# Race eligibility



## Browser (19 Jun 2012)

I'm not a newbie on this forum but don't own a 'bent (yet) so I'm probably raking over old, explosive, smouldering muck, but why the hell won't the ACU review their decades-old and in my view idiotic ruling regarding the elegibility of recumbents for racing. By racing I mean all-entry stuff rather than the specialist racess for HPVs? I am aware, having read about when the ban came in, that the ACU were concenrned that a less than top-flight rider would be able to win top-flight events using a 'bent, but surely there has to be scope for a review. I did Flat Out In The Fens on Sunday last and by 70 miles was wishing beyond anything that I'd a 'bent to use for these events due to the discomfort I was in hunched over the drops on my Tifosi. Don't get me wrong, I love my bike but 'bents just make so much _sense_ don't they? I hav eheard the argument that riders don't want to be beaten by technology but other riders, but what the hell d'you call electronic gearshifts, carbon wheels/frames, ceramic brakes etc etc etc? I just thinkt that the established industry has too much vested interest in producing upwrongs to want someone to come along and decide 'bents are for everyone, what say you????


----------



## machew (20 Jun 2012)

ACU/UCI commissioners will persuasively argue that recumbents aren't "truly" banned. Those recumbent riders who have attempted to enter recumbents in races have been disqualified for a variety (and seemingly endless) of "safety" issues such as exposed gearing, bicycle overall length, and so on, all in the "name" of safety


----------



## byegad (20 Jun 2012)

No the UCI banned them by coming up with rules for wheel size, handlebar position and seat position.


----------



## Browser (20 Jun 2012)

But isn't it daft though? Can you imagine the leaps and bounds 'bents would come on in if they were used in the TDF? And the drop in price as they became more mainstream


----------



## henshaw11 (21 Jun 2012)

To be fair to the UCI, the rules are there to level the playing field (team tactics aside, of course) so that it's less dependant on technology - and in any case, things still (AFAIA) still have to be agreed with the UCI before they can be used. AFAIA it's only this last (?) year that cross bikes are allowed disks. DFs are relatively easy to compare to each other, but how do you compare a 'bent with one ? On a flat TT course a 'bent - with the right rider conditioning - could have an advantage over DFs. Is that fair ? On the other hand, a 'bent could be a distict disadvantage in the mountains - which is why I doubt you'll never see them in the the TdF, even if the regulations were changed (and without a separate classification). There's an arguable concern re 'bents/DFs together in chaingangs - certainly some of the DF fraternity aren't keen but I don't know how much of a real problem that's be...
The only way I can see thing might change is if there were a separate race classification, but for that to happen there's also got to be the demand...and there's an element of chicken<>egg therein. It's comfort that makes me (mostly) ride a bent, but I know what I'd ride in hillier stuff if I could..

ISTR there was some mumbling about allowing 'bents in TTs - at least, allowing them to be ridden, rather than competing as such. I think the idea was to be able to include riders that could no longer ride DFs to take part, rather than particulary wanting to allow 'bents - I think there's a thread here somewhere that mentions it/links elsewhere.


----------



## byegad (21 Jun 2012)

Yes had the FIA done the same for Grand Prix racing Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and the rest of them would be driving around in 1934 Alfa Romeos.

That's a measure of the stupidity of the UCI.


----------



## Chonker (21 Jun 2012)

byegad said:


> Yes had the FIA done the same for Grand Prix racing Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and the rest of them would be driving around in 1934 Alfa Romeos.
> 
> That's a measure of the stupidity of the UCI.


 
And more importantly our road cars wouldn't have things like ABS, fuel injection and other technologies which have come from motor racing.


----------



## byegad (21 Jun 2012)

Bang right Chonker. Except they'd probably have then riding horses!

It's not as if DF road racing bikes haven't changed, they have more and better gears, better brakes and they even had to introduce a minimum weigh for the things. The riders no longer have to repair tyres with spares carried during the race. They have radios to talk to each rider and lots of technology has gone into making the frames more aero dynamic. They even get to change bikes for mountain days, flatter days and Time Trial days.

But make a demonstrably *better bike, like Mochet did in 1933 and they have a dicky-fit and ban it. Small wheels with suspension? No Dr Moulton your banned. If it's not about the bike they have made a very good fist dictating the type of bike. .

