Do the specifications to which bikes are made for pro racing hinder the development of cycling machi

[Cyclopathic]

I wonder if manufacturers are not investigating different ways of harnesing pedal power because there is no mileage in it so to speak.
There will always be purists who think that we should not deviate too far from the traditional set up. I feel a bit defensive of it myself but I do wonder if it would not be just as valid to support a system that alowed for absolutely any innovation in design, technolgy and materials as long as the machine was only powered directly by a person.
I fully understand that there isn't a chance of changing an entire industry that is so established but I just wonder what people think. Should there be a clasification where absolutely anything goes.
Also if anyone can point me in the direction of where I can look at the specifications as they stand I'd welcome the chance to educate myself a bit about the matter.

 

[downfader]

I think its down to demand, first and foremost. The majority of people want an upright of some sort with drops or flat bars.

Niche markets have sprung up, recumbents being a great example. Theres only really two ergonomic body positions I can see working on a cycling machine, perhaps thats why its always been a two horse race?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

you are right, but then the competition is meant to be between the engines not the bikes so the rules make for a more level playing field.

 

[gaz]

Theres only really two ergonomic body positions I can see working on a cycling machine, perhaps thats why its always been a two horse race?

Oh
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juMXlr5_cpU[/media]

 

[d87heaven]

Handy if you suffer from the old johnny giles that Gaz

 

[downfader]

Oh
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juMXlr5_cpU[/media]

I've seen horizontals (or Supermen bikes) before. Difficult to turn, difficult on the body (specifically the upper), sometimes difficult to see the road ahead. Lots of fun though I should imagine.

Rowing powered "cycles" are also interesting, as are hand-crank (which often get used by by disabled riders).

 

[monnet]

Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, please.

I think you're the answer to the question is, to an extent, 'yes'. The UCI restrictions on what constitutes a bike means there can be little evolution in bike design outside traditional niche areas, such as recumbents. There's obviously a wider debate on the rights and wrongs of the UCI ruling but as everything filters down it means that the manufacturers top end technology feeds into the lower end products which do not require the levels of R&D for the top end models. Consequently, having spent masses on R&D the manufacturers do not want to spend even more on developing ranges of bikes that have no pedigree at the top end of the market (after all, there is plenty of cache in, for example, Specialized marketing an Allez as having a direct blood line to the Roubaix that Cancellara used to win Paris Roubaix), let alone bikes which do not adhere to the perception of what a bicycle is.

In defence of the frame manufacturers at least, I have a friend who does R&D for a reasonable sized company and he designed a folding bike (it's a popular and less expensive rival to the Brompton). His comment was that in designing it he really learnt why bikes are the shape they are, for the most part, and bike design becomes very difficult when you break away from the double triangle diamond. I'll leave it open as to whether that is because the double triangle is pretty much perfect or whether it has become so dominant that it is difficult to react against it...which I appreciate may rather be the point of the question.

A curious question though and a thread I'll definitely be following with interest.

 

[downfader]

Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here, please.

I think you're the answer to the question is, to an extent, 'yes'. The UCI restrictions on what constitutes a bike means there can be little evolution in bike design outside traditional niche areas, such as recumbents. There's obviously a wider debate on the rights and wrongs of the UCI ruling but as everything filters down it means that the manufacturers top end technology feeds into the lower end products which do not require the levels of R&D for the top end models. Consequently, having spent masses on R&D the manufacturers do not want to spend even more on developing ranges of bikes that have no pedigree at the top end of the market (after all, there is plenty of cache in, for example, Specialized marketing an Allez as having a direct blood line to the Roubaix that Cancellara used to win Paris Roubaix), let alone bikes which do not adhere to the perception of what a bicycle is.

In defence of the frame manufacturers at least, I have a friend who does R&D for a reasonable sized company and he designed a folding bike (it's a popular and less expensive rival to the Brompton). His comment was that in designing it he really learnt why bikes are the shape they are, for the most part, and bike design becomes very difficult when you break away from the double triangle diamond. I'll leave it open as to whether that is because the double triangle is pretty much perfect or whether it has become so dominant that it is difficult to react against it...which I appreciate may rather be the point of the question.

