Living up to my (screen) name...

lost_in_thought

I was watching the swimming championships yesterday, while ironing, and they were discussing the full body suits. Basically, those suits, like the speedo LZR to an extent, repel water, compress muscles and aid buoyancy. They can make you a heck of a lot faster in a sport where (like cycling) every second counts.

So they are almost certainly going to be banned.

However, they've not banned them before this weekend just passed's worlds, and records are falling left right and centre, possibly never to be beaten.

This got me thinking about the various bans in cycling - ones I (kind of) am aware of are the low-pro frames, the superman position, and I am sure there are various others.

Now, my thought was why? Why ban things that can make people go faster? It's advancement, progress, and I think it should be applauded. If everyone's got the same technology, which everyone will after time, it evens out, doesn't it?

Discuss!

alex16zx

I can see why people are resistant to technology that makes SUCH a huge difference in one go. Cycling is different because it is built around technology - it clearly wouldn't exist without the bikes themselves! - and so advancements which make them go faster is just 'progress'. But Swimming is, in essence, a pure sport between the swimmer and the water and I can see why you'd want to block advancements which take that purity away.

Feltup

Skinny dipping is the only logical way forwards then

Rich158

There's one simple reason, it allows the old farts who administer the sport to justify their existence. In fact the more arcane the rules the better, and if they're open to misinterpretation, fantastic :shock: . This then means they can ban anyone they don't like the look of (or at least remove them from the results), and that the teams and athletes are wholly relient on the old farts for rulings on legality etc.

Rules in sport by and large fal into three categories, those that have an impact upon safety, those affecting performace relating substances, and those that seem to have no impact other than banning technology the whole field is using anyway. the first two I can understand, but the latter seems to be wholly based upon the whim of some blazer clad old fart who hasn't competed for about 60 years and wants to feel important.

chuckcork

Beats me why the governing bodies of cycling are against development, but I guess all sports to a certain degree want to limit the amount of change that happens, otherwise TDF will be won by someone riding a fully faired recumbent?

How though other than strict rules do you ensure a level playing field is there and cycling remains a sport where the athletic prowess is the important thing and not (like the full body suits) where the technology lets OK swimmers break world records?

Perhaps the question is why other sports like Golf (OK, Golf is a sport the way Pub darts is) don't have rules that restrict development? But in case of golf courses they are now being designed to compensate for the ball being hit further and further, as what were 5 par holes are reduced to par 4. Would you see cycling expect to adapt the same way, the TDF get 20-30% longer compensate for technology making the event faster?

chuckcork

Rich158 wrote:

the latter seems to be wholly based upon the whim of some blazer clad old fart who hasn't competed for about 60 years and wants to feel important.

Most rules in sport are made by such people, are the governing bodies of any other sport any different? The FA?

stuaff

I can only agree. Some of the UCI's rules and regulations are allegedly there on cost grounds (utterly ineffectually to my mind- big firms spend £££££ on R&D) whilst others seem to be simply to make the look of the bikes as uniform and boring as possible. Motorsport having tight regulation makes sense (to stop one team or another gaining a massive advantage), but cycling? The weight limit is fair enough, but wheel sizes other than 700C are banned. No spaceframes or anything other than triangular frames. Whereas race car designers get enough scope to differentiate their machines, the UCI seems obsessed with the reverse. If, for example, Trek built a 20" wheeled Madone, how exactly would that hurt competition, if any team could buy it for the same price?

symo

The UCI are effectively screwing R&D going into cycling by its retarded stance on bike development. Lotus were producing exciting designs and they squashed monocoque frames. All because we should all want to ride on bikes like Eddy did in the 60's. Honestly something has to change at the UCI or the development of bike technology will grind to a halt.

Personally as an engineer I think all bets should be off for bike design and an anything goes attitude would be the correct way forward. Then I think some serious bike development would be started.

Rich158

chuckcork wrote:

Rich158 wrote:

the latter seems to be wholly based upon the whim of some blazer clad old fart who hasn't competed for about 60 years and wants to feel important.

Most rules in sport are made by such people, are the governing bodies of any other sport any different? The FA?

Absolutely, the old farts have to justify their existence somehow, and making and enforcing arcane rules that no-one can understand seems to be the way forward.

