5 ms·

Sometimes I wonder should we go to basics in many sports. With things like banning any equipment including clothing and shoes... Or with cycling giving one sta

by Ekaros 2y ago

Sometimes I wonder should we go to basics in many sports. With things like banning any equipment including clothing and shoes... Or with cycling giving one standard mass manufactured piece. And then a pile of standard replacement parts and standard tools. All bought from cheapest supplier randomly distributed to participants.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
How 'spartan'... That aside, regarding cycling, standard mass manufactured piece? In one size that all have to fit to? Naa...
sdfgtr 2y ago
Lookup Japan's Keirin racing. I think it's pretty much that. IIRC at the top levels they also require the racers to stay onsite under observation for several days before a race.
nradov 2y ago
That would essentially kill cycling as a professional sport. Much of the team revenue comes from equipment sponsors. And while many of the equipment innovations get a bit ridiculous, some of them have really benefitted amateur cyclists. I would hate to still be stuck with a 10-speed drivetrain on a steel tube frame with mechanical friction shifters just because that was "standard".
- nemo44x 2y ago
  It’s the same problem in golf. Equipment has gotten so powerful that the strategy of the game has fundamentally changed. They can not realistically continue to make courses longer. So they’re “rolling back” the ball which will limit drive distances a bit but nothing regarding clubs. And the reason why is the pro game makes a lot of money on endorsements. If a top pro is forced to use a club that is different from what amateurs need then the gravy train could stop. But yes, golf is really hard and for amateurs the innovations help make the game more enjoyable. But for pros it’s just too much.
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  You saw this with cyclecross bikes for a long time. I had a beautiful cyclecross bike that I rode everywhere and I loved that bike but the cable-pull brakes sucked - like rear-end a car in traffic bad. Nobody made a cyclecross bike with disc brakes until the UCI allowed them in competition; now they all have disc brakes. Same for the extensive use of carbon. Love it or hate it, carbon has fueled intense innovation that you can see on display in higher-end consumer bikes and, while I don't have it or want it, electronic shifting is crisp and perfect. I don't like yet another electronic device but for a weekend rider to never need to tune a mechanical derailleur again is a game changer - you know they already have their phone with them 24/7 (especially you, roadies)
- bluGill 2y ago
  I'd be perfectly happy on a steel tube 10-speed from 1975 if I was allowed a modern click shifter and modern disk brakes. Steel frame bikes are really nice, and 10 gears is more than you need anyway. Steel frame bikes from 1975 won't win you a modern race, but they won't be far behind.
  - cantSpellSober 2y ago
    Yes Steel is Real but the last Tour winner on a steel bike was in the '90s (and that's the subject). Bikes weigh no more than 8kg. The weight weenies are winning, carbon everything down to brake rotors. > I was allowed a modern click shifter and modern disk brakes Doubt you'd see a bike equipped with anything else at the Tour.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      At the top level - which is pretty much the definition of a tour winner - grams make the difference between a win and loss, so of course they will not be riding steel. I'm not at top level and never will be. If I want to go faster there are many things I can do that are more effective than playing what my bike is made out of.
      - scheme271 2y ago
        Somewhat. UCI has a minumum weight (6.8kg) for bikes and often teams have to add weights to their bikes to hit the minimum limit. You easily get lighter bikes but your bike needs to be 6.8kg to be race legal. It certainly limits how many bits and bobs on the bike get switched over to using titanium or carbon fiber.
        bluGill 2y ago
        I'm not that deep into racing, but I'll guess that teams still want to be way under that weight so they can strategically place weight where they want it.
        2y ago
cangeroo 2y ago
It's impossible to take technology out of the equation. I.e. that one person may have superior insights in their physiology/glucose levels, or a superior diet before the race. And so on. Similarly in football, by studying your opponents in previous matches, so that you can identify weaknesses during the match, even if playing in isolation.
OfficeChad 2y ago
[dead]
jamil7 2y ago
I get what you're saying but a part of the culture in my experience is tinkering and upgrading your bike, that doesn't have to necessitate spending huge amounts of money, especially if you do a lot of work yourself and buy parts second hand. The sport might appeal less with all that stripped away, but who knows maybe it would also be interesting to standardize some aspects.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Why not then allow motorcycles? They are just bikes upgraded with motors... Would make competition lot shorter too and interesting. Seeing them driving around without speed limits.
  - jamil7 2y ago
    I'm guessing because they don't meet the criteria to participate, what's your point?
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      That adding a motor would be upgrade and tinkering of a bike. So why should it not be allowed? Isn't it entirely in same spirit?
      - skeeter2020 2y ago
        Not sure if you honestly believe this or just trying to be "edgy" but because a motorcycle is not a bicycle.
      - jamil7 2y ago
        Do you want me to enumerate the ways in which a bike is not a motorbike and the parameters in which people who are interested in bikes operate in their hobby or profession? Or are you asking why professional racing puts guidelines around what types of bikes can participate?
      - 1992spacemovie 2y ago
Lwerewolf 2y ago
Sounds like the typical case of people not looking at the core work required in order for the very expensive individual items like tailored nutrition, top-end (and even customized) parts, per-race-specific optimized chains and what not to make any sense whatsoever. If your times are, say, 20% or more above the absolute top times for a given course, you've got a long way to go by improving yourself - on just about any bike whatsoever. The super expensive parts make low single digit differences.
wnc3141 2y ago
It would require a different business model. Cycling is like F1 in that sponsors are trying to sell their equipment.
tpm 2y ago
All the cycling equipment in races has to be available in mass market and usually can be bought, if you've got the money. It's not cheap but also it's not a F1 car. It's more like.. why would you buy it when you are not a racer.

