Bike Crime?

FarEast

FarEast

Maximum Pace
#4
May 25, 2009
5,528
538
193
Yokohama
#4
And this good Sirs is why the UCI bike regulations exist!
 
kiwisimon

kiwisimon

Maximum Pace
#6
Dec 14, 2006
2,707
530
133
Japan
#6
FarEast said:
And this good Sirs is why the UCI bike regulations exist!
Click to expand...
Gotta disagree.

:mad: The UCI is more about maintaining revenue flow for its bloated nepotistic body than about anything else. Just as they can blindly look the other way while everyone is doping and even attempt to bury positive results from it's biggest cash cow, Lance Armstrong, there is nothing credible in it's arbitrary decision making. The Zipp 2001 and 3001 were not unsafe. What they did was thresaten the status quo, as as such were seen as a threat to the "integrity" of cycling. What a joke and blatant display of hypocrisy: new designs no , doping wink wink. Which is m,ore harmful to the "integrity of the sport? How many fans , yes real fans have given up interest in procycling and as a result have led major sponsors to pull the plug?

The Zipp frames were very effecient at long straight flatcourse time trialing and un drafted triathlons again on long flat and relatively straight courses. For road cycling they proved to be; heavy, flexy and unresponsive. The UCI had nothing to fear from this style of frame other than the income stream from traditional bike makers. Just as in banning Obrees "Old Faithful" bike the UCI has instead stopped major development of the industry dead more often than not.



The UCI would have in the day banned JK Starley's safety as being untraditional. Nevermind that it is now the "standard".

End of rant.:)

Happy yuletide all.
 
ProRaceMechanic

ProRaceMechanic

Maximum Pace
#7
Dec 31, 2009
906
87
48
Matsumoto
#7
I would rock that piece! Isn't it just a Softride with a paint job? I am surprised I haven't seen one on the bike polo court
 
FarEast

FarEast

Maximum Pace
#8
May 25, 2009
5,528
538
193
Yokohama
#8
Kiwisimon - I was extracting the urine.
 
stanc

stanc

Maximum Pace
#12
Sep 4, 2011
255
41
58
Brighton
#12
Another thing. Although its a 1992 bike it's got 2001 on the frame to make it look futuristic. Doesnt that seem odd now.
 
GSAstuto

GSAstuto

Maximum Pace
#14
Oct 11, 2009
945
242
103
tokyo
www.roadfixie.com
#14
I love this bike! A true Neanderthal in the evolution (or not) of cycling. There is so much right and wrong with this bike! I think it's anyone's guess what the UCI regulations are for except to satisfy a bunch of old men in blue who happily take bribes to continue the sham of 'regulation enforcement' they are supposed to be doing - and continually steering the industry and sport towards their internal 'favorite sons' . On the otherhand, without some sort of regulating body, the sport would suffer similarly to allowing stock cars to compete alongside of F1's at Monaco. There is some benefit to enforcing consistency within competition - at least in terms of equipment. Now, if that only held true for the engine...
 
GSAstuto

GSAstuto

Maximum Pace
#18
Oct 11, 2009
945
242
103
tokyo
www.roadfixie.com
#18
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom