Cycle design / fashion - sloping top tubes, high seat-post etc 26" etc

[Andymorris]

To stop cyclo-crossers wining MTB races by the simple expedient of picking the bugger up on the
tricky bits?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/ "Andy Koppe" <a n d y @ d c s . e d . a c . u k>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >> The ones you're thinking of are probably 29 inchers, which are merely 700c with very fat tyres.
> >
> > And, interestingly, illegal for use in UCI-sanctioned MTB races, trivia fans...
>
> Why's that? (apart from the UCI's famously open-minded approach)
>
> Andy

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Is there a single good thing to be said about the UCI, or are they completely damaging to the
> sport of cycling?

It does set an internationally recognised standard, which is in itself a good thing. If I want to
race and have a UCI compliant bike then I don't really need to worry about too much getting
disqualified from an event I choose to do somewhere else. And local club Chain Gangs wouldn't work
nearly so well with a mix of machinery. A UCI racer may be a poor design for actually going as fast
as possible, but it does encourage tactical pack work which makes some forms of racing more
interesting for competitor and spectator alike.

But why the UCI can't learn a lesson from other sports reliant on external technological equipment
(e.g., sailing, motor racing) and have development classes as well as "one design" I really don't
know (though I suspect they're blinkered because they've been wearing blinkers for so long, and
can't see taking them off might be a Cunning Plan because they're blinkered...)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Simon Brooke]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> > Is there a single good thing to be said about the UCI, or are they completely damaging to the
> > sport of cycling?
>
> It does set an internationally recognised standard, which is in itself a good thing. If I want to
> race and have a UCI compliant bike then I don't really need to worry about too much getting
> disqualified from an event I choose to do somewhere else. And local club Chain Gangs wouldn't work
> nearly so well with a mix of machinery. A UCI racer may be a poor design for actually going as
> fast as possible, but it does encourage tactical pack work which makes some forms of racing more
> interesting for competitor and spectator alike.

But but but.... if you have a rule which says, all the propulsive power must come from the muscular
effort of the rider, do you actually need any more than that? Designs which are uncompetitive under
that rule will die out at least among competitive riders, so the local club chain gangs will always
be riding more or less equally quick machinery.

> But why the UCI can't learn a lesson from other sports reliant on external technological
> equipment (e.g., sailing, motor racing) and have development classes as well as "one design" I
> really don't know

Too sensible, perhaps? Too obvious?

Mind you yacht racing is as bad. Look at the resistance there has been to things like multihulls and
hydrofoils.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; MS Windows: A thirty-two bit extension ... to a sixteen bit ;; patch to an eight bit
operating system originally coded for a ;; four bit microprocessor and sold by a two-bit company
that ;; can't stand one bit of competition -- anonymous

 

[Ian]

Simon Brooke must be edykated coz e writed:

> Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a single good thing to be said about the UCI, or are they completely damaging to the
>>> sport of cycling?
>>
>> It does set an internationally recognised standard, which is in itself a good thing. If I want to
>> race and have a UCI compliant bike then I don't really need to worry about too much getting
>> disqualified from an event I choose to do somewhere else. And local club Chain Gangs wouldn't
>> work nearly so well with a mix of machinery. A UCI racer may be a poor design for actually going
>> as fast as possible, but it does encourage tactical pack work which makes some forms of racing
>> more interesting for competitor and spectator alike.
>
> But but but.... if you have a rule which says, all the propulsive power must come from the
> muscular effort of the rider, do you actually need any more than that? Designs which are
> uncompetitive under that rule will die out at least among competitive riders, so the local club
> chain gangs will always be riding more or less equally quick machinery.
The UCI effectively stopped all technological development of bicycles in the 1930's when the
industry got scared of the dark side, and effectively banned recumbents from competition.

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> But but but.... if you have a rule which says, all the propulsive power must come from the
> muscular effort of the rider, do you actually need any more than that?=20

Not really, which is why that *is* the primary constituent of the=20 IHPVA's racing rules (add that
the muscular power has to be generated as =

it is used, and can't be stored). And of course the IHPVA's races *are* =

a development class, with improvements in design giving an edge to=20 riders using them. Jason
Queally got sunk at Batttle Mountain a couple=20 of years ago at least in significant part because
the Blue Yonder=20 Challenger looked like a dog next to Sam Whittingham's Varna.

