lifting the ban on recumbents and velomobile.

[opik_bidin]

what if velomobiles and recumbents were allowed in triathlons and road bike races?

when will we see recumbents in tour de france and velomobiles in kona?

https://cruzbike.com/end-bikeism


When all safe, unfaired bicycles - including recumbent bicycles - are allowed to compete side-by-side with traditional frames, global participation in cycling and all of its competitive outlets will increase. Ending the ban will also spur innovation in bicycle design and technology and ultimately, get more people cycling. That’s a big, positive outcome for all, if you ask us.

Ending the ban on recumbent athletes will not only get more people riding, it will keep more people riding safely and comfortably. Traditional bike risks and pain statistics that force many cyclists to give up the sport include:

High risk of head-first impact injury: Traditional bicycles place the rider's center of gravity well above the axle of the front wheel, and the rider's head in a forward position, riders are subject to a high risk of toppling head-first under common road hazard conditions. These accidents frequently cause serious injuries to the head, neck, and shoulders— and even death.

High incidence of musculoskeletal pain: A study published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine found that 85% of standard bike riders had some form of musculoskeletal pain, with 49% reporting neck pain and 30% reporting back pain.

Significantly increased risk of erectile dysfunction: Avid male cyclists are at a significantly increased risk of erectile dysfunction (ED), and avid female cyclists have significantly decreased genital sensation. An analysis of 21 published reports on cycling and ED concluded that more than 3 hours of bicycling per week was an independent relative risk factor of 1.72 for moderate to severe ED. Researchers in Germany found 19% of cyclists who had a weekly training distance of more than 400 km (248 miles) complained of erectile dysfunction.

Many traditional frame cyclists believe their bikes look the way they do because the design is proven to be the best, or the safest or the fastest. Unfortunately, that is not true. Traditional frames look the way they do because of the UCI's 1934 decision to establish strict standards for bicycle geometry, effectively banning recumbent bicycles. That decision was controversial at the time and only passed by a close vote of 58 to 46 among UCI delegates. The UCI's rules and regulations have shaped those of US and international cycling sports governing bodies including USA Triathlon, USA Cycling and the International Olympic Committee. Paul Rousseau, the UCI Commissioner at the time of the vote, voiced his opposition to the ban on recumbents, stating that the UCI's purpose was "not to define the bicycle, but to regulate races and prohibit add-on aerodynamic aids." Even today, The UCI states one of its major goals is to: "Enable innovation and continued advances in technology". The best way to do that is to once again allow innovation and competition in frame geometry.

Let's encourage the UCI and USA Triathlon to lift the ban and share the race, allowing athletes who race standard and non-standard bicycles to compete side-by-side.

We are joined in this campaign by our associates in the recumbent bicycle and tricycle industry, recumbent bicycle enthusiasts, and everyone who shares the dream of making the world a better place by getting more people to cycle every day.

[vosadrian]

I don't normally come in here, but just saw this post from the main BNA page and it interested me. I am not a recumbent rider and have never ridden one. I have ridden with others who do (and they are fast!!), and I may ride one in future (back issues). As such, I am sure my opinions are not aligned with some regulars here.

Anyway, I just wanted to question this view. Surely all riders would agree there is a performance difference between recumbents and traditional road bikes. One is better at going up hills and the other better at flats/down hills. If recumbents were accepted by the UCI for all road races, surely this difference in performance would result in all riders going to the higher performance option and then the other option would phase out? Also, my understanding is that recumbents are less effected by drafting which is a major component in the tactics of road cycling, so it would completely change the dynamic of road racing. Of course some may argue these changes would benefit the sport, but it is a change none the less. I would argue that a change to allow recumbents to race side by side with traditional road bikes would result in this not happening (side by side). If recumbents were faster, everyone would start riding them and there would be no more traditional road bikes. They are incompatible with drafting each other effectively so the racing dynamics would be thrown out, and it would end up being two races within a race if both bike types stayed. Of course we could allow any type of bike under pedal power to race, and then it would be like F1 many years ago with the racing being about technology rather than the athletes.

