>Specialized made a concept bike that is literally named 'Fuck UCI'
http://www.ilovebicycling.com/specialized-fuci-bike-bike-of-the-future/
It has a motor because weakfag downtubers are too weak to accelerate with a 36" wheel though.
Pretty sure that's been around for a while.
And it's not a real Fuck UCI bike.
Anyone who knows about the history of bicycle racing knows UCI equipment regulations were originally intended to ban a bike they really felt had an unfair advantage.
The recumbent.
>>951387
Oh, you're the recumbent poster. Fuck off.
>>951387
>regulations were originally intended to ban a bike they really felt had an unfair advantage.The recumbent.
Well, recumbents really have an advantage when it comes to attracting homosexual riders, I'll give you that.
>>951387
lolwut
all you have to do is throw in a climb and everyone on a recumbent is fucked
anyway the FUCI is dumb as shit with exactly zero good ideas and plenty of terrible ones and makes me glad that the fucking UCI exists, which I previously thought was impossible
>>951422
UCI regulations were literally invented to ban recumbents
>>951384
The Italians did it 30 years ago.
>>951422
Recumbents aren't much heavier.
And as long as you go 20km/h it's going to have a significant advantage aerodynamically.
Besides the UCI states that a bike should be at least 6.8 kg and a recumbent can get to that minimum easily.
Overal average speed of the Tour de France is 25mph, at those speeds recumbents have a major advantage.
Most climbs are done at 12-14mph and at those speeds the aerodynamic advantage is already significant.
>>951427
The UCI existed for over three decades (and were preceded by the ICA in the late 19th century) before banning recumbents. They didn't spring into existence in 1934 solely to ban a certain kind of human-powered vehicle that's only worth a shit for TTs.
I know that bentfags have weird persecution complexes especially with respect to the UCI, but come on.
>>951433
UCI regulations retard. Not the UCI itself. You do realize UCI is a racing institution, right? UCI didn't have specific equipment regulations before then besides. They banned recumbents because recumbents were winning races.
Shame there's such a small market keeping the price high
They're a lot simpler than normal bikes
>>951432
Yes, that's why I continually get passed by recumbent riders on climbs and curvy descents and oh wait that never fucking happens. Recumbents are godawful for climbing and they stink at cornering because the rider can't shift his weight around. Plus, if you want dat aero, you're going to be slung back so that visibility is an issue, which makes riding in a paceline a bitch.
In racing, recumbents are good for riding in straight lines on flats and descents, and sometimes in velodromes. That's it.
>>951434
UCI regulations cover more than equipment, you goalpost moving pile of fucking trash. Besides, they had equipment regulations prior to 1 April 1934. What they did then was change the definition of bicycle to exclude recumbents. Do you think that they didn't have a definition of bicycle in 1900?
>>951436
I don't hate recumbents like most of /n/ seems to, but how is a drivetrain requiring a 2 m chainline with multiple crossovers simple in any measure of the word?
>>951437
>UCI regulations cover more than equipment, you goalpost moving pile of fucking trash.
No, not really besides general racing regulations.
>Do you think that they didn't have a definition of bicycle in 1900?
It had to be a bicycle. Two wheels, human powered. Wow, having to ride a bicycle for a bicycle race, that's really equipment regulations.
Dumb diamondposter.
>>951439
A long chain is simple.
It doesn't require a lot of parts.
It's basically 2 sticks for the frame and steering wheel.
Then another for the chair.
>>951437
The 1934 committee that banned recumbent was put together to come up with a definition of a bicycle. The intent of it was to create a definition that banned recumbents. Before then there was no UCI specific definition for bicycle besides the normal definition of a human propelled vehicle with two wheels.
>>951439
>2 m chainline
The chainline is the same as a normal bike. The effective chainstay length is much longer. It only has that single additional idler wheel, with two slots. You could make it have no crossover if you had two idlers. The single idler with crossover is there to increase simplicity, even though it doesn't look simpler.
>>951441
Technically it requires hundreds of parts.
>>951437
Who are you and who are those recumbent riders?
You could be Armstrong for all I care and they could be recreational chubsters.
>>951445
>Technically it requires hundreds of parts
Counting the chain as a few hundred parts I imagine?
A frame of a normal bike is a lot more complex and requires a lot more welding.
FWD bents climb great but you're fucked if there's gravel or the road is slippery from wet leaves.
They should just allow teams to pick either a recumbent or an upright bike so this debate can just end.
Wow, recumfag is at full swing.
Please, answer just this simple question:
If recumbents are inherently more efficient in a road bike course, why aren't they used in non-UCI compliant events? Or even in amateur races. Those riders spend thousands on bikes, so they could easily get a high-end recumbent. Why aren't they doing just that, and smoking everyone on the courses?