> rule will die out at least among competitive riders, so the local club chain gangs will always be
> riding more or less equally quick machinery.=

The point about the Chain Gangs is that right now everyone is using a=20 pretty similar bike, so you
know what you need to join the locals in=20 terms of equipment, more or less *anywhere*. And if
you've got the=20 muscles and turn up on a =A3400 machine as that's all you can afford=20 you'll
still be in with a sporting chance of keeping up with the pack if =

half of them are on =A32000 machines. If you turn up on something radically different then not only
may there=20 be a general advantage one way or another, but there may well be local=20 geographical
advantages. In a Chain Gang of UCI racers, everyone going=20 up a hill or into the wind is faced
with the same challenge. Throw in a =

'bent and everyone will likely destroy it on the climbs and then get to=20 eat its dust the other
side or into a big headwind. The point of the=20 "one design" is that it's people racing people, and
the machine is=20 factored out of the superiority equation. This makes a Chain Gang a far =

more equitable place to be than if those with deeper pockets can gain an =

extra 10% just by forking out for a streamliner that nobody can catch,=20 and if they could they
couldn't draft. The Chain Gang system works well with one design, as do certain types of =

racing. Others I think would benefit a great deal from opening up what=20 people are
allowed to ride.

> Mind you yacht racing is as bad. Look at the resistance there has been to things like multihulls
> and hydrofoils.

Not quite as bad, I'd say. When the Americas Cup finally left the US to =

Australia the winged keel did cause a kerfuffle, but it wasn't decreed=20 "not actually a yacht"
retrospectively of taking the trophy, and the=20 winning crew having to send it back...

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony W]

"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBC4014F.1565A%[email protected]...

> The UCI effectively stopped all technological development of bicycles in
the
> 1930's when the industry got scared of the dark side, and effectively
banned
> recumbents from competition.

So why didn't the Dark Siders just go away and set up their own competitions? If it was better
surely it would have either survived and flourished or forced change on the UCI. If they did and
they failed it seems Darwinism may have been involved. If they didn't, well there is little to
complain about.

In many sports there have been breakaways and new versions developed. Some are successful,
others not.

Examples? How about Rugby League breaking from the hide bound traditionalists, armatures only Rugby
Union. Only now that Union has opened up & turned professional is League looking severely shaky and
the codes may reunite.

In cricket the Kerry Packer break away failed -- but it sure as hell shook up the game. Perhaps many
of the more 'exciting' (can cricket be exciting??) versions of the game would not have been
developed without Packer and cricket as a whole could have disappeared with the death of the last
old codger watching the 3 day county game.

Just repeating the mantra that the UCI have fossilised cycling in the 1920's makes little sense. If
it were true how come such innovations such as gears, team cars and radios are allowed?

T

 

[Ian]

Tony W must be edykated coz e writed:

>
> "Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBC4014F.1565A%[email protected]...
>
>> The UCI effectively stopped all technological development of bicycles in
> the
>> 1930's when the industry got scared of the dark side, and effectively
> banned
>> recumbents from competition.
>
> So why didn't the Dark Siders just go away and set up their own competitions? If it was better
> surely it would have either survived and flourished or forced change on the UCI. If they did and
> they failed it seems Darwinism may have been involved. If they didn't, well there is little to
> complain about.
>
>
>
> Just repeating the mantra that the UCI have fossilised cycling in the 1920's makes little sense.
> If it were true how come such innovations such as gears, team cars and radios are allowed?
>
> T
>
>
The UCI had a strangle hold on established cycle sport and if recumbents were not faster how come a
mediocre rider was beating top riders before they banned his machine, of course the UCI also had the
money as they were largely made up of the manufacturers and it would have represented major costs to
develop new machines, they found it more economic to bury their heads in the sands, gears were
ancillary devices not covered by the rulings which were aimed at removing recumbents by stipulating
geometry of the frame, as for team cars and radios, well they are support devices so not really part
of the same discussion. It was only in the 1960's and 70's that financial support was put into the
development of the bicycle frame again when people were presented with human powered speed contests,
records usually held by recumbents these days.

Ian

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony W wrote:

> So why didn't the Dark Siders just go away and set up their own competitions?

