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".
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...