I am sure that recumbents in mainstream use would enhance cycling as a mode of transport and fitness. I think many can benefit from a less physically demanding position for cycling. I just don't think that changing racing to allow it would be good for racing. I may eventually go to a recumbent myself. My current issue with them is that most of my riding is commuting jumping gutters on and off road/paths etc. I am think on a recumbent I would be restricting my commuting routes to on road only and this would mean riding on some roads I currently prefer not to ride on.

[find_bruce]

Yep its the old UCI conspiracy theory trotted out again Fairings were banned at the same time, why should they be excluded.

It is a simple question of fair competition & performance - on the flat the difference is immense, as demonstrated by the 1 hour record

• UCI bike - Badley Wiggins 54.526 km
• Unfaired recumbent - Aurelien Bonneteau 56.696 km
• faired recumbent - Francesco Russo 91.556 km

[RobertL]

Yep its the old UCI conspiracy theory trotted out again Fairings were banned at the same time, why should they be excluded.

It is a simple question of fair competition & performance - on the flat the difference is immense, as demonstrated by the 1 hour record

• UCI bike - Badley Wiggins 54.526 km
• Unfaired recumbent - Aurelien Bonneteau 56.696 km
• faired recumbent - Francesco Russo 91.556 km

• Now illegal UCI bike - Chris Boardman 56.375km

Frankly, I'm surprised that the 2 upright bikes are so close to an unfaired recumbent. Russo's record is just mind-blowing, though. Pedalling at 91km/h for an hour!!!

[vosadrian]

Could a large number of recumbents in a peleton ride closely/safely together? This is more of a question of the visibility of the rider in front and ability to brake/steer for collision avoidance if something happens.

If a group of riders on recumbents are riding together is it beneficial to roll turns and draft each other... or are you just as good to have each rider effectively ride solo?

A large part of the interest in modern road racing is the dynamics of solo or reduced groups having to do considerably more work than a large group. It means the winner is not always (or often) the strongest, but is the one (or team) who read the race best and made the best decisions given the physical resources available.

I went on a group ride once with a strong recumbent rider. On one flat section we were going for it after a split in the group after a climb and the front group was trying to stay away. I think there were 4 of us and we were fairly strong riders rolling turns. Guess we got over the climb about 10-15 seconds before the guy on the recumbent. He caught us (admittedly we took about 30 seconds to gather ourselves and start working) and then sat beside us while we rolled turns for about 10kms.... and he seemed to be doing it with relative ease (compared to us). I tried to get low and draft him at one point, but did not get much benefit from it.

[opik_bidin]

Yep its the old UCI conspiracy theory trotted out again Fairings were banned at the same time, why should they be excluded.

It is a simple question of fair competition & performance - on the flat the difference is immense, as demonstrated by the 1 hour record

• UCI bike - Badley Wiggins 54.526 km
• Unfaired recumbent - Aurelien Bonneteau 56.696 km
• faired recumbent - Francesco Russo 91.556 km

That is why I also include velomobile in the title, BTW, the new record is 92.432. I'm thinking more like triathlons and time trials, why are recumbents and velomobiles banned?

[RonK]

Yep its the old UCI conspiracy theory trotted out again Fairings were banned at the same time, why should they be excluded.

It is a simple question of fair competition & performance - on the flat the difference is immense, as demonstrated by the 1 hour record

• UCI bike - Badley Wiggins 54.526 km
• Unfaired recumbent - Aurelien Bonneteau 56.696 km
• faired recumbent - Francesco Russo 91.556 km

That is why I also include velomobile in the title, BTW, the new record is 92.432. I'm thinking more like triathlons and time trials, why are recumbents and velomobiles banned?

Cycle racing is about athletes, not technology - that is why there is a standardisation of equipment, just as there is in most other athletic sports.

[opik_bidin]

Yep its the old UCI conspiracy theory trotted out again Fairings were banned at the same time, why should they be excluded.

It is a simple question of fair competition & performance - on the flat the difference is immense, as demonstrated by the 1 hour record

• UCI bike - Badley Wiggins 54.526 km
• Unfaired recumbent - Aurelien Bonneteau 56.696 km
• faired recumbent - Francesco Russo 91.556 km

That is why I also include velomobile in the title, BTW, the new record is 92.432. I'm thinking more like triathlons and time trials, why are recumbents and velomobiles banned?