Hour record by a chunk, leading the peloton for miles with a good but not great rider, riding around the conference table in UCI-HQ to demonstrate good safe handling.
*PATHETIC! *


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (22 Jun 2012)

byegad said:


> Yes had the FIA done the same for Grand Prix racing Lewis Hamilton, Jensen Button and the rest of them would be driving around in 1934 Alfa Romeos.


That's something I wouldn't mind seeing.


----------



## byegad (22 Jun 2012)

Yes it would be some spectacle. In the early days of Digital TV they ran a test programme on one of the channels. It was at Goodwood and Martin Brundle was driving a D Type Jaguar to some good effect. Pure poetry on four wheels!


----------



## Browser (26 Jun 2012)

henshaw11 said:


> To be fair to the UCI, the rules are there to level the playing field (team tactics aside, of course) so that it's less dependant on technology - and in any case, things still (AFAIA) still have to be agreed with the UCI before they can be used. AFAIA it's only this last (?) year that cross bikes are allowed disks. DFs are relatively easy to compare to each other, but how do you compare a 'bent with one ?


 
If they were elegible for racing I'd assume the UCI would come up with a standard, whatever that was, and dimensions for same (min.seat height, wheelbase, frame size/shape/material etc) so that comparisons could be made. I know the differences are far more subtle, but how do you compare one DF with another? Broadly they are the same but in detail they differ greatly.



henshaw11 said:


> On a flat TT course a 'bent - with the right rider conditioning - could have an advantage over DFs. Is that fair ?


 
Yes, 'cos every nugger and his dog would have both if they were elegible, or a purely TT rider would have a 'bent. Remember they only ride DF bikes because that's all that is elegible for racing in conventional competitions at present, give e'm the option they'd be hopping onto NoCom's faster than you can blink 



henshaw11 said:


> On the other hand, a 'bent could be a distict disadvantage in the mountains - which is why I doubt you'll never see them in the the TdF, even if the regulations were changed (and without a separate classification).


So the all-knowing rulemakers at the UCI would either stipulate all 'bent's, all DFs or allow a mix, in which case it'd be up to the individual to decide (as it blummin' well should be)



henshaw11 said:


> There's an arguable concern re 'bents/DFs together in chaingangs - certainly some of the DF fraternity aren't keen but I don't know how much of a real problem that's be...


 
Oh, wozzat then? I genuinely didn't know this so I'm not being sarcastic, please educate an ignorant. UI presume it's to do with lack of easy visibility in a bunch, or in other words DF riders could, if you like, trip over 'bent's as they're so far out of the normal eyeline?



henshaw11 said:


> The only way I can see thing might change is if there were a separate race classification, but for that to happen there's also got to be the demand...and there's an element of chicken<>egg therein. It's comfort that makes me (mostly) ride a bent, but I know what I'd ride in hillier stuff if I could..


 
Paraphrasing Marie Antoinette, le 'em ride both! Having said that, I suppose you could do this as if you look at the Le Mans 24hr race, there are several different classes of cars on the circuit with widely differing speed capabilities, and all at the same time.



henshaw11 said:


> ISTR there was some mumbling about allowing 'bents in TTs - at least, allowing them to be ridden, rather than competing as such. I think the idea was to be able to include riders that could no longer ride DFs to take part, rather than particulary wanting to allow 'bents - I think there's a thread here somewhere that mentions it/links elsewhere.


 
This sort of thing just smacks to me of protectionism in the etablished industry, which I seem to recall from reading about it was a lobbying group made up of established manuafacturers and riders who, rathetr than embrace change took the easy route and shouted NO!


----------



## Boris Bajic (26 Jun 2012)

If someone wants to set up a parallel racing organisation which allows more innovation in design, I imagine they are free to do so.

It may already exist.

WHatever other rules existed in parallel organisations, I imagine 'traditional' bicycle racing would continue to attract most of the sponsors, viewers and supporters.

If you want a hamburger, don't complain that the French restaurant doesn't serve them. Open your own place next door and if the demand is there you'll thrive.

I like road racing as it is. Sorry.


----------



## byegad (26 Jun 2012)

Last time I looked at the UKTT rules bents are banned. That some Associations allow them to run is very much an example of the Nelsonian blind eye.


----------



## henshaw11 (28 Jun 2012)

>If someone wants to set up a parallel racing organisation which allows more innovation in design, I imagine they are free to do so.

>It may already exist.

