Brandon Ives wrote:
>The UCI has never been known for logic on its rulings, or even
>thinking for that matter. I was just yesterday reading an article
>on recumbent racing in the 30s in the pro ranks. The UCI and most
>other governing bodies for bicycle racing just seem to fear designs
>outside of a very narrow norm.
>best,
There's a fundamental philosophical question of "what is the purpose of racing."
One answer is that is a way to improve the technology.
Another answer is that it is to compare the skill and strength of athletes.
Each of these points of view is legitimate.
Different governing bodies favor one over the other, but most organized sports governing bodies favor the latter, i.e. that it should be a contest of athletes, not of inventors.
The IHPVA falls into the first camp; the UCI falls into the second camp.
The UCI's position is not very different from that of governing bodies in other organized sports.
All sports that involve equipment have regulations designed to minimize the effect of equipment differences. Fencers all have to use swords of the same length; baseball players aren't allowed to cork their bats; car racers have limitations on engine size; racing sailboats have requirements for waterline, displacement, sail area...
Sheldon "Why?" Brown
--
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com
Useful articles about bicycles and cycling
http://sheldonbrown.com