Cycle racing is about athletes, not technology - that is why there is a standardisation of equipment, just as there is in most other athletic sports.

Derailleurs were initially banned from some races, we know have aero bars, carbon bikes, deep wheel, clip pedals, aero tubes, aero helmets, and the list goes on. so that tech standardisation doesn't hold up.

It's also not only for races, but also for rides and everyday life. If velomobiles and recumbents are easier on the body at long distances, provides good cover from harsh weather and can easily carry things while remaining aero, they should be more popular, but the ban from races makes them less popular.

For many rides, recumbents make more sense ergonomically and aerodynamically : touring, commuting, doing fun rides, (unless there are so many uphills). it doesn't hurt your lower body and not sweat too much.

I mean looking back, why did you buy that aero/touring bike? why I didn't buy a velomobile or a recumbent trike? Why these aren't more available?

[RonK]

That is why I also include velomobile in the title, BTW, the new record is 92.432. I'm thinking more like triathlons and time trials, why are recumbents and velomobiles banned?

Cycle racing is about athletes, not technology - that is why there is a standardisation of equipment, just as there is in most other athletic sports.

Derailleurs were initially banned from some races, we know have aero bars, carbon bikes, deep wheel, clip pedals, aero tubes, aero helmets, and the list goes on. so that tech standardisation doesn't hold up.

It's also not only for races, but also for rides and everyday life. If velomobiles and recumbents are easier on the body at long distances, provides good cover from harsh weather and can easily carry things while remaining aero, they should be more popular, but the ban from races makes them less popular.

For many rides, recumbents make more sense ergonomically and aerodynamically : touring, commuting, doing fun rides, (unless there are so many uphills). it doesn't hurt your lower body and not sweat too much.

I mean looking back, why did you buy that aero/touring bike? why I didn't buy a velomobile or a recumbent trike? Why these aren't more available?

Regardless of technological change, they remain within the standard rules for bike racing equipment.

[Arbuckle23]

I mean looking back, why did you buy that aero/touring bike? why I didn't buy a velomobile or a recumbent trike? Why these aren't more available?

On the road they are too low, so harder for cars too see in traffic, as well as wider so take up more space.
On shared paths it is hard enough getting past peds with an upright bicycle, something wider would make it worse.

IMHO of course

[vosadrian]

Derailleurs were initially banned from some races, we know have aero bars, carbon bikes, deep wheel, clip pedals, aero tubes, aero helmets, and the list goes on. so that tech standardisation doesn't hold up.

It is not about the specific technology. It is about everyone riding the same type of bike. It does not matter what that technology is. If recumbents are racing with road bikes, it is two different technologies with different performance that is not equal. So if recumbents were allowed in racing and they were faster, everyone would race them and there would ne no more traditional bikes. You mention you want it for TT and Tri. Well most TT events are done as part of multi day tours and are won by riders who are also great at non-TT racing. It would not make sense for riders to ride an upright bike for most of a race but a recumbent for the TT. I don't think that Tri is televised enough to make any difference to bike sales.

It's also not only for races, but also for rides and everyday life. If velomobiles and recumbents are easier on the body at long distances, provides good cover from harsh weather and can easily carry things while remaining aero, they should be more popular, but the ban from races makes them less popular.

For many rides, recumbents make more sense ergonomically and aerodynamically : touring, commuting, doing fun rides, (unless there are so many uphills). it doesn't hurt your lower body and not sweat too much.

Much of this is true, but you don't mention the negatives. They are simply not as versatile for different terrain and paths many people have to ride in their commute. What you say about racing making them popular may be true, but it would completely change the racing we all know and love... most likely for the worse.

[opik_bidin]

I mean looking back, why did you buy that aero/touring bike? why I didn't buy a velomobile or a recumbent trike? Why these aren't more available?

On the road they are too low, so harder for cars too see in traffic, as well as wider so take up more space.
On shared paths it is hard enough getting past peds with an upright bicycle, something wider would make it worse.

