I think most here would agree, that besides all the new exotic materials for the frames and components, despite more multi speed groupos from 8 speed to 10 speed, despite better aerodynamics (how much aerodynamics can be gained on a fixed frame configuration with no fairing), besides claimed better geometry (how many different efficient frame geometries can we have to the same triangle frame?) the best road racing bicycles of two decades ago haven’t really advanced that much over today’s state of the art ones in terms of pure performance. A strong rider can still ride one of those top bikes of yester year properly fitted to almost the same degree of performance as his present bike.
The reason is that ruling has been so strict, regarding what the competition must be. Besides the old farts at the head of the governing bodies ie UCI who really wants all these restrictions?
How many here would like to see a relaxing of the rules to allow the top manufacturers and their R&D boys to come out and play. To bring new really effective bicycle designs into the sport. See that Cervelo ad in the top right hand corner of this forum’s main menu? Why must we restrict bikes to the triangular shaped frame design? Why must there be a weight limit? Why are wheel sizes standardized? Why can’t we be allowed to have fairings on the front and any shaped helmets and really see what kind of aerodynamics can be really achieved? We know them recumbent type and lying down faired bicycles can go so much faster than a conventional bike. Why indeed is something so simple like saddle position fore and aft also specified to such strict limits?
I can’t help getting the feeling that most of what is expoused as the next best technological breakthrough, or the new model components are all just variations of the same. Because of all the very strict limitations from restrictions, manufacturers keep coming up with these ‘new’ things because of the need to maintain market interest and not because of any real performance advances Things are getting so desperate that now we even have electronic actuated gear shifting as if that will improve performance at all.
Well I for one reckon as long as safety issues are addressed, all the rules in design should be relaxed, forget about tradition for tradition’s sake and let’s usher in a new era in the bicycle. Imagine how much more interesting and exciting competition will be and imagine riding a bike that can go twice the speed with the same effort input? Wouldn’t it be great, or is it just me?
I think most here would agree, that besides all the new exotic materials for the frames and components, despite more multi speed groupos from 8 speed to 10 speed, despite better aerodynamics (how much aerodynamics can be gained on a fixed frame configuration with no fairing), besides claimed better geometry (how many different efficient frame geometries can we have to the same triangle frame?) the best road racing bicycles of two decades ago haven’t really advanced that much over today’s state of the art ones in terms of pure performance. A strong rider can still ride one of those top bikes of yester year properly fitted to almost the same degree of performance as his present bike.
The reason is that ruling has been so strict, regarding what the competition must be. Besides the old farts at the head of the governing bodies ie UCI who really wants all these restrictions?
How many here would like to see a relaxing of the rules to allow the top manufacturers and their R&D boys to come out and play. To bring new really effective bicycle designs into the sport. See that Cervelo ad in the top right hand corner of this forum’s main menu? Why must we restrict bikes to the triangular shaped frame design? Why must there be a weight limit? Why are wheel sizes standardized? Why can’t we be allowed to have fairings on the front and any shaped helmets and really see what kind of aerodynamics can be really achieved? We know them recumbent type and lying down faired bicycles can go so much faster than a conventional bike. Why indeed is something so simple like saddle position fore and aft also specified to such strict limits?
I can’t help getting the feeling that most of what is expoused as the next best technological breakthrough, or the new model components are all just variations of the same. Because of all the very strict limitations from restrictions, manufacturers keep coming up with these ‘new’ things because of the need to maintain market interest and not because of any real performance advances Things are getting so desperate that now we even have electronic actuated gear shifting as if that will improve performance at all.
Well I for one reckon as long as safety issues are addressed, all the rules in design should be relaxed, forget about tradition for tradition’s sake and let’s usher in a new era in the bicycle. Imagine how much more interesting and exciting competition will be and imagine riding a bike that can go twice the speed with the same effort input? Wouldn’t it be great, or is it just me?
Why not allow full faired HPV’s so the rider can average 45 mph and we can have a 2.5 hour bike split. Fins in the swim for a 20 minute swim split and roller blades on the run for a 1 hour run. Gee, a sub 4 hour IM this year thanks to technological advances alone.
Rules are how we judge the worth of the athlete. It is an athletic competition isn’t it?
most of your drag on a bicycle is your body not the bicycle. a virtual windtunnel using a video cameras and a computational fluid dynamics program doing drag calculations would be more useful. if you could video yourself riding on a trainer, send the video to a mainframe and get calculated drag data back in realtime, that would be cool.