It does, in the UK it's the bhpc - there are various classes, and AFAIK they tend to race at the same time on closed tracks - it's pretty small numbers in terms of competitors. The Worlds competition was held fairly recently it seems:
http://www.wc2012.bhpc.org.uk/
http://www.wc2012.bhpc.org.uk/rules-and-classes



> If they were elegible for racing I'd assume the UCI would come up with a standard, whatever that was, and dimensions for same (min.seat height, wheelbase, frame size/shape/material etc) so that comparisons could be made. I know the differences are far more subtle, but how do you compare one DF with another? Broadly they are the same but in detail they differ greatly.


Even in detail it's relatively not that much, certainly not compared to 'bents. The relationship of bars, saddle etc are nailed down in some detail I gather, and things still have to get through the UCI - there was a recent case of Specialized (?) having a bike they thought would be allowed, then subsequently rejected - something like the headtube having too much of an aerofoil section (or together with the frame it was on) - I forget the details. But DF bikes *are* pretty damn similar- try having a 'common' 'bent spec - high/mid/low racer, USS/ASS, wheelsize, front/rear wheel drive etc - hence the HPV rules are just vague categories.

I could refer to all my previous points which are still valid IMO - the point is why the UCI won't throw open the rule book. I don't exactly disagree with a lot of what you've said, but it still stands that trying to lob HPVs in with DFs just isn't gonna happen and IMO, unless you rip up the rule book. In which case it's no longer (DF) cycle racing, but HPV racing. There's lots of other parallels - single type motorcycle and car racing for example - road racing is simply another single type, if you like. Look at what's happened with MotoGP this year - there's two classes on track, and now the fields split into two groups. I can see the reasoning to do so, but I don't think it's helped it as a race 'cos it's split the field more than would have happened before (or at least, judging by the few races I've seen this year..)



> Oh, wozzat then? I genuinely didn't know this so I'm not being sarcastic, please educate an ignorant. UI presume it's to do with lack of easy visibility in a bunch, or in other words DF riders could, if you like, trip over 'bent's as they're so far out of the normal eyeline?


 
Just the impression I get from a few forum postings, and judging by some posts on bentrideronline.com - some US clubs don't like 'bents on their club rides. Now, in reality it may not be a huge problem, and perhaps not so much on more sociable training rides - might just be a case of an unknown quantity. But in the case of a chaingang it's close bunch - the length of a 'bent may not lend itself to that (guessing where the next guy's wheel is wrt your BB), and typically if you're that close to the guy in front your cranks are gonna be almost brushing his rear wheel - bloody dangerous if he has to move off-line. Plus the guy behind the 'bent will probably (I'm guessing) be having to work harder than if there were a DF in the middle, because there's less aero advantage from the 'bent, and certainly if it's lower. Get to a steep climb and the 'bents will probably drop back - and have to get out of the bunch (tho' probably catch up on the downhill). As you've mentioned, visibility may be a problem - less so for high racers, mebbe more so for something as low as a Nocom (tho' they are a large black thing....). Also if someone does go off line, rubbing on the next guys wheel may not be as bad as hitting some spinning feet..


----------



## swscotland bentrider (28 Jun 2012)

Even the UCI admit time trial bikes as a different type. They are not allowed in a road race. So the principle of accommodating different types is already established. I cannot think of a single valid objection to 'bents entering time trials. But the UCI has form. Remember the 'Hour'? Once one of the blue riband events in a top riders career. Now it seems to be confined to (very good) amateurs and has fallen out of public view. All because they insist on you riding a circa 1975 track bike! And don't get me started on Drugs - the UCI sat on its hands while the sport was nearly destroyed.


----------



## Chonker (29 Jun 2012)

Aurélien Bonneteau leads the pack by Watson House, on Flickr

This picture always brings a smile to my face


----------



## henshaw11 (29 Jun 2012)

swscotland bentrider said:


> Even the UCI admit time trial bikes as a different type. They are not allowed in a road race. So the principle of accommodating different types is already established. I cannot think of a single valid objection to 'bents entering time trials. .


 
Indeed, but it's still a defined type, and not that far adrift from nonTT bikes. The fact that timetrials feature separate riders eliminates the sort of safety concerns that might be present otherwise, but why *should* they change them to allow 'bents ? You wouldn't insist that footballers are allowed to pick up the ball, would you? No, 'cos there's rugby and aussie rules football...


