Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum: Bike rules. Pointless?: Page 2

Calendar Retailers Stack & Reach Custom Geometry Calculator Online Training Log
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Search for (options)

Newsletter Signup

Slowtwitch Forums: Triathlon Forum:
Bike rules. Pointless?

1 2 3

View All

Jim Mishler

Jan 2, 05 10:57

Post #26 of 59 (268 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Can't Post

So what is the thought process involved with allowing some bikes and not others? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning either. I always thought the motor was more critical.

Sponsored by:
Quintana Roo
Breakaway Bicycles & Fitness
Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
www.michigantri.com

"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

taku

Jan 2, 05 12:04

Post #27 of 59 (246 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Can't Post

My understanding is that the majority of the restrictions come from the UCI whcih is the governing body of professional road cycling.

They banned non double diamond designed frames becuase in an effort to promote "parity" between teams. They wanted to prevent teams with boat loads of mony from having an advantage over less wealthy teams just becuase they were able to buy faster bikes. So they basically banned the crazy monoqouque super frames. (indurain won several time trials on a sleek beam bike) by limiting the frame design they figured they could limit how much the frame could cost thus allow for parity....

although that has not really worked out to be the case as bikes on the pro level routinely cost in the 10,000 + range oh well...

as a result of what restrictions were put on the pros the industry generally stopped producing "uncoonentional" designs becuase right or not the public is not willing to ride what the pros are NOT riding.

So that is the main reason why bikes are designed the way they are...

The other big reason is that somebody just hasn't been innovative enought to come up with the next big revolution in cycling... perhaps there is not going to be another great revolution but I would definately not count against human innovation

Jim

Jan 2, 05 12:54

Post #28 of 59 (225 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [taku] [In reply to]	Can't Post

The other big reason is that somebody just hasn't been innovative enought to come up with the next big revolution in cycling

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a new revolution by a long shot, but recumbents hold every land speed title for which they are allowed. I know a lot of guys on this board are very "anti-recumbent" what I don't know is why. We talk about being more aero, and having a more comfortable position on the bike. Both possible on a bent. But, nobody will take bents seriously regardless of the fact that they are faster for most applications. I have my asbestos undies on so flame away.

Jim

Casual Triathlete

smtyrrell99

Jan 2, 05 13:22

Post #29 of 59 (218 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Not to get too ridiculous, but their has to be rules or elsesome one will use a ducati. What no gas engines? What about a electric motor that stores energy on a down hill and releases it up hill? No? well then what about a sail on a bike that is only used when the wind is at your back? No well what about a fully faired recubent? No well, write some rules defining what a bike is.

Styrrell

Mr. Tibbs

Jan 2, 05 13:27

Post #30 of 59 (211 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [smtyrrell99] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I think saying human powered buy the turning of a crank is not that hard to get your head around. Let's go crazy and say 2 wheels only. There is no slippery slope to engines. So why all the restrictions on wieght, design and angles?

Jim

Jan 2, 05 13:31

Post #31 of 59 (209 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [smtyrrell99] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I agree that there should be rules, however I think that the rules that are in place are a little restrictive. I agree no engines, motors, sails etc... Faired bikes should be in their own class. But whats wrong with saying a bicycle must have 2 wheels, all motive power must be supplied by the competitors legs, coverings fairing etc.. will race in a seperate class. Ok anything else goes. Having them state that your bb and your front hub must be within xx of each other doesn't allow for real creativity, for the chance to achieve the next big revolution in bikes. It can't because the makers are in the box that the governing body has designed.

Jim

Casual Triathlete

smtyrrell99

Jan 2, 05 13:42

Post #32 of 59 (199 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Can't Post

So you agree that their has to be rules;-). Our discussion goes back to the late 1800's. Basically what the rules are designed to do is to prevent a creative slacker (say me without the creative part) from winning a major race by coming up with supersecret technology. Based on your last post a fully faired recumbent with a sail mechanism and some sort or storage device loaded on downhills or braking would be allowed. Not to mention even a fully faired recumbent can be hyper expensive, which means that superior $$ whould be a big advantage. As tri rules sit now a $400 bike is not at a gigantic disadvantage to a $4000 bike. I would still bet on stadler over me on any allowed bike. No so if I have $100K st spend on windtunnel time and a custome hpv over a highly talented individual with lack of funds.

Styrrell

Jim

Jan 2, 05 14:04

Post #33 of 59 (186 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [smtyrrell99] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Fairing are a huge advantage, I would leave them totally out. For the sake of arguement, if we were going to rewrite the rules for allowable bikes to be used in racing (lets not say what kind, just racing), with an eye towards letting innovations in geometry and ergonomics have a racing stage what would the rules be?