And as for the FA, their ever changing interpretation of the off-side rule, and players being active etc seems designed to alienate anyone other than hard core footy fans. Just trying to get me head arround it has me feeling my balls are about to shrivel up and drop off as I'm obviously not a real man :shock: :roll:

Stone Glider

As I understand it, golf is very highly regulated and at the end of this year club design is to be radically altered to reduce the amount of control that skilled players can exert on the ball plus the distance they can strike it. (do I mean minus?) Tennis seems to be in a constant struggle between technology and making matches balanced and interesting. Motor racing is very tightly controlled for reasons which became obvious this weekend but the cars end up very similar shapes and sizes.

Cycling authorities get a lot of "stick" about trying to restrain technology to relate to the days of Eddy Merckx but would a free for all be an improvement? How would we measure the achievements of our current heros? What if the bikes were battery assisted recumbants? I might have a chance up Mt. Ventoux, but not descending of course. Some of the petty reulations are frustrating but the general idea is clear and probably sound.

Stands back to avoid stream of vitriol.

attica

Feltup wrote:

Skinny dipping is the only logical way forwards then

<brag mode>That would put my drag coefficient way up <\brag mode>

chuckcork

Attica wrote:

Feltup wrote:

Skinny dipping is the only logical way forwards then

<brag mode>That would put my drag coefficient way up <\brag mode>

Are you that hairy?

attica

chuckcork wrote:

Attica wrote:

Feltup wrote:

Skinny dipping is the only logical way forwards then

<brag mode>That would put my drag coefficient way up <\brag mode>

Are you that hairy?

Haha, I thought that would be the response almost as soon as I typed it, I'm not that hairy, but you should see the size of my tail

gtvlusso

LiT - get off t'interweb and get out on your bike!!!!!

el_presidente

symo wrote:

The UCI are effectively screwing R&D going into cycling by its retarded stance on bike development. Lotus were producing exciting designs and they squashed monocoque frames. All because we should all want to ride on bikes like Eddy did in the 60's. Honestly something has to change at the UCI or the development of bike technology will grind to a halt.

Personally as an engineer I think all bets should be off for bike design and an anything goes attitude would be the correct way forward. Then I think some serious bike development would be started.

I disagree, otherwise you end up not knowingif the winner is the best rider or simply rides the best bike. Just like in Formula 1 where clearly the equipment is far more important than the driver.

Coriander

Aren't bans like this about trying to keep the playing fields level for all competitors - I assumed this ban was because technology like this would be beyond the poorer countries, who struggle already to compete at the highest levels.

attica

el_presidente wrote:

in Formula 1 where clearly the equipment is far more important than the driver.

I disagree, F1 is a team sport, yes the technology is probably more important than the driver but a good driver can (and has) won in a poor car, whereas a poor driver will not know how to take advantage of a good car. This is intrinsically different to cycling because it's about a machine at the edge of it's performance capabilities, whereas human power will never be enough to put bikes at their limit unless we start them running on 2mm tyres or something daft.

Besides both sports have proved that if you restrict developement in certain ways then they'll spend it in others in order to find performance benefits, this is why we've seen Lance in a wind tunnel so often. I'd like to see a HPV TdF and also an F1 with no tech restrictions other than safety ones, they may not be as fair but they'd be quite a spectacle, 80+mph peleton anyone?

Eau Rouge

Sports governing bodies are usually made up of people who have been involved in the sport long enough to have managed to get themselves into the governing body. They remember it in "their day" and don't really want to the sport to change into anything too different to what they did. The older the sport gets, the slower the pace of change.

el_presidente

Attica wrote:

el_presidente wrote:

in Formula 1 where clearly the equipment is far more important than the driver.

I disagree, F1 is a team sport, yes the technology is probably more important than the driver but a good driver can (and has) won in a poor car, whereas a poor driver will not know how to take advantage of a good car. This is intrinsically different to cycling because it's about a machine at the edge of it's performance capabilities, whereas human power will never be enough to put bikes at their limit unless we start them tunning on 2mm tyres or something daft.

Besides both sports have proved that if you restrict developement in certain ways then they'll spend it in others in order to find performance benefits, this is why we've seen Lance in a wind tunnel so often. I'd like to see a HPV TdF and also an F1 with no tech restrictions other than safety ones, they may not be as fair but they'd be quite a spectacle, 80+mph peloton anyone?

Well you are then talking about a completely different event, which would remove the historical links built up since 1903, and remove lots of the tactics. Agreed, bikes will continue to evolve over time (right from the introduction of derailleurs through to electronic shifitng) but I think it is important that this is gradual so that the historical continuity remains.