They did. Google IHPVA. The hour record for IHPVA is about 30% better than the UCI one. Some races
allow 'bents in, though they're not generally shouted about. In this year's Classique Genevoise
race, if you look at the very bottom of the results you notice that a relatively small recumbent
entry starting from the back actually took the first 5 places, first 9 minutes before the first
upright on an 80km hilly course.

> If it was better surely it would have either survived and flourished or forced change on the UCI.

It seems to be doing okay, and may *eventually* force change on the UCI. Note how the BHPC recently
had an event where a female commuter cyclist beat Chris Boardman's hour record distance by riding a
Sensible Machine For The Job...

> Just repeating the mantra that the UCI have fossilised cycling in the 1920's makes little sense.
> If it were true how come such innovations such as gears, team cars and radios are allowed?

If it weren't true why are their pages of rules about what a bike is (like the position and
horizontal distance of the crank relative to the saddle)? Why was Obree's hour record outlawed, just
because he can ride in a better aero tuck than the other candidates for the title?

There really is no reason not to have development classes alongside the established categories.
That's the way to see if things sink or swim, rather than waiting around until you're forced to move
by everyone realising you're ridiculous.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Gareth Rees]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> If you have a rule which says, all the propulsive power must come from the muscular effort of the
> rider, do you actually need any more than that? Designs which are uncompetitive under that rule
> will die out at least among competitive riders, so the local club chain gangs will always be
> riding more or less equally quick machinery.

If anything goes, then the person with the biggest budget wins. I don't think that would be a
good thing.

The UCI rules keep the sport at elite level in touch with ordinary cyclists. Under UCI rules, I can
do up a second hand racer for £100, join my local club and immediately I can train and compete with
other cyclists. If I can't keep up, it's because I'm not fit enough, not because I didn't spend
enough on my bicycle.

But there's no point in my getting involved in HPV racing -- I know I'll never be able to afford a
competitive vehicle.

--
Gareth Rees

 

[Dave Larrington]

Much of what Peter sez is true, but these days the competition in "HPV" racing is increasingly
turning into "UCI racing on tail-faired low racers", at least sur le Continong. Fortunately there
are still enough lunatics around who believe that it /IS/ about the bike to keep the thing going.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Simon Brooke]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> writes:

> If you turn up on something radically different then not only may there be a general advantage one
> way or another, but there may well be local geographical advantages. In a Chain Gang of UCI
> racers, everyone going up a hill or into the wind is faced with the same challenge. Throw in a
> 'bent and everyone will likely destroy it on the climbs and then get to eat its dust the other
> side or into a big headwind. The point of the "one design" is that it's people racing people, and
> the machine is factored out of the superiority equation. This makes a Chain Gang a far more
> equitable place to be than if those with deeper pockets can gain an extra 10% just by forking out
> for a streamliner that nobody can catch, and if they could they couldn't draft.

Yes, but (i) the UCI's one design isn't a true one design, and people with more money can get
(slightly) better equipment; and (ii) in any case cycling - unlike running for example - is not a
simple athletic contest of person against person: it's a contest of person and machine against
person and machine - which is why, for me, Obree is a greater and more complete cyclist than either
Boardman or Armstrong: not only did he put in the effort and the training, he also designed and
built the machines he rode on.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out of copper roove nails.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Gareth Rees wrote:

> But there's no point in my getting involved in HPV racing -- I know I'l=
l
> never be able to afford a competitive vehicle.

I think you've very much missed the spirit of HPV racing. I can't go in =

for it not because I'm not loaded, but because I'm not a very good=20 mechanic. There's plenty of
quite reasonable components that would be=20 the same as on your "done up =A3100 bike", the tricky
bit comes in=20 designing and building the aerodynamic shell to put them in.

And do note that the "Big Boys" are still pretty small and still=20 effectively bespoke builders.
It's not like Optima and M5 are spending=20 millions on wind tunnels.

Pete. --=20 Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics,
Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Dave Larrington]

Gareth Rees wrote:

> If anything goes, then the person with the biggest budget wins.

One has only to look at the relative performance of the Blueyonder and Varna HPV's to see that this
is not necessarily the case. George Georgiev doesn't use computers or wind tunnels, but his design
proved to be more than 15 mph faster than the guys with the racing car experience, the Olympic
medallist and the six figure[1] budget.

