Are there fewer bent and trike riders in Europe

[Alex321]

Still awaiting the answer to which companies the UCI supplied by the way.

What an odd question.

AFACS, nobody has suggested that the UCI might ever have supplied any companies.

Perhaps you'd care to answer this one before asking any further questions.

THe answer is almost certainly none. But it is a completely pointless question to ask.

 

[classic33]

What an odd question.

AFACS, nobody has suggested that the UCI might ever have supplied any companies.



THe answer is almost certainly none. But it is a completely pointless question to ask.

See the eleventh post on here.

 

[Alex321]

See the eleventh post on here.

I see no suggestion in that post that the UCI might ever have been supplying any companies. I cannot understand where you are getting that implication from.

That post is suggesting that companies bought the UCI off (i.e. bribed them to ban recumbents) because they didn't want the expense of making both recumbents and uprights.

I very much doubt that might be true, but there is no suggestion to my reading that the UCI were supplying any company.

 

[MichaelW2]

Are recumbents only popular in cooler, flatter, rainier parts of NW Europe?

 

[rydabent]

The questions remains-----------why did the UCI rule that a recumbent bike was not a bike?

 

[classic33]

The questions remains-----------why did the UCI rule that a recumbent bike was not a bike?

No, your question in the thread title was
"Are there fewer bent and trike riders in Europe".

And not all "bents" are trikes, nor are all trikes are "bents".

 

[FishFright]

The questions remains-----------why did the UCI rule that a recumbent bike was not a bike?

To keep competitve cycling an athletic endeavor and not start a technological spending race . This comes up at least once a year on one forum or another.

 

[classic33]

To keep competitve cycling an athletic endeavor and not start a technological spending race . This comes up at least once a year on one forum or another.

And quite often it's the same person asking.

 

[a.twiddler]

To be pedantic ...surely the UCI rule was not that a recumbent two wheeler was not a bike, but that it didn't fall within the narrow guidelines that the UCI imposed in order to try to maintain a level playing field amongst competitors. The fact that the recumbent design, at least in the world of cycle sport, gave an advantage in speed seems to have been neither here nor there. If you wade through the volumes of seemingly arbitrary rules which the UCI have imposed on various branches of cycle sport, seemingly revised every year, it's enough to make your head explode. Socks, helmet proportions, minimum frame weight, stem length, handlebar widths, does-my-aero-water-bottle-constitute-some-sort-of-fairing, blah blah.

What this has to do with "Are there fewer Bent and Trike Riders in Europe" (than where?) I find hard to follow. I see that the OP has now started a new thread more specific to the UCI and recumbents.

I have only the teeniest interest in cycle sport, (though I sometimes enjoy the spectacle) so to me the UCI is like the schoolboy having a kickabout with his mates with his ball having his own way or else he's taking it home. If the UCI didn't exist, someone else would be there to pluck some seemingly arbitrary rules from their behind from the air and inflict them on would be competitors.