IMHO of course

1 flags can be installed
2. there are also bicycle recumbents

[vosadrian]

I mean looking back, why did you buy that aero/touring bike? why I didn't buy a velomobile or a recumbent trike? Why these aren't more available?

On the road they are too low, so harder for cars too see in traffic, as well as wider so take up more space.
On shared paths it is hard enough getting past peds with an upright bicycle, something wider would make it worse.

IMHO of course

1 flags can be installed
2. there are also bicycle recumbents

I have considered a bicycle recumbent. A colleague at work rides one and rides a similar commute to me in a hilly area. He also has a flag. The reason I have not gone that way is that although our commute start and endpoints are the same, our route is completely different. He basically goes the same way I drive including some very busy main roads with one being a narrow two lane in each direction road up a steep hill with no verge. When I drive and see him riding at about 8-10kph with cars flying past dodging around him, I wince. I sometimes go up this road but I go on the foot path. and it is a pretty dodgy foot path, but could probably be done on the recumbent. There are other pretty questionable roads he rides also. But I don't believe he has ever had an incident because of this. He does aggravate drivers though.

The route I ride includes some footpaths on main roads and back streets and pedestrian shared paths. I often cross side streets by jumping up and down gutters. I go through some paths at the end of dead end streets that have pedestrian walk through bars that I can ride through (tight but I stand up and twist the bike through). Many of these things I could not do with a recumbent. I could ride the same route, but would have to change the way I do things by going up side streets until I find a ramped gutter and dismounting to go through pedestrian walk through bars. That would probably become a hassle and I would end up hitting the busier roads so I could ride uninterrupted.

That is what is preventing me moving in that direction. I think they are great for some... maybe most riders, but they do have some limits also for some types of terrain.

Anyway, that is aside from the thread subject. I think general UCI bike racing would be considerably worse off if they were allowed to race in major UCI events such as TDF. I don't know much about Tri, but it seems more appropriate there as that is all solo riding and the riders do not have to ride upright bikes in other things where required. In other words, a Triathlete could choose to own only one bike and that could be a Recumbent. Most road racers would have a TT and race bike and both should be similar in fit and position IMHO.

[opik_bidin]

Derailleurs were initially banned from some races, we know have aero bars, carbon bikes, deep wheel, clip pedals, aero tubes, aero helmets, and the list goes on. so that tech standardisation doesn't hold up.

So if recumbents were allowed in racing and they were faster, everyone would race them and there would ne no more traditional bikes. You mention you want it for TT and Tri. Well most TT events are done as part of multi day tours and are won by riders who are also great at non-TT racing. It would not make sense for riders to ride an upright bike for most of a race but a recumbent for the TT. I don't think that Tri is televised enough to make any difference to bike sales.

It's also not only for races, but also for rides and everyday life. If velomobiles and recumbents are easier on the body at long distances, provides good cover from harsh weather and can easily carry things while remaining aero, they should be more popular, but the ban from races makes them less popular.

For many rides, recumbents make more sense ergonomically and aerodynamically : touring, commuting, doing fun rides, (unless there are so many uphills). it doesn't hurt your lower body and not sweat too much.

Much of this is true, but you don't mention the negatives. They are simply not as versatile for different terrain and paths many people have to ride in their commute. What you say about racing making them popular may be true, but it would completely change the racing we all know and love... most likely for the worse.

That is the point, if something is better (either the performance, comfort or for marketing, like many say with disc brakes) they will replace the ones that are worser. We also have different type of tri bikes with beam frames.

For tours, TT bikes are different from the usual bikes, just look at the aero bars.

For terrain, come on, I see many people riding mtbs on asphalt and those high end road bikes on rough roads. And there are recumbents with a degree of offroad capability.

On the road they are too low, so harder for cars too see in traffic, as well as wider so take up more space.
On shared paths it is hard enough getting past peds with an upright bicycle, something wider would make it worse.

