"Kyle Legate" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
> > "TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> 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
> one-of-a-kind bike with a narrower BB shell, Trek is creating equipment
that
> 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?
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.