2 ms·

This is the kind of conspiracy talk you hear from people who deny the moon landing. There's something amazing, so superior, so great, that the man is holding us

This is the kind of conspiracy talk you hear from people who deny the moon landing. There's something amazing, so superior, so great, that the man is holding us down and refusing to let us have. When in reality there are simple engineering reasons why the supposed superior thing is really just terrible. UCI stopped recumbents, the superman position, fairings because they're so incredibly superior? That's ridiculous! Recumbents are far inferior, they're huge, they're clunky, you have limited visibility in the city. The superman position? Please, everyone can see why we don't ride around in that position. And fairings? You can install one today. It's on Amazon. It's cheap. No one does it. UCI is just a mirror of what the vast vast majority of cyclists want. Had they not put bans in, professional cycling would be people going around in carbon fiber tubes sitting horizontally. That is not cycling as 99% of people know it, and as 99% of people want it to be. You bring up disc breaks. That's the perfect example of how things work. People adopted them. So the UCI approved them. > Why don't people ride small wheels? Because racers don't, making it hard to market them People ride small wheels all the time! Foldable bikes. BMX bikes. They have small wheels. They're perfectly marketable and sell very well. I guess you mean, why don't normal hybrid bikes have small wheels? Simple, they're not as good as big wheels. They're far worse at handling bad terrain like cobblestones, potholes or gravel. Big wheels provider a smoother more comfortable ride, and they're less twitchy than small wheels. If small wheels were superior, given that basically every bike shop has such a bike you can get today, people would be trying a small wheel bike and a large bike and deciding on the small one. Every bike store associate would be telling you that they discovered something awesome to make you ride better: small wheels. They don't. Small wheels are worse on the road.

SeanLuke 5y ago
This really tells me you don't know much about the history of bicycles, nor did you actually read the article. The UCI has had a potent effect on the bike market: people buy "serious rider" bikes based on what they see the "professionals" riding. And bulk manufacturers figure people want lower-end bikes that look like the "serious rider" bikes -- and they're right, that's what customers want. What customers don't realize is that the professionals are riding rather poor machines because a corrupt swiss organization is largely forcing them too. Putting recumbents aside, let's just go back to small wheels. There is no valid reason for the UCI to ban them: they simply banned them because Moultons started winning. Regardless of your thoughts on the disadvantages of small wheels (and small wheels hold practically every single upright land speed record), none of those disadvantages are the reasons you don't see small-wheeled bikes in races. You don't see them because the UCI won't allow them. And the UCI won't allow them because they would smash all the race records. Thus people think small wheels are for folders and kid's bikes, rather than what they actually are, which is for winning races.
- light_hue_1 5y ago
  So, your best argument to disagree with what I said is that I haven't read enough? Yeah, that's usually how conspiracy theorists argue. Let's move beyond this. Use some basic critical thinking skills here. What does the evil UCI gain from forcing everyone to use "inferior" big wheels as opposed to "superior" small wheels? Did someone take a pledge to some evil God who demands only large wheels? Is there a large wheel blood oath? There's no patent even! This conspiracy theory is nonsense. It has the same incentive structure as flat earth: people are lying for the sake of lying with nothing to gain. That's just dumb. We don't use small wheels because of engineering reasons. Not aesthetic reasons. That's why Moulton lost out. The vast majority of riders don't care about professional cycling. Have never seen a single race in their lives. And would never watch one willingly. Yet, despite the fact that small wheeled bicycles are available in every bike shop, very few people ride them. It has nothing to do with what they look like. Small wheels simply aren't as comfortable as large wheels. They aren't as forgiving and they aren't as good with potholes. It doesn't matter that they're faster in some conditions. The vast majority of cyclists want comfort first. If the UCI didn't have this rule, professionals would be riding a bicycle that looks totally different from what regular folks ride. And that's a problem with attracting people to the sport. No amount of professional riding small wheels will convince the public to pick an inferior bike.
  - SeanLuke 5y ago
    > So, your best argument to disagree with what I said is that I haven't read enough? Look. The UCI has a long and well-documented history of banning new bicycle technologies and approaches specifically to prevent them from winning races. These aren't out-in-left-field claims: they're well established history. For example, the UCI really did ban recumbents on behalf of the safety bike industry in order to keep the velocar out of races. And the UCI really did ban small wheels in order to block the Moulton from winning championships. The UCI really did ban the superman position, fairings, and even attempted to ban disc brakes, among many other items. Your response seems to be to question that this happened this by demanding to know why the UCI would do such a thing, rather than going and looking it up for yourself. > We don't use small wheels because of engineering reasons. Not aesthetic reasons. That's why Moulton lost out. You keep making this claim about Moulton with no evidence for it at all. Small wheels are faster and stronger than large wheels, and permit many more aerodynamic frame design options. They allow a wider and more stable wheelbase. Small-wheeled bikes are unquestionably faster than large-wheeled bikes: the racing records make this clear. It is exactly because of their advantages that the UCI banned them. There are basically three downsides with smaller wheels, all frankly minor. [1] They are harder to gear, but that's easily dealt with nowadays. [2] They are somewhat bumpier, but I've ridden 359s daily for a year on Rome's San Pietrini: it's not an issue. And, this is trivially dealt with using a tight suspension, which also glues them to the ground and makes them more efficient than large wheels (and is what Moultons did btw). The primary problem with small wheels is [3] that it's more challenging to design small-wheeled bikes with high mechanical trail, and racing bikes tend to have very high trail. None of these outweighs their significant advantages in races. > If the UCI didn't have this rule, professionals would be riding a bicycle that looks totally different from what regular folks ride. And that's a problem with attracting people to the sport. Right. That's why disc brakes were banned too. I think I'm done with you. You keep calling me a conspiracy theorist for stating well established historical fact.