IMHO of course

1 flags can be installed
2. there are also bicycle recumbents

Anyway, that is aside from the thread subject. I think general UCI bike racing would be considerably worse off if they were allowed to race in major UCI events such as TDF. I don't know much about Tri, but it seems more appropriate there as that is all solo riding and the riders do not have to ride upright bikes in other things where required. In other words, a Triathlete could choose to own only one bike and that could be a Recumbent. Most road racers would have a TT and race bike and both should be similar in fit and position IMHO.

Recumbents are getting in touring and ultracycling.

I think what you said was also similar to when disc brakes was introduced in road bikes. It's dangerous, heavy, blah, blah, blah, but we see how it's overtaking rim brakes, if some die hard rim brakes have to gulp their spit back as they have GAS on latest models.

Like me, I just think many people aren't getting enough information.

[vosadrian]

I think you are missing a point about bike racing. Do you watch any bike racing? TDF, spring classics etc. The big thing that makes bike racing interesting is the drafting aspect. The strongest rider in the race cannot win it by riding solo from the start to the end if the rest of the riders work together to catch them. The race becomes a series of tactics employed by riders where competitors become allies for a period and then turn against each other later. There are teams of riders working to support one rider. Riders are making gambles and trying to predict the response of their competitors. If a solo rider can go similar speed to a group, this dynamic is lost and you might as well watch a TT with everyone riding for themselves. The current spectator audience of cycling does not care about the best technology being used. They do care about interesting racing. It can be like reality TV combined with a game of chess in a bike race. You are trying to turn a form of racing that is about tactics and gambles into a technology race and I think it is a small minority that actually want to watch that. You want bike racing to turn into marketing of technology ? It never worked in car racing either, and most motor racing formulas have attempted to limit technology to make it more affordable for teams/sponsors/drivers which makes it more interesting for spectators. I personally liked the good old days of Group A racing in Australia where there was different technologies in different cars, and the cars dictated results more than the drivers.... but Australia did not like that, so we have V8 supercars with all the same car with a different fibreglass body.

TT bikes are different... but the rider is oriented in the same way and uses the same technique and body strength. Expecting a rider to adapt between an upright bike for 19 stages of a 3 week grand tour and 2 stages on a recumbent is unrealistic. As I previously stated... for Tri, it would be the only bike a rider uses, so go for it!

So school me on a Recumbent as I know little. If I am on the road approaching a 10-15cm square edged vertical gutter and wish to go up it to get on the path, can I do that on a recumbent without dismounting? I have never seen it, and I can't quite workout how it would be done without the ability to jump your body-weight up and pull the bike with you, but I may be missing something. If I go the other way and go down at speed, can I absorb the shock by getting off the seat as I do on my upright? I do this on a normal road bike by the way with 25c tyres.... not a CX or MTB. This is not a question of gravel or bumps... it is a question of getting over/around common commuter obstacles. Can you quickly change direction or brake on a recumbent when a car reverses out of a driveway in front of you on a path with half a second warning?

I can see Recumbents making a lot of sense for ultracycling. Anything to reduce the accumulated fatigue on the body (saddle sores, back pain), and mostly the roads are more open and suited. Coupled with the aero advantage meaning travelling faster. I think if I was into that I would have a recumbent as preference. In am questioning their use in an urban commuting environment. If you can convince me otherwise, I will get one and see if my back agrees with it better.

[zebee]

If you are a kerb jumper and like to slither through cars and tight ped only spaces then a 'bent isn't for you.

But you aren't a standard commuter. You are a particular skilled subset.

I've been commuting in Sydney traffic on a 'bent for over 10 years. If it's traffic such as the city then I take the 2 wheeler for the long mostly bike path and backroad trip to work these days it is the 3 wheeler.

but even in my MTB or drop bar days I wasn't a kerb hopper. Some of the riders on my commute route were, some were not.

The trike is no good for tight traffic, the 2 wheeler is fine. Yeah sometimes I have to stay with the traffic rather than wriggle through it, oh the horror! But I could do the 20km to North Sydney in reasonable time and very comfortably. I honestly don't miss doing all that fancy darting in and out, not even on the Brompton. I ride calmly and as part of the traffic.

