Whatever next and aeroplane ?

Firstly. I think there should be a change in the way the rules are written, English should be the "master" laguage and the French rules interpereted from it, not French priority as it now is. This is (IMHO) a part of the problem.

Since the 1930s English has become the world language for engineering and legal matters, Before that time French was always the language of diplomacy (German for sci/tech) nowadays French can seem vague in comparison to English. For instance the French use of "should" in the UCI regs means "must" but in the English regs. "should" is written (which, to me, can be interpreted as strongly suggest, recommend or even hopefully, as well as must).

Secondly. Since the 80s cycling has allowed "two-levels" in bikes [sorry about that :-)] Normal & Time Trial. In no other wheeled sport do I see the use of different machines to race. For instance, Formula 1 cars can be tweaked to do qualification but it is the same car that does the race (same for motorbikes). The root problem is that the UCI allowed Aero-bars and TT bikes to run wild. Not since "Aeroism" started in the 80s has the UCI actually said "stop! - this is getting silly now". I fail to see how this can be controlled as long as the UCI attempt to play with the tech specs to attempt to keep bikes safe, when in actual fact it, the reason why the rules are a mess is that special TT bikes are sanctioned even though they are not really "usable" or "marketable" to the vast majority of cyclist.

The simple answer, ban TT bikes and aero-bars. Level the playing field make people ride bikes not parts of stealth aircraft wearing "Alien" helmets. Stop the current chaos in it's tracks and allow technical development to grow in other directions...

what other directions? it seems tt bike frames & setups have reached the absolute peak tech stuff with using the usual diamond shape. id say bring back the y frame and leave it at that.

More retardedness from the UCI, when are they going to stop interfering with the development of bicycles? The UCI will only be happy when we are on 4 rear speed setups on a single chainring. Retards.

Nah. I think the technology brings in an extra dimension to the "team effort" (and cycling is a team sport isn't it!), I think bling gear is part of the show, I don't think you can really stop it (if you ban something, all you do is focus the brains elsewhere), and I think, if you try too hard, ultimately you look silly.

Case in point: some rouleur dude once said something like "isn't it better to triumph through sheer muscle power than through the artifice of a deraillieur?"

In which case, sir, you should really insist on running. Barefoot.

Bring back Lotus!

Rules for rules' sake yet again. Ref Graeme Obree and the UCI's repeated efforts to thwart his development of riding position. It's a bit like Animal Farm where they appear to make up the rules as they go along. Obree as I recall had to borrow a saddle from a child's BMX in a hurry when they changed the rules just prior to one of his rides; he had a saddle with no nose and they didn't like that.

How did Obree's original saddle smell?

Sadly you can't have de-regulated bike races, there has to be some checks-and-balances to ensure that the results of the events have some meaning. Unless someone is checking, there will be a technological free-for-all which destroys the point of racing because it would not be the best trained athlete with (barring accidents/illness) the best startegy, support and equipment that would win.

The question is when does money and technology displace the talent of the rider. F1 is about the technology, you need a good driver but the car matters far more, as this season proves.

Cycling is about the rider, they are not just a guidance system and ballast but the engine too and the most complex part of bike racing. TT bikes are a distraction, Fabian Cancellara would almost certainly still dominate time trails but he'd just do it on a normal bike.

Re-setting the regulatioins is not a backward step, it would just tidy-up the overly complicated rules and making cycling more meaningful and engaging to joe-bloggs in the street.

Watching the TT in Annecy at the moment makes me realise how far removed from it's roots time trialling has become. The "race of truth" doesn't show who is the fastest time-trialist and strongest rider, just who has the best technology and the most money.

@igamogam

Rubbish are Contador and Arstrong not on the same bikes? Yet different times, truth is the technology would accelerate to the point of smaller and smaller improvements after a period.

How does it engage Joe Bloggs on the street? By providing a method of transport that the UCI does not want evolving past 1994? F1 and MotoGP have followings because they represent the pinnacle of technology that filters down to every motor vehicles whereas cycling has a governing body made up of Luddites and Tolpuddle martyrs.

By having no rules on bike design would we not excite public imagination with wild shapes and advances in speed, or perhaps we should all be riding fixed wheel eh?

@ Grazza82

In answer to your question, Awful :)

Where do rules to stop cheating end and rules to stop technology beating a better rider begin.

At what point does making bikes faster stop them being a bikes and becoming motorbikes (1 Km/ faster with aerodynamics or 1 Km/h with a motor, same difference!?).

F1 & MotoGP share most of the materials technology with cycling, that would never change but I'd hate to see races won on who has the best diffuser, that's where it's heading.

It's about the rider, not the other stuff, Joe-Blogs doesn't care about the "diffuser" if he knows how hard it is to do 50 Km/h or climb a big col on a bike...

It's not just these TT bike regs that are ridiculous. The rule regarding the saddle nose being 5cm behind the vertical line through the centre of the BB clearly discriminates against shorter riders (I'm 160cm and there is no way that I can possibly achieve that yet someone like Maggie can probably get 50cm!) and so there are the morphological exemption rules (which most UCI officials probably aren't familiar with), whilst the rule regarding overall length of the bike in front of the BB is a problem for tall riders (again, look at Maggie in a TT and see how cramped he looks).

Then there is the 6.8kg minimum weight rule which is clearly arbitrary and out-dated. Its dead easy to build a strong stiff bike below this weight. The limit does nothing for safety (the original reason for introduction) so they should scrap this and introduce a "TUV" type approval ie stress test to failure.

It's about time the UCI joined the rest of us in the 21st century.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it is human propelled and on two wheels it should be legal. Let the engineers do their job and the athletes propell the bike, it can't really be simpler than that and it adds a layer of competition (between bike manufacturers)

Or if they really want to restrict it, forget TT bikes altogether. One bike per racer for the whole race (whether it's a stage race or not). This also adds a layer of competition as you have to choose your bike wisely.

I just cant see any REAL reason for the UCI to want to do this other than intentionally limit progress...its crazy. For me its half the reason I watch the Tour De France, the technologies and advancements its sets the scene for us normal folks in years to come and creates hype. It almost feels like the anti-fun cops have stepped in and ballzed everything up! booooo I say.