I don't really know how many times it has to be said that Britain's RTTC ban in 1938 (which lasted effectively just two years) on maker's names being clearly shown in photographs had no effect on frame design in the UK. Most of the funnies (Hetchins, Bates, Baines, Sun Manx, Saxon SWB, Moorson etc etc) had already been designed and built prior to this and the ones that came after were not aimed at time triallists (Paris Galibier, Sun Manxman TT road racers, Thanet Silverlight tourists). It is a myth that needs to be killed once and for all. Similarly road racing had occurred in Britain pretty frequently during the 1930s on motor racing circuits and airfields and with the formation of the the BLRC in 1942 took off on public roads in a big way from the 40s on. Would the same be said of France (Jacques Anquetil) or Spain (Miguel Indurain) who produced two of the very best time triallists there ever has been? Time trialling has continued in Britain to be a great sport in the most part because any rider could ride a TT and compete against their own best times rather than have to be really pretty fit for road racing. Out of this tradition has come of course some pretty good TTers over the years. But Verbruggen is simply trying to hold back progress. If the UCI had, had a considerable amount more foresight in the 1930s recumbents would probably play a much larger part in bicycle design and usage. I don't think they would dominate the sport but there would be a much greater variety of bicycles in useage today and some would fit their tasks that much better. Is Verbruggen really suggesting that we go back to solid tyred Ordinaries? For if he had been around in the 1890s both pneumatic tyres and the diamond frame would have been banned as offering too many advantages. The UCI might be wanting to reduce costs by their ill thought attempt at keeping bicycle technology in the last century but the practice is the very opposite. Hotta's new perimeter carbon frame is considerably more expensive than their old monococque frame which also was a better performer. So what you are getting is worse value for money. Does that make sense? And if we are to really encourage cycling don't we want it to have a glamorous feel? Then perhaps cycling won't be seen as a second class sport which it is in most English speaking countries. Hilary Stone
Jerry Moos wrote:
> It's probably because I'm a stodgy old retrogrouch, but despite his
considerable
> other faults, particularly his handling of doping problems, I support what
Hein
> Verbruggen is doing in standardizing bike design and refocusing competition on
the
> athlete. I think maybe UCI is wiser in this regard than the federations for
skiing
> ans skating. As to toboggan, motorcycle racing and car racing, those are not
> athletic sports in the same sense as cycling and skating, and the equipment in
> motorsport has always been half or more of the point. Don't forget that the
FIA is
> constantly changing the formula for Formula 1 to try to slow down the cars and
make
> them less expensive - it's just that the designers alway seem more ingenious
than
> the FIA. And sometimes restrictive regulations in cycling can lead to
innovations
> as well. If the established stories are to be believed (though Hilary has
> expressed some skepticism about them, I believe) the pre-WWII ban on
manufacturers'
> names on racing bikes led to many of the marvelous British unconventional
frame
> designs, and with greater certainty the longtime British ban on massed start
racing
> led to the incredible strength of time trialing in UK, to which Boardman is
heir.
>
> Regards,