Bikes - 'Level Playing Field'

andyp

frenchfighter wrote:

Just to be accurate, the exact quote from Shane Sutton (yes I did remember correctly) is below. I cannot provide a link as it wasn't online.

He is talking about the transition from top pursuiter to GT rider and why Wiggins has done it and Boardman hasn't.

"The answer is desire and love of cycling. I work with Chris. I like and respect him a lot, but the simple thing is he didn't like cycling. If he was here and now, he'd tell you the same"

The interview is in the current edition of Cycle Sport.

Boardman certainly made comments about being fed up with cycling around when he retired as a pro. This is hardly surprising given the health problems he had and the fact that he'd spent most of his pro career competing against riders making liberal use of EPO.

The point I was making is that Boardman has passion for cycling in spades, he grew up in a cycling environment, made a good career from riding his bike and has been involved in the sport since his retirement. He still regularly rides a bike so I think the comments that he doesn't like cycling are somewhat taken out of context.

To quote Wiggins as someone who is passionate about it is amusing, given his well publicised lack of passion during his Credit Agricole and Cofidis years. He spent more time on the lash than he did on his bike.

I find the comparisons with Merckx equally amusing, as if he was some sort of romantic who just rode whatever bike he was given. He was utterly obsessive with equipment.

andyp

Chip \'oyler wrote:

You've gone a bit quiet after his Boardman quote was backed up by three sources :roll:

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I had some sort of service level agreement to maintain.

Quite wtf it has to do with you is beyond me anyway.

symo

Wow, don't care if Chris likes to ride or not. Don't care about Merckx (everone knows he wanted the best when he was riding).

What is being dicussed is the UCI banning bikes not for sale to the general public. Which all I see as the UCI failing to encourage bike design and making the sport appear stymed by a group of individuals who think we should be riding 3 speed bikes with horizontal top tubes made from steel and no seat position adjustment.

mfin

FF - can I ask why you think Boardman has 'no class'? only asking, cos you can think what you want... Ive always thought he comes across as a very likeable and intelligent chap. He's certainly a big British cycling hero of the last 25 years, plus, I would have thought that all this combined with his apparent passion and attention to detail when it comes to cycling design has helped British cycling.

As for the level playing field... I think its a shame if any development gets stifled, cos things have to move on and there's an industry and jobs to support as well that benefits from all the scientific development.

Tom Butcher

I don't have a problem with it. Bike racing is about the people not the equipment. The UCI is often knocked for its rules on bike design but I don't want a situation as in F1 early this year where some teams had a real advantage over others because they had interpreted the rules more successfully than others. As for it filtering down to the mass market - to be honest I'd just as rather we all rode steel fixed wheel - lot cheaper, less faffing about with maintenance and changing chains and cassettes every 6 months and it rewards having a supple pedaling style at all cadences.

top_bhoy

mfin wrote:

FF - can I ask why you think Boardman has 'no class'? only asking, cos you can think what you want... Ive always thought he comes across as a very likeable and intelligent chap. He's certainly a big British cycling hero of the last 25 years, plus, I would have thought that all this combined with his apparent passion and attention to detail when it comes to cycling design has helped British cycling.

Its all about opinions and just as well not everyone has the same. I always thought Boardman was uninspiring and promising more than he delivered - on the road at least. Constantly talking about bpm, Vo2, etc and this constant need to have Steve Keen as an almost constant companion, just didn't inspire me in any way at all.

Tom Butcher

I think Boardman appeals to the scientific type mind - those of artistic temperament prefer a rider like Robert Millar - both great riders.

mfin

Top_Bhoy wrote:

mfin wrote:

FF - can I ask why you think Boardman has 'no class'? only asking, cos you can think what you want... Ive always thought he comes across as a very likeable and intelligent chap. He's certainly a big British cycling hero of the last 25 years, plus, I would have thought that all this combined with his apparent passion and attention to detail when it comes to cycling design has helped British cycling.

Its all about opinions and just as well not everyone has the same. I always thought Boardman was uninspiring and promising more than he delivered - on the road at least. Constantly talking about bpm, Vo2, etc and this constant need to have Steve Keen as an almost constant companion, just didn't inspire me in any way at all.

I can see where you're coming from, I only asked FF as I hadn't particularly gathered what he himself meant by 'no class' that's all... cos it sounded very negative. Yeah, its great we all have differing opinions, be boring if we didn't!

Pokerface

symo wrote:

What is being dicussed is the UCI banning bikes not for sale to the general public. Which all I see as the UCI failing to encourage bike design and making the sport appear stymed by a group of individuals who think we should be riding 3 speed bikes with horizontal top tubes made from steel and no seat position adjustment.

Why does a rule that says bikes being used have to be made public stiffle bike design?

