Experimental technology in road cycling

[Citius]

I don't know, you're the one who wants evidence every time the topic of wheel upgrades comes up. Apply your own standards to this discussion. Where is the evidence that upright and recumbent in the same peloton is a problem?

Frankly, I don't think it would be a problem for long. Recumbent bikes should out perform upright pretty handily on anything other than long climbs.

Do you need me to spell it out? Recumbent eye-line will be approximately at knee-level of the riders on 'conventional' bikes, meaning that recumbents in the middle of a fast moving group of regular bicycles will effectively have no forward view. They already have no rearward view anyway, due to the riding position.

Obviously if you've never been in a road race bunch, then you will have no concept of how dangerous this could be. Let me ask you again - what could possibly go wrong?

I would have no issue with the UCI recognising recumbents - but not so they can mix it with conventional bikes in mass-start events, for obvious reasons.

 

[annirak]

Ah, the common sense argument. That's the very same one you reject categorically in other threads.

Anyway, I should have known better. I can't even ask about technological developments in cycling without it devolving into an argument on this board. It's a shame.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

This is a joke, right? Recumbents mixing with conventional bikes in a fast moving bunch. What could possibly go wrong.

You wouldn't mix 'bents and uprights in a bunched race for exactly the reason you state. But there is no reason they couldn't be used in a TT.

 

[Citius]

Ah, the common sense argument. That's the very same one you reject categorically in other threads.

No, it's a rider safety argument. Surely you get that? Although to be fair, 'common sense' is also a pretty good description of the position I'm taking, so thanks for making the point for me..

As for the bit about me 'rejecting common sense arguments in other threads' - I think you made that up.

 

[Citius]

You wouldn't mix 'bents and uprights in a bunched race for exactly the reason you state. But there is no reason they couldn't be used in a TT.

Agreed. But TTs in the UK are not run under UCI rules.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Agreed. But TTs in the UK are not run under UCI rules.

Yes but we're talking about the UCI rules holding back development. It's what the pros ride that people want to buy, and manufacturers will only put money into developing what they can sell.

 

[Citius]

I don't see how UCI rules are holding back HPV development. There is a thriving HPV scene, regardless of what the UCI does. Those that want them can already buy them. Just because the average 'nouveau mamil' can't watch HPVs in the Tour de France, doesn't mean the market is being held back. Riding a TdF time trial on recumbents would be utterly pointless anyway.

Anyway, there's a reason why the Sinclair C5 was a commercial failure.

 

[machew]

I don't see how UCI rules are holding back HPV development. There is a thriving HPV scene, regardless of what the UCI does. Those that want them can already buy them. Just because the average 'nouveau mamil' can't watch HPVs in the Tour de France, doesn't mean the market is being held back. Riding a TdF time trial on recumbents would be utterly pointless anyway.

Anyway, there's a reason why the Sinclair C5 was a commercial failure.

C5

• battery life was poor
• it was heavy and thus hard to cycle
• it was just rubbish

 

[nickyboy]

The weight restriction is a bit of an irrelevance anyway. But as with lots of other stuff, the objective is not to stifle development (because as you say, lighter bikes are already available, so it hasn't prevented that), it is to control cost and R&D to manufacturers and teams.

Disagree. The weight restriction is an excellent example of UCI being stuck in the mud. The technology already exists to produce a bike that weighs, say, 5.5kg, as they're already sold. So there's no meaningful R&D associated with that, everyone knows how to do it. So the question remains; why not reduce the weight limit?

Can you see how it makes the UCI look? You or I can buy a bike today that is more advanced that those ridden by those competing at the highest level in the sport.

 

[annirak]

As for the bit about me 'rejecting common sense arguments in other threads' - I think you made that up.

I might be mixing up your posts with yellow saddle's. You two tend to toe the same line.

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Disagree. The weight restriction is an excellent example of UCI being stuck in the mud. The technology already exists to produce a bike that weighs, say, 5.5kg, as they're already sold. So there's no meaningful R&D associated with that, everyone knows how to do it. So the question remains; why not reduce the weight limit?

Can you see how it makes the UCI look? You or I can buy a bike today that is more advanced that those ridden by those competing at the highest level in the sport.

And the weight restriction was set in 2000. Bikes today are nothing like those of 15 years ago and can be made a lot lighter without sacrificing safety or reliability.