> 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 bicyc

> 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.