6 ms·
Cycling is actually another notorious example of a sport where the rules are holding back significant innovation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicyc
by prof-dr-ir 5y ago
Cycling is actually another notorious example of a sport where the rules are holding back significant innovation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle
- SilverRed 5y agoThe rules are in place not to hold back speed, but to protect the image of cycling. A recumbent may be faster but it does not look like a bicycle to the average person and changes the image of the sport. Things like better shifters, lighter frames (within reason) more aero parts (within reason) are still allowed.
- brainwad 5y ago> lighter frames (within reason) The UCI's 6.8kg weight limit is much higher than what is achievable with modern materials. So much so that there are frame builders who can build you an "illegal" bike made out of _steel_: https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html
- SilverRed 5y agoThey do drop the limits over time. The reasoning is they want everyone to have very structurally sound bikes for safety. You _could_ build an ultra light steel bike but it might fail and cause serious injury. With a minimum limit, no one feels the need to make their bikes less than perfectly strong. And when every OEM is making frames at perfect strength under the limit, they drop it.
- brainwad 5y agoThey haven't ever dropped the limit - a weight limit was introduced in 2000 and hasn't changed since: https://cyclingtips.com/2013/08/the-6-8kg-limit/ https://cyclingtips.com/2013/08/the-6-8kg-limit/
- hervature 5y agoCould also put an engine in there. Sports are defined by arbitrary rules.
- mariusor 5y agoPro cycling is already a pretty dangerous sport, both on track and on the road. To mitigate those dangers a very important part is having a maneuverable bike. Recumbents are nothing of the sort. I doubt that any pro-cyclist wants the speed advantages of one if it means that cornering is more difficult, veering into dangerous.
- prof-dr-ir 5y agoThere are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I do not think they should automatically be considered less safe. I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?
- scheme271 5y agoIt depends but I don't think a recumbent bike is all that great when climbing or descending. I can't see cyclists wanting a recumbent if there are any significant elevation changes on the course.
- mariusor 5y agoFlipping over because of hard braking is not something that happens in pro-cycling. [edit] And yes, for time trials recumbents would be nice, but already time-trial bikes are pretty different and unsafe, I don't think the UCI would allow even more risk.
- Y_Y 5y agoEven something like a small faring, like the little plastic windshield on a motorbike should increase speed. One concern though, is that it would mitigate the advantage of drafting and totally change the strategy of cycling as it exists today (eg. re. the pelotón and breakaways).