THey aren't for everyone, but few bike types are. The issue is that there aren't enough recumbent riders to make it viable for big manufacturers to make them in any number and because no one makes them in big numbers people don't know they exist and can't buy them. You want to buy a 'bent you pretty much have to know someone who has one or buy it sight unseen.

[vosadrian]

If you are a kerb jumper and like to slither through cars and tight ped only spaces then a 'bent isn't for you.

But you aren't a standard commuter. You are a particular skilled subset.

I've been commuting in Sydney traffic on a 'bent for over 10 years. If it's traffic such as the city then I take the 2 wheeler for the long mostly bike path and backroad trip to work these days it is the 3 wheeler.

but even in my MTB or drop bar days I wasn't a kerb hopper. Some of the riders on my commute route were, some were not.

The trike is no good for tight traffic, the 2 wheeler is fine. Yeah sometimes I have to stay with the traffic rather than wriggle through it, oh the horror! But I could do the 20km to North Sydney in reasonable time and very comfortably. I honestly don't miss doing all that fancy darting in and out, not even on the Brompton. I ride calmly and as part of the traffic.

THey aren't for everyone, but few bike types are. The issue is that there aren't enough recumbent riders to make it viable for big manufacturers to make them in any number and because no one makes them in big numbers people don't know they exist and can't buy them. You want to buy a 'bent you pretty much have to know someone who has one or buy it sight unseen.

I grew up on a BMX doing wheelies and bunny hops. When I started commuting I had these skills. I don't specifically seek out a route to use them, but I live in West Pennant Hills and commute to Norwest. This area has purposely segregated suburbs where the traffic is forced onto main roads and out of the back streets. As a result, there are lots of pedestrian paths at ends of dead end streets and between streets that pass close to each other and often have park land in between. Also, the main roads are busy and full of impatient drivers. I have the choice to either take the main roads or use the paths and back streets. I find the back roads more stress free and safer. Actually my preference is to take the M2, but that is closed to cyclists at the moment. My choice on a road bike is to take back streets and paths. On a bent it would be the main roads I think. When the M2 is open the bent would be fine.

It is something I will be giving consideration to over the next few years due to ongoing back/hip issues. I really like riding an upright road bike. I love jumping gutters and dodging through pedestrian barriers as quick as I can. It adds an element of fun to my commute when compared to when I go the M2 which is mainly for uninterrupted fitness training. Also, I am curious how a bent would fit in with group rides I love doing. Anyway, if my only way to continue riding with an aging body is to go bent, it is something I would be doing. Hopefully my body can work out its kinks!

I appreciate the lack of marketing channels for bents. It would be great for bent riders if they were more popular and more available. I think if they were integrated into some sort of well televised sport that they would become more popular. But I don't think the existing road racing sport that is widely watched internationally could do that without a drastic change to racing dynamics, and I think the only ones who want that are the bent riders which are a small minority of the paying viewing audience... and it is all about $$$!!!

[Philistine]

On the road they are too low, so harder for cars too see in traffic.....

There is a recumbenteer active in my area and I worry about his safety. I have seen him around on many occasions when I have been on a bike, but his image does not leap out at me the way those of other cyclists do, probably because he is below my eye line and so I am seeing him against a backdrop of the ground not the horizon. I have never seen him when out in my car, which, of course, could simply mean he has not been there to see.

[zebee]

On the road they are too low, so harder for cars too see in traffic.....

There is a recumbenteer active in my area and I worry about his safety. I have seen him around on many occasions when I have been on a bike, but his image does not leap out at me the way those of other cyclists do, probably because he is below my eye line and so I am seeing him against a backdrop of the ground not the horizon. I have never seen him when out in my car, which, of course, could simply mean he has not been there to see.

Before I fitted the H frame to the trike I noticed that drivers kept well clear of me. Because they saw me quite easily and then they didn't.. as their car bodywork got in the way. Which they didn't like, they didn't want to have to keep well away...

With the H frame and reflectors and the lights all over it at night if anyone can't see it they are not looking.

As for your guy if you aren't driving at the same times of day you are riding then it isn't surprising you don't see a trike. Because if he was there and you didn't see him then hand in your licence...

