Race eligibility

[tongskie01]

I never suggested any such limit - nor would I, because one would be too many. The comment of mine you are referring to was made in the context of the pic that was posted earlier, which showed one rider off the front of a sportive group. The point I am trying (and evidently failing) to get across to you is that recumbents and conventional cycles would patently not be safe in the same race.

but it does sound like it.

 

[black'n'yellow]

but it does sound like it.

sorry - does what sound like what..?

 

[byegad]

Well the UCI rules for bicycle racing specifys how high the bottom bracket can be above the ground along with how far it can be in front of the seat, and how close to the front wheel it can be. Contary to popular belief it does not state that bents are banned or prohibited. It's just that the manufacturers of bents do not wish to or unable to work within the rules as they stand.
That's the reality - paint it anyway you want.

This is completely missing the UCI's point. They drew up those rules in order to ban bents. There is no way anyone can design a bent to those rules. Safety of mixed fields aside the UCI decided that they would stifle any radical design back in 1934 to kill of the Mochet, which did win some races before the ban. They did the same when Moulton's small suspended wheel bikes proved fast in a group, due in part to the affect on slipstreaming, with a smaller wheel allowing the following rider to be closer to the lead man. They did the same when Obree designed his bikes.

The UCI has a track record of banning innovations. Hell in the early 1930s the Tour de France organisers nearly banned gears in competition.

I personally don't give a stuff about the race eligibility of my trikes as I won't/can't race anything at 61 years old with Asthma and a bad knee. The BHPC offer some competitions for bents, and you can Audax on one if so inclined, up to and including the PBP. But the TT people won't allow one although several local clubs ignore this rule.

The main point is that the UCI banned innovation and still do. The hour saw innovations from designers such as Mike Burrows before they went back to the 1970s.

 

[black'n'yellow]

Leaving aside the safety issue...

I'd be the last one here to defend the UCI, but most of those regulations are designed to provide a 'level' playing field for the majority - which in some cases, will rule out 'unconventional' items like the Moulton or recumbents. The over-riding purpose of the technical regs is to prevent any rider gaining a distinct technical performance advantage over another - which sounds reasonable to me.

 

[tongskie01]

if you really want a level playing field, ban slip streaming aka peloton.

 

[black'n'yellow]

if you really want a level playing field, ban slip streaming aka peloton.

So you would ban open road/circuit racing, just because recumbents are not allowed to compete..?? Perhaps you should storm the UCI's HQ in Switzerland and burn all their books....

The 'peloton', as you put it, defines the nature of bunch racing. I think you are arguing yourself into a corner....

 

[tongskie01]

you said it not me.

 

[black'n'yellow]

you said it not me.

what - something sensible..?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Anyone else pick up the 'high-speed wheelchair' comment from the ITV4 coverage of the TdF today?

There was a recumbent trike shadowing the race for a while on the opposite carriageway. One of the commentators thought it was a wheelchair. He was quickly corrected.

What seems odd to me about a desire to see racing embrace the recumbent is how unnecessary it is.

1. In motorsport, it all works perfectly well with machines of different types separated by formula. It would be barmy to pit an F1 car against a BTCC tintop. Why would it make any more sense in cycling?

2. Rather than make a fuss about being included in racing's current structures, why not set something up in parallel?

You'd feel absolutely grand about it and could amuse your friends with tales of relative speed and engineering finesse.

No-one would watch it, no-one would care, no-one would get involved in it... but you'd be absolutely right about how much better it was. And you'd be among about seven people who thought so.

It's not impossible to set up new types of racing. Look at MTB racing (various types) today and compare it with where it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Meanwhile, it might be much better for road racing to stay on proper bicycles. That's what the riders, the fans and the sponsors seem to want.

 

[Hector]

I think they were taking ther piss about the high speed wheel chair Boris - unless you are as well of course.

The long and short is that Monchet won a shoot load of races, which annoyed the other riders twice over because they could not draft him.

He then went on to break the hour record and the UCI after lobbying from the bike manc's at the time wanted his bike outlawed so thet did by setting various rules regarding the BB height and it's position to the front wheel.

Recumbents would take apart the modern day peloton, velo's even more so.

However as a safety aspect and to stop the likes of Trek, Spesh, Prince and Pinna et al getting thier knickers in a twist at the lost revenues they should remain seperated.

Head on over to the BHPCC to see some races that go on with regarding recumbents and the various classes. Stock, faired etc.

 

[black'n'yellow]

yep, it's all a conspiracy.

Recumbents would take apart the modern day peloton, velo's even more so.

you're right - it would be carnage.

 

[tongskie01]

imagine all of the major bike manufacturers start making recumbents. which i think and i hope in the near future will happen.

 

[tongskie01]

Anyone else pick up the 'high-speed wheelchair' comment from the ITV4 coverage of the TdF today?

There was a recumbent trike shadowing the race for a while on the opposite carriageway. One of the commentators thought it was a wheelchair. He was quickly corrected.

What seems odd to me about a desire to see racing embrace the recumbent is how unnecessary it is.

1. In motorsport, it all works perfectly well with machines of different types separated by formula. It would be barmy to pit an F1 car against a BTCC tintop. Why would it make any more sense in cycling?

2. Rather than make a fuss about being included in racing's current structures, why not set something up in parallel?

You'd feel absolutely grand about it and could amuse your friends with tales of relative speed and engineering finesse.

No-one would watch it, no-one would care, no-one would get involved in it... but you'd be absolutely right about how much better it was. And you'd be among about seven people who thought so.

It's not impossible to set up new types of racing. Look at MTB racing (various types) today and compare it with where it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Meanwhile, it might be much better for road racing to stay on proper bicycles. That's what the riders, the fans and the sponsors seem to want.

all we got is human power.....dont compare it with cars. theres no such thing as proper bicycle.

 

[Boris Bajic]

all we got is human power.....dont compare it with cars. theres no such thing as proper bicycle.

My dear chap, the comparison is entirely valid as it relates as much to tyre dimension, wheelbase, seat height, frontal area and ride height as it does to any mechanical power source.

It is a matter of the proponents of one mechanical solution feeling they ought to be able to use their machinery of choice in a competition run by the proponents of another.

And I take it you are jesting in your last point... Of course there is such a thing as a proper bicycle. I ride one. I believe Bradley, Cadel, Andre, Thor and Fabian ride them too.

I hope your wish for every major manufacturer to build and sell recumbents comes to be. It is a good and noble wish. I might even buy one myself.

Meanwhile the Tour, the Giro, the Vuelta and sundry other races will continue to be ridden on proper bicycles.

 

[black'n'yellow]

imagine all of the major bike manufacturers start making recumbents. which i think and i hope in the near future will happen.

only if there is sufficient demand to make such an investment economically viable - and there's all kinds of reasons why that will probably never happen. Have you ever wondered by - even after about 100 years or so - that they are still not in mass production..?