>>951458
>non-UCI compliant events?
Still banned in tri
>Or even in amateur races
Still banned by all national cycling leagues
>Why aren't they doing just that, and smoking everyone on the courses?
Because they're only allowed in HPV races, and some non-competitive events.
>>951462
>they're only allowed in HPV races, and some non-competitive events.
They're allowed in most non-competitive events, yet people choose not to ride them. Please, do answer why.
>>951478
Social pressure, ignorance, high price
I've ridden a bent once in a race and the amount of attention you get is not very nice I think.
>>951451
There's really no debate. Recumbents are considerably faster, and that's why they're banned. If they allowed them, it would turn into a recumbent racing league, which is not what anyone wants except recumbent riders. Descents would be scary fast. Probably some people would die.
>>951436
>>951441
wut
The frame construction may appear "simpler" than a normal diamond-frame, but who the hell cares about that? They have exactly the same number of moving parts (two hubs, a freewheel, derailleurs, bottom bracket, headset, brakes, yada yada yada).
Every moving-part touchpoint that exists on on a normal bike exists on a recumbant and has exactly the same maintenance needs.
And then you've got a gonzo-long chain with idlers and bullshit, so actually slightly more moving parts.
I'm not hating on recumbants, but I'm sorry, calling them *simpler* than normal bikes is either simply misguided or intentionally dishonest.
>>951505
Not an excuse. If they were so much better, I'd expect to see them all the time at judgement-free endurance events like the Tour Divide or Trans-Iowa.
>>951505
only on a flat TT without too many corners
recumbents cant climb, cant turn, have shit visibility so bunch riding is useless and dangerous.
>>951523
Sounds like they would be excellent for touring.
>>951523
I tried a recumbent once. The only thing I really agree with you there is that they can't turn for shit...at low speed. Once I got going it felt about the same to me.
>>951458
Shits needlessly expensive and a pain in the ass to ship would be why I wouldn't run one. I see a lot more people touring with them these days though.
>>951431
Any idea where I could get one of those front fairings? I have a huge hard on for antiquarian bike tech
>>951432
>And as long as you go 20km/h it's going to have a significant advantage aerodynamically.
Good luck maintaining 20km/h up a steep mountain pass on a recumbent, faggot.
>Overal average speed of the Tour de France is 25mph
No, it's 26mph.
>at those speeds recumbents have a major advantage.
It's also cheating.
>Most climbs are done at 12-14mph and at those speeds the aerodynamic advantage is already significant.
You said it has to be 20km/h. 12mph is less than 20km/h. Faggot.
>>951436
No they're not simpler, they're fucking retarded downtubing shit. Look at how "simple" that drive train is faggot.
>>951447
>Counting the chain as a few hundred parts I imagine?
Obviously, that's what ge blatantly said dumbass.
>frame
Only simpler for frame welders, for all other purposes such as assembly and maintenance recumbents are complicated and fucking shit tier you fucking downtube.
>>951486
Most people like attention faggot, you are just disproving your point
>>951517
>bentfag downtuber doesn't even have a response to this
REKT
>>951387
>The recumbent.
I wouldn't ride anything with CUM in their name.
>>951478
Because if you're riding in a non-competitive event, why do you need a competitive advantage?
>>951565
CUM on THIS
>>951523
As someone who owned a bent, I have to interject. I had an FWD ultra-lowracer ( 20cm of seat height, very reclined position )
>recumbents cant climb
kind of. They are slower, about 10-15% after the initial training break in. Bents are tits in headwinds tho. Moreover - low racers are downright scary on downhills. Those fuckers are so aero, that they accelerate to 70+ km/h in several seconds. My coasting speed on a particular climb I ride on a road bike is about ~50km/h - for more then that I need to pedal. I never checked on a bent, because I got scared at 80km/h.
>cant turn
There are literally hundreads of designs. Some turn well, some turn like an elongated semi-trailer.
>have shit visibility
Wrong. They have superb visibility for the rider ( you are looking forward, not at your front tyre ) and I never felt safer then on a bent. Drivers gave me SOOOOOO much space when overtaking me, and usually slowed down. That is what you get for being a freak.
> so bunch riding is useless and dangerous.
Does not seem to be a problem like, anywhere where bents are quite popular.
It seems a recumbent would be very comfy way to get to work. There is a well thought out bike infrastructure here so I never have to share lanes with cagers so fuck visibility. How are they on snow and ice and are they actually like sitting in a nice couch when biking to work? I'm aware that getting one would turn me into a complete weirdo like the other two guys at work that ride recumbents.