----------



## byegad (30 Jun 2012)

What's interesting is the UCI's record on resisting change. gears, of any kind nearly didn't get into their rule book. Moulton's small wheels were banned in the 1960s. The hour is a good example of where innovations could be found. Until Obree went 'too far'! Now you go back to the future as far as the bike allowed for this event is concerned.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (30 Jun 2012)

swscotland bentrider said:


> Even the UCI admit time trial bikes as a different type. They are not allowed in a road race. So the principle of accommodating different types is already established. I cannot think of a single valid objection to 'bents entering time trials.


 
I would not wish to see F1 cars and touring cars go head to head, equally I would not like to see time trail bikes in a road race. The fact the UCI have accommodated different bikes is not debated but they are correct to keep them seperate from one another, one type of bike or vehicle may have an advantage is certain situations and you want to see the best rider obtain sucess. Where would you draw the line I expect many people can not think of an valid objection to using electrically assisted bikes.

Race like with like, bents should race bents, f1 against f1, horses against horses.... The interest is to see who is best under the rules stated against similar machinery. I would quickly loose interest in pro racing if it became a run what you brung event.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Jun 2012)

Chonker said:


> Aurélien Bonneteau leads the pack by Watson House, on Flickr
> 
> This picture always brings a smile to my face


 
It brings a smile to my face too - but for the wrong reasons, probably. That's a sportive - not a proper race. Can you imagine that poor fecker in the middle of the bunch....coming up to a fast corner...?? Think about it....

I cringe whenever I see one on the road. Total abominations for circus use only...


----------



## byegad (30 Jun 2012)

BUT. Mochet's 1930s version did lead the pack in several professional races. AND the rider was not a top rider. But the peloton couldn't pass him.

See for yourself. http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/misc/velocar.htm


----------



## tongskie01 (30 Jun 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> I would not wish to see F1 cars and touring cars go head to head, equally I would not like to see time trail bikes in a road race. The fact the UCI have accommodated different bikes is not debated but they are correct to keep them seperate from one another, one type of bike or vehicle may have an advantage is certain situations and you want to see the best rider obtain sucess. Where would you draw the line I expect many people can not think of an valid objection to using electrically assisted bikes.
> 
> Race like with like, bents should race bents, f1 against f1, horses against horses.... The interest is to see who is best under the rules stated against similar machinery. I would quickly loose interest in pro racing if it became a run what you brung event.


 

bents are innovations in bicycle design which is still improving while diamond frame bicycle has reached its limit. we wouldn't really see which design is superior til we allow them to race each other in the professional level.


----------



## black'n'yellow (30 Jun 2012)

byegad said:


> BUT. Mochet's 1930s version did lead the pack in several professional races. AND the rider was not a top rider. But the peloton couldn't pass him.
> 
> See for yourself. http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/misc/velocar.htm


 
Just read it - there's a difference between leading the pack momentarily and winning a race. You say they couldn't pass him - they were probably waiting for the next climb while enjoying the tow he was giving them.. 

The article sums it up really - he couldn't keep pace going uphill and couldn't work with others in a paceline. They would be a liability in any 'conventional' road or circuit race.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (30 Jun 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> bents are innovations in bicycle design which is still improving while diamond frame bicycle has reached its limit. we wouldn't really see which design is superior til we allow them to race each other in the professional level.


 
Downhill mountain bikes are an innovation as well, do you think bents should be racing these as well at professional level?
What evidence do you have to support your statement that diamond frame bicycle design has reached its limit. Traditionally the frames used today are made to comply with the UCI rules as they stand. This is no evidence that the design has reached its limits, even within the rules innovations have been made such as those seen on the trek donone.
Allowing two different machines to race does not prove which is superior, if you took a F1 car and raced on gravel against a WRC car, the F1 car would loose as they were built to different rules and for different purpose.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Jul 2012)

sorry but your comparison doesnt make sense. were talking about road bikes here. based on logic you wouldn't race a machine if you think its inferior to others since the goal is to win. regarding diamond frame design, its unchanged til now. improved frame materials? yes, but other than that nothing has changed to diamond frame design.


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> sorry but your comparison doesnt make sense. were talking about road bikes here. based on logic you wouldn't race a machine if you think its inferior to others since the goal is to win. regarding diamond frame design, its unchanged til now. improved frame materials? yes, but other than that nothing has changed to diamond frame design.


