UCI says it's now “in favour of innovation and technology” as it appoints new equipment committee

The best thing that ever happened to cycling was the UCI reinstating Merckx's real bike record. It was much more difficult to break the record on a standard bike. Just ask Boardman.
Imagine if you could buy a bike that permitted you to ride an hour as fast as Merckx. What would that mean? In the end it would mean nothing because you (and me) ain't Merckx.
I know Eddy used the pinnacle of technology to break the record but it is cool to be able to compare Merckx and Boardman and perhaps Cancellara on an level field. How many sports allow a direct comparison across the ages?

I do however find it perverse that a big lump like Andre Greipel rides a bike the same weight as Quintana

I vaguely recall some motorcycle and car race series that had a rule where a competitor could buy a rival's bike for a set price, and thus making it largely self-policing and self-levelling.

For procycling, um, reduce the weight limit perhaps, but I quite like the idea of homologation rules where they need to sell a reasonable number commercially, to keep the costs somewhere near sensible. On the other hand, has thr tight technical regulations raised prices, in that manufacturers have to keep chasing diminishing returns and marginal gains by making normal looking components out of carbon, unobtanium and ceramic kevlar-reinforced unicorn tears 'cos they can't just make something really innovative at a more fundamental design level?

As some bloke once said, it's not about the bike.

PS:

@Neil753 - How about having a 'one design' class of bike races, like they do with sailing? There's one fixed design and everyone has to ride it. With inspections to make sure the design is being followed to the letter.

+1 for @daddylonglegs!

I think we are all in danger of missing the point. The real meaning of cycle sport IS to bring riders together to compete on an equal footing and thereby decide which of them is physically the best. At the risk of using an old (and discredited) cliché, its NOT about the bike.

(ducks and covers)

The question is perhaps, 'who do you want in charge of the UCI? Do want the bike manufacturers (the big ones) with an eye on marketing and profit, or a UCI constitution which, at its centre, still lies a commitment to maintaining the integrity of bicycle racing as a competition between human beings' skill, ability, endurance and fitness?'

The UCI is far from perfect, but one of it's main concerns remains to conserve this central priority of human before machine. To do this, a level playing field for bike design has to be established and maintained. How else would bike racing not become a farce as every different manufacturer wheeled out their latest annual innovation? A bike race, even at amateur level, would no longer be about the best or luckiest man or woman on the day. It would turn into a procession of bicyles and bicycle-like objects and kit, rounded off, when the results have been confirmed, by an endless debate over who it was this year who had the biggest advantage using the latest invention/contraption or, if we're lucky, genuine innovation. Meat and drink perhaps for consumer-heavy sites like this that receive most of its revenue from bike manufacturers, but devastating for what many (still, I hope, 'most') people assume to be the central feature of bike-racing: the physical competition between human beings, not their bikes.

While there may be some room for relaxing some of the UCI restrictions on bike design to take into account some of the changes that have taken place in cycle technology and investment in recent years, don't be fooled. The bike industry, led by its principle players, has become an enormous beast, voracious in its appetite for new stuff to sell. So-called 'innovation' is not its primary concern. Growth and profit are. Control of the UCI would be an enormous prize because, for good or ill, the UCI controls the public's perception of what a bike looks like: if the UCI don't like it, the manufacturers can't sell it - or at least sell it in the numbers they would be able to sell it in if it appears on a pro's machine or is actually a pro's machine.

I worked in the bike business for several years and believe me, very little in the bike industry is ever new. What is always new though is the daily influx of wide-eyed recent cycling converts, willing and eager to blow money in every direction on the 'latest' heavily marketed piece of kit. It is this now huge, new, relatively wealthy (just look at those prices!!), but deliciously under-informed market that manufacturers have their hungry eye on. The utter drivel that often passes as factual and objective information that is regularly spouted in cycle ads and many 'reviews' is testimony to the cynical exploitation by manufacturers of this new and largely knowledge-free market.

