8 ms·

Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditi

by ronaldx 13y ago

Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx. Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.

4ad 13y ago
As a cyclist interested in recumbent and other alternative bicycle designs, I disagree. You can buy whatever kind of bicycle you want. Regarding competitions, I definitely think every cyclist has to ride the same type of bicycle, technology-wise, but I'd love to see competitions using alternative designs.
- crockstar 13y ago
  I'm not sure that's explicitly true about competitions. I know there are a number of rules around weight, helmet design, etc. However, I think there is at least some room for innovation that does occur and at least some variation of equipment (see: http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bike-round-all-road-bikes-years-race http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bik... as well as http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804). I distinctly remember growing up and watching the debate over which types of TT helmets were allowed, which wheelsets were allowed, etc. One area where I feel like is also an interesting comparison and where I thought ronaldx was going with this is around performance enhancing drugs and the UCI. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that things that Vettel being accused of now are, strictly speaking, not against the rules but clearly creating an advantage. The innovation is in the details in the same way that the drug regimens of many cyclists throughout the last couple of decades in many cases did not include drugs listed on a banned substance list (e.g. early blood doping '70s vs. became illegal in '86), because the UCI and WADA simply didn't know about them. It will be interesting to see if Vettel is found to be playing in this gray area how he and Red Bull will be judged. *Please note I do appreciate there is a big difference between doping and mechanical advantage through design, just thought there were some interesting parallels there too.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    The minimum weight is stop ultra light wight bikes catastrophically failing imagine a frame collapsing in a bunch 100kph descent. Though tease rules where implemented when steal was the only frame material you can build strong and safe bikes well under the UCI minimum nowadays
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    Yes, exactly. The present state of cycling is such that any R&D budget can be used more effectively on bending the doping rules than on mechanical innovation.
davej 13y ago
I appreciate the comparison but it's really not "much the same". Modern F1 cars are much much better (not just faster) than they were in 1972. The strict technical regulations are in place for two main reasons: 1. To allow teams with smaller budgets to compete. 2. To focus innovation away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output. That kind of technology will (and currently is) making it's way into roadcars anyway, it doesn't need the help of F1. F1 enforces constraints in the usual suspects (engines, driver assists, ECU, tyres, etc.) which pushes engineers to come up with genuinely new and creative approaches to making cars better and faster. This is all done within the competitive arena of sport. It's actually quite a smart way to bring about a particular type of innovation (I'm trying not to say "out-of-the-box thinking") that may not necessarily happen naturally but may still eventually make it's way into roadcars.
- bliti 13y ago
  Like the use of carbon fiber, active dynamic suspensions, aerodynamics that improve fuel consumption, stronger alloys, etc.
- garethadams 13y ago
  3. Safety
- CWuestefeld 13y ago
  away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output While there has been some of this back in the 80s (e.g., the Williams FW14B[1]), these regulations are also blocking a whole lot of real out-of-the-box thinking. When I think of technical innovations from F1, I think of cars that showcased really unusual technologies. Some of my favorites have been the 1976 Tyrrell six-wheel car [2], which used four small wheels in the front to improve downforce; and the 1978 Brabham BT46 "fan car" [3], which used a big fan like a vacuum, sucking the car down onto the track for better traction. These regulations may help prevent escalation of dumb "big iron", but they also completely shut the door on any kind of revolutionary thinking. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46
curveship 13y ago
This is wrong on two important levels: - the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. Currently, a top pro's bike costs about $10-15k, and a competitive bike can be bought for as low as $2-3k (even lower at the amateur level). If they removed the technical limitations, that number would be at least an order of magnitude higher, and potentially two or three. - bike races are not just about speed, they're about speed and tactics I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.
- BashiBazouk 13y ago
  I agree on the expense and corresponding lack of competitors in the America's Cup but those catamarans when up on the hydrofoils were mesmerizing to watch. I have watched many America's Cups over the years and was a bit apprehensive about another year of cats as I usually prefer a classic monohull but after this cup I'm not so sure...
- SeanLuke 13y ago
  > - the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. The UCI has been hypocritical, inconsistent, and mendacious in its claims here. At the dawn of racing the UCI banned the recumbent Velocar not because it was so much faster (it was), but because the powerful (ahem) upright bicycle lobby demanded it. The there was the Moulton, which started winning lots of races on its 17" tires in the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety" reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel bike manufacturers had gotten scared. Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels. And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs. So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.
BashiBazouk 13y ago
"recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions" Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts (to which I a rapidly becoming one). I understand that if you put an enclosure around a recumbent and run it on salt flats, you will hit a higher top speed. How does it fair in the Alps? In a crowded city with tight turns? It has always seemed to me that the recumbent position is countered by both the ability to stand up and put weight on the pedals for speed/acceleration and having a shorter wheel base while being on a taller pivot for handling.
- SeanLuke 13y ago
  Set aside recumbents. How about small-wheeled uprights? The world upright speed record was set, and has held for 20 years, on a 17 inch steel bicycle with full suspension (a Moulton AM). There are strong arguments to be made that smaller-wheeled bikes allow for much faster and better designs: yet because the UCI banned them in the 1960s for being too fast, the industry was ruined and the only ones you can get nowadays are either folders (Brompton, Bike Friday Tikit) or bespoke Moultons. BTW: recumbents can have just as short a wheelbase as an upright, as well as about as high a center of gravity position. See for example http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/iwaskow/PICT1716.JPG http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/i... The big issue with recumbents is that humans are designed to apply torque vertically, and torque is what you need for climbing; while aerodynamics are what you need for descending and on straights.
- lutorm 13y ago
  There is a strong selection effect given that people who are competitive bicyclists in general won't ride recumbents since you will then be restricted to HPV competitions. The tradeoff is smaller frontal area vs higher weight. See http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm Re: handling, my Lightning recumbent is way more nimble than any bicycle I've ever ridden, precisely because the wheelbase is shorter and the CG is lower to the ground than a normal bicycle.
thwest 13y ago
Recumbents aren't ever going to be popular racing bikes. Fighting aerodynamic drag is a huge source of tactics and race dynamics that the races would be quite boring without. Recumbents are also laughable going up hills.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Yes can't see a recumbent working on the Hors catégorie climbs.
dockd 13y ago
That's for road bikes. I don't know what the UCI says about mountain bikes, but since their introduction in the 80s, we've gone to clipless pedals, front and then rear suspension, 29" and 27.5" tires, disc brakes.
Theriac25 13y ago
> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s
nicholassmith 13y ago
As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro. Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.
nicholassmith 13y ago
As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro. Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
>>>>> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?
- undees 13y ago
  I ride a short wheel base recumbent, and regularly pass upright bicycles on moderate uphills.

