I understand why regulatory bodies exist in sport. In the simplest of terms they exist do ensure the safety of those racing and ensure that athletes are competing on a level playing field.
It seems however with the latest set of rules being set forth by the UCI that they’ve taken the “level playing field” a little too far.
Michael Robertson from Velodramatic puts forth an excellent analysis of the changes, but the highlight (or lowlights, in this case) in my opinion are:
- Approval times for technical drawing take 1 month
- Approval times for prototypes take 2 months
- After achieving approval from the UCI, the bike manufacturer must consult with the UCI on where the ‘official sticker’ should be placed
- Some parts going on the bikes are required to already be commonly available in the marketplace
- One-off bikes and components are specifically outlawed
Now, if you’re anything like me, you’ll be somewhere in between rolling your eyes and frothing at the mouth. I can’t think of a single sport where technology has been so blatantly restricted. We’re living in a world where technology is woven into the fibers of almost everything we do… For better or worse, but when it comes to sport – I think it’s for the better ;-)
There are some who muse that technology has the potential to provide an unfair advantage, but I think Mr. Robertson perfectly captures my feelings in this quote:
The world is now too small, science and technology too ubiquitous, and reverse-engineering too easy for any one company to possess a technological advantage sufficient to determine the outcome of the race.
In a similar way to car racing, technology is always going to play some part, and there will always need to be some need to place restrictions on technology – In my opinion, mainly for safety, but technology is part of racing, and it should be. To be completely honest, fans demand it. Just like the automotive industry, cycling relies on on the professionals for in depth research and development, stress testing and proving technologies long before the reach our bikes.
I encourage you to read the full article, but more importantly, where do you stand? Let technology reign? Or are you a purist, believing everybody should mount the same rig to truly level the playing field?
@ Ken,
This is interesting because like you suggest, I want to compare it to auto racing.
Though on the one hand, F1 is largely open to innovation, and prototype cars are raced all the time, on the other hand there is NASCAR, which limits the technology to a large degree.
I see the advantage of both situations, depending on what you want to see as a competitor, or spectator. F1 offers something different than NASCAR by introducing technology and equipment innovation, while NASCAR offers a more focused driver vs. driver testing ground. Both have value, and both are entertaining to me.
If in fact it is true that no level of innovation in cycling is going to solely change the outcome of a bike race, then I can’t see the importance of limiting technology in cycling. I mean, if cycling isn’t like F1 where the best bike wins, as it often is in F1 where the best car wins (not necessarily the driver), then what is the point in limiting the technology? It’s not to make it more like NASCAR, rider vs. rider, because by the sounds of it, even with possible technology advancements, it already is essentially NASCAR.
Now, I’ll have wait and see what others think about the impact of innovation and the impact of technology on a race scenario though. Reason being, I’m no authority, but I personally would have to assume a proprietary team technology advancement ‘could’ make a significant impact on the performance of a rider, and their race result.
I recently sat in on a talk given by one of the Trek engineers (formally from NASA – crazy!) at United Cycle’s Interbike, and he was talking about a small tweak they made to the shape of the frame directly behind the seat. Given their data, which I don’t recall completely, in a normal TT scenario, the improvement could be in the seconds, therefore a huge improvement in field placing. It was fascinating stuff. So yeah, without recalling the absolute details, I’d have to assume that technology innovations like this could still win a race – or at the very least, drastically improve a riders results if a team were able to keep it secret from their competitors until race day. Now of course, your quote is allowing for the assumption that given the level of communication, and information sharing, no one team would be able to solely take advantage of an advancement, and I can’t argue with that. It would be a hard thing to do. BUT not impossible.
Some valid points, and I sure like bike bling and enjoy new tech!
That said, I’ve been on both sides of the question, and can say the UCI isn’t as “evil” as it’s often assumed to be. But UCI rarely explains the reasons for their decisions. Or they do, but media doesn’t spread that word (which is a whole other discussion. Buy me a coffee sometime and we’ll chat.)
It’s important for the long term health of cycling that entry into the sport is affordable. It’s intimidating enough for a novice. If pro bikes are no-limit, yes, we racers will pony up for something close to what pros have, even if it’s $10K.
Then beginners think they have no chance – it isn’t even worth trying to compete against ‘us racers’ unless their bike also has electric shifting, weighs 13 lb, and costs over $10K- just to try out cycling or learn to race. The sport shrinks.
One reason UCI slows down technical change is so that the gap between the pro’s bike and the public’s stays small. Then racing is easy for an average person to enter, and fans can relate to the athletes because it’s closer to their own experience of riding, even if remotely so.
The impossible trick for UCI is to achieve a balance for amateur cyclists, manufacturers, fans, countries, commissaires, pro cyclists, and sponsors. We (like UCI) need to look at all the reasons for and against limits, and what the big-picture results would be. UCI have my sympathy. They must walk a very fine line between a whole lot of interests, where where no matter what they do, they look like the bad guy to someone, who will tell the world. But that’s the (human) nature of politics.
Hope this helps explain why cycling is this way, and why it might be a good thing after all.
@ Alan,
I’m glad you brought the ‘price point’ issue up, because all things being equal, the same thing happens in auto racing, especially F1. The teams with the most money don’t just have the best drivers, but also more importantly, the best cars, making it nearly impossible for a mid-level team to break into the upper ranks of the sport. If you can’t afford to develop a car that goes as fast, you simply won’t be as fast. So, yeah, to a degree, I can see this happening. If a team needs to have a stable of 10K + bikes to be competitive, it can get pretty expensive, never mind for a sole rider looking to race for personal reasons.
By putting, essentially, a cap on the technology of the bike, eliminating ‘prototype’ rigs, they have certainly leveled the playing field when it comes to gear, and the cost there of. But, as we know, that’s only one area where a team with deep pockets could set itself apart from the pack, and doesn’t address, payroll, training personnel, training equipment, travel and accommodations, medical resources, etc… that all also contribute to a team’s competitiveness – and without deep pockets, you can quickly be left behind.
It’s interesting for sure.
Thanks for the insight Alan… The UCI imposing limits on the speed of innovation to ensure a somewhat narrower margin between “consumer” and “pro” bikes, as well as bringing the entry point of the sport down is something that never occurred to me, and makes complete sense – I guess you learn something every day ;-)
Though I have no suggestions on how they do this, a longer term vision – and one that would please riders, manufacturers and us peasants – might be to outline a multi-year regulatory role out… Working closely with input from teams and manufacturers, to ensure that we have a safe, level playing field to compete in, but also acknowledge that the sport needs to move forward and embrace new technology, albeit in a measured fashion…
They’re probably already well ahead of us, and as you say Alan, there’s little transparency into what the UCI does, and what reasoning they offer is poorly circulated by the media.
You’re right on the money! Always follow the money.
Here’s a great example: what’s the average lifetime of a consumer’s new cyclocross-type bike?
Then I look at how many years between:
1) when manufacturers first put disc brakes on a production model CX bike, and
2) when UCI said discs were OK to race?
My guess is there’s a relationship there, and buyers were happier than they would have been if discs were allowed shortly after they bought a new canti CX bike. Wild, eh?