The UCI has - all be it painfully slowly at times - adapted its rules bit by bit to move with genuine developments in technology. When this has happened it has clearly been a good thing. But some of the dead-dogs that have been and are being stuck up and touted as innovation by the industry right now because profit and growth trumps every other consideration should be a warning to anyone who cares about either cyclesport or the bicycle, that we should be careful what we wish for.

If the gloves were truly off then the the sponsored pro teams will be riding virtually disposable 'one race' machines, unobtanium pared down to the minimum and calculated to (usually) just last the distance.
A bit like F1 cars, they'll be so fragile and expensive to maintain that Jo Public would not have the resources to ride one on a Sunday club run. Besides which he would find himself walking home (if he still could walk after the regular wheel / frame / fork failures) far too often.
Hang on, maybe that will be a good thing - at last we might see more bikes made for real people to use and simply enjoy a ride, rather than pointlessly aping the pros, on wholly impractical race machines.

Discuss.

no no no

the rules make bikes look like bikes!

if people had free reign we would see ugly monstrosities made to do such specific things.

i like bikes that look like bikes not bananas with wheels and stupid angles/brakes etc

Blah blah wheels blah blah...

Never mind all that. The poor ladies won't get their Tour de France for sometime to come

"The regulations, effective for a year from February 12014"

There must be technological progress, otherwise we'd still be riding "fixed" and stopping to swap our wheel round at the foot of each col, but there's something that really saddens me.

It's the spectacle of a father and son, turning up at the son's (presumably) first event, with a fairly cheap racer from Halfords, and being blown out the back on the first lap largely because a surprisingly large number of other lads are riding bikes costing many thousands of pounds, and....

...never seeing that father and son again.

Here's a simple solution, that would both keep costs down but keep up with technological progress; restrict equipment in entry level events to components that have already been in production for three years.

This would:

Provide a plentiful supply of suitable secondhand bikes for newbie riders.
Help reduce planned obsolescence for experienced riders purchasing the latest kit.
Ensure inexperienced riders were all using tried and trusted equipment.

Remember, the young riders of today are the mamils of the future, and things are likely to be much tougher financially in the years ahead; so let's make sure our sport doesn't disappear up it's own elitist a***hole.

Quote:

"It also brings questionable changes, such as the yearly 'innovations' forced down our throats by marketing."

Only if you allow them to. The choice as to whether you open your wallet is entirely yours. You don't have to buy the new plastic fantastic 48 gear whatever the latest craze is, it's a choice. I like a double diamond road bike with alloy components, but I'd be prepared to go whacky on a TT bike.

One thing that seems obvious but somewhat overlooked with the clamor to throw regulations out the window, is that once the lower weight limit is gone, it effectively kills the idea of Disc brakes on race bikes, as disc brakes, even with lighter rims are always going to be heavier than the caliper alternative. The current 6.8kg limit means that manufactures are able approach a level playing field for disk brake bikes by driving down the weight elsewhere however this may not be such a bad thing.

Bikes are simple things. Having rocket scientists designing them and then build them up from unobtanium just seems like overkill.
So I like the F1-analogy. Maybe there should be different rules for different classes of races, i.e. different rules for amateurs and professionals with more restrictions on the amateur side in order to keep the gear affordable and cost of participation down. Or make the division between the national and international level, if that makes more sense. The "F1-class" would be the grand tours and such events, with rules less restricting and hence, higher cost.
The easiest thing to measure on the tech side would still be frame weight, while rider positioning, geometry and aerodynamics would still be tricky to control. An alternative to the certification system would be needed.
Restricting the size of the team support could also be used as a tool to provide a more level playing field in the lower ranks. Or is it already?
The bike industry still could sell the high-end stuff to people that actually needs them or just happen to have the money to spend. But there would also be a more pronounced need for more sensible bikes in the marketplace. In essence, there would be a new class of bike to push on the consumers. Not much different from what a mid-priced race bike is today, but it could be marketed as something new... everybody would need one! A Ferrari vs. a GTI kind of thing

I am relatively new to road biking (about 8 months) but have been mountain biking for 22 years. I have had no suspension, front suspension, full suspension, rim brakes, disc brakes, pedals with cages, clipless pedals and so on. Innovation is good and should be embraced. If you don't like something or feel that you need it then just don't buy it. When I bought my road bike I was happy to have such a huge choice of frames, geometry and components. We all have different needs so why not have as much choice as possible. What is wrong with a lighter frame, disc brake, electronic shifting, carbon clincher and who knows what else they can come up with.