by ronaldx 13y ago

4ad 13y ago

As a cyclist interested in recumbent and other alternative bicycle designs, I disagree. You can buy whatever kind of bicycle you want. Regarding competitions, I definitely think every cyclist has to ride the same type of bicycle, technology-wise, but I'd love to see competitions using alternative designs.

crockstar 13y ago
I'm not sure that's explicitly true about competitions. I know there are a number of rules around weight, helmet design, etc. However, I think there is at least some room for innovation that does occur and at least some variation of equipment (see: http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bike-round-all-road-bikes-years-race http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bik... as well as http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804). I distinctly remember growing up and watching the debate over which types of TT helmets were allowed, which wheelsets were allowed, etc. One area where I feel like is also an interesting comparison and where I thought ronaldx was going with this is around performance enhancing drugs and the UCI. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that things that Vettel being accused of now are, strictly speaking, not against the rules but clearly creating an advantage. The innovation is in the details in the same way that the drug regimens of many cyclists throughout the last couple of decades in many cases did not include drugs listed on a banned substance list (e.g. early blood doping '70s vs. became illegal in '86), because the UCI and WADA simply didn't know about them. It will be interesting to see if Vettel is found to be playing in this gray area how he and Red Bull will be judged. *Please note I do appreciate there is a big difference between doping and mechanical advantage through design, just thought there were some interesting parallels there too.
- walshemj 13y ago
  The minimum weight is stop ultra light wight bikes catastrophically failing imagine a frame collapsing in a bunch 100kph descent. Though tease rules where implemented when steal was the only frame material you can build strong and safe bikes well under the UCI minimum nowadays
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Yes, exactly. The present state of cycling is such that any R&D budget can be used more effectively on bending the doping rules than on mechanical innovation.

davej 13y ago

I appreciate the comparison but it's really not "much the same". Modern F1 cars are much much better (not just faster) than they were in 1972. The strict technical regulations are in place for two main reasons: 1. To allow teams with smaller budgets to compete. 2. To focus innovation away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output. That kind of technology will (and currently is) making it's way into roadcars anyway, it doesn't need the help of F1. F1 enforces constraints in the usual suspects (engines, driver assists, ECU, tyres, etc.) which pushes engineers to come up with genuinely new and creative approaches to making cars better and faster. This is all done within the competitive arena of sport. It's actually quite a smart way to bring about a particular type of innovation (I'm trying not to say "out-of-the-box thinking") that may not necessarily happen naturally but may still eventually make it's way into roadcars.