by Ekaros 2y ago

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

How 'spartan'... That aside, regarding cycling, standard mass manufactured piece? In one size that all have to fit to? Naa...

sdfgtr 2y ago

Lookup Japan's Keirin racing. I think it's pretty much that. IIRC at the top levels they also require the racers to stay onsite under observation for several days before a race.

nradov 2y ago

That would essentially kill cycling as a professional sport. Much of the team revenue comes from equipment sponsors. And while many of the equipment innovations get a bit ridiculous, some of them have really benefitted amateur cyclists. I would hate to still be stuck with a 10-speed drivetrain on a steel tube frame with mechanical friction shifters just because that was "standard".

nemo44x 2y ago
It’s the same problem in golf. Equipment has gotten so powerful that the strategy of the game has fundamentally changed. They can not realistically continue to make courses longer. So they’re “rolling back” the ball which will limit drive distances a bit but nothing regarding clubs. And the reason why is the pro game makes a lot of money on endorsements. If a top pro is forced to use a club that is different from what amateurs need then the gravy train could stop. But yes, golf is really hard and for amateurs the innovations help make the game more enjoyable. But for pros it’s just too much.
skeeter2020 2y ago
You saw this with cyclecross bikes for a long time. I had a beautiful cyclecross bike that I rode everywhere and I loved that bike but the cable-pull brakes sucked - like rear-end a car in traffic bad. Nobody made a cyclecross bike with disc brakes until the UCI allowed them in competition; now they all have disc brakes. Same for the extensive use of carbon. Love it or hate it, carbon has fueled intense innovation that you can see on display in higher-end consumer bikes and, while I don't have it or want it, electronic shifting is crisp and perfect. I don't like yet another electronic device but for a weekend rider to never need to tune a mechanical derailleur again is a game changer - you know they already have their phone with them 24/7 (especially you, roadies)
bluGill 2y ago
I'd be perfectly happy on a steel tube 10-speed from 1975 if I was allowed a modern click shifter and modern disk brakes. Steel frame bikes are really nice, and 10 gears is more than you need anyway. Steel frame bikes from 1975 won't win you a modern race, but they won't be far behind.
- cantSpellSober 2y ago
  Yes Steel is Real but the last Tour winner on a steel bike was in the '90s (and that's the subject). Bikes weigh no more than 8kg. The weight weenies are winning, carbon everything down to brake rotors. > I was allowed a modern click shifter and modern disk brakes Doubt you'd see a bike equipped with anything else at the Tour.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    At the top level - which is pretty much the definition of a tour winner - grams make the difference between a win and loss, so of course they will not be riding steel. I'm not at top level and never will be. If I want to go faster there are many things I can do that are more effective than playing what my bike is made out of.
    - scheme271 2y ago
      Somewhat. UCI has a minumum weight (6.8kg) for bikes and often teams have to add weights to their bikes to hit the minimum limit. You easily get lighter bikes but your bike needs to be 6.8kg to be race legal. It certainly limits how many bits and bobs on the bike get switched over to using titanium or carbon fiber.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        I'm not that deep into racing, but I'll guess that teams still want to be way under that weight so they can strategically place weight where they want it.
        2y ago

cangeroo 2y ago

It's impossible to take technology out of the equation. I.e. that one person may have superior insights in their physiology/glucose levels, or a superior diet before the race. And so on. Similarly in football, by studying your opponents in previous matches, so that you can identify weaknesses during the match, even if playing in isolation.

OfficeChad 2y ago

[dead]

jamil7 2y ago

I get what you're saying but a part of the culture in my experience is tinkering and upgrading your bike, that doesn't have to necessitate spending huge amounts of money, especially if you do a lot of work yourself and buy parts second hand. The sport might appeal less with all that stripped away, but who knows maybe it would also be interesting to standardize some aspects.

Ekaros 2y ago
Why not then allow motorcycles? They are just bikes upgraded with motors... Would make competition lot shorter too and interesting. Seeing them driving around without speed limits.
- jamil7 2y ago
  I'm guessing because they don't meet the criteria to participate, what's your point?
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    That adding a motor would be upgrade and tinkering of a bike. So why should it not be allowed? Isn't it entirely in same spirit?
    - skeeter2020 2y ago
      Not sure if you honestly believe this or just trying to be "edgy" but because a motorcycle is not a bicycle.
    - jamil7 2y ago
      Do you want me to enumerate the ways in which a bike is not a motorbike and the parameters in which people who are interested in bikes operate in their hobby or profession? Or are you asking why professional racing puts guidelines around what types of bikes can participate?
    - 1992spacemovie 2y ago

Lwerewolf 2y ago

Sounds like the typical case of people not looking at the core work required in order for the very expensive individual items like tailored nutrition, top-end (and even customized) parts, per-race-specific optimized chains and what not to make any sense whatsoever. If your times are, say, 20% or more above the absolute top times for a given course, you've got a long way to go by improving yourself - on just about any bike whatsoever. The super expensive parts make low single digit differences.

wnc3141 2y ago

It would require a different business model. Cycling is like F1 in that sponsors are trying to sell their equipment.

tpm 2y ago

All the cycling equipment in races has to be available in mass market and usually can be bought, if you've got the money. It's not cheap but also it's not a F1 car. It's more like.. why would you buy it when you are not a racer.