On the issue of the CIRC. How can they offer reduced sentences? The MPCC are not going to allow these guys to ride, unless the sentence is so small.

Ahh, but perhaps you are missing the point.

And what point is that?

This, and a few of the comments here are bordering very close to the ever-reliable "Why the hell does anybody need 11 speed? 10 speed is all anybody needs! [and which just happens to be what the new bike I bought last week to replace my old 9 speed has]" comments that invariably are left on articles about new gear.

If you don't think a new product will appreciably improve a cyclist's speed/enjoyment/safety/etc then don't buy it. You clearly don't need it, and you won't be disadvantaged when riding with your opponents/cycling buddies who bought it.

Nobody is forcing you to buy anything new. It's certainly not like the UCI have a history of constantly tweaking the rules so that your old bike is no longer compliant (quite the opposite, in fact).It's pretty easy to source a replacement for almost any part you break or simply wear out these days. So if you're happy with your existing 26" wheels then keep riding your 26" wheels, and don't worry about what other sizes those nasty bike manufacturers are releasing.

If on the other hand the new product puts you at a real disadvantage (or simply makes riding more fun/safe etc) then embrace it.

And if you don't think there's been any meaningful advances in bike technology in the last 100 years then find yourself a penny farthing and show up your opponents/buddies for the slaves to fashion that they clearly are.

I believe the central issue here is not sporting regulations but money. The cycling industry has become a consolidated global business. This consolidation has brought good things such as lower manufacturing costs and a scale that allows for better engineering. It also brings questionable changes, such as the yearly 'innovations' forced down our throats by marketing.

Bicycles are a mature technology; almost all possible ideas were tried and discarded in the extraordinarily creative period that ended with the standard frame and powertrain. One result of these standards was an industrial ecology suited to a great diversity of small producers, the cost of entry was low and there were almost universally accepted standards for components.

One the other hand, there was stagnation. With such a mature product, legitimate change from within is rare, it tends to follow advances in other fields and in society: 'aircraft' alloys, composite materials, computer simulation, reliable electronics, increased personal wealth, increased traffic speeds that pushed biking off the roads...

But a global business needs to create change for its own sake. Are we well served by it? It is here that regulatory bodies such as the UCI can help or hinder.

Chris Boardman pointed out the mounting bureaucratic costs with 'UCI certification'. This is a drop in the ocean for global companies but kills the small manufacturer. Let's not go that way.

The potential innovations blocked by the UCI rules are mostly linked to biomechanics (saddle position, cockpit length, the prohibition of lumbar support) and to the bicycle archetype (diamond frame). Regarding the first, the potential for change is such that it would be wise to set up a separate experimental class for it. Regarding the second, the UCI rules have not impeded the introduction of the new structural materials or some system integration, so while more design freedom can bring benefits, the gains will not be huge. This change can certainy happen within the existing competition classes.

One benefit of rules is the preservation of standards. I do not see any contradiction in being wildly permissive in what regards structural design for example while being conservative in terms of the interface and compatibility between components. Yes, there should be no stampede towards, let's say, discs in massed-start road racing.

Finally, is this relevant to everyday cycling? I guess not. Electric powertrains probably are the key to future mass biking and this category is independent from the racing 'mental bubble'.

I'm not wanting to make this an MTB wheel size arguement/discussion, but it's a good example.

