You can have a bicycle race without cyclists; you can't have one without technology. Technology is playing a dominating role.
I tend to suspect that jdietrich didn't mean to include things like metallurgy, rubber, and gears under the umbrella of "technology", but there is no actual line between the use of gears and the use of motors.
There's a very clear line in this case. Cycling is a human powered sport. Battery, gasoline, nuclear, and other power sources are not allowed. This is why mopeds are not allowed. Also prohibited is temporary power storage like a capacitor or spring, which might be used for regenerative braking.
You can put all the motors you want on your bike (IMHO) so long as you don't energize them.
Only a specific set of technology is allowed in a bike race. Under UCI rules, cyclist aren't allowed to use aeroshells, and recumbent bicycles are also prohibited, even though both are much more "similar" to a bicycle than your proposed monkey with a walking stick.
The rules attempt to describe the ineffable concept of what it means to be a "bicycle race". They are meant to encapsulate a mass consensus based on tradition and expectations, including the idea of how to balance "human" and "technology". The rules must also face the challenge of changes in technology, and ever-present rules lawyering. The Lugano charter, mentioned earlier, tries to capture and influence that mass consensus.
There are different interpretations of what a "bicycle race" means, which is why there are different rules organizations. If you want to run a race which allows a monkey with a walking stick to compete, feel free!
That attitude partly explains the historical prevalence of doping. There was no honour in using drugs to win a race, but there was no dishonour in using drugs just to get through a tour. Nobody minded very much if a domestique took a few pep pills. Doping only really became a major issue after the Festina affair, when it transpired that leading riders from a successful team were systematically doping to win races.
Doesn't a derailleur have to have a spring in it? And any chain will have a certain amount of tension that allows it to store a (small) amount of energy. Heck, even standing up on the pedals is a way of storing energy to use later.
> Only a specific set of technology is allowed in a bike race. Under UCI rules, cyclist aren't allowed to use aeroshells, and recumbent bicycles are also prohibited, even though both are much more "similar" to a bicycle than your proposed monkey with a walking stick.
This makes me sad. Is there a formula/series that allows any kind of purely human-powered vehicle, whether it looks like a traditional bicycle or not? I'd love to watch that.
Indeed, a lot of them now have batteries and electric motors. I was surprised how easily electronic shifting was allowed into the sport.
So yes, many pro-racing bikes already have battery power, even though it's not directly driving the bike. It could be argued that some kind of KERS would be a natural evolution of this.
http://www.ihpva.org/ http://www.bhpc.org.uk/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR9Nykvp_-I
Even "purely human-powered vehicle" is suspect to rules lawyering. Rompelberg cycled at 268.8 km, in the wake of a dragster pace-car. Would your hypothetical race allow that, given that the vehicle is still human powered?
The dragster wouldn't be allowed on the course - that seems easy enough to rule out.
> Under UCI rules, cyclist aren't allowed to use aeroshells, and recumbent bicycles are also prohibited, even though both are much more "similar" to a bicycle than your proposed monkey with a walking stick.
> If you want to run a race which allows a monkey with a walking stick to compete, feel free!
Consider reading my comment before you respond to it. If you want to argue that bicycles are more similar to bicycles than they are to walking sticks... that was most of the point of my comment, too.
More, it just illustrates my point that it is nonsensical to claim that "technology is not allowed to play a dominant role" in cycling. All of those rules are concerned with which technologies are required in a race (say, wheels), which are allowed, and which are forbidden. If you eliminated technology from cycling, cycling wouldn't exist. If you took an anything-goes approach, cycling again wouldn't exist -- you'd have racing, but nothing anyone would recognize as a bicycle.
And so immense amounts of attention and effort are devoted to the question of which technologies to use. Using the wrong one will get you disqualified. Abstaining from the wrong one will get you disqualified. The technological decisions made by rules committees govern the performance of the racers, and everyone knows and acknowledges that. This is a dominant role for technology. If you divide cycling as a sport into several parts, and one of those parts includes "technology", that part is much more important than every other part combined can be.
I believe you do not understand what "dominate" means in this thread. It's clear that technology is an essential component, not only for the bike, as you mentioned, but also the paved roads. It's clear that humans are an essential component, not only as a power source but also the efforts of many to develop better training methods.
It's also clear that the legal system is an important component, since the force of law helps keep people off the otherwise public roads during the races.
All of these are essential. Do you consider them all to be dominate?
I don't. Most people don't watch a bike race to see how well the road is maintained, or look at the barricades set up, or marvel at the supply chain to support a cyclist from stop to stop.
No, most of them are there to watch the riders, and to a lesser extent the gear. The Lugano charter makes it explicit that a UCI goal is to reflect a certain historical and sociological understanding of what cycling should be. It even says that the technology used should be subordinate to the physical qualities of the rider.
You can use a different interpretation of what "dominate" means, but note that your objection was an interpretation of a summary by jdietrich, who also provided a reference to the source document. Your interpretation since then is not compatible to the source document.
In my opinion, you misunderstood jdietrich's comment from the start and continue to argue against a viewpoint and interpretation that no one actually asserts.
I can't make any sense of this. Any bicycle is 100% a product of technology. I can't think of anything that plays a more dominant role in bicycle racing than... bicycles.