"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2idu9kFlj09lU1@uni- berlin.de...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... > > The bike that Armstrong has dropped had been > specially designed by bike sponsor Trek and featured > a narrower bottom bracket shell in an effort to > reduce the overall frontal area of rider and bike. "
Doesn't this violate the spirit of the UCI rules, which try to ensure that every athlete competes using more or less the same equipment? By designing
a
Quoted message said:
one-of-a-kind bike with a narrower BB shell, Trek is creating equipment
that
Quoted message said:
gives Lance an unfair technological advantage.
As I said earlier, I don't know if Obree invented or merely popularized narrow BBs more than 10 years ago, but the concept has been laid out on the table for all to use. If Obree can fabricate a bike out of junkyard parts, then why can't a large corporation create essentially the same thing?
I believe that Cinelli and or the Raleigh developed the narrow bottom bracket concept for the 1980 Olympics....
Quoted message said:
The intellectual value of (in this instance) the piece is common now.
If the issue is production v. prototype then that is a hugely grey area, whether from a manufacturing POV or a 'spirit of the rules' POV.
How these rules are interpreted can be quite delicate. Another alternative would be to use the Japanese Keirin Association approach where there is no questioning the spirit of the rules whatsoever.
"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:2idu9kFlj09lU1@uni- berlin.de...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]... > > The bike that Armstrong has dropped had been > specially designed by bike sponsor Trek and featured > a narrower bottom bracket shell in an effort to > reduce the overall frontal area of rider and bike. "
Doesn't this violate the spirit of the UCI rules, which try to ensure that every athlete competes using more or less the same equipment? By designing
a
Quoted message said:
one-of-a-kind bike with a narrower BB shell, Trek is creating equipment
that
Quoted message said:
gives Lance an unfair technological advantage.
As I said earlier, I don't know if Obree invented or merely popularized narrow BBs more than 10 years ago, but the concept has been laid out on the table for all to use. If Obree can fabricate a bike out of junkyard parts, then why can't a large corporation create essentially the same thing?
I believe that Cinelli and or the Raleigh developed the narrow bottom bracket concept for the 1980 Olympics....
Quoted message said:
The intellectual value of (in this instance) the piece is common now.
If the issue is production v. prototype then that is a hugely grey area, whether from a manufacturing POV or a 'spirit of the rules' POV.
How these rules are interpreted can be quite delicate. Another alternative would be to use the Japanese Keirin Association approach where there is no questioning the spirit of the rules whatsoever.
"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"TritonRider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040604212446.07875.00000563@mb- m06.aol.com...
Quoted message said:
The bike that Armstrong has dropped had been specially designed by bike sponsor Trek and featured a narrower bottom bracket shell in an effort to reduce the overall frontal area of rider and bike. "
Doesn't this violate the spirit of the UCI rules, which try to ensure that every athlete competes using more or less the same equipment? By designing
a
Quoted message said:
one-of-a-kind bike with a narrower BB shell, Trek is creating equipment
that
Quoted message said:
gives Lance an unfair technological advantage. Just another example of an organization that does all it can to bend the rules to its advantage (remember the Actovegin almost-scandal?) by playing in the grey area. Of course all teams do this, but it kind of destroys any moral hgh ground
