Anthony.R.Brown
Active Member
The riders were not second best, the cycles they were riding were just less aerodynamic than conventional upright cycles.
I am coming at this issue as neither a time triallist, nor a recumbent rider and I can never understand this ongoing argument. A recumbent is faster than a conventional on the flat or downhill because it is more aerodynamic and if one accepts that what is the problem in not recognising them for UCI races?
The aim of these races is not to be the fastest on two wheels but the fastest on a UCI approved bike. AIUI the rules are constantly tweaked to make it as near as possible to a level playing field so that riders on one type of machine do not have an intrinsic advantage. The UCI needs to get and keep people interested in cycling and time trialling as a sport, riders and fans, and to do this they need bikes that the racers and fans like to ride and watch ride, can identify with, and sponsors want to support. For all their undoubted speed advantages in some situations the overwhelming majority of cyclists do not ride recumbents nor are they interested in watching people race them. People enter races to try to win and if there was little likelihood of doing so in a mixed bike time trial less people would get involved or take part and a time trial with a handful of recumbents in it would not exactly keep the sport alive.
The problem I see with allowing mixed racing is that motorists etc. might get used to seeing normal upright Cyclists,but not notice the recumbent's as they are so low to the ground ? especially HGV drivers