 

are you seriously advocating that recumbents should be allowed to race alongside 'conventional' machines..??


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (1 Jul 2012)

Shouldn't all racing be on a level playing field as possible? You wouldn't want to see an F1 car entered into formula ford?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> based on logic you wouldn't race a machine if you think its inferior to others since the goal is to win.


 
No I think you should not race one machine against another if it offers a potential advantage based on its design alone, I would not wish to see a F1 car race against a Foruma Ford as it proves nothing with regards to who is the best driver or who has the best vehicle. They were made for different rule sets and budgets.

The reason why bents do not race traditional bikes is that they do not conform or present a compeditive alternative with the UCI rules as they currently stand, comply with the rules first and then you have the start of a debate.


----------



## byegad (1 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> are you seriously advocating that recumbents should be allowed to race alongside 'conventional' machines..??


Given the scepticism shown ere about the competitiveness of bents... What is anyone afraid of? If they'll be so slow up hills that they can't win a race what is the issue?


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

byegad said:


> Given the scepticism shown ere about the competitiveness of bents... What is anyone afraid of? If they'll be so slow up hills that they can't win a race what is the issue?


 
Safety is the issue. Have you ever been in a road race bunch? 70 riders on conventional bikes, plus one on a recumbent, in the middle of the pack, with a field of vision at least 4ft lower than everyone else. Don't make me spell it out.....


----------



## byegad (1 Jul 2012)

But if they can't compete they won't be there for long. Anyway it's irrelevant as the UCI's not going to change.


----------



## swscotland bentrider (1 Jul 2012)

I don't think I was arguing that TT bikes should be allowed in road races. I was arguing that cycling's governing body should admit bents as a category. Remember they are completely banned! Remember too that the 'safety' arguments are a recent creation. Bents were originally just a bike racing other bikes. They were banned because a second cat. pro was living with and sometimes beating first cat pros. And that got up the manufacturers and their nostrils. I don't think the UCI does 'high minded' or 'principle' it is simply a reactionary bunch of self promoting blazers who don't like change. They seem to regard sixties and seventies are the ideal era. Of course that when they were racing!


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Jul 2012)

would like to see a bent on the cobbled classics, just out of interest. Im yet to see a vid of a bent in this enviroment. I would have equally been interested to see how one coped with that mental climb at the end of stage one TDF this year.


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

byegad said:


> But if they can't compete they won't be there for long. Anyway it's irrelevant as the UCI's not going to change.


 
They are either safe in a bunch race - or they are not. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## byegad (1 Jul 2012)

So it's not that they're faster, or slower? It's an 'Elf and Safety issue'... right.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Jul 2012)

byegad said:


> So it's not that they're faster, or slower? It's an 'Elf and Safety issue'... right.


 
Well the UCI rules for bicycle racing specifys how high the bottom bracket can be above the ground along with how far it can be in front of the seat, and how close to the front wheel it can be. Contary to popular belief it does not state that bents are banned or prohibited. It's just that the manufacturers of bents do not wish to or unable to work within the rules as they stand.
That's the reality - paint it anyway you want.


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

byegad said:


> So it's not that they're faster, or slower? It's an 'Elf and Safety issue'... right.


 
If that's the way you want to trivialise it, yes. You don't need to be Einstein to work it out though....


----------



## swscotland bentrider (1 Jul 2012)

The problem with black'n'yellows argument is that 'bents were once allowed in road races. I have read no account of the carnage that ensued!


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Safety is the issue. Have you ever been in a road race bunch? 70 riders on conventional bikes, plus one on a recumbent, in the middle of the pack, with a field of vision at least 4ft lower than everyone else. Don't make me spell it out.....


 
so youre saying only one recumbent in a bunch of seventy? why cant we not make it 50/50 then well see the tactics change.


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

swscotland bentrider said:


> The problem with black'n'yellows argument is that 'bents were once allowed in road races. I have read no account of the carnage that ensued!


 
do you mean the race linked earlier, when the guy from the 1930s rode off the front, then got dropped on the first climb? I don't know of any other races, and certanly none in 'modern' times. I'm suprised that none of you can see the potential for accidents here. Road races are dangerous enough, without allowing circus bikes into the bunch. Unless you actually have first-hand experience of 'modern' bunch racing, then I honestly doubt if I will be getting through to any of you. I don't mean that to sound arrogant, but there we are.


