Wouldn't we have way better bikes if the UCI didn't

>>1058958
>Should we hate the UCI?
do you even need to ask

>I don't want to follow rules for competitive professional athletes when I'm out for a sunday ride
So don't

Why are freds so dumb?

UCI
CYCLING REGULATIONS
E0414
M
OUNTAIN
B
IKE
9
§ 7
Equipment
4.1.038
The use of radio links or other remote means of communication with riders is forbidden.
4.1.039
The use of tyres fitted with
metal spikes or screws is not permitted.
4.1.039
During MTB races no traditional road handlebars may be used.
bis
The handlebars extensions of a triathlon or time trial type are forbidden, but traditional
barends are authorized.
tl;dr- UCI don't fuck with MTBers so i don't hate them.
NB4 this turns into a road dick break thread

There's a reason why UCI has limits regarding bikes used for racing. If you aren't racing in UCI sanctioned races you don't have to follow those rules though.

>>1058981
I think the problem isn't the UCI or the rules, it is that bikes are marketed based on the races so the market limits itself by the rules when t has no reason to.

>>1058981
yes that's my argument, if the UCI didn't ban Z frames, Z frames would be commonplace in the market for US to buy and they'd be objectively way better bikes.

>>1058986
The market for bikes that don't conform to UCI rules is limited because people like to buy bikes that look like the ones the pros use.
You can still buy a Z-frame, or a recumbent, they are just less popular, so their numbers are lower, so they cost more.

>>1059045
...that's his point>>1059045

>>1059032
>>1059045
Since triathol is becoming more popular so are non uci legal bikes.
There has been a bunch of new Z frames lately

UCI regulations aren't all that bad. Without UCI weight limits we'd have no road disc brakes for instance.
Oh wait...

>>1058958
See, every sport has its share of arbitrary rules. Why is a soccer ball the way it is? Because that's the standard on which the game rests. It has to be a somewhat level playing field.

If you think about what a mess BB or wheel dimension standards are now, just think how bad they'd be if there wasn't a dominant design for a bicycle. Choice ain't free, you know?

That all said, I don't believe it's the UCI holding things together for the double diamond — it's just culture. Every idiot pleb knows how to ride a diamond frame and thinks 'bent bikes look weird. It's just regular old consumer market forces.

>>1059059
Really? Such as?

>>1058958
Z frames are only good for time trials.

Y frames are better for climbing and sprinting.

>>1059072
>freedom of choice ain't free, it gotta be litterd with z-frames and friction shifters

>>1058958
>Wouldn't we have way better bikes if the UCI didn't ban the Z shape and mandate double diamond?
No
>I don't give a fuck about racing but wouldn't we have cheap mass market Z frames?
No
>Should we hate the UCI?
Yes

>>1059320
this.

Who cares? Double diamond is supreme for all-around fun and capable bikes. You only deviate from it to optimize for gay flat-and-straight bullshit like being a trifag anyway.

>>1059083
Maybe not strictly Z shape, but theres the new Cervelo P5x, that one ugly Diamondback, Dimond Xpress and the Venum One for example

None of these are as aero as recumbents.

>>1059610
delet this

>>1058958
Just hate money instead. It is an artificial barrier to life.

>>1059098
XYZ frames when your in a rush

>>1058958
i am fine with the UCI stopping bike races from becoming a huge tech fight

imagine team sky not only having marginal gains but monumental gains

>>1059654
YYZ frames when your in Rush

>>1058972
You don't understand

UCI rules creates a huge market for bikes

Bike manufactures will only make bikes that are UCI compliant. Which stifles progress.

>>1059657
kek

>>1059909
>Bike manufactures will only make bikes that are UCI compliant.
Only an extremely tiny fraction of produced road bikes are UCI compliant.

>>1059909
Depends what you call progress. UCI rules are a significant contributor to the development of road disc brakes and aero features.

>>1059943
I would beg to differ. I would say the majority, especially the higher end, are UCI compliant.

In fact I propose a challenge, there are 74 road bikes on Chain Reaction Cycles and I want a list of at least 10 that couldn't be raced. If disc brakes are no longer UCI compliant then exclude those bikes, they were legal at one point at least.

>>1059951
>I rules are a significant contributor to the development of road disc brakes and aero features.

100% fucking false

They are only developing dick breaks now is because they are lifting the regs on them.

Progress was halted because of the ban

>>1058972
Point me to a good, modern, affordable road bike that isn't doulbe diamond

I like that it didn't make cycling a tech war.

Though it can looses some rules now.

>>1059954
Remove UCI weight limits and road disc brakes would disppear overnight from competition.

>>1060196
A disc bike only needs to weigh like 500-750g more than a rim brake bike, that's not the sort of weight that's going to win or lose you a race. It's not hard to get a race bike to or below the 6.8kg limit yet it's not unusual to see bikes 300-400g over that and there are even some guys that go closer to 700g over. Some of those will be because they don't care about the tiny advantage and others will be because they can't or don't want to go lower because of trade offs, so even if the limit was removed you probably wouldn't see a huge amount of bikes getting lighter.

Of course if disc brakes had no advantage then it would just be silly to have the extra weight, but they do and for some people those advantages would certainly justify the extra weight. If I had the choice of a 5kg rim brake bike or a 5.8kg disc bike I know which one I'd choose.

>A disc bike only needs to weigh like 500-750g more than a rim brake bike
That's comparing a super light cantilever next to a relatively heavy disc.

A light disc is at most 300 grams heavier.

>>1059989
>good
nice setup for a no true scotsman.

>>1060364
Are you comparing just the weight of the braking systems? I was including everything, the heavier wheels (the hub, plus they need more spokes for strength) and the frame and fork need to be about 200g heavier for strength.

File: 140714_JDB_Tri-5051-2-632x421.jpg (38KB, 632x421px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 632x421px

>>1058958
>Z Frames
Beam bikes won out in the end, so no, we probably wouldn't have any more Z frames today if the UCI hadn't banned them.

>>1060402
You can take weight off of the rim due to not needing a brake track, this allows for stronger and lighter rims.

>>1060433
I know, and that partly offsets the weight increase in other areas, but it's not going to negate it enough so that the weight increase is at most 300g.

>>1060433
for people who ride a lot but aren't pros disc brakes save them a fuck ton of money in the long run so that little extra weight is nothing compared to what you'd spend on new rims and wheel rebuilds, along with brake blocks.

File: Bugatti-PG-Bike-Ventum-tri-bike-8.jpg (87KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1200x800px

>>1060412
I take it back OP, $30,000 gets you your very own contemporary Z Frame!

>bikerumor.com/2017/04/03/two-bikes-to-turn-heads-wallets-inside-out/

>>1060735
I'm pretty sure you can commission a garbon frame from a qualified carbon fag for much less.

>>1060412
Y frames are also banned by the UCI.

The thing about Y frames is they're easier to engineer, you don't have to worry how the frame interacts with specific wheels, and they're considerably lighter, just a little heavier than a diamond (not the brand) frame.

>>1060735
>>1060739
That's a special edition one. They don't publish the weight, but the Lotus was heavier than many steel frames. The Z frame is structurally weak.

>>1060735
Should have replaced the chainrings and cassette with colored, smooth-edged disks. Chain is held on by magnets. Not like anyone will ever ride it anyway.