Omni
- Thread starter Cuchilo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Yellow Saddle
Guru
- Location
- Loch side.
That green one is pretty cool.
Mine neither.
I'm assuming this would be for the splashing and jogging brigade, as I doubt it would meet UCI rules for a TT bike?
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
UCI rules are stuck in the 19th century. They've held back the development of bikes that will let you go further and faster for the same effort. The Boardman Lotus was a prime example, banned because Merckx didn't ride one like it, for Christ's sake.
It's an interesting point but I'm going to find myself in the unusual position of defending the UCI, in principle at least. The UCI's sole concern is racing. Having sets of standard specifications at least provides a more level playing-field in terms of equipment for cycle racing. The true test should be rider against rider, not kit vs kit. I know this sounds naive given the disparities in funding, access to specialist training facilities and other forms of 'preparation', but its one less unfairness.
The UCI doesn't stop anyone making a non-compliant bike and there are plenty out there. 'Bents are the most obvious example, but there's a whole slew of Triathlon bikes that wouldn't be compliant for UCI-sanctioned TTs. Away from racing, I'll bet that many touring bikes fall foul of one reg or other, and folding bikes aren't going to trouble the GC anytime soon. That's not a problem, because they're not primarily for racing.
I suspect the conservatism of your average bike rider has more to say on the matter of saleable bike design than the UCI. A more forward-looking UCI might try introducing racing categories for recumbents for example, or introduce an 'open' TT category for the standard rider position but with many fewer constraints (apologies if these already exist, but if they do I haven't seen them). This might shift tastes and move the larger cycle manufacturers to be more innovative.
Last edited:
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
So how would a bike like the Lotus branded one Boardman road make the playing field less level? It would probably be cheaper to make than a standard diamond frame as the design is far simpler and once it came onto the mass market every cyclist could afford one. Similar to the restrictions on aero positions on TT bikes, they cost nothing and are more efficient so what's not to like?
S-Express
Guest
By the same argument, I can't see how they would benefit things either. What difference do you think it would actually make to the racing?
I not necessarily disagreeing, but the focus them becomes on the equipment rather than the rider. The UCI has to tread a fine line between allowing innovation and ensuring that equipment does not dominate. They generally go the conservative route and I'm broadly sympathetic, but no more than that. It would probably be more interesting if they loosened the reigns a little, but at the same time they'd risk opening the doors to innovations that would genuinely skew results away from rider ability.
Compare this to the current situation in F1. F1 has plenty of strictures on what is and isn't allowed, but the current iteration of rules has given Mercedes such a technological advantage that F1 can barely be described as racing. I don't think there same situation would necessarily occur to the same degree with cycle racing as the balance between ability and equipment is tilted far more to the rider, but it would play a role when the differences in ability become marginal at the very highest levels.
Back to my point about conservatism. There's nothing to stop a Trek, Cannondale, Giant or Canyon producing a Lotus replica. 99% (made up number!) of cyclists don't compete, so like you say, what's not to like. I suspect they don't because they don't think it would sell.
- Location
- Glasgow
I am curious: why has the Omni such a low gearing compared to the Lotus?
Are some time trials in very hilly areas?
Both quite spaceship like imo.
Are some time trials in very hilly areas?
Both quite spaceship like imo.
The Lotus bike was a track bike, so fixed and superhuman gearing.
The omni looks like it's using SRAM's 1x drivetrain, so no front derailleur. The spec says 48x11, which is probably more practical that it sounds for something Triathlon focused, but I imagine powerful riders or those that like to give it beans downhill would find it under-geared.
Last edited:
Nibor
Bewildered
- Location
- Accrington
I certainly haveYou have now..
Smokin Joe
Squire
- Location
- Bare headed cyclist, Smoker
1/ The racing would be faster (It is racing, after all).
2/ The benefits would trickle down into mass market bikes and if something enables me to go further and faster I'm all for it.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
The pictured Lotus has gears.
I rather like the look of these monocoque bikes. They have nothing to do with bikes that I ride, and there's no chance I will find myself aboard one, they're purely racing machines for athletes, so I don't judge them by the same criteria that I would for normal bikes. They're two entirely different machines. I just look at them as things.
S-Express
Guest
Faster is debatable anyway, but it does not follow that faster = better. You only have to look at F1 to see why.