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> so youre saying only one recumbent in a bunch of seventy? why cant we not make it 50/50 then well see the tactics change.


 
you're missing the point fairly comprehensively there. I'm talking about race safety - not tactics. I didn't even mention tactics.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> you're missing the point fairly comprehensively there. I'm talking about race safety - not tactics. I didn't event mention tactics.


 
youre missing my point too. recumbents doesnt need to be in the peloton of df riders its a disadvantage. if theres enough numbers of recumbents they can have theyre own peloton. thats why the change of tactics and youre safety issue.


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> youre missing my point too. recumbents doesnt need to be in the peloton of df riders its a disadvantage. if theres enough numbers of recumbents they can have theyre own peloton. thats why the change of tactics and youre safety issue.


 
so now you are suggesting that recumbents should be set off separately in their own group..? So much for integrating them into the same race...


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Jul 2012)

why would you limit racing to only one recumbent in 70 riders? and talk about safety issue? there's a lot of recumbent racers which would be happy to have a go?


----------



## black'n'yellow (1 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> why would you limit racing to only one recumbent in 70 riders? and talk about safety issue? there's a lot of recumbent racers which would be happy to have a go?


 
I never suggested any such limit - nor would I, because one would be too many. The comment of mine you are referring to was made in the context of the pic that was posted earlier, which showed one rider off the front of a sportive group. The point I am trying (and evidently failing) to get across to you is that recumbents and conventional cycles would patently not be safe in the same race.


----------



## tongskie01 (1 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> I never suggested any such limit - nor would I, because one would be too many. The comment of mine you are referring to was made in the context of the pic that was posted earlier, which showed one rider off the front of a sportive group. The point I am trying (and evidently failing) to get across to you is that recumbents and conventional cycles would patently not be safe in the same race.


 

but it does sound like it.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> but it does sound like it.


 
sorry - does what sound like what..?


----------



## byegad (2 Jul 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Well the UCI rules for bicycle racing specifys how high the bottom bracket can be above the ground along with how far it can be in front of the seat, and how close to the front wheel it can be. Contary to popular belief it does not state that bents are banned or prohibited. It's just that the manufacturers of bents do not wish to or unable to work within the rules as they stand.
> That's the reality - paint it anyway you want.


 
This is completely missing the UCI's point. They drew up those rules in order to ban bents. There is no way anyone can design a bent to those rules. Safety of mixed fields aside the UCI decided that they would stifle any radical design back in 1934 to kill of the Mochet, which did win some races before the ban. They did the same when Moulton's small suspended wheel bikes proved fast in a group, due in part to the affect on slipstreaming, with a smaller wheel allowing the following rider to be closer to the lead man. They did the same when Obree designed his bikes.

The UCI has a track record of banning innovations. Hell in the early 1930s the Tour de France organisers nearly banned gears in competition.

I personally don't give a stuff about the race eligibility of my trikes as I won't/can't race anything at 61 years old with Asthma and a bad knee. The BHPC offer some competitions for bents, and you can Audax on one if so inclined, up to and including the PBP. But the TT people won't allow one although several local clubs ignore this rule.

The main point is that the UCI banned innovation and still do. The hour saw innovations from designers such as Mike Burrows before they went back to the 1970s.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Jul 2012)

Leaving aside the safety issue...

I'd be the last one here to defend the UCI, but most of those regulations are designed to provide a 'level' playing field for the majority - which in some cases, will rule out 'unconventional' items like the Moulton or recumbents. The over-riding purpose of the technical regs is to prevent any rider gaining a distinct technical performance advantage over another - which sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## tongskie01 (2 Jul 2012)

if you really want a level playing field, ban slip streaming aka peloton.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> if you really want a level playing field, ban slip streaming aka peloton.


 
So you would ban open road/circuit racing, just because recumbents are not allowed to compete..?? Perhaps you should storm the UCI's HQ in Switzerland and burn all their books....

The 'peloton', as you put it, defines the nature of bunch racing. I think you are arguing yourself into a corner....


----------



## tongskie01 (2 Jul 2012)

you said it not me.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> you said it not me.


 
what - something sensible..?


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Jul 2012)

Anyone else pick up the 'high-speed wheelchair' comment from the ITV4 coverage of the TdF today?