“Rules are how we judge the worth of the athlete. It is an athletic competition isn’t it?”
Point taken, but I see cycling as different from most sports because it is so dependent on the equipment ie the bicycle, (can’t have a bicycle race without bicycles) so much so it is almost like motor sports. If rules are relaxed it applies across the board and manufacturers being what they are will quickly jump on to new designs which give obvious performance improvements. In a natural course I would forsee a level playing field situation where the engine is still our legs, lungs and heart but the speed and performance will increase greatly with much more leeway for technological inovation. IMHO we would have a new era of bicycle racing which would attract an even wider interest.
The only real thing holding it back is nostalgia, wanting our cyclists to be more comparable to the greats of old. But in this world dynamism is good for progress. Everything around us is changing. Sometimes the lack thereof can even spell the beginning of the end.
As for the old farts in the governing body aren’t they the same bureaucrats who’ve killed the Kilo and 500m track sprints, the most exciting event celebrating the explosive power aspect of cycling in the Olympics? I just love those guys looking at their herculean sculptured, muscular physiques purpose built to explode into them sprints maintaining speeds up to 70kph+. Much much mucho more exciting than Road TT. In slotwitch here we’ve talked about ideal physiques etc, IMO those kind of physiques like those the velo track sprinters have are the most awesome. They really look good in their skin suits, like Marvel Comic super heros in the flesh.
Imagine what a bike would be like if the rules were relaxed so all the top bike designers were designing bikes incorporating fairings covering both body and bike to slice through the wind. Everytime we went on a ride it would be similar to drafting behind a truck. I would envision a rocket shaped bicycle with a more forward riding position ie semi prone position forward perhaps with a smaller front wheel with a slick intergrated fairing, state of the art frame not necesserarilly triangle designed and slightly wider lightweight tyres same width as slicks used on mountain bikes with super sticky rubber for better hi-speed and cornering stability but able to pump up to really hi-pressure for less rolling resistance.
In competition the riders would need to wear some lightweight body armour cuz crashes would be at a much higher speed. I seriously think this would be great, not just the crashes but the whole idea of ushering in a new era of cycling competition and technology. Could you imagine if our cars were that restricted all along to strict variations of 1950’s technology where would we be?
First, look at computers. The “latest” improvements are al about marginal gains in speed, or being able to pack more of the same in a smaller space. We still have a keyboard, mouse, stylus, viewing screen… But think back. There was a time when what we see as a computer now wasn’t even imagineable. It’s just a characteristic of technological evolution. Improvements on the existing technology that eventually enable a leap to a new technology entirely.
Now to talk bikes. The UCI banned beam bikes long ago. Now I hear that the USCF will ban them for all races coming in 2007 (if I’m wrong, soe one please tell me). As some one who has been riding Softrides for YEARS (including MANY USCF races), I seethis as banning ME from racing (sorry, I refuse to buy a new ride just to comply with the “me too” USCF rules changes). But the Softride can still be made with a diamond frame (all of mine are of the “classic” frame configuration). Inflexibility, even though there is no real performance advantage (I ride it for the comfort). I just hope Softride can make it through this next assault.
Generally I’m not in favour of recumbent bikes being used in road racing because I foresee that the handling characteristics aren’t as good. But sitting on the bike leaning into the handlebars type position no matter what anglre should still provide the flexibility to create faster and good handling machines.
The reason for any unpopular kind of bicycle racing I would suspect is due to the fact that the main controlling cycling body does not cater for it. Once rules are relaxed, the natural course of things would be for designers, manufacturers and teams to opt for the designs that will give them the most competitive advantage.
Talking about things like PCs, digital cameras and cellular handphones there is no UCI to put restrictions on the technological advancement. Obviously being elctronic products on the cutting edge the speed of the technological advancement of such products is sometimes crazy. Before one can get used to one new technology another appears.
IMHO in this aspect bike technology advancement, while at first can be relatively a lot more radical than what’s been happening for the last two decades, will not quite have the same crazy momentum of changes in things like PC technology.
I for one wouldnt want to see a change to aerodynamic design regulations because the shift to HPV style bikes would become eminent,or at least a “no shield or covered rider rule” to where the HPV shift would not be allowed would be nice. I would however see no harm in making the bikes as light as possible as long as they pass safetly tests,