UCI hate thread

>>1059322
>giving a shit about racing

not like i raced and they screwed me with some trophy or somethin.

fuck it, ill just continue hating the system with people starving to death, stupid wars and not basic health shit for everyone.

just ride your bike

>>1059322
>being this butthurt over something that has precisely ZERO impact on your actual life
You could get a 1 hour head start on a 50 mile course and still have the lowliest, slowest pro on the UCI tour beat you so bad that he'd be showered, dressed, and on his 3rd beer by the time you finished. What the fuck do you even care what the UCI ruling body does? Just watch the goddamned races and be happy there's bike racing to even watch.
>calls others 'freds'
>isn't even as fast as a 'fred'

This isn't /n/ related

>>1059409
I would take about 2.5 hours to do that course (assuming I am riding solo with no one to draft), so you're saying that he would ride about 50mph for an hour? ok

>>1059422
Fuck off nigger fuck

File: mtbdrop.jpg (258KB, 970x546px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 970x546px

If UCI allowed drops on mountain bikes would anyone use them? I'm a bar end fag but these look fun.

>>1059542
Yeah? Any time you're affected by wind resistance and don't need to leverage or fine control that flat bars give you you'd benefit from being in some hypothetical drops.

You'll see the guy on the head of the peloton on a long tarmac stretch between more off road terrain in an aero position with his hands on the the fork crown sometimes and the option of positions in between that and the bars would be very useful.

File: tomac.jpg (93KB, 500x341px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x341px

>>1059542

>>1059542
In cross country races on very easy courses probably, outside of that no

File: Todd_DeAngelis_leading_Joey_Peterson_Circa_85-86.jpg (42KB, 802x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 802x500px

>>1059542
Drop bar mtbs had their moment in the late 80's, the problem with drops is that to really take advantage of their shape you end up moving your center of gravity further forwards than where it would end up with flat bars, and this is less than ideal for climbing technical sections (limits your ability to raise the front wheel) and descending steep sections (limits how steep of a rough trail you can descend without getting tossed over the bars when the rear wheel hits a bump).

* - it should be noted that many older mountain bikes suck for really technical riding for the same exact reason, the bars are just too far forwards

>>1059548
>chrome molly
sides, etc.

File: 1469266484629.png (423KB, 1016x698px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1016x698px

>>1059322
I thought you were talking about UC Irvine at first.

Fitting, since it's literally "suburban sprawl - the university campus - the movie"

Should we maybe create our own /n/ standards of what counts as a bike and what doesn't to use as this board's rules rather than looking to the UCI?

>>1061763
Yes. These are now the official rules of /n/:

NOT bikes:
>e-"""bikes"""
>recumbent """bikes"""
>three-wheeled """bikes"""
>department store """bikes"""

Faggot-tier bikes but still bikes:
>BMX bikes
>fixies
>cruisers
>hybrids with suspension forks

Good bikes:
>normal road bikes
>normal mountain bikes
>normal touring bikes
>normal cyclocross bikes
>rigid hybrids
>fat bikes (yes they're a meme when used on pavement etc, but they have legitimate uses like snow and deserts)

>>1061847
Oh and expansion to good bikes:
>cargo bikes

>>1061847
Replace cruisers with fatbikes and it's perfect

>>1061863
Fat bikes used as everyday bikes (standard commuter bikes, mountain bikes, etc) are faggot-tier, but fat bikes used for legitimate fat bike purposes (snow, sand) are good tier.

>>1061847
i understand your classifications, but i think you havent really understood bmx, not that i care what you think, but who knows.its just so beautiful, and like the total opposite of road bikes. i do both btw.
if you have never rode one (beeing close to the grund and the control you have is mind blowing), nor know how to bunny hop high and stuff you prob wont get it though.

>>1061847
>official rules of /n/:
>NOT bikes:
>department store """bikes"""
Yeah, fuck off faggot, you sound like a spoiled kid.

>>1061884
>implying a rigid 90s mountain bike is more expensive than a department store """bike"""
Fuck off

>>1061897
>"""bike"""
You keep sounding like a faggot.