There was a recumbent trike shadowing the race for a while on the opposite carriageway. One of the commentators thought it was a wheelchair. He was quickly corrected.

What seems odd to me about a desire to see racing embrace the recumbent is how unnecessary it is.

1. In motorsport, it all works perfectly well with machines of different types separated by formula. It would be barmy to pit an F1 car against a BTCC tintop. Why would it make any more sense in cycling?

2. Rather than make a fuss about being included in racing's current structures, why not set something up in parallel?

You'd feel absolutely grand about it and could amuse your friends with tales of relative speed and engineering finesse.

No-one would watch it, no-one would care, no-one would get involved in it... but you'd be absolutely right about how much better it was. And you'd be among about seven people who thought so.

It's not impossible to set up new types of racing. Look at MTB racing (various types) today and compare it with where it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Meanwhile, it might be much better for road racing to stay on proper bicycles. That's what the riders, the fans and the sponsors seem to want.


----------



## Hector (2 Jul 2012)

I think they were taking ther piss about the high speed wheel chair Boris - unless you are as well of course.

The long and short is that Monchet won a shoot load of races, which annoyed the other riders twice over because they could not draft him.

He then went on to break the hour record and the UCI after lobbying from the bike manc's at the time wanted his bike outlawed so thet did by setting various rules regarding the BB height and it's position to the front wheel.

Recumbents would take apart the modern day peloton, velo's even more so.

However as a safety aspect and to stop the likes of Trek, Spesh, Prince and Pinna et al getting thier knickers in a twist at the lost revenues they should remain seperated.

Head on over to the BHPCC to see some races that go on with regarding recumbents and the various classes. Stock, faired etc.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Jul 2012)

yep, it's all a conspiracy. 



Hector said:


> Recumbents would take apart the modern day peloton, velo's even more so.


 
you're right - it would be carnage.


----------



## tongskie01 (2 Jul 2012)

imagine all of the major bike manufacturers start making recumbents. which i think and i hope in the near future will happen.


----------



## tongskie01 (2 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Anyone else pick up the 'high-speed wheelchair' comment from the ITV4 coverage of the TdF today?
> 
> There was a recumbent trike shadowing the race for a while on the opposite carriageway. One of the commentators thought it was a wheelchair. He was quickly corrected.
> 
> ...


 
all we got is human power.....dont compare it with cars. theres no such thing as proper bicycle.


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> all we got is human power.....dont compare it with cars. theres no such thing as proper bicycle.


 
My dear chap, the comparison is entirely valid as it relates as much to tyre dimension, wheelbase, seat height, frontal area and ride height as it does to any mechanical power source.

It is a matter of the proponents of one mechanical solution feeling they ought to be able to use their machinery of choice in a competition run by the proponents of another.

And I take it you are jesting in your last point... Of course there is such a thing as a proper bicycle. I ride one. I believe Bradley, Cadel, Andre, Thor and Fabian ride them too.

I hope your wish for every major manufacturer to build and sell recumbents comes to be. It is a good and noble wish. I might even buy one myself.

Meanwhile the Tour, the Giro, the Vuelta and sundry other races will continue to be ridden on proper bicycles.


----------



## black'n'yellow (2 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> imagine all of the major bike manufacturers start making recumbents. which i think and i hope in the near future will happen.


 
only if there is sufficient demand to make such an investment economically viable - and there's all kinds of reasons why that will probably never happen. Have you ever wondered by - even after about 100 years or so - that they are still not in mass production..?


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

uci killed it. imagine if it was allowed in time trials? 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IDJG0q9j_k
everyone could be riding it now. but its coming back slowly.


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> My dear chap, the comparison is entirely valid as it relates as much to tyre dimension, wheelbase, seat height, frontal area and ride height as it does to any mechanical power source.
> 
> It is a matter of the proponents of one mechanical solution feeling they ought to be able to use their machinery of choice in a competition run by the proponents of another.
> 
> ...


 
sorry, but i tried to google "proper bicycle" and cannot find one.....


----------



## Chonker (3 Jul 2012)

nice bike


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

Chonker said:


> nice bike


i wish i could afford one.