29er MTB bikes came about from the ground up. The big guys were very slow to introduce 29er bikes. This was partly the issue of getting the frame geometry right to fit the wheels, but partly because the mass market weren't that interested - not because they weren't a good idea, but because people thought they were a bad idea. Once people tried them, things changed, but it has taken well over a decade to happen.

The 27.5 wheel has come about because not everyone likes 29ers. The 29 bikes are faster pretty much everywhere, but they are less chuckable and so those that like to throw the bike around or the shorter people amongst us just don't tend to get on with 29ers. 27.5, although only in the middle by name not in actual measurements does some of what a 29er promises, but remains manoeuvrable. In other words, it great for short arses like me. It's also appeared out of the blue partly because people have gotten used to the idea of a different wheel size, and partly because the big boys don't want to be years behind like they were with 29ers.

Having tried all three wheel sizes, they all have a place. I mean, should all mountain bikes just pick a standard amount of suspension travel? No, because different amounts of travel suit different purposes.

As with suspension travel, you choose the option that best suits you and your riding.

Look at what industry insiders are saying, particularly pro Enduro riders. To paraphrase, '27.5" wheel size is faster than 26, and the best option for the majority of the mass mountain bike market and technical enduro and xc racing, but if you are into marathon racing or long distance riding, go 29" and if you like really throwing your bike around, go 26.'

Innovation with road biking should be the same, whether with wheels or anything else. It makes it a pain for the consumer as you can end up buying the wrong thing for your riding, but that's just a case of thinking it through a bit more.

I think the biggest problem for the road wheel innovation is the neutral service issue, and that is the thing that is likely to prove problematic.

What I don't get though it how the 6.8kg weight limit has prevented innovation. Why not do what F1 teams do which is make something as light as possible (within safety margins) and then add weight as some form of ballast to bring the weight back up. This might seem silly, but it means that you can control where the weight goes. e.g. with bikes away from wheels and other rotating parts, and shoved as low as possible into the frame. The only problem I foresee is that it would involve more communication/collaboration between frame and component manufactures to ensure team bikes meet the limit given the finishing kit differences between teams even if running the same frame, but that shouldn't be an issue for the 50 or so bikes that each team use.

To be fair, I also like the idea of bike racing being recognisable.

For me, thats wheels the same size, a double diamond frame, and the rider adopting a position the same as they currently do.

I am confused... 29ers are clearly better in 90% of off-road scenarios... their continuing acceptance and growth in market share would suggest they have not failed at all.

As for the whole 27.5inch wheel thing... I have to agree however and question what the hell its all about.

Its a balance, without technology we would all be riding 6 speed, 531 steel (not a bad thing) and attached to our bike via toestraps.

But as Duc888 has stated, it opens up the way for manufacturers to bazooka the hell out of the paying public with new standards and options, most of which will do nothing but line the purse strings of these creative folk.

If somone decides to create a new 28" wheel out of carbonised Lama hair and its on a top team then before you know it, half of the velominati follower will be ordering them along with new frame, brakes, hub and tyres. kerrrrrrCHING

Ahh, but perhaps you are missing the point. The last paragraph alludes to it.
'How the UCI handles the resulting complications of wheel standards '

What will happen is, manufacturers who have previously been bound to a set frame design and 700c wheel sizes by nature of the regulations and the brake caliper positioning, will now come up with a whole new 'theoretical' standard. One that suits their 'lets make something new just for the sake of it and profit' goals.
Look at mountain biking. Can anyone honestly say that 29ers are 'that much better' for the everyday cyclist than the tried and tested 27's. But, its a whole new revenue stream for the manufacturers, one that is embraced by the press as they were also running out of things to write about until 29ers came along.

So, road bikes with disc brakes and different wheel diameters, and loads of press space about the benefits of less contact patch and rolling resistance on smaller diameter wheels played off against better inertial force on a larger wheel and how good that might be for time trialling once youve got it moving. (on a flat course obviously)

Just thoughts, feel free to shoot it down