|
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20561896)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by zze86
(Post 20562014)
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. |
Originally Posted by zze86
(Post 20561208)
Racing has no bearing on the public? C'mon you're in the automotive industry. Of course it does.
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.
|
Originally Posted by smarkinson
(Post 20562713)
Just imagine a recumbent rider taking a rolling comfort break.
|
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20560812)
It appears to me that the UCI are a bunch of hypocrites. They ban recumbents, but they allow all the new plastic CF bikes with their streamlining. If they really wanted to remain pure they would decree that all frame tubes would be round, just like in the past.
The UCI was on the take from big bike mfg back in 1934 when they banned bents, and now appear to be on the take from all the big bike mfg now, so they can sell their extremely high priced plastic CF bikes. |
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. |
Originally Posted by smarkinson
(Post 20562713)
Just imagine a recumbent rider taking a rolling comfort break.
|
Originally Posted by onyerleft
(Post 20561924)
I can understand UCI banning bents but not aero bikes. The latter is cool, ...
The fairing on that fUCI bike looks replaceable. Besides, the rider wouldn't be looking through it. |
Originally Posted by jefnvk
(Post 20562698)
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 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? |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20562671)
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.
You know what they don't have? The UCI. |
Originally Posted by zze86
(Post 20563616)
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.
|
Originally Posted by zze86
(Post 20563679)
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by jefnvk
(Post 20563682)
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.
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. |
Originally Posted by zze86
(Post 20563894)
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:
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20566592)
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? 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. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20566592)
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? 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.
|
Originally Posted by jefnvk
(Post 20563682)
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.
https://slingersuperspeedway.com/sit...Bees-Rules.pdf |
Yesterday while I was a captive audience during an airplane ride home from Europe, I watched an episode of CBC's The nature of things, where they put Olympic champions on vintage equipment to see how their performance stacked up against the champions of yesteryear when the equipment was state of the art. The focus was on winter sports,but it was interesting to see a champion speed skater trying to match a champion from the early 60s without the modern skates and skin suit.
A bobsled team rode a 1948 sled, and a skier a set of skis from 35 years ago. The modern day champs did pretty well, and if they had more time to adapt to the equipment, I think their performances would have surpassed their predecessor's by a pretty wide margin. Can probably put that down to modern training and conditioning. Anyway, to bring this back to cycling, a good friend of mine embarked on a quest a few years ago to beat the world hour record on the track for his age category. (65 to 69) He was determined to do it on classic "Eddy Merckx" style equipment, including a lugged steel frame, drop bar, and spoke wheels. This was not long after the UCI changed the rules to allow aero equipment like persuit bars and disc wheels to establish records without an asterisk. He had a frame custom built and I sponsored him with a set of high flange hub wheels with low profile tubular rims. He trained and trained, refusing to give in to the reality that there was no way he could get close to the record without adopting modern equipment. Anyway, my friend's real accomplishment was putting together an event that saw 4 UCI hour records set during a single day last year at the Milton Ontario velodrome. His own effort fell well short of a world record, even though in the end he relented and went aero ,but I was there to see Giuseppe Marinoni set a world record on a steel frame he built over 40 years ago, but even he conceded to using disc wheels and aero bars to do his record setting ride. Anyway, as much as I realize you can't stand in the way of progress, I would still like to see some kind of system that recognizes current day efforts as compared to those who went before on the same type of equipment. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20566592)
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.
UCI controls a tiny fragment of the bicycling market - the bicycles that are used in UCI races. Everybody else gets to choose whatever they want for whatever reasons are important to them. There's no conspiracy. |
Originally Posted by dedhed
(Post 20567179)
|
Of course Eddy's hour, was on a track in Mexico city,
at an altitude of 2,240 meters (7,350 ft). so he used the advantage of that altitude and it's lower air density, to extend the distance covered over 60 minutes, in comparison to what he might do in Ghent, for example.. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20567059)
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.
Ad how does the fact that they ban some technologies and not others mean they are corrupt? I don't get it. |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20568225)
Ad how does the fact that they ban some technologies and not others mean they are corrupt? I don't get it.
I think they do have their heads up their own butts on some of the equipment regs, but I don't think it has anything to do with corruption. |
Originally Posted by Retro Grouch
(Post 20567446)
Nope, I don't think that you are understanding UCI.
UCI controls a tiny fragment of the bicycling market - the bicycles that are used in UCI races. Everybody else gets to choose whatever they want for whatever reasons are important to them. There's no conspiracy. |
Originally Posted by zze86
(Post 20561208)
Racing has no bearing on the public? C'mon you're in the automotive industry. Of course it does. Granted it may take time and granted still, a very small population of bikes ever make it into UCI competition, but that does not discount the fact that bike manufacturers do design around UCI regs and this technology does eventually trickle down to the masses. When you look at all the "halo" bikes from the major manufacturers they are all designed to be able to enter UCI competitions.
This trickle down effect filters down to the amateur racers --> road bikes etc. Take for example, the (over)emphasis on weight. It's pretty well accepted that weight is not as important a factor as aerodynamics but cyclists are infatuated with the weight because this is what the UCI emphasizes (and yes, I know there are production bikes that weigh less than the UCI weight minimum). There have been lots of bike designs that incorporated fairings and aerodynamics, that IMO looked REALLY cool. Except it will never make it out of the concept stage because the ROI would make it impractical without race dollars, and they can't do that while trying to comply with UCI rules. Probably one of my favorite examples is from Specialized's designer. A concept called the fUCI https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.gear...3-1024x683.jpg Now imagine something like that in a race. Fairings would get adopted almost overnight, trickling down the racing ranks and eventually onto a commuter. Electric motors are STILL viewed as taboo by many cyclists. A small, "burst" type assist motor powered by an ultracapacitor would keep things relatively low weight and would add another dimension to a race would get cyclists. I mean it's not like they're not using this in competition already, lol. With recumbents, I think the challenge there is that they don't resemble what most people think of as a bike and also presents some challenges that make it unsuitable for the masses, namely packaging (space) and low visibility. I get it with the wanting to see the athlete perform not the tech but with the UCI that doesn't hold true either does it? I mean when a smarter racer (Graeme Obree) figured out that a nice compact tuck position was more aero and thus faster broke the speed record, they banned the position. The bike he did it on looked waaaaaay different from what was accepted as "racing" bike. |
Originally Posted by cyclintom
(Post 20569356)
There is a chainless drive that would be fairly easy to include in the fairing of the "chain" stay. It was at the latest bicycle show in ?? Vegas? It is the first chainless drive that I've seen that actually looks like it could be made practical. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...0801&FORM=VIRE
That's not really a working prototype. It doesn't really shift. There was a thread on this, and I definitely suspect vaporware. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:36 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.