SeanLuke 5y ago

This really tells me you don't know much about the history of bicycles, nor did you actually read the article. The UCI has had a potent effect on the bike market: people buy "serious rider" bikes based on what they see the "professionals" riding. And bulk manufacturers figure people want lower-end bikes that look like the "serious rider" bikes -- and they're right, that's what customers want. What customers don't realize is that the professionals are riding rather poor machines because a corrupt swiss organization is largely forcing them too. Putting recumbents aside, let's just go back to small wheels. There is no valid reason for the UCI to ban them: they simply banned them because Moultons started winning. Regardless of your thoughts on the disadvantages of small wheels (and small wheels hold practically every single upright land speed record), none of those disadvantages are the reasons you don't see small-wheeled bikes in races. You don't see them because the UCI won't allow them. And the UCI won't allow them because they would smash all the race records. Thus people think small wheels are for folders and kid's bikes, rather than what they actually are, which is for winning races.

light_hue_1 5y ago
So, your best argument to disagree with what I said is that I haven't read enough? Yeah, that's usually how conspiracy theorists argue. Let's move beyond this. Use some basic critical thinking skills here. What does the evil UCI gain from forcing everyone to use "inferior" big wheels as opposed to "superior" small wheels? Did someone take a pledge to some evil God who demands only large wheels? Is there a large wheel blood oath? There's no patent even! This conspiracy theory is nonsense. It has the same incentive structure as flat earth: people are lying for the sake of lying with nothing to gain. That's just dumb. We don't use small wheels because of engineering reasons. Not aesthetic reasons. That's why Moulton lost out. The vast majority of riders don't care about professional cycling. Have never seen a single race in their lives. And would never watch one willingly. Yet, despite the fact that small wheeled bicycles are available in every bike shop, very few people ride them. It has nothing to do with what they look like. Small wheels simply aren't as comfortable as large wheels. They aren't as forgiving and they aren't as good with potholes. It doesn't matter that they're faster in some conditions. The vast majority of cyclists want comfort first. If the UCI didn't have this rule, professionals would be riding a bicycle that looks totally different from what regular folks ride. And that's a problem with attracting people to the sport. No amount of professional riding small wheels will convince the public to pick an inferior bike.
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  > So, your best argument to disagree with what I said is that I haven't read enough? Look. The UCI has a long and well-documented history of banning new bicycle technologies and approaches specifically to prevent them from winning races. These aren't out-in-left-field claims: they're well established history. For example, the UCI really did ban recumbents on behalf of the safety bike industry in order to keep the velocar out of races. And the UCI really did ban small wheels in order to block the Moulton from winning championships. The UCI really did ban the superman position, fairings, and even attempted to ban disc brakes, among many other items. Your response seems to be to question that this happened this by demanding to know why the UCI would do such a thing, rather than going and looking it up for yourself. > We don't use small wheels because of engineering reasons. Not aesthetic reasons. That's why Moulton lost out. You keep making this claim about Moulton with no evidence for it at all. Small wheels are faster and stronger than large wheels, and permit many more aerodynamic frame design options. They allow a wider and more stable wheelbase. Small-wheeled bikes are unquestionably faster than large-wheeled bikes: the racing records make this clear. It is exactly because of their advantages that the UCI banned them. There are basically three downsides with smaller wheels, all frankly minor. [1] They are harder to gear, but that's easily dealt with nowadays. [2] They are somewhat bumpier, but I've ridden 359s daily for a year on Rome's San Pietrini: it's not an issue. And, this is trivially dealt with using a tight suspension, which also glues them to the ground and makes them more efficient than large wheels (and is what Moultons did btw). The primary problem with small wheels is [3] that it's more challenging to design small-wheeled bikes with high mechanical trail, and racing bikes tend to have very high trail. None of these outweighs their significant advantages in races. > If the UCI didn't have this rule, professionals would be riding a bicycle that looks totally different from what regular folks ride. And that's a problem with attracting people to the sport. Right. That's why disc brakes were banned too. I think I'm done with you. You keep calling me a conspiracy theorist for stating well established historical fact.