I dont think the UCI is as pure as they claim to be

[rydabent]

The UCI has all sorts of rules governing bike racing. It is supposed to keep racing pure and dependent on the rider, not the bike. But years ago when a company began making a recumbent bike, even with a second class rider, he was breaking all the records. So the UCI declared a recumbent was not a bicycle. In my opinion that decision was influenced by bike mfg that didnt want to have to buy all new tooling to keep up.

Now come 90 years forward to our time. We now have CF bikes that have aero shapes that have much less drag than a round tube bikes that have raced ever since the 1890s. Yet even with their aero advantage the UCI allows them to race. Again I bet the UCI was influenced by mfg, because they make tons of money on CF bikes that can cost $15,000 or more. But if you want round tube bikes that have been raced forever, you can make round tubes out of CF. So why not maintain the "purity" of round tubes. What I am trying to say here is I think rules be damned, because money talks.

 

[currystomper]

Yup been like that for years, pretty arbitrary, why allow aero bars in the specific spec they currently have, but not the other positions they have banned over the years, depends it the developer is in or not. Why do frames have to have cross bars etc it's not the most effective way to make a carbon frame. Etc etc. It's just a random formula.

 

[Time Waster]

I think there's more benefit to recumbent aerodynamics than aero vs round frame bikes. AIUI aero bikes are not significant advantage in all situations. Don't TdF riders use aero and non aero bikes for different stages for this reason?

I do however think that UCI should support recumbent racing albeit with different classes according to designs. They are bikes and to exclude them is a bit daft. I guarantee a top cyclist who competed in uprights would not compete so well in recumbent racing without losing something in their upright performance. So imho this will be two or more separate racing groups who don't compete against each other. Wouldn't that give UCI extra income from the racing, sponsorship too?

 

[Dogtrousers]

You're right about the history but I think you're a bit off the mark regarding motivations of the UCI.

The UCI have generally been fighting a gradually retreating battle against modern bike design. I think that their ideal purist position would be that everyone rides identitcal bikes. Ideally like those ridden by Eddy Merckx. Incidentally, Keirin track racing in Japan is a bit like this, with highly regulated standard equipment.

The battles in the 90s against the likes of the Lotus monocoque bike ridden by Chris Boardman, and the innovative riding positions of Graeme Obree resulted in the 1996 Lugano Charter which was generally seen as anti-technology and established things like the minimum weight limit, the diamond frame geometry and stuff. This wasn't the action of an organisation in the pockets of manufacturers, it was more an organisation desperately trying to turn back the tide of technology. There has been a drip-drip-drip of change since and I think they binned the Lugano charter some time around 2015 and replaced it with some kind of committee. The impression I get is of the UCI slowly and reluctantly bowing to the inevitable, but occasionally flexing their muscles with bans where things seem to have gone too far, (Socks!)

So why did the UCI reject recumbents in 1934? Were they swayed by lobbying from manufacturers? Wikipedia suggests they were. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle#History But equally they are and were a very conservative organisation, so I think they're very likely to have said "Eugh! That's not a bike, Lucien Petit-Breton never rode anything like that! Make it go away!" and then stuck their fingers in their ears and said "La la la I'm not listening" (in French) if anyone objected .

I think that at heart the UCI's motivation is a traditional and conservative desire to keep the competition as a pure athletic endeavour with a huge dollop of dogmatism about bikes aimed at making it look like it did in Eddy Merckx's day.

Some of its motivations are laudable - like keeping the technology accessible to all and not pricing would be cyclists out of the sport because they can't afford it. Regarding recumbents I think their position is something like, "We ruled against them in 1934 and we're standing by that. Why did we rule against them? Who cares? Go away, stop asking stupid questions. La la la I'm not listening"