Kieran_Burns

I think people who are arguing for the use of unlimited technology are missing the point - it's as Coriander says: you need a level playing field

You have strict limits on the specifications of the equipment used - what you do within these limits is up to you. It evens out the competition, which is really about the PEOPLE competing not the equipment they use

All that would happen is you would have different classifications of the same sport (think Formula everything, or World Rally)

If someone wanted recumbents or some other variety of bike race, then it would be popular now. I also can't see how the argument for no technical advancements stands up - if this was the case, how are we even able to discuss radically different deisgns such as the Superman or recumbent?

Going back to LiTs original point - the body suit SHOULD be banned as it directly uses technology to enhance performance - you may as well start using propellors.

attica

el_presidente wrote:

Well you are then talking about a completely different event, which would remove the historical links built up since 1903, and remove lots of the tactics. Agreed, bikes will continue to evolve over time (right from the introduction of derailleurs through to electronic shifitng) but I think it is important that this is gradual so that the historical continuity remains.

I agree here though, I wasn't quite clear enough, I think the historical continuity is a great thing, the fact that we can compare Boardman to Mercyx is fantastic, however even the "Athlete's Hour" record was perverted in some way by that chap Ondřej Sosenka who rode with a heavy back wheel, thus using the extra inertia to allow him to beat the record with possibly less effort (IMHO he should have that record taken from him in light of his doping offences since then)

As KB said, two formula would be the outcome and that's what I'd like to see if only as a one off to see how it would compare in terms of spectacle.

Agent57

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I think people who are arguing for the use of unlimited technology are missing the point - it's as Coriander says: you need a level playing field

It's not a level playing field unless budgets are the same though, is it? If one team can spend a lot of money on R&D (or the best riders, come to that), while another team is running on a shoe-string, how's that level? Sure, they may find some things banned (Thierry Marie's saddle spoiler is one I recall), but even within the rules there are gains to be made.

Of course, that argument can be taken to silly extremes, admittedly, but I don't think a cap on expenditure would work either.

Coriander

Agent57 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I think people who are arguing for the use of unlimited technology are missing the point - it's as Coriander says: you need a level playing field

It's not a level playing field unless budgets are the same though, is it? If one team can spend a lot of money on R&D (or the best riders, come to that), while another team is running on a shoe-string, how's that level?

Of course, that argument can be taken to silly extremes, admittedly.

The advantage of swimming, though, is that access to a swimming pool aside, there is little or no technology. So, in that sense quickly banning the suits tilts things back a little towards poorer competitors.

And yes, I realise that the richer teams will have armies of coaches, nutrionists, pyschologists, etc. but there without imposing team budgets there isn't much more the regulatory authorities can do. As you say - you could take the argument to silly extremes.

Rich158

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Going back to LiTs original point - the body suit SHOULD be banned as it directly uses technology to enhance performance - you may as well start using propellors.

Not really, what you're talking about there is the difference between a passive advantage and a mechanical advantage.

I'm all for anything that gives a passive advantage, ie better aerodynamics/water flow, as the onus is still on the competitor to use that to their best advantage. If you're not good enough you still won't be good enough on a highly aerodynamic bike. If you're going to go down that route you may as well get everyone to compete on exactly the same equipment to iron out any advantage from ceramic bearings, lighter wheels, different tyres, different gearing, everybody has exactly the same clothes, shoes & helmets etc.

Anything that gives a mechanical advantage, ie propellors, electric motors etc is a step too far, and is quite rightly banned. This is where it become difficult with bikes, are ceramic bearings that run smoother than their stainless steel counterparts a passive or mechanical advantage?

chuckcork

Coriander wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I think people who are arguing for the use of unlimited technology are missing the point - it's as Coriander says: you need a level playing field

It's not a level playing field unless budgets are the same though, is it? If one team can spend a lot of money on R&D (or the best riders, come to that), while another team is running on a shoe-string, how's that level?

Of course, that argument can be taken to silly extremes, admittedly.

The advantage of swimming, though, is that access to a swimming pool aside, there is little or no technology. So, in that sense quickly banning the suits tilts things back a little towards poorer competitors.

And yes, I realise that the richer teams will have armies of coaches, nutrionists, pyschologists, etc. but there without imposing team budgets there isn't much more the regulatory authorities can do. As you say - you could take the argument to silly extremes.

