- 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.
> - 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.
Recumbent bicycles are older than the modern "safety" bicycle. They lost in the marketplace on their own merits long before the UCI even existed. They are faster in some scenarios, they are slower in others. They cost more, they weigh more, they break more, they're less agile.
The '30s were not the "dawn of racing." The peak of bicycle racing (and technological progress) was 1880-1917. That would be when the safety bicycle was emerging as the dominant configuration.
Moulton wheels had over 30 years to prove themselves before they were banned in 1996, following the Lugano Charter. They didn't.
I want to reply to another odd piece of your claim. Why are you comparing recumbents to safety bicycles? We're talking about uprights. And so far as I know, recumbent velocipedes are later than upright velocipedes, recumbent pedaled bikes are later than upright pedaled bikes (notably the boneshaker); and recumbent chained bikes are later than upright chained bikes.
And surely you realize that all of your claims (cost, weight, breaking, agility) can be more easily ascribed to the fact that uprights are a huge mass market with enormous R&D funding, and recumbents are a tiny little hobbyist thing. Okay, maybe not agility, that's probably inherent.
I'm pretty sure UCI Rule 49 banning small wheels long preexisted 1996. There's little information on the web, but The Spaceframe Moultons describes the ban existing in at least the 1994 pamphlet (it's on google book search if you want to hunt: chapter 9). And certainly there's lots of stuff on the web claiming a near immediate ban, though with no specific date. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I ride with several people who do lots of mileage on 'bents. Lots of mileage (one has completed a 1200k brevet). These guys can cruise on the flats, and even on slight climbs, but as soon as the gradients hit 10%, they are forced to spin up in a ridiculously small gear. So, in some cases, yeah, 'bents could very be a performance gain, but I cannot imagine anyone riding competitively up the 20%+ slopes that races like the Giro and Vuelta include in their stages.
I agree, however, that the UCI seems to selectively make their equipment rules. At they've given up the disc brake fight in cyclocross, though some early returns show in certain conditions, rim brakes are still better.
> 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.
I think this years America's Cup was the best argument for (engineering) rule changes. If you watched the LV cup ( the 'first round' of the America's Cup) and the final, you could actually see how the boat handling progressed. Most obviously, at the start of the LV cup it was believed that the boats could only foil downwind, in rather strong wind. Then New Zealand started to maneuver on foils, and in the final races of the America's Cup Oracle was actually foiling downwind.
So compare this to older America's Cups, there the boats were also very expensive, but the well understood sailing of ( for example) the J-class boats of the '30s did not really produce a similar evolving environment as this years America's Cup.
Sailing is a good example of a sport with development classes like the Aussie 18 and International 14 where there are few rules and tech is really important, and also classes like the Laser that are cheap, strict one-design boats.
There is room for both forms of competition.
Having grown up racing Lasers, I'd have to say, however, that watching a sailboat race is incredibly boring no matter what kind of boat. Competing is fun, though.
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...
> the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish.
The 2013 cup races were closer and more tactically focused than the majority of the mid century cups.
> 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.
Anyone with that mentality would have assumed NZ would inevitably win. Obviously that wasn't the case, so it's not quite as simple as saying that you've seen it all after 5 minutes. One point where I would agree with you is that there weren't enough opportunities to make a mistake that results in a lead change.
> The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors
There were 12 originally submitted competitors in this years cup, and 3 that were funded and developed to the point of competing in the challenger selection series (LV cup). South Korea came close to contesting in the LV cup but dropped out after disappointing results in the preliminary AC World Series races the year prior. Notably this year saw higher interest and involvement from countries that have not had a strong presence in sailing races in the past, such as SK.
> and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money.
A team from Australia filed to be the next challenger of record literally moments after the conclusion of the 2013 cup. NZ, Italy, Sweeden and SK are highly motivated to repeat their interest. The event is most emphatically nowhere even close to dying.
Cost control is a concern, but steps are being taken to address it. In the 2013 cup the NZ and Italy teams shared development costs as a partnership. It's highly likely that competitors in the next cup will purchase a design kit from the NZ team as a significant cost and time saving measure.
> Viewership has plummeted as a result.
Viewership and interest in the AC has absolutely exploded as a result of this years cup. Just compare it to the San Diego races. This is the first cup in ages to recruit a sizable new audience of people without a prior strong interest in sailboat racing.
There's a fair bit of misinformation running around about this year's AC that largely comes from two camps: people who like to bash on anything Ellison touches (understandable, he doesn't come across as a very likable guy), and nostalgia from folks that fetishise more classic looking boats. But it's just daft to think that returning to the 12m or J-boats has a brighter future than foiling multi-hulls. The AC will either continue on its current course, or if someone wins it away from Larry and reforms it in a reactionary way, it's likely that something based on the MOD70 boats will become the new king of sailboat racing. Stuff like the Volvo will continue largely unaffected because they have a very different spectating profile.
- 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.