BikeBiz

And it's stories like this that show the ridiculousness of the regulations. Those in charge need to decide if they really want to make the event all about the competitor - in which case they need to completely standardise the bike, with no technological improvements whatsoever allowed.

Or they need to recognise that technology is a critical part of cycle racing, and allow all technology that would work - with different classes of racing if appropriate.

This haphazard approach - making some things legal, some things not, retrospectively banning some things, and completely ignoring their own basic principle of trying to make it affordable for all - is the worst of both worlds. It's probably also one reason why there are so many pro cyclists taking drugs - if you can't compete in the technological arms race, you'll try to compete in the pharmacological race instead.

Do I have a bee in my bonnet about this? Just a bit ;-)

fair comment ben about some technology being allowed but some not but they have to draw the line somewhere..
i doubt that riders truly think "i havent got the aero forks, i'd better take some epo..!" its got alot more to do with who is the strongest and better prepared. i doubt cadel will win the tour due to his forks but i guess it could help if its down to the seconds..
i was more concerned that i had missed the vuelta in april..!!

Well, there's a simple way of drawing the line - bikes must be human-powered, and must be safe (i.e. have standards on braking performance and strength).

It's not only cycling that has to face these issues - there are big arguments in swimming, for example, because some teams can afford the really posh full-body suits that make an important difference to speed through the water.

I hate the UCI's restrictions, too.

I talked about them with Morgan at the Tour de France. I also told him about British Cycling's methods. They take their fancy new kit of minor races, get the kit checked by UCI wonks and take photos of the OKaying. So, at the Olympics, should some UCI Jobsworth say a particular go-faster part is illegal, British Cycling will whip out their photo album and say 'stuff you, if it was legal then, it's legal now."

That's an excellent ploy and totally logical and above board. Sadly, the UCI doesn't operate to the same common sense rules as you and I.

Really? That's insane - so the UCI don't even keep a consistent record of what's allowed and what isn't, it's all down to what mood a particular official is in on the day.

Perhaps sailing is a good model - competition sailing has loads of categories, and lots of them are based on a specific manufacturer - everyone has to race in the same unmodified model of boat. Then there are the unlimited categories where anything goes.

The problem is that we're reaching the fundamental limits of what the human body can do - I'm reading James Gleick's Faster, and there's a very pertinent quote: "The margins have become so fine that chance easily overcomes the talent that racers strive so hard to perfect". Basically, the unenhanced human body on a standard bike cannot go any faster - so the two options are to enhance the bike (forbidden by the UCI) or to enhance the rider (if you don't get caught).

For track, maybe.

For events like the Tour de France it's very different. The guy in the lead is hours ahead of the guy at the back.

And road events are often decided on team work and tactics, not just rider strength or equipment. The strongest rider on the fastest bike still can't win every stage.

The regulations are a joke, no need for outside help ;)

"The bicycle shall be propelled solely by a chainset by the legs moving in circular movement"
"the course should include zones to be covered on foot carrying the bicycle"

The only fair thing to do is to introduce a basic but well thought out & quantitative technical regulations system, maybe even with handicapping, similar to that in horse racing, & modelled on formula one, whereby the bikes must conform to quite detailed technical specifications. Limits should be placed on certain parameters to reduce the scope for, & advantage gained by aerodynamic & mechanical enhancements in order to create a more level playing field. However this shouldn't preclude technical advancement altogether, just narrow its range. This would provide an even greater potential then for ingenuity & creativity on the part of the designers & engineers, & act to increase the pace of developments in frame materials, componentry, aerodynamics & ergonomics. It would also act to level out obvious inequalities in bicycle machinery.
Perhaps, as in the world rallying championship (WRC) FIA formula, certain stipulations could also be made by the UCI that any ProTour bikes must also be mass-produced in specific numbers & made on sale to the general public. This would stop the development of no-costs barred, prohibitively expensive, one-off bikes for events like the Giro & Le Tour.
Anyhow, as of yet & for the foreseeable future, the fact remains that the rider has the biggest impact on aerodynamics due to his adopted position on the bike. I'm sure I remember seeing a video on US Postal where they were refining their time trial positions in a wind tunnel, & they said the bike only contributes 1/3 of overall drag resistance, so the rider contributes the rest. Surely there is a limit then to how far & to how useful it is to push bike development. Maybe heavy concentration on rider apparel is the way to go in the future, with special folds, ridges, dimples etc in clothes, glasses & gloves to reduce drag? Helmets I think are already designed with this specifically in mind. Has anyone read this in the UCI regulations? I haven't read them properly yet but I've printed them out & will get round to reading them eventually. :-)
Personally, I'm all against the untrammelled advancement of technology & would place massive restrictions on bike development if it was up to me, as a bit of a purist. There's definitely benefits to be had though, by better technology filtering down for improvements in consumer bike design, but on the other hand, this has to be weighed against the factor of increasing cost. Some sort of compromise between contemporary technical advancement for superior ride quality, speed & bike handling characteristics against a traditional design for affordability, I think.

This is the thing - it's definitely not about the cost. As you said, some (or all) teams test things out in wind tunnels, and that doesn't come cheap. How much money is spent on high-altitude training, dozens or hundreds of spare bikes and wheels, and things like that?

I disagree that technological improvements lead to increasing cost - a £2000 recumbent is a lot faster than a £6000 diamond-frame bike. The problem racing bikes have is that, with such strict yet arbitrary restrictions, huge amounts of money gets spent trying to get tiny percentage improvements in speed. Remeber Shimano AX - the special derailleurs designed to be more aerodynamic? These forks are a similar case in point - a monoblade fork, hubless wheel, or simply using small wheels would all be a lot more aerodynamic at less cost, but they're not allowed.

Evans lost out on the time trial and so the fork maker I assume is taking part of the blame for this and gone off to prepare a press release acknowledging what a waste of space his forks are. I doubt it.

The technology is only important when it wins. When it looses then it's down to the individual not being good enough. Might just have something to do with commercial issues dominating the thinking.

Easy to rebut that one! No, Evans would have 'lost' by more seconds than he did.

So we can look forward to a press release claiming that Evans would have been a bigger loser if it were not for the forks!