swimming technique and bicycle technically have improved a lot and all of the grading sports (gymnastics, diving) are constantly being changed since they were introduced into the Olympics. That is why so many of those records could be beaten. However it looks like Olympic archery does not allow a compound bow. I guess every sport decides if they want innovation or not.

Cycling is actually another notorious example of a sport where the rules are holding back significant innovation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle

Pro cycling is already a pretty dangerous sport, both on track and on the road. To mitigate those dangers a very important part is having a maneuverable bike. Recumbents are nothing of the sort.

I doubt that any pro-cyclist wants the speed advantages of one if it means that cornering is more difficult, veering into dangerous.

There are also clear safety advantages to recumbents, like harder breaking without flipping over and an unobstructed view without sacrificing aerodynamics, so I do not think they should automatically be considered less safe.

I am also pretty confident that the 'manoeuvrability' disadvantage is completely irrelevant for any individual track event. And do you think that it would be an important factor for time trials?

It depends but I don't think a recumbent bike is all that great when climbing or descending. I can't see cyclists wanting a recumbent if there are any significant elevation changes on the course.

Recumbents are beasts of descending. As long as there are no turns. On a straight descent, they'll beat anything without even trying.

We are talking about pro-cycling. The descents in pro tours have _a lot_ of turns.

Flipping over because of hard braking is not something that happens in pro-cycling.

[edit] And yes, for time trials recumbents would be nice, but already time-trial bikes are pretty different and unsafe, I don't think the UCI would allow even more risk.

The view from a recumbent bike becomes highly obstructed when you're riding in a tight peleton. The group road rides that I do don't allow recumbents for safety reasons. Traditional bikes have their dangers but at least your eyes are up higher to allow a good view around other riders.

Maneuverability is important for time trials. Most courses have several tight turns and crashes are common.

The rules are in place not to hold back speed, but to protect the image of cycling. A recumbent may be faster but it does not look like a bicycle to the average person and changes the image of the sport.

Things like better shifters, lighter frames (within reason) more aero parts (within reason) are still allowed.

> lighter frames (within reason)

The UCI's 6.8kg weight limit is much higher than what is achievable with modern materials. So much so that there are frame builders who can build you an "illegal" bike made out of _steel_: https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html

They do drop the limits over time. The reasoning is they want everyone to have very structurally sound bikes for safety. You _could_ build an ultra light steel bike but it might fail and cause serious injury.

With a minimum limit, no one feels the need to make their bikes less than perfectly strong. And when every OEM is making frames at perfect strength under the limit, they drop it.

They haven't ever dropped the limit - a weight limit was introduced in 2000 and hasn't changed since: https://cyclingtips.com/2013/08/the-6-8kg-limit/

Could also put an engine in there. Sports are defined by arbitrary rules.

There are actually sanctioned eMTB races now. Seems a bit lame but whatever.

Why is that lame? Because they have a machine helping them? Is motocross lame?

Even something like a small faring, like the little plastic windshield on a motorbike should increase speed. One concern though, is that it would mitigate the advantage of drafting and totally change the strategy of cycling as it exists today (eg. re. the pelotón and breakaways).

Swimming rules have also been progressively eased to help keep the records falling. Flip turns in backstroke. Relay dives. More aggressive dive blocks. The new breaststroke kick. Lots of little thing mean constant trend, constant records dropping.

But restrictions on swimsuit material have gone the other way. There were a bunch of records set using non-permeable suits in 2008-2009 that will take year to break again after FINA introduced the "textile material" rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer#Marketing_and_result...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arena_X-Glide#Controversy

One of perhaps a dozen rules. The one rule that was tightened in a sea of rules being loosened.

Restricting underwater distance in butterfly was one that slowed swimmers a lot.

So what? Are people really not participating in a sport because there is no hope of breaking a WR? Sports are about fun and competition and sometimes exercise.

I’d also argue there is a difference between rules about equipment and rules about technique. Technique rules may have to be adjusted more often because if an athletes does something unusual that is within the current rule set but may be seen as advantageous, you have to make a decision.

With equipment you can just say no. Those Nike running shoes are banned, full body swim suits are banned. The javelin is just another ban. With equipment, it also effects athletes uniformly, everyone must change to the new equipment. So no one is unfairly penalised.

Why do the records need to fall?

>Sports are about fun and competition and sometimes exercise.

part of the competition part would be breaking records.

Competition is about beating other people, not necessarily records.

A record is a person that did very well in the past.

that's why I said part of - part of it is beating the people you are competing with right now but another part is beating the people who were there before you.

Sports in the Olympics are about Viewership and money. Falling records would probably contribute to that.

There are also (lower) weight limits on bikes, bikes could be significantly lighter (also recumbent)

> Yes, the permanent world record is a little unfortunate.

Why? The longer you keep records, the less likely it is that you can exceed the previous record. Why would we expect javelin throws to get longer over time?

The reason for the permanent world record is in the article. The new standardization made the javelin fall 10% short.

> in 1986 the International Association of Athletics Federations' technical committee authorized a new javelin design. The center of gravity was moved 1.6 inches forward, the tip was modified to make the javelin less aerodynamic, meaning it would nose down earlier and land sooner, reducing average flight distance by about 10 percent.

The permanent WR is unfortunate in that it was engineered. It would be like moving the 100 m to an incline of 12% and calling it the same sport.

Attainable goals are more motivating and meaningful than unattainable ones. It's in many ways a different event because the equipment is different, so why should a record for a different event stand.

> It's in many ways a different event because the equipment is different, so why should a record for a different event stand.

That's a completely separate concern. Once records are established for the current event, you still expect them to be more or less permanent. Turning in the best performance in all of history is not an attainable goal. You can't expect it to be one.

What are you talking about? World records are broken all the time.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/07/29/olympic-...

there's no reason to not have something that's the "world record" under current rules.

Improved nutrition, sports science and innovations in the biomechanics of throwing.

If you really believe that, the obvious implication is that the current world record isn't permanent after all. Good news!

Hohn's throw is not the world record and hasn't been for decades.

Because they reset the records to reflect the redesigned javelins. The current world record is ~6 metres less than Hohn's throw...

No, that's not why Hohn's record is not the world record any more than "Hohn is not the current world record holder because he never threw the current implement." Or that "Zelezny never threw the old one." The world record is set according to the latest rules of the sport, and Hohn's throw did not meet the standard by definition. You clearly have no idea what the level of outperformance is of Jan Zelezny's record. It is by some stats evaluations more of an outlier than Bolt's 100m record. For the record, I am a former national-class thrower who has trained with the national record holder and had the opportunity to work a former world record holder on multiple occasions.