Bike manufacturers will still design new and innovative ways to make their bikes lighter, stronger and more aero - and then make them available for sale. They do that anyway - they just take longer to get to market at the present time.

Chip \'oyler

andyp wrote:

Chip \'oyler wrote:

You've gone a bit quiet after his Boardman quote was backed up by three sources :roll:

I'm sorry, I didn't realise I had some sort of service level agreement to maintain.

Quite wtf it has to do with you is beyond me anyway.

It's an open forum. If you post comments expect people to post in response.

That's 'wtf' it's got to do with me.

Pross

BikingBernie wrote:

Pross wrote:

The bike has more impact in pursuit or time trialling I suppose. On the road in a bunch the aerodynamics don't have such a bearing.

Until you try to go up the road on your own of course, rather than sitting in the bunch following wheels.

Wouldn't know about that, only ever done it once and that was by mistake lol

Pross

Top_Bhoy wrote:

mfin wrote:

FF - can I ask why you think Boardman has 'no class'? only asking, cos you can think what you want... Ive always thought he comes across as a very likeable and intelligent chap. He's certainly a big British cycling hero of the last 25 years, plus, I would have thought that all this combined with his apparent passion and attention to detail when it comes to cycling design has helped British cycling.

Its all about opinions and just as well not everyone has the same. I always thought Boardman was uninspiring and promising more than he delivered - on the road at least. Constantly talking about bpm, Vo2, etc and this constant need to have Steve Keen as an almost constant companion, just didn't inspire me in any way at all.

I know what you mean and it broke the sport down into almost a scientific experiment but this is what has led us to be a force in international track cycling. I suppose it's up to personal opinion but I reckon we need to keep pushing the boundaries or things become stale but at the same time the history and passion need to be retained. BTW wasn't it Peter Keen?

top_bhoy

Pross wrote:

BTW wasn't it Peter Keen?

:oops: yes!!!

I was close but no cigar

BikingBernie

andyp wrote:

Boardman certainly made comments about being fed up with cycling around when he retired as a pro.

And he made his comments about not liking cycling, and riding a bike being merely an outlet for his competitive drive, when he was at the peak of his career...

andyp wrote:

I find the comparisons with Merckx equally amusing, as if he was some sort of romantic who just rode whatever bike he was given. He was utterly obsessive with equipment.

Of course Merckx was an equipment obessive. Still doen't alter the fact that Boardman spent hundreds of hours to ensure he had a significant aerodynamic advantage over Merckx, even if he was still riding within the UCI's rules.

By the way I am not knocking Boardman. I think he was a great champion and didn't get the results he deserved largely because of the doping he had to compete against.

mfin

Pokerface wrote:

Why does a rule that says bikes being used have to be made public stiffle bike design?

Bike manufacturers will still design new and innovative ways to make their bikes lighter, stronger and more aero - and then make them available for sale. They do that anyway - they just take longer to get to market at the present time.

...well it potentially stops them testing 'in competition' as they develop doesn't it? Isn't it that simple? ...stacks of GT and Track bikes being used in competition have little adjustments here and there, new bits and bobs of hardware, we see them in the magazines all the time. If the manufacturers all had to wait to use them in competition until they were commercially released on a model available to the public then that would slow things down just like you've said yourself, this is stifling the process isn't it?

Plus, there's good marketing to be had in all these developments as they come along, something to press release and get a buzz about... I think this is all positive for cycling as an industry?

mfin

Again on Boardman, no-one would argue that he pushed himself to his absolute athletic limit with total dedication?? I know some find his approach a bit scientific, but anyone getting true results nowadays is IMO, no matter how much people might think that some of them are some-kind of aspirational, romantic free-spirits who just 'ride-on-feel'. Im sure Boardman was just as out of breath as the next guy regardless of all his attention to kit development.

knedlicky

Simon E wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

I’m all in favour of a ‘level playing field’ for bikes when it comes to competition. While, if you want to encourage cycling as a recreational activity and a participatory sport (as opposed to a spectator sport) I think it makes sense to have profis’ bikes available down the LBS.

Oh yeah? And how many of them will you buy?

Skinsuits OTOH don't make a bike or rider any less stable than a wool jersey ... (though I'm not saying all of the current rules make sense!).

I don’t have a team bike myself, or expect to be able to fork out £7000 for a Wiler Cento Uno like Cunego rode this season, but I do know a few people with previous years’s models; it’s not that uncommon.
However I don’t think it matters whether you or I buy team bikes, rather that they are available and resemble the bikes that you and I and others ride.
If developments in the professionals’ bike design world led to their bikes no longer resembling what was available for us plebs, so that we couldn’t any longer imitate, attempt and aspire to ride like our ‘heroes’ on machines like they use, then I think the interest in the sport at grassroots level would eventually diminish further.
I see the rule therefore, as trying to keep the feet of bike designers on the ground, so that they don’t come up with radical and extravagant designs which would divorce top class cycling from its enthusiastic followers and amateurs. That by no means prevents advancement in design, and in fact designing within a set of parameters can often lead to more innovation than having an open design field.

