The strict technical regulations are in place for two main reasons:
1. To allow teams with smaller budgets to compete.
2. To focus innovation away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output. That kind of technology will (and currently is) making it's way into roadcars anyway, it doesn't need the help of F1. F1 enforces constraints in the usual suspects (engines, driver assists, ECU, tyres, etc.) which pushes engineers to come up with genuinely new and creative approaches to making cars better and faster. This is all done within the competitive arena of sport. It's actually quite a smart way to bring about a particular type of innovation (I'm trying not to say "out-of-the-box thinking") that may not necessarily happen naturally but may still eventually make it's way into roadcars.
While there has been some of this back in the 80s (e.g., the Williams FW14B[1]), these regulations are also blocking a whole lot of real out-of-the-box thinking.
When I think of technical innovations from F1, I think of cars that showcased really unusual technologies. Some of my favorites have been the 1976 Tyrrell six-wheel car [2], which used four small wheels in the front to improve downforce; and the 1978 Brabham BT46 "fan car" [3], which used a big fan like a vacuum, sucking the car down onto the track for better traction.
These regulations may help prevent escalation of dumb "big iron", but they also completely shut the door on any kind of revolutionary thinking.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14
It is possible to build an uncontrollable death rocket on 4 wheels, but this would simply be to dangerous for the drivers and fans.
If these strict regulations were not in place the teams would create cars that would be self destructive.
It was the opposite. 1.5 litre engines with a lot of boost making more horsepower than they do now.
There's a far better way to help the smaller teams: Split the sport's revenues more equally.
Under the current regime, the top teams receive many times the amount the smallest teams do (e.g. more than a 9x difference between what the Constructors' Champion receives and the paltry $10m the bottom two teams are given) - http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/Popup/2012/10/24-10-12-...
The English Premier Football League, on the other hand, splits the revenues far more evenly, with the winner receiving only 55% more than the last-placed team - http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/...
For example, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N... shows that Manchester United had £320M revenue in 2012; 'only' £60M of that is from those broadcast rights.
At the bottom, http://www.wolves.co.uk/news/article/wolves-headline-financi... reports a total revenue of £60.6M.
The premiership also has been trying to wall its self off from the other clubs so that they dont have relegation - unlike the NFL the worst performing teams get relegated which keeps the teams honest to an extent.
It's like one of the commentators pointed out. The Premiership is one of those leagues that even if you're mid-table, you might be safe since there are more points between say the #1 team and the #5 team as opposed to the number of points which separate the #5 team and the #20 team.
Plus, now it's just as exciting who's going down and who's staying up. As well as which teams from the Championship is getting their big break and can they stay up for more than one year?
If US teams had more of a setup like this, the story lines would be endless. I think it makes for a much more fan friendly league.
"sorry lad we love to sign you but rules is rules your going to be playing for Gillingham F.C in the second division of the Beezer homes League"
- the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. Currently, a top pro's bike costs about $10-15k, and a competitive bike can be bought for as low as $2-3k (even lower at the amateur level). If they removed the technical limitations, that number would be at least an order of magnitude higher, and potentially two or three.
- bike races are not just about speed, they're about speed and tactics
I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.
The UCI has been hypocritical, inconsistent, and mendacious in its claims here.
At the dawn of racing the UCI banned the recumbent Velocar not because it was so much faster (it was), but because the powerful (ahem) upright bicycle lobby demanded it.
The there was the Moulton, which started winning lots of races on its 17" tires in the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety" reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel bike manufacturers had gotten scared.
Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels.
And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs.
So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.
Recumbent bicycles are older than the modern "safety" bicycle. They lost in the marketplace on their own merits long before the UCI even existed. They are faster in some scenarios, they are slower in others. They cost more, they weigh more, they break more, they're less agile.
The '30s were not the "dawn of racing." The peak of bicycle racing (and technological progress) was 1880-1917. That would be when the safety bicycle was emerging as the dominant configuration.
Moulton wheels had over 30 years to prove themselves before they were banned in 1996, following the Lugano Charter. They didn't.
And surely you realize that all of your claims (cost, weight, breaking, agility) can be more easily ascribed to the fact that uprights are a huge mass market with enormous R&D funding, and recumbents are a tiny little hobbyist thing. Okay, maybe not agility, that's probably inherent.
I agree, however, that the UCI seems to selectively make their equipment rules. At they've given up the disc brake fight in cyclocross, though some early returns show in certain conditions, rim brakes are still better.
