The UCI has all sorts of rules governing bike racing. It is supposed to keep racing pure and dependent on the rider, not the bike. But years ago when a company began making a recumbent bike, even with a second class rider, he was breaking all the records. So the UCI declared a recumbent was not a bicycle. In my opinion that decision was influenced by bike mfg that didnt want to have to buy all new tooling to keep up.
Now come 90 years forward to our time. We now have CF bikes that have aero shapes that have much less drag than a round tube bikes that have raced ever since the 1890s. Yet even with their aero advantage the UCI allows them to race. Again I bet the UCI was influenced by mfg, because they make tons of money on CF bikes that can cost $15,000 or more. But if you want round tube bikes that have been raced forever, you can make round tubes out of CF. So why not maintain the "purity" of round tubes. What I am trying to say here is I think rules be damned, because money talks.
Now come 90 years forward to our time. We now have CF bikes that have aero shapes that have much less drag than a round tube bikes that have raced ever since the 1890s. Yet even with their aero advantage the UCI allows them to race. Again I bet the UCI was influenced by mfg, because they make tons of money on CF bikes that can cost $15,000 or more. But if you want round tube bikes that have been raced forever, you can make round tubes out of CF. So why not maintain the "purity" of round tubes. What I am trying to say here is I think rules be damned, because money talks.