----------



## Chonker (3 Jul 2012)

I wonder if penny farthings would be 'proper' bikes had the UCI been around to ban the safety bicycle


----------



## Chonker (3 Jul 2012)

People see uprights as 'proper' bikes because that's what the pros ride, the pros ride them because that's what the rules allow. The rules are there to level the playing field and changing them would see a few years of anarchy with the best engineering and not necessarily the best athlete doing well, until the dust settled and the optimum engineering solution was well understood. At this point things would continue as they are now but with the new engineering solution.

I'm not saying that engineering solution is a recumbent mind, but it seems unlikely it's what the UCI spec either. It's hard to really understand the performance of other bike designs as you don't get the same level of athlete competing on 'bents because you can't make a living from it, because you can't race them due to the UCI ban.

Either way I see it like this, if I want to build a quick car for a hillclimb/trackday, with no intention of competing in the WRC, then I wont bother building it to WRC rules (34mm restrictor on the turbo, screw that!). I'm not going to be competing in any UCI events anytime soon so why restrict myself to the UCI rules?


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

so hpv racing is the way forward with regards to bicycle design....uci with their power would continue as they were.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> everyone could be riding it now. but its coming back slowly.


 
'Everyone', you say. What about BMXers, mountain bikers (especially downhillers) and - (and this is my personal favourite) - cyclocross riders..?? Would love to see recumbent CX....anyone got any pics..??


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> 'Everyone', you say. What about BMXers, mountain bikers (especially downhillers) and - (and this is my personal favourite) - cyclocross riders..?? Would love to see recumbent CX....anyone got any pics..??


 on time trials? anyway here you go.
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekefr3xH3y8


----------



## byegad (3 Jul 2012)

Chonker said:


> I wonder if penny farthings would be 'proper' bikes had the UCI been around to ban the safety bicycle


 
Yes exactly! And cycling would still be limited to reckless young men willing to risk coming a cropper over the top.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> on time trials? anyway here you go.


 
sorry, you may have misunderstood. I said CX, or MTB, or BMX - especially CX, where dismount, portage and re-mount is a critical factor. I didn't say anything about forest trails, dirt roads or grass. I think even I could manage that on one of those things.


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

some more 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RHBV3Ku8Ew&list=UUHCSEyBOWFTRNV7JRHHkM_g&index=2&feature=plcp


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

byegad said:


> Yes exactly! And cycling would still be limited to reckless young men willing to risk coming a cropper over the top.


thats what they call safety in uci terms.


----------



## black'n'yellow (3 Jul 2012)

tongskie01 said:


> some more


 
That speaks for itself really - it was painful to watch...especially the bits where the bike had to be lifted back on to the trail again... 

However, I was thinking something more like this really...



BTW - watch the 'rope swing face plant' clip afterwards - it's even funnier than the recumbent MTB...


----------



## tongskie01 (3 Jul 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> That speaks for itself really - it was painful to watch...especially the bits where the bike had to be lifted back on to the trail again...
> 
> However, I was thinking something more like this really...
> 
> ...



i watched that too. anyway the "everyone" comment was meant for the time trials. upright bikes at the moment is best for climbing... i wathced that thing a while ago. funny. and i did fly over the bars before when the carrier bag i was holding got sucked into my front wheel. lucky it was uphill and landed on my arms and knees.


----------



## currystomper (23 Jul 2012)

Mmmm Recumbent racing - generally I'm would like to see some recumbent racing - I would like to time trial a Cruzbike, but I don't think that it can be in the same class as a diamond frame (there has been a recent move in Scotland to ban normal position bikes that don't have a the right number of diamonds in the frame - so it not just recumbents that have problems). 

One thing about recumbent's in bunch races is that they would change the nature of the races as there isn't such an advantage in being tucked into a wheel, because of the areo's on a recumbent, so maybe you would lose 'the bunch advantage' and the racing would become less interesting. 

Personally - I want to see how fast I can go - a top of the range time trial bike doesn't interest me as I know there are faster bikes and I will not buy a top of the range recumbent as I can't race it. 

Maybe things will change the delta car at Le mans, the electric motorbikes at the Island(Isle of Man) do show that things can change.........


----------



## arallsopp (26 Jul 2012)

Heard a rumour today that herne hill might open its doors to us for a few hours. We'd have to pay a fee, but itlooks like we can use our own bikes / trikes.... Maybe £20 a head, if we can get ten of us... All very tentative, and im not the guy driving it.


----------



## Chonker (26 Jul 2012)

I'd be interested, but depends when it would be. I'm guessing not so soon with the olympics on?


----------

