http://biketestblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/editorial-what-constitutes-bike.html
.
Good work Bunnyman
It’s stunning that the cycling world lets the UCI walk all over us. It would seem that to some degree the UCI is on a self distruct mission.
If they want racing to be purely about the athlete then we better make it a bare foot running race…but then there would be little point we might as well just send the medals off to Kenya and save everyone the effort.
One of the main reasons cycling is a cool sport is the awesome equipment, the bike porn makes it exciting and fun…without it, well its just a bunch of guys who shave their legs and wear lycra.
Also if the UCI are going to be such a bunch of W*****s they could at least try and find one brain cell to engage before making there stupid rules.
For example the 5cm behind the BB rule…with my 35.5" inseam, if I choose my saddle carefully and then ride the nose I am further forward than I would ever want to be, for a short female…well its going to be a very different story…shouldn’t set back be based on seat tube angle??
Also I would like to thank the UCI for the 6.8kg weight limit…a nice fixed number again so me with all 90kgs of me is allowed to ride a bike as light as someone 4 foot 45kg midgit …nice going guys thats really fair… Would a figure like 4kg plus 5% of the riders weight be more appropriate…then my bike would be 8.5kg and my virtual midget friend could be happy on his 6.25kg bike. (or we could just get rid of the silly rule anyway there are dangerous 5kg bikes and dangerous 10kg bikes…the weight ain’t a big factor)
Guess thats me done for now vent over…
All I really meant to say was good article, keep up the good work.
I certainly understand your blog, but not so sure I agree with it. Each sport needs to have its own standard. For example, the skating community has a VERY tough time with clap skates. Nearly every endurance sport which uses “equipment” needs to govern itself tightly to retain the legacy of the sport. There are many others means to innovate other than changing the actual structure.
There is nothing preventing the advent of an “open” cycling sanctioning body…
If there was, I have a feeling either no one would race it or the same UCI fav would still be winning the race.
Where the hell does Douglas Rodgers get off calling the UCI a bunch of Nazis ??? Last I heard the UCI haven’t herded millions of men women and children into death camps. What a tw*t.
And since when have the UCI hounded Armstrong ? The guy sounds small minded and xenophobic - and ranting doesn’t help his cause.
I’d like the Nazi slur rethought please.
Every sport needs regulations. Whats the problem with that - I thought it was meant to be about the athlete rather than the guy with the most money who can buy his way to victory with the best kit.
A lot of triathletes seem so preoccupied with their latest flash kit that they ignore their basic training - when that would make far more difference than worrying about the drag thattheir bento box is causing.
I don’t get it. Is that Crawford guy lying? You say triathletes can continue riding non-double diamond bikes, but then you say the USCF is going to get us. Does USCF regulate triathlon races?
Im glad there are restrictions, it keeps some normalcy to cycling. The basic design of the bicycle is what makes it cycling, just like the size and weight of the ball and make baseball what it is. I dont wanna watch a football game with some crazy nerf football everyone throws 130 yrds, and i dont wanna watch a cycling event with everyone on crazy prototype designs, and i most definately dont wanna ride with people with crazy designs (i.e. where the rider is in a dramatically different position). I might be willing to accept some relaxing of the rules, but i think the important angles on a bike (hub to seat, hub to bars, relationship between the wheels, etc…) should always be kept.
I like the rules but more from an economic standapoint. It get’s expensive to try and keep up with lightweight aero equipment the way it is. A few more rules would have also kept a better clothing standard. You may think a speedo and bra top looks cool, but most of the world doesn’t.
I would just like the rules lifted for the TTs in TDF, Giro or whereever you encounter them; that’s what made it fun and interesting for me to watch.
I agree that it might be an unfair advantage for some teams that have the money for these bikes but still…isn’t it primarily the engine doing most of the work?
I like stuff 
No, the USCF does not regulate tris, but what has happened is that the UCI regs have definitely influenced what Joe Blow rides, especially in a USCF race. Yes, the USCF does not regulate tris, but the rules they have adopted will influence what we can buy.
I am concerned because there are people who would like to race in USCF races that cannot ride a normal bike. I am also concerned that the innovations will die, and eventually good, innovative bikes will go away because of the UCI rules. Already many of the innovative bikes for both aerodynamics and comfort have slowly slipped away.
I do somewhat see the point of cost-saving, but when I see the Pinarello Montello, a $10K + bicycle that is UCI legal, I fail to see the point of limiting the more innovative bikes due to price.
Thank you.
Maybe my calling the UCI a bunch of Nazis is harsh, but get inside of the minds of engineers and designers who did not have the money to lobby to get the rules changed, and you would feel the same way.
The guy with the most money and the best kit winning? It happens now. What do you call $2500 + wheelsets, and $10,000 framesets that no mere mortal can afford to buy? And these wheelsets and frames are legal.
Yes, Lance Armstrong is hounded. Continual drug tests, and never being satisfied with the result being consistantly clean.
I will stand by the Nazi slur, because the UCI has ultimately decided what people around the world will ride. People with back problems will not be able to ride in a race where there are UCI regs unless they use a lot of drugs to combat the back pain. Guess I will never be able to race a bike race in Europe (as I go once per year with my wife who is not American) if I only own a Softride or Titan Flex.
I even proposed a compromise- make the beam bikes slower by imposing a tube cross-section restriction or something. Did you read that part?
“but i think the important angles on a bike (hub to seat, hub to bars, relationship between the wheels, etc…) should always be kept.”
I don’t even propose to have an “anything goes” rule for seat angles and such. All of the important angles can be observed on a beam bike.
Did you know that when a beam bike designer had found loop holes in the UCI regs for a beam bike that the UCI changed the rules again?
Let me put it this way- as long as a guy can ride with a pair of wheels in a TT or climbing stage that cost more than the average, high-end race bike, and frames can still cost what a decent used car can cost, I don’t see how the regs make sense from an economic standpoint.
Certainly the cool stuff helps get people into the sport of cycling.
The engine does the work. An undertained athlete on the most super-duper aero wowie neato cool bike will get his ass handed to him by the guy who is better trained, period.
Like I said, I even have proposed compromises so that it would make racing fairer.
Well, I just want intelligent and spirited debate.
I’m with you all the way on this one!
I love stuff! 
Ever notice that your posts equal or outnumber others’ posts in your threads 
.
No, the USCF does not regulate tris, but what has happened is that the UCI regs have definitely influenced what Joe Blow rides, especially in a USCF race. Yes, the USCF does not regulate tris, but the rules they have adopted will influence what we can buy.
I am concerned because there are people who would like to race in USCF races that cannot ride a normal bike. I am also concerned that the innovations will die, and eventually good, innovative bikes will go away because of the UCI rules. Already many of the innovative bikes for both aerodynamics and comfort have slowly slipped away.
I do somewhat see the point of cost-saving, but when I see the Pinarello Montello, a $10K + bicycle that is UCI legal, I fail to see the point of limiting the more innovative bikes due to price.
Thank you. Understood. Good point.
I respond to alomost every response on my threads, which don’t equal many these days.
Maybe another editorial will go into how the cost-savings standpoint doesn’t even work on some of these UCi-legal bikes. I am going to do quite a bit of research for this. I just think of $10,000 TT frames off the top of my head.
I am just so mad that the UCI has limited the choices for people, especially moreso for those of us who have chronic back problems.