In Reply To:
So then tell us, Jack...how do YOU propose dealing with the situation where manufacturers continually push the envelope (something I absolutely believe they should do...don't get me wrong on that point). How, if YOU were the UCI, do you act when someone's creative reading of the rules lets them start designing nosecones, integrated water bottles, etc.? How do YOU go about restraining things to keep the spirit of the rule intact....when they are clearly headed out of hand?
Where do YOU draw the line?
I'd argue that no matter where YOU draw YOUR line, people would consider it just as arbitrary and capricious as you are considering the UCI's recent actions. But hey...you're just trying to maintain some semblance of sport, aren't you?
I'd also argue that if the UCI didn't react now on things like the aerobar issue, that the end result would have eventually been something completely one-piece, somewhat delta-shaped...and for all intents and purposes...a fairing. This year it was 3T's stuff...next year Zipp, Hed or someone would have gone even deeper...the following year, 3T's answer even deeper and nearly solid delta wing....
Think it wouldn't have happened? Look at how quickly we went from cow-horned funny bikes to the Lotus and Project 96 bikes.
Again, I'm not trying to sound anti-diluvian or retro-grouch here. I'm all for innovation. But I happen to think the driving philosophy of any sport governing body should be about keeping the competition about the athletes...
Any line the UCI tries to draw on equipment between an 1890's highwheeler and a modern fully faired HPV is going to be arbitrary. They have the entirely unenviable task of trying to define that line.
Someone else on the thread argued that their rules language is ambiguous and should be more clearly written. Obviously they have never worked with engineers in trying to define a specific design concept.
I am an engineer working with industry, military, and other standards every day. I have yet to work a project where at least some of the governing standards proved difficult in applying to the particular project and staying within all of the apparent lines drawn. In the case at hand, the people drawing up the original rules would not likely have imagined the 3T Ventus or Cervelo's current seatpost idiom when they drew up the rule. Clearly 3T and Cervelo's engineers imagined them in the context of their reading of the rule. And yet now the UCI guys have had to look at the overall situation and ask themselves "Do we like the direction this is heading?" Apparently they do not. And probably because they see where it was headed.
Just try, for one moment, Jack, to imagine being on the other side of the fence. Yeah...I know...its a lot like when I ask my 7 year old what HE would do if his 7 year old threw dirt clods at the neighbor's dog. OF COURSE the 7 year old answers "well...I wouldn't do anything."
That doesn't make the answer right, or well-considered, or considerate of the OTHER side of the coin.
Yes so am I - though I'd not claim every day and IMHO the UCI bicycle regs are the most ambiguous and/or stupid I've read. Sure, some international standards are complex --- but heck typically so is the underlying process/design they're trying to regulate. A bike is a bloody bike! How hard is it to pin down what "makes a bike a bike" --- and IMHO the UCI rules need not go any further than that.
Re the 'recalls' -- that's insane --- bikes like the Giant were ridden thru a large portion of the 2008 (!!) season. World champs ITT won on them ... this year the same with the Shiv ... the Tour TTs were both won on 'prototypes (Shiv, Trek Speed Concept).
If these bikes were prototypes (and I'd argue they were), then there are provisions in the rules that should have been applied to prevent them from ever being ridden in UCI events.