A curious question though and a thread I'll definitely be following with interest.

The double triangle/diamond shape of uprights has structural strengths other frames often cant cope with. It is braced to deal with bumps and forces it is subjected to. Cant remember where I saw it but there was a basic physics article on this published a while back.

 

[monnet]

That was pretty much the point my friend made about the folder, never having done anything but work with the diamond shape in the past (at least on a commercial scale) he realised how difficult it is to mess with it and maintain structural integrity.

 

[dellzeqq]

The double triangle/diamond shape of uprights has structural strengths other frames often cant cope with. It is braced to deal with bumps and forces it is subjected to. Cant remember where I saw it but there was a basic physics article on this published a while back.

well, yes, and, then again, no. It's a great shape if you're using tubes, but if you're diestamping then you can have any shape you want.

Those of a delicate disposition should turn away now............... (I have one of these in my loft)

now that's a starting point. A stressed plate would work as well, although unless one were to go and do something really daft like using the forks of the Bimota Tesi, the front end would look the same (I don't have one of these in my loft - they cost about £35,000 - but weigh only 168kg)

 

[byegad]

The UCI ban on recumbents certainly stopped development of differently shaped bikes for a while. When Mountain bikes became popular it was found that other frame shapes could not only work, but be very strong too. I suspect that the rekindling of recumbents is due to people seeing it was possible to think out of the box, or at least out of two triangles!

There is a definite trickle down of components and materials from the top, if UCI road bikes can be seen as the top, and many people buy a bike to look like a Tour de France rider.

Whether recumbents would now be the Tour de France norm had the UCI not banned them is a moot point, I suspect we'd see riders wheeling them out for flat stages at least, rather like the special Time Trial bikes that are used today. (Yes I know the rules allow them for TT only but that is a UCI rule in the same spirit as the recumbent ban.) Certainly the brief appearance of a recumbent in the 1930s saw a middle ranking professional able to ride at the head of the peloton for mile after mile with nobody able to 'take a turn' at the front.

For good or ill the ban was imposed to avoid cycle racing becoming an 'arms race' between cycle designers and remain a human effort sport. The fact that a 1932 TdF bike is a very different piece of machinery compared to a 2011 TdF bike is a tribute to human ingenuity rather than a fundamental change of heart at the UCI.

 

[Cyclopathic]

you are right, but then the competition is meant to be between the engines not the bikes so the rules make for a more level playing field.

I think that if restrictions were not applied it could still be mostly about rider ability because as each innovation in design is introduced all the teams and riders would eventually adopt them if they proved to be sucsessful. Well that's what I think would happen but I am very naive about the subject.

I was just wondering really whether it would be good for bike design in very broad terms if pro cycling adopted a system more akin to F1 cars where there is a definite link to the manufacturing industry in the form of the constructors championship. I am aware that F1 have a huge amount of rules and restrictions to try and keep things within certain levels but we still see technologies used in F1 translated and adapted for use in every day road cars.

As has been said the double triangle set up seems to be the natural place for design to settle so it may be the case that there would be little more that could be done in that particular area.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

Oh
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juMXlr5_cpU[/media]

A very interesting bike indeed.

 

[Cyclopathic]

Oh
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juMXlr5_cpU[/media]

I'd certainly have a little go on this just to see what it was like but no way would I want to ride it for any distance or where there were any other traffic. Also I think we cyclists already do more than enough to make ourselves look, how shall I put this, less than suave without ruining our dignity completely. Seen from behind this is an extremely undignified way to travel. All that is to say nothing of the fact that the entire force of any collision will be met first by the riders head.

All that siad it is an interesting and valid experiment into other ways of cycling.

 

[Twigman]

now that's a starting point. A stressed plate would work as well, although unless one were to go and do something really daft like using the forks of the Bimota Tesi, the front end would look the same (I don't have one of these in my loft - they cost about £35,000 - but weigh only 168kg)

I've ridden one of them......they feel horrible
as does a yamaha GTS1000 which was significantly cheaper but similar concept