> But there's no point in my getting involved in HPV racing -- I know I'll never be able to afford a
> competitive vehicle.

Part of the ethos of HPV racing, at least inna-traditional-stylee, is that it is very much a DIY
business, but if you don't have the skills/time/facilities/STULL (delete as applicable) it's still
not astonishly expensive. Admittedly it's unlikely that a competitive streamliner for circuit racing
could be put together for a hundred quid, but a back of an envelope calculation suggests that a
functional equivalent of the Davies machines which have lifted the British Championship four years
running and the World Championship in 2001 could be put together for well under a grand. Assuming
one could fit in it, of course, which I couldn't withoiut major surgery either to me of the
fairing...

1 - allegedly

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Ian]

Dave Larrington must be edykated coz e writed:

> Much of what Peter sez is true, but these days the competition in "HPV" racing is increasingly
> turning into "UCI racing on tail-faired low racers", at least sur le Continong. Fortunately there
> are still enough lunatics around who believe that it /IS/ about the bike to keep the thing going.
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================
>
>
It's not about the "bike", it's about the "trike"

--
Ian

http://www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Peter Clinch]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Yes, but (i) the UCI's one design isn't a true one design

As near as dammit, though. If any of the top Tour riders swapped to a bike of any of the others
(assuming apposite sizing) then I don't think there's a case to be made that any of the placings
would really change. Some years in Formula 1 it's been the case that if you weren't driving
Maclaren/Williams/whatever then you're just praying for them to break down or else fight for lower
places. Only in extremely rare cases (like Obree's bike and the Burrows Lotus) is equipment held to
make much of a difference, and in Obree's case it wasn't so much what it was as how he used it.

> with more money can get (slightly) better equipment;

They can, but it's only *very* slightly better. Boardman's UCI hour record was beaten by Claire King
(heard of her? if you hadn't picked up the story before not much reason you would as she's a 60 mile
a week commuter cyclist and amateur sometime racer) on a home-made streamliner recently. Put her on
*any* UCI bike on the planet and she wouldn't have got close. You don't need the very best to get
out and ride with your local pack, and if it's suitable terrain for their bikes it'll be suitable
for yours.

> case cycling - unlike running for example - is not a simple athletic contest of person against
> person: it's a contest of person and machine against person and machine - which is why, for me,
> Obree is a greater and more complete cyclist than either Boardman or Armstrong: not only did he
> put in the effort and the training, he also designed and built the machines he rode on.

I agree, which is partly why I have no particular interest in the UCI's racing events. But OTOH I
can quite see why people *do* want to remove the cycle from the equation, and there's room for both
schools of thought. I don't see it has to be one thing or the other.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Tony W]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

snip

> > Just repeating the mantra that the UCI have fossilised cycling in the
1920's
> > makes little sense. If it were true how come such innovations such as gears, team cars and
> > radios are allowed?
>
> If it weren't true why are their pages of rules about what a bike is (like the position and
> horizontal distance of the crank relative to the saddle)?

You miss my point. I don't deny that UCI is run by a bunch of ultra conservative 'old farts'. I
don't want to defend their rule book. If you don't want to be bound by their rules you have little
choice but to write a new rule book. One could argue that mountain bikers have done it and we now
have several branches of mountain biking sport on machines that would not survive UCI scrutineers.

However, just because a bent goes faster it does not follow that it inevitably provides better
sport. Many sports including boxing, sailing and motor racing have different classes -- and often
the lower powered classes are the more exciting.

> Why was Obree's hour record outlawed, just because he can ride in a better aero tuck than the
> other candidates for the title?

I am sure some jobsworth of a scrutineer found something outside the rules (even if it was 'he's
not French').

>
> There really is no reason not to have development classes alongside the established categories.
> That's the way to see if things sink or swim, rather than waiting around until you're forced to
> move by everyone realising you're ridiculous.

Absolutely agree. It would be best if the UCI allowed dome development classes. If they don't they
will be in danger of Darwinism turning on them.

T

 

[Tony W]

"Ian" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BBC409A1.15676%[email protected]...

> The UCI had a strangle hold on established cycle sport

So the rivals will be small, dedicated and outside the establishment -- just like those setting up
MTB competitions a few years ago.

> and if recumbents were not faster how come a mediocre rider was beating top riders before
they
> banned his machine,

A fairly standard reaction of the entrenched establishment.