1. A bicycle must have 2 wheels. (or its not a BIcycle)

2. All motive power must be supplied by the athlete's legs during the race. All energy must be purely mechanical. No storage device such as springs etc. allowed.

3. The use of fairings and other "aerodynamical devices" is strictly prohibited. (where this leaves disc wheels I'm not sure)

Any other ideas, I know this has a ton of holes in it.

Jim

Casual Triathlete

Mr. Tibbs

Jan 2, 05 14:11

Post #34 of 59 (183 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [smtyrrell99] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Anything can be cheap and anything can be expensive. If you have a big enough enging then the money will find you. That is an argument that holds no water.

The thing you are just being cheeky. Why is there a rule against the chord of frams and forks? Why is there restrections on saddle length? Why give a minimum weight? Why can't I ride in a superman position? Why is the Obree bike bad?

Jim Mishler

Jan 2, 05 14:14

Post #35 of 59 (182 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I'd go along with that save for the "storage device" line. That would potentially dump me off my Slingshot. Bad says he. I'm still more interested in the chemicals going into the motor than the construction of the frame or wheels.

Sponsored by:
Quintana Roo
Breakaway Bicycles & Fitness
Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
www.michigantri.com

"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

Jim

Jan 2, 05 14:17

Post #36 of 59 (178 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim Mishler] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Took a look at the Slingshot at Seahorse this year ( or last) I don't think it would qualify as a energy storage device in the way we are talking about it.

Jim

Casual Triathlete

DrDubs

Jan 2, 05 14:18

Post #37 of 59 (177 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim] [In reply to]	Can't Post

It all comes down to the 'RIder VS Rider' bit. BB, saddle position, weight, wheel size, etc are in place to try to ensure that the riders are all in the same position and doing essentially the same movement. Man vs man rather thatn machine vs machine.

I personally think that the rules are just fine. The rule is not limiting creative development. Any Tom Dick or Sally can be innovative in the cycling industry and make plenty of money doing it, it just takes....you guessed it...creativity.

UCI is not limiting bicycle development, they are limiting the style of bicycle that their riders can use in compitition to make the playing field more level. If we want different bikes racing side by side we need to create a whloe different federation of cycling and make our own rules. (not soemthing that I am interested in but I guess there a group of people that wouldn't mind seeing a recumbant race a traditional bike in a crit)

Jim

Jan 2, 05 14:35

Post #38 of 59 (166 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [LaWoof] [In reply to]	Can't Post

It all comes down to the 'RIder VS Rider' bit. BB, saddle position, weight, wheel size, etc are in place to try to ensure that the riders are all in the same position and doing essentially the same movement. Man vs man rather thatn machine vs machine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent answer, I agree it should be rider vs rider. And I don't think that a bent and a dd frame should race each other in a crit. But the fact is in the "big races" there is no place for these bikes. I'm not gonna say bents belong on the Tour, but how about having a class for them at races. Recumbent people tend to have their own small events and everyone else has their races it kinda regulates recumbent riders to second class citiziens. Sorta like how some roadies treat triathletes.

Jim

Casual Triathlete

Rocketboy

Jan 2, 05 14:39

Post #39 of 59 (163 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim Mishler] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Jim

No problem with the cable....its that parchute behind your saddle that bugs me.

Tibbs

Sorry, but onlyl freaks ride recumbents. However, it would be interesting to see what kind of IM split someone could have on one.

We have a guy that does group rides with us on a recumbent. My only problem is that he's so low to the ground that I can't see him. I'm sure I've cut him off a few times, but I've also suggested that he get a flashing safety light so he can get our attention.

Rocketboy

Jim

Jan 2, 05 14:43

Post #40 of 59 (160 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Rocketboy] [In reply to]	Can't Post

Sorry, but onlyl freaks ride recumbents. However, it would be interesting to see what kind of IM split someone could have on one

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Exactly the atitude I was speaking about :)

Jim

Casual Triathlete

Mr. Tibbs

Jan 2, 05 14:46

Post #41 of 59 (159 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [LaWoof] [In reply to]	Can't Post

"Man vs man rather thatn machine vs machine. "

It is not either/or, it is both. If we just wanted to say it is a rider then why not have everyone race on the exact same bike, same position and same clothing?

Let's get back to reallity here. Why can I go after the kilo record with aerobars but I can't stretch them way out in front? Why the hour record on a bike with technology after 1970 a sub catagory to the record on a bike that Eddy rode?

Why does the sport fear change?

Frank Day

Jan 2, 05 14:49

Post #42 of 59 (156 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim Mishler] [In reply to]	Can't Post

[reply]So what is the thought process involved with allowing some bikes and not others? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning either. I always thought the motor was more critical.[/reply]

I suspect this is like racing sail boats. If everyone has to use equipment that falls within some standard that means the winner is most likely to be the best sailor, not the one with the most money.