bliti 13y ago
Like the use of carbon fiber, active dynamic suspensions, aerodynamics that improve fuel consumption, stronger alloys, etc.
garethadams 13y ago
3. Safety
CWuestefeld 13y ago
away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output While there has been some of this back in the 80s (e.g., the Williams FW14B[1]), these regulations are also blocking a whole lot of real out-of-the-box thinking. When I think of technical innovations from F1, I think of cars that showcased really unusual technologies. Some of my favorites have been the 1976 Tyrrell six-wheel car [2], which used four small wheels in the front to improve downforce; and the 1978 Brabham BT46 "fan car" [3], which used a big fan like a vacuum, sucking the car down onto the track for better traction. These regulations may help prevent escalation of dumb "big iron", but they also completely shut the door on any kind of revolutionary thinking. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46

curveship 13y ago

This is wrong on two important levels: - the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. Currently, a top pro's bike costs about $10-15k, and a competitive bike can be bought for as low as $2-3k (even lower at the amateur level). If they removed the technical limitations, that number would be at least an order of magnitude higher, and potentially two or three. - bike races are not just about speed, they're about speed and tactics I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.

BashiBazouk 13y ago
I agree on the expense and corresponding lack of competitors in the America's Cup but those catamarans when up on the hydrofoils were mesmerizing to watch. I have watched many America's Cups over the years and was a bit apprehensive about another year of cats as I usually prefer a classic monohull but after this cup I'm not so sure...
SeanLuke 13y ago
> - the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. The UCI has been hypocritical, inconsistent, and mendacious in its claims here. At the dawn of racing the UCI banned the recumbent Velocar not because it was so much faster (it was), but because the powerful (ahem) upright bicycle lobby demanded it. The there was the Moulton, which started winning lots of races on its 17" tires in the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety" reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel bike manufacturers had gotten scared. Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels. And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs. So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.

BashiBazouk 13y ago

"recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions" Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts (to which I a rapidly becoming one). I understand that if you put an enclosure around a recumbent and run it on salt flats, you will hit a higher top speed. How does it fair in the Alps? In a crowded city with tight turns? It has always seemed to me that the recumbent position is countered by both the ability to stand up and put weight on the pedals for speed/acceleration and having a shorter wheel base while being on a taller pivot for handling.

SeanLuke 13y ago
Set aside recumbents. How about small-wheeled uprights? The world upright speed record was set, and has held for 20 years, on a 17 inch steel bicycle with full suspension (a Moulton AM). There are strong arguments to be made that smaller-wheeled bikes allow for much faster and better designs: yet because the UCI banned them in the 1960s for being too fast, the industry was ruined and the only ones you can get nowadays are either folders (Brompton, Bike Friday Tikit) or bespoke Moultons. BTW: recumbents can have just as short a wheelbase as an upright, as well as about as high a center of gravity position. See for example http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/iwaskow/PICT1716.JPG http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/i... The big issue with recumbents is that humans are designed to apply torque vertically, and torque is what you need for climbing; while aerodynamics are what you need for descending and on straights.
lutorm 13y ago
There is a strong selection effect given that people who are competitive bicyclists in general won't ride recumbents since you will then be restricted to HPV competitions. The tradeoff is smaller frontal area vs higher weight. See http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm Re: handling, my Lightning recumbent is way more nimble than any bicycle I've ever ridden, precisely because the wheelbase is shorter and the CG is lower to the ground than a normal bicycle.

thwest 13y ago

Recumbents aren't ever going to be popular racing bikes. Fighting aerodynamic drag is a huge source of tactics and race dynamics that the races would be quite boring without. Recumbents are also laughable going up hills.

walshemj 13y ago
Yes can't see a recumbent working on the Hors catégorie climbs.

dockd 13y ago

That's for road bikes. I don't know what the UCI says about mountain bikes, but since their introduction in the 80s, we've gone to clipless pedals, front and then rear suspension, 29" and 27.5" tires, disc brakes.

Theriac25 13y ago

> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s

nicholassmith 13y ago

As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro. Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.

nicholassmith 13y ago

at-fates-hands 13y ago

>>>>> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?

undees 13y ago
I ride a short wheel base recumbent, and regularly pass upright bicycles on moderate uphills.