taking this job near a year ago, I'd say exactly one specific model has any care to what a racing series allows, and even that is more along the lines of homologation than actual rules following.

TBH police trim requirements are a far bigger consideration on platforms that require them than SCCA, NASCAR, or FIA requirements would be on a performance trim.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me the last manufacturers that won Sebring, Le Mans, or 24 Hours of Daytona, sans Google.

Just imagine a recumbent rider taking a rolling comfort break.

Or getting up d'Huez, nevermind the incline--simply the crowd.

You seem bent out of shape? Start your own 'bent racing league. Good luck with that.

I think many UCI rules regarding equipment suck, but I don't think UCI can be faulted for the lack diversity or the general resistance to change in road bike design. It is Roadie culture's myopic obsession with pro racing (which is largely controlled by UCI regulations) that is responsible.

As long as every discussion of the merits of bikes and related gear is settle by looking at what the top level pros are using, progress and innovation will be slow, and mostly controlled by UCI regulations and the big names (Shimano, SRAM, etc..).

I find it interesting comparing how things progress with road bikes vs mountain bikes. Whereas road bike evolution is very much a top-down approach (both in terms of the influence of pro racing and of just a small number or bike equipment companies), MTB has been very much the opposite, at least for the past 15-20 years.

I guess number two could be a lot easier.

The benefit of an aero bike is limited when, by UCI decree, half of the rider's body must be perpendicular to the induced wind. The UCI allows a trickle of innovation to introduce very small gains, but again I suspect the rate of trickle is largely a factor of 'donations' going to the UCI officials.

The fairing on that fUCI bike looks replaceable. Besides, the rider wouldn't be looking through it.

Just off the top of my head I can recount a number of automotive innovations that trickled down from racing. Sure, it's not "Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday" anymore, these systems are much more complex than yesteryears, but it still trickles down.

Honda's VTEC system
Carbon anything - roof, brake rotors - first saw it on F1 (carbon rotors that is), then when I started seeing them on the JGTC circuit I knew they were coming to production cars
Multibuttoned steering wheels
Paddle shifters - who didn't want these watching F1?
Rev matching/launch control - this was such a cool feature in rally cars, sounded awesome, "brahh, brahh, brahh, POP! POP! brahh, POP!
Dual clutch "automanual" transmissions
Programmable EFI control systems
controllable suspension systems

Furthermore, there are a lot more international governing bodies for automotive racing than there is in bicycle racing which promotes a much more diverse pool of candidate technologies. How many international governing bodies are there in bicycling?

The MTB comparison is an apt one. Consider just how much MTB design and innovation has come since they were first introduced. The tech and advancement in MTB is astounding!

You know what they don't have?

The UCI.

Sure, but that is a different argument than what is being sold to the public must comply with series rules, and therefore limits manufacturer creativity, which is the argument the first couple posts made. Heck, one can't even race half the cars sold in the lowest barriers to entry form of racing in America, autocross, which is pretty much open to anyone with a drivers license and a car just this side of a POS.

And disk brakes flowed from MTB into UCI. I think you've lost the plot here--you're basically saying that UCI is holding up progress because tech it doesn't approve for racing doesn't get developed, but then when faced with tech that didn't come from racing, your response is that it's the lack of a racing authority that allowed it to develop. So basically, you're arguing that UCI approval is necessary to promote a technology for road biking, and your proof for that is that technology that later gets adopted in road biking gets developed in an area that has no UCI.

Bents aren't meeting consumer resistance because they aren't raced, it's because they are awkward machines, difficult to operate on the street and really way more complicated than diamond frame bikes. I seriously doubt that some of the crazy aero positions that UCI has banned would be anything that amateur riders are going to find practical on the roads.

Frankly, if you were right that the UCI was really in the pocket of manufacturers and racing is the only way to promote road bike sales, why wouldn't they allow all technologies? The bike companies would love to be able to market even more levels of doo dads and jimcrackery.

Fair enough, that particular section you highlighted was off the mark a bit, but the post as a whole was not too far off I hope. The basic point being:

Automotive racing -> many regulating bodies -> many different rulesets -> manufacturers can pick and choose where to compete -> lots of technical innovation and designs -> lots of trickle down tech and adoption
Bicycle (road) racing -> one major regulating body -> one set of rules -> very limited choice for manufacturers -> severely ******* innovation -> less trickle down tech and acceptance

As for autocross, I taught my niece and nephew how to drive at autocross events in a POS automatic Toyota Corolla. Is great for teaching steering and throttle control as well as situational awareness. Which reminds me of the original Dodge Neon ACR. You can't get much more "Race on Sunday, Sell on Monday" for the masses than that. And that thing was a beast on the autocross course with a competent driver and tires. Or this one time a then-brand-new-model Honda Insight with slicks mopping up its class...SMH, I was ashamed.

Oh yeah, I got your general points, I agree on them! May be less racing trickle down, I just don't think UCI rules really affect what manufacturers make, at least at the sub $5k or so price point.

And yeah, Neons make sweet little race cars. I'm in the market for a new AutoX/HPDE/track day car, if I wasn't set on a torquey RWD to learn and bolster my driving credentials at work, an SRT would definitely be on my list of ones to look for :thumb:

I dont think anyone so far is understanding the point I am trying to make. The UCI claims they are trying to keep the sport pure, so todays racers can be compared to racers even a century ago. They had round tubes then, but now the UCI is allowing CF bikes that DO NOT have round tubes. Thats why I say the UCI is not as pure as they claim to be. Again they are probably on the take from the Mfg.

Adjunct to this, what does a $15,000 CF racing bike actually cost the Mfg to build?

Every sport needs rules. A technological sport needs technological rules. A pharmacological sport needs pharmacological rules. Heck, football and baseball have financial rules as well. Imagine how much more exciting football would be, if there was no limit to how much the players could get paid. Imagine if there were no financial / recruiting rules in college football.

I could imagine a couple of reasons for technological rules in a technological sport. First, unlimited technology simply becomes a money game. Second, it takes time to assess the impact of some technologies on the health and safety of the athletes. Third, hugely imbalanced competition makes the sport less interesting to fans and athletes alike.

But I don't see the cycling rules limiting mainstream cycling. The most common bikes -- hybrids, cruisers, etc. -- don't resemble racing bikes at all. Electrics are taking the world by storm.

A diamond frame with non-round tubes is still a diamond frame. A recumbent has an entirely different rider position with completely different aerodynamics. Who said the UCI is pure? They're making a judgment call. I happen to think it's a fairly reasonable one.

How does banning tech show that the UCI is on the take? The mfgs sell tech. That makes no sense.

Less than $15000. It's called a profit margin.

They do? Can you point me towards a document or a statement comfirming that, or is this just a giant strawman?

And define what you all want included in that peer piece cost? Are we talking solely raw parts? R&D? Factory race (ie advertising) costs?

Again----------------------I am NOT trying to promote recumbents or trikes here. I am just saying that if the UCI wants to claim they are purist, with the CF frames they now allow, they certainly are not.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are corrupted by money.