In bike racing, one can spend $10,000 on a bike but it would give an imperceptible benefit over one costing $1,000 as long as both were within the same rules as currently specified. Racing is all about the engine and these bike rules are what make it so.

Frank

Frank (can't be a scientist because I am a physician) Day
-----------
Inventor of PowerCranks

If you would like to be eligible to win a free pair of PowerCranks
be sure you are signed up for our newsletter. Sign-up at
www.powercranks.com

DrDubs

Jan 2, 05 14:50

Post #43 of 59 (156 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim] [In reply to]	Can't Post

If enough people want it, it can happen, but you need to be pro-active about it. What's UCI;s incentive to create a new racing class? If you can give them one, you'll get your recunbent class, or whatever class you can think of.

I personally think that recumbants a silly. I just done like em. No good reason other than aesthetics. If LA put a rear view mirror on his helmet, I still would think it was silly, but hey, majority rules. If the cycling community want a recumbant TDF, they will get a recumbant TDF.

Jim

Jan 2, 05 15:02

Post #44 of 59 (148 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [LaWoof] [In reply to]	Can't Post

The perception that recumbents are silly or odd or only ridden by freaks is invariably by someone who has never ridden one. People fear change, this is a proven fact. And until people learn to accept that the "way we've always done it" isn't the only way it can be done. Some very fine engineering will sit on the back burner.

Jim

Casual Triathlete

Rocketboy

Jan 2, 05 15:20

Post #45 of 59 (136 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim] [In reply to]	Can't Post

I guess I wouldn't say its an attitude towards recumbant riders, its more the attitude that recumbent riders have towards more traditional riders (tri-geeks not included). The most likelly has to do with the eccentricity of those recumbent riders. I'd categorize them similarly with ultra distance runners ( although, I have a great amount of awe and respect for the ultra distance folks).

What would be reallly cool would be to see a recumbent on the mountain bike trails. I'm curious how effective the low center of gravity would be.

Rocketboy

DrDubs

Jan 2, 05 15:20

Post #46 of 59 (135 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Mr. Tibbs] [In reply to]	Can't Post

They dont fear change, thats a projection. The sport and the machines have changed as much if not more than most sports. How much had baseball changed? Why are we still using wood bats on the pro level?

UCI is not in control of the bicycles being produced and dreamed up. They are in control of what bikes are being raced under their sanctions. You cant blame them for lack of innovation in the industry. There are no laws against riding your superman bike around the streets of you town. There are no laws against creating a new governing body for cycling that allows any form of bicycle to race.

I, for one, think that the UCI are doing a great job at regulating the major cycling races and still allowing for room for equipment development. I like the fact that the rider position and basic bicycle form are still the same as they were when the TDF first started, when The Cannibal was racing and when LA was making a fool of the field in 1999. Just take a look at the bicycles from today, the mid nineties, the mid eighties and the mid seventies. If you cant see the equipment development you're blind. If you compare that to the equipment development of ANY other sport in the world and What I see is one of the most progressive sports on the planet.

Jim Mishler

Jan 2, 05 15:22

Post #47 of 59 (133 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Rocketboy] [In reply to]	Can't Post

So long as you aren't saying anything about the chute on the saddle we're okay :-) It really is a nice gadget however odd it may appear. 64 oz speak for themselves on long rides.

I do like the looks of the "Revolution Hydration System"; www.podiumquest.com to the point it may just have to be added to the mix this year. I love gadgets & gizmos.

Sponsored by:
Quintana Roo
Breakaway Bicycles & Fitness
Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
www.michigantri.com

"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

DrDubs

Jan 2, 05 15:24

Post #48 of 59 (127 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim] [In reply to]	Can't Post

It's only sitting on the back burner because those that ARE interested in it are NOT doing enough to develop it. Stop blaming other people for the lazieness of the recumbant community.

I may not like those kind of bikes but I'm not stopping you form doing somethin with the industry, nor is the UCI.

If you want it, go get it. The UCI is not in your way.

Rocketboy

Jan 2, 05 15:25

Post #49 of 59 (125 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Jim Mishler] [In reply to]	Can't Post

But can you throw it at a dog?

Jim Mishler

Jan 2, 05 15:27

Post #50 of 59 (124 views)

Re: Bike rules. Pointless? [Frank Day] [In reply to]	Can't Post

That makes sense, kind of. But I'm not in the 5 figure purchase range for a ride yet. There really isn't that much of a difference between those hot frames, and the dimpled discs, and all the rest where an additional $9K spent wisely won't give equal riders more than a breath's separation at the line?

Sponsored by:
Quintana Roo
Breakaway Bicycles & Fitness
Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
www.michigantri.com

"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

1 2 3

View All