In poorer countries they're not likely to have swimming pools, Eddie the eel had never seen one until he was in the Olympics, and IIRC correctly part of the controversy around Michelle Smith was that she came from a country that didn't even have an olympic size swimming pool.

If as an athlete you can't afford to take time off work to even train to a level required to "be a contender" then you aren't, even with the technology, going to have much of a chance. Australia does relatively well at sport because of the Institute of Sport and their training programmes, and the various people there are able to access high-level facilities to develop their potential. Wasn't the same approach why British cyclists did so well at the last Olympics?

Everything that happens off the bike is directed to maximising what happens when on it, how anyone can compete without that support beyond amateur level, and without which the bike isn't going to make much of difference?

chuckcork

Rich158 wrote:

are ceramic bearings that run smoother than their stainless steel counterparts a passive or mechanical advantage?

Passive obviously, they reduce energy loss and increase efficiency but they don't add energy into the system or act as a form of propulsion.

What would be interesting is if the UCI added events that were completely open to technological change and invited it rather than restricted it? That way the hallowed events like the TDF could continue on the current basis but change could be embraced to push technology in different areas, and the athletes could help push it along.

attica

chuckcork wrote:

What would be interesting is if the UCI added events that were completely open to technological change and invited it rather than restricted it? That way the hallowed events like the TDF could continue on the current basis but change could be embraced to push technology in different areas, and the athletes could help push it along.

+1

ScoTTyBEEE

Kind of like group b rally cars. Then they got banned.

attica

ScoTTyBEEE wrote:

Kind of like group b rally cars. Then they got banned.

Wikipedia wrote:

Group B regulations fostered some of the quickest, most powerful and sophisticated rally cars ever built. However, a series of major accidents, some fatal, were blamed on their outright speed. After the death of...

Not sure faster bikes would result in deaths.

Rich158

Attica wrote:

ScoTTyBEEE wrote:

Kind of like group b rally cars. Then they got banned.

Wikipedia wrote:

Group B regulations fostered some of the quickest, most powerful and sophisticated rally cars ever built. However, a series of major accidents, some fatal, were blamed on their outright speed. After the death of...

Not sure faster bikes would result in deaths.

+1, but motorsport is somewhat different, as the speeds are far higher.

That's the reason they put the chicanes in the Mulsanne Straight, and why F1 and Moto GP is subject to limits on engine size. There comes a point where the speed outweighs the technologies ability to handle it, which is what happened with Group B. Whilst the cars were preposterously fast they were also quite basic which led to a spate of accidents, and deaths. The development of technology to deal with ever increasing speeds in motorsport has also given us some notable advances in car design, how about the first disc brakes on the Jaguar D type, developed to handle the speed they were hitting at the end of the Mulsanne Straight, increasingly sophisticated four wheel drive systems derived from rallying, and a whole host of other advances.

I'm not sure where this is going now so bear with me :roll:

With bikes would carbon fibre have been developed to the extent it has without the pro teams trying to push the technological boundaries, or indeed electronic shifting, Sti, deep section carbon rims, the list could go on.

All development is done to push the boundaries of the technology within the confines of the rules and regulations, whatever the sport, and eventually that filters down to you and me

Are rules and regulations a good thing? I think you could argue that rather than hinder development they provide a framework within which development flourishes in order to gain a legal advantage over the next guy. There will never be a level playing field, and so long as teams and manufacturers strive to gain an advantage then the development of the sport will move forward, and the technology will be passed down. to us.

And I'm starting to go in circles now so I'l stop

And yes I am bored today :roll:

lost_in_thought

'tis an interesting discussion!

I can see the point about historical comparisons, that's fair, but I disagree with those who are saying it should be about the athlete, not the gear. It's still about the athlete. Irrespective of what suit they're wearing no mediocre swimmer is going to make the worlds.

One swimmer said 'I put my suit in the pool, and it didn't go anywhere'.

If the boffins can design a suit that repels water then fantastic in my book. Also, where do you draw the line? What's legal and what isn't? Where is the boundary of what's OK?

It seems to me (in swimming anyway, as I know more about it) that the cut-offs will become completely arbitrary, which is why I think it's silly. The current proposed one is that anything woven is OK, anything not is banned.

As for the 'poorer countries' argument, if these suits are used by winners, they'll be mass-produced, and become cheaper by the second. Sure, the really poor teams won't be able to afford them for a season or two, but hey, that's life.