Re skinsuits. I recently read a study which said the air resistance when wearing a skinsuit was 3.2% less than when wearing a normal jersey and shorts, while an aero helmet reduces air resistance by 5.2% compared to a normal helmet.
These figures aren’t as great a percentage advantage as disk or aero wheels bring, but still significant enough that I would have thought, in order to achieve a leveller playing field, the UCI would make a ruling on them too - especially since the UCI don’t allow any aerodynamic feature on a bike part which is ‘destined or has the effect of reducing wind resistance’, but which these clothing items definitely do .

Pokerface

knedlicky wrote:

especially since the UCI don’t allow any aerodynamic feature on a bike part which is ‘destined or has the effect of reducing wind resistance’, but which these clothing items definitely do .

The rule actually says: "Protective screens, aerodynamic shapes, fairings or any other device that is added or forms part of the structure, and that is destined or has the effect of reducing wind resistance, are prohibited."

Basically they are outlawing fairings on bikes - NOT aerodynamic elements or shapes!!

And last time I checked - clothing (helmets and skinsuits) did NOT form part of the bike!

simon_e

knedlicky wrote:

If developments in the professionals’ bike design world led to their bikes no longer resembling what was available for us plebs, so that we couldn’t any longer imitate, attempt and aspire to ride like our ‘heroes’ on machines like they use, then I think the interest in the sport at grassroots level would eventually diminish further.

I still can't figure out the scenario you are trying to describe. The models I mentioned, and many others, are sufficiently close to pro peloton bikes for us to imitate and aspire quite satisfactorily. Someone else has already suggested their Look is already a pro frame. If you buy a Trek Madone 6.9 Pro you're apparently getting the same frame as on Lance's bike. Is that not enough to aspire to?

It's entirely lost on me why it would be better if I could buy an exact copy of my favourite rider's bike instead of one that's virtually identical bar a minor geometry tweak or some extra BB stiffening for a rider who puts out several times my max power during a sprint.

Will they eventually have to homologate everything else too? No new groupset, stem, wheelset or flashy shoes for the peloton until they have been BSI/EC/Snell safety tested and enough are made so Joe Bloggs in every corner of the planet gets them too?

So grassroots riders buy £5k bikes. Don't make me laugh. Grassroots is where maybe a few people may buy the same brand of bike as the riders (or a team jersey) but most will buy something they like and can afford then ride it. Grassroots sport needs support and involvement by people - parents, clubs, sponsors and so on - and will not benefit one jot from silly rules for the pro peloton any more than grassroots football requires a Premiership pitch or a FIFA-spec 'professional' ball. :roll:

Chrissz

Haven't we done all this before??

I seem to recall the UCI going mad with a raft of new rules after the Boardman/Lotus pairing - their rationale then (as now) was to ensure competitive cycling had a 9relatively) level playing field.

In effect they took cycle design back 20 years or so

Personally i love the technological developments that occur within any sport - I also see nothing wrong with advancing performance through equipment - would anyone really want to return to the old days pre gears, STI/Ergo etc? Not me!

I could understand if 'super bikes' costing hundreds of thousands and offering a significant performance advantage were available to a few but not to the many but this is not the case so (IMHO) the UCI should get on with promoting the sport and driving it forwards - not trying to send it back to the dark ages.

andyrac

pintoo wrote:

back to the point on innovation -

Team GB certainly have an advantage with the bikes they use. Even the smallest advantage is enough to make a difference in elite sports.

A level playing field is a nice idea, but good luck enforcing it.

Make the bikes available to Joe Public? Easily done, as per WRC. Some teams still have a significant advantage, though.

Provide a single platform for all teams to use? Seen that in US motorsport. Doesn't really level the playing field and brings in new forms of innovation (which I do admire).

I just wonder whether it's worth the effort or whether making bike design part of the team's skills is part of the whole appeal - like F1.

And I'm ready to get flamed for quoting motorsport now. Before I do, let's hear it Jenson Button! Yay!!!

Just me then.

I'm afraid I'm another Motorsport fan - so are they going to Homologate a bike? Like they would with a WRCar? Or make the Manufacturers produce 5000 'Specials' when they want to bring a new bike out? Blimey, it gets weirder and weirder...

Maybe they should ban pre-race unofficial recces as well.......just allow 2 'official' passes of a stage.......

knedlicky

Pokerface wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

especially since the UCI don’t allow any aerodynamic feature on a bike part which is ‘destined or has the effect of reducing wind resistance’, but which these clothing items definitely do .

