New York Times, Bi&#hes!
The New York Times has a section called “Room for Debate” where they introduce a controversial subject, then ask people who allegedly know something about the topic to comment. I guess the whole bike world was unavailable because yesterday they interviewed me for Room for Debate.
The topic this time is “Is it the Athelete or the Equipment?”
The Times says:
The International Cycling Union recently alerted professional teams that it intends to crack down on new technology in bicycle designs and accessories that might give an unfair advantage to teams with access to the latest breakthroughs. Why should a line be drawn denying them access to the latest technology?
And I got to answer. Unfortunately I was limited to 300 words, which doesn’t even allow you to scratch the surface. Today (Saturday May 9) it’s on the front page of the website. OK, so it’s the slowest newstime of the week other than 2AM Monday morning, still…
Stifle Innovations, Consumers Lose
Scot Nicol founded Ibis Cycles, a high-end manufacturer of mountain and road bicycles in 1981. He built the first Ibis carbon mountain bikes in 1988, and was inducted into the Mountain Bike Hall of Fame in 1990.
On the surface, the International Cycling Union rules have the appearance of leveling the playing field for riders and manufacturers. But when examined more closely, the policies make little sense.
Fielding a competitive team on a pro tour level often costs in excess of 10 million euros, with bike manufacturers often contributing greater than $1 million in cash. Bike development costs are a small fraction of this total compared to myriad other marketing, travel, salary and overhead costs.
Promoting rider safety is one reason often given for the cycling union’s rules. But are they really qualified to tell us what is safe? For example, the rules forbid disc brakes on bikes used in cyclocross, a rapidly-growing freakshow offshoot of road and mountain biking that is run in the winter, off road, frequently in muddy conditions. Not allowing disc brakes (which are much safer than rim brakes in wet conditions) on cyclocross bikes is akin to telling Formula One teams they still need to use drum brakes on their 200 mile-per-hour race cars.
As in other sports, advancements in cycling are propelled by competition and made better by the feedback of athletes. Who ultimately benefits? Consumers — since they are soon riding the same or nearly the same bikes that are used to win races like the Tour de France.
We know that this happens in other racing sports, too. Automobile, motorcycle and sailing competitions all contribute to advancements in each of their industries, though there’s often initial debate about the use of innovations.
Formula One racing, for instance, recently allowed ‘hybrid’ battery/electric boost systems on its cars, adding bursts of approximately 80 horsepower to the drive wheels of the car. Eventually, the consumer (and maybe even the earth) will benefit from the F1 mandate to promote green technology.
In sports, as in other fields, heavy regulation can stifle innovation. Ultimately, if governing bodies like the International Cycling Union wins, the consumer loses.
I had a couple thousand more words of comments written, but space didn’t allow…
May 10th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Stifling technological innovation in the name of a level playing field makes no sense. And it makes for a less interesting competition.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:13 am
It is my understanding that the UCI is second on the rung below the IOC and then you have USA Cycling coming in third place in the governing racial pyramid. The problem I see with the UCI and IOC and to a lesser extent USA Cycling, is that we’re dealing with an old boys club mentality resistant to change. Similar to how GM makes decisions. My impression is you have the old school dictating how things should be to the new school-which there is nothing wrong with that on the surface. But once you start hindering any progress in the sport you start losing interest in both participation and spectators. Anyone remember NORBA? No surprise GM is going the way of NORBA and if things keep going the way they are, we may be blessed with a competitor stepping up and providing similar services to USA Cycling and the UCI but with a more open mind. Let’s hope though that it’s not opposite side of the spectrum and run by the likes of Rock Racing.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
I agree, make them swim nekkid! and while I agree discs are superior to rim brakes, if you actually want to ‘stop’ in cyclocross I think you are missing the point. ;0P