I think this years America's Cup was the best argument for (engineering) rule changes. If you watched the LV cup ( the 'first round' of the America's Cup) and the final, you could actually see how the boat handling progressed. Most obviously, at the start of the LV cup it was believed that the boats could only foil downwind, in rather strong wind. Then New Zealand started to maneuver on foils, and in the final races of the America's Cup Oracle was actually foiling downwind.
So compare this to older America's Cups, there the boats were also very expensive, but the well understood sailing of ( for example) the J-class boats of the '30s did not really produce a similar evolving environment as this years America's Cup.
There is room for both forms of competition.
Having grown up racing Lasers, I'd have to say, however, that watching a sailboat race is incredibly boring no matter what kind of boat. Competing is fun, though.
The 2013 cup races were closer and more tactically focused than the majority of the mid century cups.
> Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see.
Anyone with that mentality would have assumed NZ would inevitably win. Obviously that wasn't the case, so it's not quite as simple as saying that you've seen it all after 5 minutes. One point where I would agree with you is that there weren't enough opportunities to make a mistake that results in a lead change.
> The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors
There were 12 originally submitted competitors in this years cup, and 3 that were funded and developed to the point of competing in the challenger selection series (LV cup). South Korea came close to contesting in the LV cup but dropped out after disappointing results in the preliminary AC World Series races the year prior. Notably this year saw higher interest and involvement from countries that have not had a strong presence in sailing races in the past, such as SK.
> and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money.
A team from Australia filed to be the next challenger of record literally moments after the conclusion of the 2013 cup. NZ, Italy, Sweeden and SK are highly motivated to repeat their interest. The event is most emphatically nowhere even close to dying.
Cost control is a concern, but steps are being taken to address it. In the 2013 cup the NZ and Italy teams shared development costs as a partnership. It's highly likely that competitors in the next cup will purchase a design kit from the NZ team as a significant cost and time saving measure.
> Viewership has plummeted as a result.
Viewership and interest in the AC has absolutely exploded as a result of this years cup. Just compare it to the San Diego races. This is the first cup in ages to recruit a sizable new audience of people without a prior strong interest in sailboat racing.
There's a fair bit of misinformation running around about this year's AC that largely comes from two camps: people who like to bash on anything Ellison touches (understandable, he doesn't come across as a very likable guy), and nostalgia from folks that fetishise more classic looking boats. But it's just daft to think that returning to the 12m or J-boats has a brighter future than foiling multi-hulls. The AC will either continue on its current course, or if someone wins it away from Larry and reforms it in a reactionary way, it's likely that something based on the MOD70 boats will become the new king of sailboat racing. Stuff like the Volvo will continue largely unaffected because they have a very different spectating profile.
Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts (to which I a rapidly becoming one). I understand that if you put an enclosure around a recumbent and run it on salt flats, you will hit a higher top speed. How does it fair in the Alps? In a crowded city with tight turns? It has always seemed to me that the recumbent position is countered by both the ability to stand up and put weight on the pedals for speed/acceleration and having a shorter wheel base while being on a taller pivot for handling.
The tradeoff is smaller frontal area vs higher weight. See http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm
Re: handling, my Lightning recumbent is way more nimble than any bicycle I've ever ridden, precisely because the wheelbase is shorter and the CG is lower to the ground than a normal bicycle.
BTW: recumbents can have just as short a wheelbase as an upright, as well as about as high a center of gravity position. See for example http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/i... The big issue with recumbents is that humans are designed to apply torque vertically, and torque is what you need for climbing; while aerodynamics are what you need for descending and on straights.
Regarding competitions, I definitely think every cyclist has to ride the same type of bicycle, technology-wise, but I'd love to see competitions using alternative designs.
One area where I feel like is also an interesting comparison and where I thought ronaldx was going with this is around performance enhancing drugs and the UCI. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that things that Vettel being accused of now are, strictly speaking, not against the rules but clearly creating an advantage. The innovation is in the details in the same way that the drug regimens of many cyclists throughout the last couple of decades in many cases did not include drugs listed on a banned substance list (e.g. early blood doping '70s vs. became illegal in '86), because the UCI and WADA simply didn't know about them. It will be interesting to see if Vettel is found to be playing in this gray area how he and Red Bull will be judged.
*Please note I do appreciate there is a big difference between doping and mechanical advantage through design, just thought there were some interesting parallels there too.
Though tease rules where implemented when steal was the only frame material you can build strong and safe bikes well under the UCI minimum nowadays
Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.
I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s
Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?
But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx.
Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.