The rule actually says: "Protective screens, aerodynamic shapes, fairings or any other device that is added or forms part of the structure, and that is destined or has the effect of reducing wind resistance, are prohibited."
Basically they are outlawing fairings on bikes - NOT aerodynamic elements or shapes!!
And last time I checked - clothing (helmets and skinsuits) did NOT form part of the bike!

I already know what the rules are.
I’m questioning, if the UCI want a level playing field, why the rules don’t extend to clothing - in the Olympic swimming there were questions about regulating swimsuits, why not similar in cycling?
Although I’m not suggesting they do, I think it would be equally legitimate, in fact more so than prohibiting many other aerodynamic features, since (apart from wheel improvements) the benefits of certain clothing are greater.

knedlicky

Simon E wrote:

I still can't figure out the scenario you are trying to describe. ...:roll:

I think somehow we are passing each other by, without actually thinking that differently.
I don’t expect an exact copy and I realise the budget of most people is only between £500-2500.
If you’ve read them, you’ll know that the UCI regs don’t really restrict that much, and certainly not about groupsets and flashy shoes. Nor stuff like STI/Ergo development, new materials, nor other slight changes and features, like some posters seem to think.
Also, it shouldn’t be forgotten that the UCI came up with their standards after consulting the industry, so things like the basic dimensions of frames and wheels, and handlebar dimensions are all based on advice from manufacturers, not pulled out of the sky by some UCI official.

All bikes sold in the EU have to meet certain (primarily safety) norms – EN 14781 for racing bikes – and so it would be pointless in promoting the sport if professionals were to regularly ride bikes which diverge much from what Joe Blow can pick up at his LBS, and I think that’s what the UCI rule is mainly about.

As I’ve already mentioned, I don’t agree with all the rules, and am glad the UCI allow exemptions if proven safe (like for many wheels). And I’m certainly not one for keeping the status quo, so would expect the UCI not to be too rigid and to revise its requirements from time to time, and for the EN norm to be updated with advances in technology and design theory.
But if the UCI rule didn’t exist and pro cyclists were to end up mostly riding bikes with extravagant design or unusual features, and which fail to meet the EN norm, I think it would eventually make pro cycling too remote.

You try to use football as an analogy, saying at grassroot level it wouldn’t benefit from being required to have a Premiership-size pitch or a FIFA-spec 'professional' ball, and I agree. But your analogy isn’t applicable to what the UCI is promoting because your example is one of upping the requirements (from playing football on flagstones with a tennis ball), while the UCI is aiming in the opposite direction, i.e. trying to bring pro sport down to the people.

To show I’m not against new or varying ideas, an example of what the UCI and the EN norm currently disallow, but which one day I hope they will accept …

Pokerface

knedlicky wrote:

I already know what the rules are.
I’m questioning, if the UCI want a level playing field, why the rules don’t extend to clothing - in the Olympic swimming there were questions about regulating swimsuits, why not similar in cycling?
Although I’m not suggesting they do, I think it would be equally legitimate, in fact more so than prohibiting many other aerodynamic features, since (apart from wheel improvements) the benefits of certain clothing are greater.

Sorry- the way you quoted the rule and then tried to apply it to clothing led me to beleive you didn't understand it.

The reason why the rule doesn't apply to clothing and the whole point of the 'level playing field' is to do with resources - and making it so all teams/people have access to or can afford the same technology.

The cost of a skinsuit is significantly less than a custom-built bike. Or something along those lines.

The UCI don't want to make it so that there are no aero advantages, etc - but rather to make it so that all teams and riders can compete on an equal level - based on $$.

That's the way I see it anyway.

Otherwise - they would just say everyone has to ride a steel framed single speed.

oldwelshman

cee wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

That's generally the thing with guys who win though. They don't like the sport, they like winning and what they do is merely an outlet for that passion.

agreed.

Valentino Rossi (superbike god) has stated numerous times that he doesn't like motorbikes. would rather drive a car.....but put him on a big machine and he blitzes the field.

In that case I don't like sex

simon_e

oldwelshman wrote:

cee wrote:

put him on a big machine and he blitzes the field.

In that case I don't like sex

'cause you blitz the field? Remind me to stay the other side of the gate from you if we meet up OW, that sounds messy

I would be interested to hear the opinion of the manufacturers that supply the pro teams - big and small - on whether this is workable or even desirable.

<tongue in cheek>
In the interest of fairness and a level playing field I will not be buying a skinsuit for next season's time trials, otherwise I'd have an unfair advantage over my times from this year. I'll also use the same heavy, draggy tyres and not replace them with anything lighter or better rolling. After all, that would be cheating!

As a lifelong pedant I'd like to point out that Rossi is not a 'superbike god', has never raced superbikes. He is simply God (and also described as The GOAT).