New UCI regs... ?

[igamogam]

Who thinks the UCI will bring in regulations controlling what equipment can be used in future based on whether it is commercially available and of a sensible and/or affordable price (in light of Pat McQuaids comments at the track worlds)?

Thin end of the wedge?
A playing-field leveller?
Good for Joe Bloggs in the street?
Will encourage competition?
How far can/should it go?

Personally - I'd like to see the end of aero-everything, round frame tubes only, helmet shells no thicker than 4 cm with no shaping, no shoe covers (unless temperature is below 6°C) and no rider/manager radio contact (but commissaire to rider is OK). It's time to re-set the rules to be simpler and more about the rider than the bike. Formula 1 does it all the time with major rule changes for almost everything every couple of years.

Let research go in to lighter stronger bikes (down to a 3kg min weight perhaps?) with more gears, better handling so that every rider can benefit.

Let the best human win!

Time to ditch those tri-bars, disc wheels and aero helmets...?

 

[LugHugger]

unfortunately, the rule changes in F1 have very little change on competitiveness. with the odd exception, the same drivers and teams win. the teams with the bigger budgets win - always have, always will unless you want to watch CART.

as far as i'm concerned, there is no golden age. let's make bikes which are specific and relevant. whether they are affordable to you or I is largely irrelevant - even if we can afford them, the bike will not turn us into a pro. physiology, genes and dedication do that.

 

[TheNJDevil]

Add a new category to the track competitions. EVERYONE should ride the same bike. It would be decided a year out for the event. Switch up manufacturers every year. This way, it would be all about the rider.

I've seen bowling leagues set up this way. It lets you see if you are truely better then someone else and not that their equipment makes them better.

 

[igamogam]

unfortunately, the rule changes in F1 have very little change on competitiveness. with the odd exception, the same drivers and teams win. the teams with the bigger budgets win - always have, always will unless you want to watch CART.

The rules changed the last F1 season, who would have thought that Braun/Button would win? I agree money will always sway performance but minimising the effect of runaway tech might make cycle racing more relevant and understandable to the average punter. F1 has always been about the tech, the driver is important but it’s more about the car than the guidance system (I’m sure some teams would love to take as much driver control away as possible to stop mistakes). In cycling, the rider IS the engine, the driver, by far the biggest aerodynamic component and the hardest thing to get performing at its best. “It’s not about the bike”

as far as i'm concerned, there is no golden age. let's make bikes which are specific and relevant. whether they are affordable to you or I is largely irrelevant - even if we can afford them, the bike will not turn us into a pro. physiology, genes and dedication do that.

I agree completely about the golden age thing that's why there would be no problem with a major overhaul and simplification of the rules. It should be about the rider not the bike and there is no sphere of cycling that you cannot do on one bike bike built for that environment (i.e. 1 bike for the track, 1 for the road 1 for 'cross 1 for cross-country MTB 1 for DH. I still think Cancellara, Contador and Cavendish et al. would win at their individual forte even if they did their time trials and road stages on the same bikes, the same goes for the other disciplines...

Add a new category to the track competitions. EVERYONE should ride the same bike. It would be decided a year out for the event. Switch up manufacturers every year. This way, it would be all about the rider.

That's the Keirin system in Japan, not very relevant or successful world-wide (one event I think the track could loose successfully to bring back the IP). I'm not advocating that because it would put a lot of bike manufacturers out of business and the logistics of making potentially millions of new bikes every year for the successful bike maker would be colossal. Besides what about the riders who get 2 or three [or more] seasons out of the same equipment, how would they compete? How would up & coming riders cope with such a system?

I've seen bowling leagues set up this way. It lets you see if you are truely better then someone else and not that their equipment makes them better.

As mentioned previously I agree about the rider V. tech thing but a bowling ball is a lot cheaper, simpler and easier to make than a bike I'm not sure how such a system would be would be applicable or workable in cycling.

 

[LugHugger]

i hear what you are saying, igamogam. i would say that cycling coverage is a bigger barrier to relevancy and understanding for the general punter rather than the technology of the machines though. it depends on what we hope to achieve. a better understanding of the sport for the casual consumer? if so, then media needs to adopt some better methods of explaining race tactics. soccer has become highly adept at studio analysis in explaining how the shape of a team on the pitch can affect the outcome of a match. it should be relatively straight forward for cycling media to adopt some of the tools to better explain why an attacks happens at a certain point of a stage of how and why echelons form and can be predicted.

going back to technology though, as a rider of a round tubed steel frame, i embrace and appreciate manufacturers such as cervelo, zipp, felt and the technological edge that they bring. they just don't deliver any value to me personally. nowadays, there is no situation in which a wheelset costing a grand and a half that gets me to my destination 3 or 4 minutes per hour quicker is of any relevance.

when we're looking at the pro teams, there's not really a great deal in monetary value between the bikes that Astana and the bikes that, say, Footon ride, is there? unfortunately, too many people are seduced by the power of marketing into believing that buying a 3 grand bike will turn them into the next Andy or Alberto or Lance. like you and LA said, it's not about the bike. some people don't believe that though - one of whom is apparently pat macquaid.....

 

[BroDeal]

The rules changed the last F1 season, who would have thought that Braun/Button would win?

The Button debacle is exactly what cycling should aim to prevent. Victory should not come down to creative interpretation of the equipment rules.

 

[the big ring]

Who thinks the UCI will bring in regulations controlling what equipment can be used in future based on whether it is commercially available and of a sensible and/or affordable price (in light of Pat McQuaids comments at the track worlds)?

Thin end of the wedge?
A playing-field leveller?
Good for Joe Bloggs in the street?
Will encourage competition?
How far can/should it go?

Personally - I'd like to see the end of aero-everything, round frame tubes only, helmet shells no thicker than 4 cm with no shaping, no shoe covers (unless temperature is below 6°C) and no rider/manager radio contact (but commissaire to rider is OK). It's time to re-set the rules to be simpler and more about the rider than the bike. Formula 1 does it all the time with major rule changes for almost everything every couple of years.

Let research go in to lighter stronger bikes (down to a 3kg min weight perhaps?) with more gears, better handling so that every rider can benefit.

Let the best human win!

Time to ditch those tri-bars, disc wheels and aero helmets...?

Sports sells advertising, end of story. If you want to take all the money (sponsorship, research, development, etc) out of sport, go for it, but don't expect that sport to be televised or interesting.