- Does it have washing machine bearings?
I guess it makes a lot of sense. Isn’t the most un aerodynamic part of the body the feet which is why they have to measure the length of the socks.
Hope have been able to build everything from scratch thanks to their factory in Barnoldswick and a lack of boundaries thanks to zero history in track bike design.
I can imaging a lot of the big brands being resistant to change as it will affect future bike sales.
How long before planet x have one on the market? They are usually one of the first to adopt ideas and are not worried about being accused using an idea for inspiration 😉Posted 1 month agonickcSubscriber
with the goal of channelling air more efficiently around the rider’s legs.
While I can appreciate the science and design and technology* the UCI time and again have said that what they’re ultimately interested in is “human endeavour” and that’s (to my mind at least) is to be applauded. The UK dominates indoor cycling because it’s a rich country that can throw money at it, and this is the end result of that, like F1; eeking out the tiniest of margins and scouring the technical manuals for gaps. I’m partly convinced that this sort of thing promotes and condones the back-door use of PED for riders, as part of the “marginal gains” toss that’s being revealed slowly in the road biking side to be a cover for all sorts of shady goings-on that it always probably has been, and I’m pretty sure the track side will slowly fall apart as well.
*The modern record breaking in most sports is pretty much always down to the technology available, from shoes, to track surface to specialised clothes to this sort of bike. take away those things and we’re not progressing much at all.
…I need coffeePosted 1 month agoisooSubscriber
While I can appreciate the science and design and technology* the UCI time and again have said that what they’re ultimately interested in is “human endeavour” and that’s (to my mind at least) is to be applauded.
This is what I think when I see those “****************** UCI stifling creativity and progress!” -things cropping up on some cycling forums. It’s great that the races are not decided by engineers, all glory to them.
Ideal for a super niche fat track bike
I did post this a few days ago somewhere, but here it goes again:
More than ten years ahead it’s time.Posted 1 month ago
Surely that rule could be complied with by having wide hubs and axles.
The uci tech regs already have those in place with a maximum axle width front and rear. What hope/lotus have done is create an airflow disruptive around the cyclists legs by widening the forks and to a lesser extent, seat stays. My simple amendment will be forthcoming after the Olympics.
They can’t make it retrospective for 2020 and the frame is in compliance with current regulations, been used for competition and available to the public. So it’s going to Tokyo. I predict that will be the end of the road, as the loophole will then be closed.Posted 1 month agoedhornbySubscriber
Bikes now have to be approved by the UCI so we wouldn’t be seeing the design if it didn’t have the sticker. However the position of the rider on the bike and the suit/helmet/socks/shoes they wear is a bigger gain so I would imagine having the bike custom built for the rider is as much of a gain as the airflow around the leg. It’s not fast if you can’t get the power out.Posted 1 month agoepicycloSubscriber
I’m concerned that epicylo is braking future rules there by decreasing the airflow interference of the knobblies or even gaining an advantage by squeezing the airflow through that gap and there by gaining some form of unseen ram jet effect. See Bernoulli effect.
Don’t worry, the UCI are already on to me.
I think that’s why my entry for this years Olympics was rejected… 🙂Posted 1 month ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.