>If someone wants to set up a parallel racing organisation which allows more innovation in design, I imagine they are free to do so.
>It may already exist.
It does, in the UK it's the bhpc - there are various classes, and AFAIK they tend to race at the same time on closed tracks - it's pretty small numbers in terms of competitors. The Worlds competition was held fairly recently it seems:
http://www.wc2012.bhpc.org.uk/
http://www.wc2012.bhpc.org.uk/rules-and-classes
If they were elegible for racing I'd assume the UCI would come up with a standard, whatever that was, and dimensions for same (min.seat height, wheelbase, frame size/shape/material etc) so that comparisons could be made. I know the differences are far more subtle, but how do you compare one DF with another? Broadly they are the same but in detail they differ greatly.
Even in detail it's relatively not that much, certainly not compared to 'bents. The relationship of bars, saddle etc are nailed down in some detail I gather, and things still have to get through the UCI - there was a recent case of Specialized (?) having a bike they thought would be allowed, then subsequently rejected - something like the headtube having too much of an aerofoil section (or together with the frame it was on) - I forget the details. But DF bikes *are* pretty damn similar- try having a 'common' 'bent spec - high/mid/low racer, USS/ASS, wheelsize, front/rear wheel drive etc - hence the HPV rules are just vague categories.
I could refer to all my previous points which are still valid IMO - the point is why the UCI won't throw open the rule book. I don't exactly disagree with a lot of what you've said, but it still stands that trying to lob HPVs in with DFs just isn't gonna happen and IMO, unless you rip up the rule book. In which case it's no longer (DF) cycle racing, but HPV racing. There's lots of other parallels - single type motorcycle and car racing for example - road racing is simply another single type, if you like. Look at what's happened with MotoGP this year - there's two classes on track, and now the fields split into two groups. I can see the reasoning to do so, but I don't think it's helped it as a race 'cos it's split the field more than would have happened before (or at least, judging by the few races I've seen this year..)
Oh, wozzat then? I genuinely didn't know this so I'm not being sarcastic, please educate an ignorant. UI presume it's to do with lack of easy visibility in a bunch, or in other words DF riders could, if you like, trip over 'bent's as they're so far out of the normal eyeline?
Just the impression I get from a few forum postings, and judging by some posts on bentrideronline.com - some US clubs don't like 'bents on their club rides. Now, in reality it may not be a huge problem, and perhaps not so much on more sociable training rides - might just be a case of an unknown quantity. But in the case of a chaingang it's close bunch - the length of a 'bent may not lend itself to that (guessing where the next guy's wheel is wrt your BB), and typically if you're that close to the guy in front your cranks are gonna be almost brushing his rear wheel - bloody dangerous if he has to move off-line. Plus the guy behind the 'bent will probably (I'm guessing) be having to work harder than if there were a DF in the middle, because there's less aero advantage from the 'bent, and certainly if it's lower. Get to a steep climb and the 'bents will probably drop back - and have to get out of the bunch (tho' probably catch up on the downhill). As you've mentioned, visibility may be a problem - less so for high racers, mebbe more so for something as low as a Nocom (tho' they are a large black thing....). Also if someone does go off line, rubbing on the next guys wheel may not be as bad as hitting some spinning feet..