> of course the UCI also had the money as they were largely made up of the manufacturers

Many of the current major manufaturers where still in their garden sheds when Raliegh & Peugot
rulled the world (many came out of the MTB boom). They may now be 'going native' but some of the old
aristocracy (in particular Raleigh) have ceased to exist (to all intents & purposes). Maybe the next
wave of Marin's, Trek's & Specialized's will be the small scale recumbent boys slaving in a cold
garage today. Maybe Catrike will be the Trek of 2035.

> and it would have represented major costs to develop new machines, they found it more economic to
> bury their heads in the sands,

Isn't Dawinism great.

> gears were ancillary devices not covered by the rulings which were aimed at removing recumbents by
> stipulating geometry of the frame,

It was am example. But you have to agree, the developments in gears have made a massive difference
to the sport.

> as for team cars and radios, well they are support devices so not really part of the same
> discussion.

OK

> It was only in the 1960's and 70's that financial support was put into the development of the
> bicycle frame again when people were presented with
human
> powered speed contests, records usually held by recumbents these days.

So why not propose a Tour de Britain where the only requirements are that the machine is human
powered and fails the UCI requiremenrts? Sell the idea to Sky or Channel 4 and you're away.

T

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony W wrote:

> So why not propose a Tour de Britain where the only requirements are that the machine is human
> powered and fails the UCI requiremenrts? Sell the idea to Sky or Channel 4 and you're away.

The key here is "sell the idea". I refer the honourable gentleman to all the threads here about
how **** TV sport is, gnerally associated with mainstream cycling which has a far bigger built
in audience.

It's small because it doesn't have much recognition. It doesn't have much recognition because it's
small. And so on :-(

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Tony W wrote:

> You miss my point. I don't deny that UCI is run by a bunch of ultra conservative 'old farts'. I
> don't want to defend their rule book. If you don't want to be bound by their rules you have little
> choice but to write a new rule book. One could argue that mountain bikers have done it and we now
> have several branches of mountain biking sport on machines that would not survive UCI scrutineers.

Which is what the IHPVA have done. The difference is that MTBs became a very major force in bike
sales, at least in part through fashion and perception. On my 'bent I very often get something like
"I couldn't ride that, I'd feel too different/vulnerable". MTBs are sufficiently obviously like
"normal bikes" that that was never a problem and there's a groundswell of folk interested enough in
MTBs to have WH Smith stock their magazines, TV companies show the events and so on.

> However, just because a bent goes faster it does not follow that it inevitably provides better
> sport. Many sports including boxing, sailing and motor racing have different classes -- and often
> the lower powered classes are the more exciting.

I quite agree: see my other posts regarding how "one design" fits the local Chain Gangs better IMHO.
OTOH there are branches where faster really is better. Also the case that a lot of boxing may well
be more exciting than the heavyweight world championship, but which one gets the money/TV coverage?

> I am sure some jobsworth of a scrutineer found something outside the rules (even if it was 'he's
> not French').

ICBW, but IIRC it was decided it was "dangerous" or somesuch nonsense. So it's Perfectly All Right
to have a TT on a sub-motorway dualie, but riding round a velodrome like that is Clearly Mad. Or,
put another way, he not only wasn't French but wasn't riding like a Frenchman either.

> Absolutely agree. It would be best if the UCI allowed dome development classes. If they don't they
> will be in danger of Darwinism turning on them.

Which would, of course, be bad for the wider sport, which isn't in *anybody's* interest, whatever
they're riding.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Simon Brooke]

"Tony W" <[email protected]> writes:

> So why not propose a Tour de Britain where the only requirements are that the machine is human
> powered and fails the UCI requiremenrts? Sell the idea to Sky or Channel 4 and you're away.

Why 'sell the idea'? The Single Handed Transatlantic race started out with Frances Chichester and
Blondie Hasler making a half-crown bet as to which of them could do it faster. Do something
intresting and different and the press will come - and when the press come the sponsors will follow
- and the sponsorship in passage racing today dwarfs the sponsorship of the whole sport of cycling.

Too many people are too keen to say 'we can't do it because...'. In this case, if people are
interested, and are prepared to take the time off work, you _can_ do it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and I found when I looked that we had run out of copper roove nails.