>>951573
T R I K E
R
I
K
E
muh dick
>>951571
Not any of the others but
A) this looks uncomfortable as shit
And
B) holy shit these things are ugly
>>951777
Oops forgot pic
>>951778
They're not all reclined that far, but that doesn't look uncomfortable at all if his neck and head are supported.
>>951584
>fred on red trike
How dare you besmirch Sheldon's name like that.
>>951789
This looks comfy as fuck with good visibility.
>>951791
no, no it doesnt. try it, lean forward and backwards, see which one is harder to keep your eyes on the horizon,
>>951793
Forwards.
It's much easier for me to watch TV on a recliner chair 45 degrees backwards, than me looking up at a computer screen hunched over 45 degrees with my elbows on the desk. Easier on the neck too.
>>951571
you can look forward on an upright bike, you just have to have a functional spine and you're gtg
and you seriously can't tell me that fucko here >>951778 has great forward visibility
>>951791
for flats and rollers and really long distance riding, this sort of recumbent is nice. i'll pass guys like these on climbs all day long, but they make it back and then some later on when everything flattens out or the climbs are really short.
i'll still never buy one tho
>>951800
Having been on a bent Like that one, his field of view is fine. It seems like most people who bring that up have never ridden one.
>>951800
>you can look forward on an upright bike, you just have to have a functional spine and you're gtg
I know. I have 3 uprights. Field of view on an upright is forward and down, with down as a dominant direction. On a bent it is forward and up with forward as dominant direction.
Looking forward on an upright requires some effort.
>and you seriously can't tell me that fucko here >>951778 has great forward visibility
It's a pretty extreme example, as this seems to be a racing machine ( a so called high-racer), but I'd hazard to say that it is pretty good. It has a neck rest and with natural tendency to look slightly downward, I'd say its fine. Overwhelming majority of bents don't recline so much.
>>951384
The crank exposed like this fuckin ruin it for me.
>bents can't be simpler.
>>951557
>You said it has to be 20km/h. 12mph is less than 20km/h. Faggot.
>nitpicking on 0.7 km/h
>>951869
You can safely ignore any retard who says anything about a downtube without refering to a piece of frame tubing. The poster might as well tripfag as sieg.
>what if i told you the downtube troll _is_ sieg
>>951865
unridable
>>951886
It looks like it has a gear in the wheel itself.
Also what does the UCI think of pic related?
>>951887
Thanks, now my head hurts. What is that?
>>951888
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4PAzalfpww
A compound bow turned into a bike
>>951889
the rule that the power is transfered only by the legs of the cyclist and in a circular movement seems to be observed so maybe it would be UCI (il)legal ?
But i don't see how this is supposed to be better than the usual technique. Simpler is better when it's about transmiting energy efficiently.
>>951889
I love how the fron QR spins with the wheel. Seriously, what advantage does this contraption purport to offer?
>>951797
>Watching TV is the same as keeping your eyes on the horizon
THE CURRENT YEAR PEOPLE
>>951910
Yes, in the current year it is easier to look forward from a reclined position than from a hunched position.
This was also true in the year before. And the year before that as well. I would have to check, but I think this can be said to be true for all years before that.
Look, if you don't ride bents and think they are ugly, well, so be it. But please stop claiming universal truth for your opinion, because you sound like an ignorant idiot.
>>951910
What, you don't set your TV horizontally on a flat surface? The guy's analogy is about right. On an upright bike your head is naturally pointing down unless you're 1- actively fighting gravity or 2- using a very upright seating position.
>>951932
forward/down, with down being the major direction*
>>951384
>It has a motor
Then it's just a shitty motorcycle and no longer a bicycle.
>>951941
Protip: A motorcycle is a motorized bicycle.
Downtube.
>>951432
>>951557
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
>Indicating division by any means other than a horizontal line, a solidus (oblique stroke, /) or negative exponents
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
Even 'slow bicycle races' travel orders of magnitude faster than the latter two speeds you specified.
>>951571
>No space between the number and the unit symbol
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
>>951869
>Implying nonsense values of SI prefixes
Please re-read the SI Brochure.
>>951887
>1.3.006
>The bicycle is a vehicle with two wheels of equal diameter. The front wheel shall be steerable; the rear wheel shall be driven through a system comprising pedals and a chain.
Apologies for the double spacing, just the UCI being fuck-ups as usual.
>>953987
>Even 'slow bicycle races' travel orders of magnitude faster than the latter two speeds you specified.
No they don't fucking dumbass.
>>953989
you fell for it
>>953987
This guy is being such an asshole it makes me want to start using Imperial, just spite him. Hm, i wonder if that is actually his intention? Is he actually a master troll?
sage
>>951478
They have about as much style as a tricycle
>>954728
Low slung tadpole trikes are hella stylish.
>>953989
They absolutely do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=865B1Dmr94E
