I didn’t mean that all bikes sold were UCI compliant as directly as that. The market has focused on pursuing a fairly narrow definition of performance for a bike in part because of the narrow definitions of racing cycling. That’s had knock on effects for the type of components that have been focussed on and developed. The near ubiquity of diamond frames over recumbents which prioritise comfortably for example.
I think we have seen that effect lesson over the last decade or so (e.g. belt drives for example). Ebikes help as they have very different markets, need different properties and have by definition no need to overlap with UCI compliance at all.
Of course its quite hard to unpick the other factors that have led the market to be cater so strongly to leisure market over the utility market but the UCI I think is up there in setting a cultural standard for what a bike is at the cost to alternatives.
The thing is, recumbents are available. Both for casual riding and for racing. I see them around from time to time. And other frame designs have been tried, too. Look at triathlon bikes, where designs have been tried removing the top tube, the seat tube, the seat stay, the down tube, or some combination of those.
I don’t think recumbents have taken off because they actually aren’t very good to ride. They’re great if your goal is to go as fast as possible with as little energy, on relatively flat and straight courses. But they’re awkward going up hill, don’t go around corners as nicely, are a little more difficult in situations where you need to stop-start a lot, and are less visible in traffic. Recumbent trikes might help with that stop-start issue, but probably make it worse with steering through narrow entries and around tight corners.
The variant TT designs just don’t provide any real advantage for normal people, and even the supposed advantage to professional triathletes is marginal at best.
The diamond frame just happens to be a really, really good design. That’s why variants on it are used on everything from TT bikes (well, the majority of them) to the Dutch step-through bike.
Being available in a niche market isn’t the same as being affordable because its a mass product. There’s more use-cases then you outline: they are particularly good for those with certain types of disabilities. You are right that mixing with traffic is another key reason why they arent as popular. There’s a reason you see them most commonly in areas with decent segregated infrastructure. Personally I have a DF for some of the reasons you outline. My point wasn’t all about the frame though that was just an example, its also true of the focus at component level where R&D has not prioritised low-cost low-maintance options because the high-cost high-performance market was more lucrative and that stems from in part from the direction performance cycling took.
I didn’t mean that all bikes sold were UCI compliant as directly as that. The market has focused on pursuing a fairly narrow definition of performance for a bike in part because of the narrow definitions of racing cycling. That’s had knock on effects for the type of components that have been focussed on and developed. The near ubiquity of diamond frames over recumbents which prioritise comfortably for example.
I think we have seen that effect lesson over the last decade or so (e.g. belt drives for example). Ebikes help as they have very different markets, need different properties and have by definition no need to overlap with UCI compliance at all.
Of course its quite hard to unpick the other factors that have led the market to be cater so strongly to leisure market over the utility market but the UCI I think is up there in setting a cultural standard for what a bike is at the cost to alternatives.
The thing is, recumbents are available. Both for casual riding and for racing. I see them around from time to time. And other frame designs have been tried, too. Look at triathlon bikes, where designs have been tried removing the top tube, the seat tube, the seat stay, the down tube, or some combination of those.
I don’t think recumbents have taken off because they actually aren’t very good to ride. They’re great if your goal is to go as fast as possible with as little energy, on relatively flat and straight courses. But they’re awkward going up hill, don’t go around corners as nicely, are a little more difficult in situations where you need to stop-start a lot, and are less visible in traffic. Recumbent trikes might help with that stop-start issue, but probably make it worse with steering through narrow entries and around tight corners.
The variant TT designs just don’t provide any real advantage for normal people, and even the supposed advantage to professional triathletes is marginal at best.
The diamond frame just happens to be a really, really good design. That’s why variants on it are used on everything from TT bikes (well, the majority of them) to the Dutch step-through bike.
deleted by creator
Being available in a niche market isn’t the same as being affordable because its a mass product. There’s more use-cases then you outline: they are particularly good for those with certain types of disabilities. You are right that mixing with traffic is another key reason why they arent as popular. There’s a reason you see them most commonly in areas with decent segregated infrastructure. Personally I have a DF for some of the reasons you outline. My point wasn’t all about the frame though that was just an example, its also true of the focus at component level where R&D has not prioritised low-cost low-maintance options because the high-cost high-performance market was more lucrative and that stems from in part from the direction performance cycling took.