[OldBloke]

I, and other recumbent riders in my area, have found that cars give our recumbent trikes more room than they give upright bikes. I think recumbent invisibility is a furphy.

My 2c.

OB

[John Lewis]

I, and other recumbent riders in my area, have found that cars give our recumbent trikes more room than they give upright bikes. I think recumbent invisibility is a furphy.

My 2c.

OB

That has been my experience also. Pretty much always get full lane changes when riding trike but close pass on 2 wheel wedgie.
On 2 wheel bent also get plenty of room. Suspect it may be the different appearance that has something to do with it.

[Philistine]

As for your guy if you aren't driving at the same times of day you are riding then it isn't surprising you don't see a trike. Because if he was there and you didn't see him then hand in your licence...

I don't have any trouble seeing what is in front of me when I drive. What I am trying to get across is that I regularly drive alongside bike paths (paths I ride on and the recumbenteer rides on), and I have no trouble spotting cyclists on those paths in my peripheral vision. If the recumbenteer is on the bike path and I haven't seen him (which might or might not have happened), then you can take it to the bank that other motorists haven't seen him either. It might not matter anyway if he stays on the bike path (he doesn't) but it is just another fragment of information that recumbents are not as visible as upright bikes.

[skyblot]

I don’t have a problem with a sports governing body specifying what is and is not legal equipment for their sport. It is pretty much universal, from athletics to sailing and everything in between. But few other sports flow over into everyday life in the same manner as cycling. The UCI’s decision all those years ago (together with the marketing powers) has pretty much determined what the general population expects to see as a bicycle. Mountain bikes, town bikes, cruisers etc are simply variations on a theme.

What I would like to see the UCI create, is an “open” category for cycles. Something like two wheels, unfaired, human powered only. (The Human Powered Vehicle movement already have such rules and classes in place.) Let these open class bikes race in time trials, triathlon, endurance events and see where development goes. Teams and individuals will soon pick the best platform for the task.

[vosadrian]

I don’t have a problem with a sports governing body specifying what is and is not legal equipment for their sport. It is pretty much universal, from athletics to sailing and everything in between. But few other sports flow over into everyday life in the same manner as cycling. The UCI’s decision all those years ago (together with the marketing powers) has pretty much determined what the general population expects to see as a bicycle. Mountain bikes, town bikes, cruisers etc are simply variations on a theme.

What I would like to see the UCI create, is an “open” category for cycles. Something like two wheels, unfaired, human powered only. (The Human Powered Vehicle movement already have such rules and classes in place.) Let these open class bikes race in time trials, triathlon, endurance events and see where development goes. Teams and individuals will soon pick the best platform for the task.

At the end of the day, bike racing is about money. It needs to attract sponsors to pay for the whole show. The sponsors need to get value for money in exposure to as many people as possible. The sport is driven by trying to get as many people watching it as possible. The rules are moulded around this. People want to see sports where the athletes are on equal footing and the results are entertaining. Cycling is one of the only sports where there are many teams in the same race, and those teams can form alliances when they have a common goal. This is what captures the audience and attracts sponsorship.

IMHO, they could create this open class you request.... but it is unlikely it would attract enough viewers to appeal to sponsors and would be unsustainable. I too would be interested in the open class you suggest. I don't think the tactical side of racing would be as good, but it would be great to see the technology that would result from it.

[skyblot]

The average road bike rider has no idea what a difference a fast recumbent can make. Compare say a current TT bike with aerobars, aero helmet etc, it's (bike and rider) CdA (coefficient of Drag x Area) is about 0.23 sq meters (from Cycling Power Lab). My M5 highracer with lights, standard alum rims round spokes etc is 0.182.
At 45kmh, I need 268 watts. The TT bike is 325 watts. If I could produce 325 watts I would get a speed of 48.5 kmh, or an advantage of 4.8 minutes over a 50km TT.

If recumbents were optional on TT races, no team would pass up an advantage that size. And a pro-tour rider on a fast bent would be something else again! The current fast bent riders are exceptional athletes, but not the same class as pro tour riders....

But as you say, money talks, and sadly I can't see anything changing.