|
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. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20569333)
Granted that is true. However it trickles down thru mfg to the wanna be racer boys. A huge number of people want a bike "just like" the winner of the Tour de France.
I don't know where you ride, but I see way more flat bars than I do racing bikes. "Huge" seems a great over-statement. Essentially, UCI's market influence is really limited to a small subsection of road bikes. |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20569333)
Granted that is true. However it trickles down thru mfg to the wanna be racer boys. A huge number of people want a bike "just like" the winner of the Tour de France.
The difference is that there is a big body of buyers who still want mini vans. Tadpole trike buyers like us, not so many. All those other people, they're not necessarily wrong. They're buying based on their perceived needs and wants including coolness factor. They're just not us. I'm okay with that. |
Originally Posted by Retro Grouch
(Post 20570279)
Exactly! They sell a lot of Corvettes too but who really needs a car that will go 150 MPH? One of the cool things about bicycles is that an ordinary guy, if he wants to, really can buy a bike just like last year's TDF winner. You can't buy an Indianapolis winner or a NASCAR winner.
But again, the Fusion which sells in far larger numbers isn't built to any of those requirements. |
Originally Posted by livedarklions
(Post 20569678)
That's not really a working prototype. It doesn't really shift.
There was a thread on this, and I definitely suspect vaporware. As for this unit I have little doubt that we will see working models of it probably used in the Grand Tours and world TT championships because it has such an aero advantage over cassettes and derailleurs. But perhaps not since those "shift channels" probably only work with specially designed ratios. But consider - this can provide and entirely enclosed drive train and no more grease on your pant leg. And the wear would be remarkably slow before the rear ring, the front ring and the drive shaft rollers would need replacing. And the entire package would be orders of magnitude stronger than a chain. I do think that the entire shift mechanism would require a manual actuation to be acceptable but that would be easier than the electric mechanism. I think that they threw in the electric shifting to be "new techy". |
Originally Posted by cyclintom
(Post 20570546)
Obviously it was a working prototype. So it was not vaporware unless we are using different definitions which may very well be the case with that odd word almost always used to describe software. In my experience "vaporware" is used to describe either a program that doesn't exist or one that has been at least partially written and is then superseded by better. Normally when I was brought in on a project I had to re-design both hardware and software.
As for this unit I have little doubt that we will see working models of it probably used in the Grand Tours and world TT championships because it has such an aero advantage over cassettes and derailleurs. But perhaps not since those "shift channels" probably only work with specially designed ratios. But consider - this can provide and entirely enclosed drive train and no more grease on your pant leg. And the wear would be remarkably slow before the rear ring, the front ring and the drive shaft rollers would need replacing. And the entire package would be orders of magnitude stronger than a chain. I do think that the entire shift mechanism would require a manual actuation to be acceptable but that would be easier than the electric mechanism. I think that they threw in the electric shifting to be "new techy". I think where we're disagreeing is on the definition of "working". So far, they've shown that "prototype" that doesn't actually drive anything under load, and is incapable of shifting--really nothing more than proof of one aspect of the concept. They produced a "model" of the shifter that didn't actually have any working parts. They claimed that they had been track testing a working model on a bike, yet they produced no video of that or any photos of the working bike. I'm suspicious this indicates that it doesn't work under load and/or can't shift |
Originally Posted by rydabent
(Post 20569333)
A huge number of people want a bike "just like" the winner of the Tour de France.
I would guess that at least 95% of U.S. bicyclists could not name any winner of any Tour de France other than Lance, nor could most tell the difference between any bicycle used in the Tour de France from the last 50 years. You have been reading too much blogging from an enthusiast clique. Or having nightmares. |
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 20571493)
In your dreams maybe. Certainly not in the U.S. where except for when an American is winning the race, there is almost no interest by the the public, whether they ride a bicycle or not.
I would guess that at least 95% of U.S. bicyclists could not name any winner of any Tour de France other than Lance, nor could most tell the difference between any bicycle used in the Tour de France from the last 50 years. You have been reading too much blogging from an enthusiast clique. Or having nightmares. |
Flat bars are more popular ... Isn't that reason enough to avoid them?
For us bike snobs, that's all the information we need right there. "Must ... separate ... self ... from ... unwashed masses." :D FWIW, I hate flat bars with a passion, and the heels of my hands agree. I can't sprint for **** on a flat bar. |
Originally Posted by Colnago Mixte
(Post 20572383)
Flat bars are more popular ... Isn't that reason enough to avoid them?
For us bike snobs, that's all the information we need right there. "Must ... separate ... self ... from ... unwashed masses." :D FWIW, I hate flat bars with a passion, and the heels of my hands agree. I can't sprint for **** on a flat bar. I suspect most "bike snobs" would feel the same way they do about flat bars regardless of changes in UCI rules. |
I don't favor flat bars because if I'm going to be on a bike for a few hours, I like to have more than one place to put my hands.
|
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
(Post 20572450)
I don't favor flat bars because if I'm going to be on a bike for a few hours, I like to have more than one place to put my hands.
I guess I should do the /sarcasm because BF seems a place where context goes to die. |
I've said before-- I see guys out on the river trail doing 50+ miles on flat bars with ergo grips-- and I'm like, damn. I don't know how they do it. Seriously-- I feel like I change hand positions 20 times an hour. I just put on aerobars two weeks ago, so I have even more hand positions.
|
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
(Post 20572476)
I've said before-- I see guys out on the river trail doing 50+ miles on flat bars with ergo grips-- and I'm like, damn. I don't know how they do it. Seriously-- I feel like I change hand positions 20 times an hour. I just put on aerobars two weeks ago, so I have even more hand positions.
I've gone as far as 168 miles in a day on my hybrid, but I wouldn't try it without bar ends. No question that for long distances, riding the hoods on a drop bar is much easier for me than flat bars even with bar ends. I just started riding a drop bar bike for the first time in about 30 years, and my hands are way better after a century on that by far. |
Originally Posted by ksryder
(Post 20572465)
There's no way your personal preference based on experience could be correct vs. wild conjecture and bizarre conspiracy theories on the internet! The *only* possible explanation for why you dislike flat bars is that you've been DUPED by the EVIL RACING ORIENTED BICYCLE OVERLORDS! something something "marketing" something something "dismiss everyone who is faster than me as posers" something.
I guess I should do the /sarcasm because BF seems a place where context goes to die. And the flip side of that would be "those drop bar riders are just too ignorant to know what they really want." Did you ever notice that all these arguments always boil down to one or two people claiming that the way they ride is the only correct one, and then about a zillion people saying "everybody's different and that's ok"? |
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. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:01 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.