I haven't posted in a while. Halloween might seem like an odd day to return after an absence, especially when that hiatus is a result of my mother's passing. If she is anywhere, she knows I mean no disrespect: If anything, she probably would be happy that I'm blogging again. And that I've been doing some other writing--and cycling.
It seems, however, appropriate, to write a post about this:
It seems that everyone and everything in that photo is in costume. Grant Petersen sometimes refers to lycra racing kit as a "costume." And millennials with "ironic" beards and shaved heads are, by definition, in costume.
I couldn't help but to think, though, that the bike is in costume, too. I mean, aside from the fact that it has two wheels, pedals and handlebars--and no motor--it doesn't bear much resemblance to other bicycles I've seen. Perhaps it's really a tuning fork in the guise of a velocipede.
British Cycling collaborated with Lotus and Hope Engineering--British makers of sports cars and high-end bicycle componentry, respectively--to build the bike. BC's track racing team plans to ride it in the 2020 Olympics--unless it is banned.
Don't get me wrong: I am not against developing such bikes. Racers want every advantage they can get, and the hopes of a nation ride (pun intended) on its national team. I just hope that new bikes made for everyday riders aren't made to look like that--or, more important, require the proprietary technology that is of little or no use to anyone who isn't trying to set a record or win a medal.
At the same time, if the bike is banned by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) or just about any other governing body--as Matthew Beedham expects it to be--I think it would be a hypocritical and simply dishonest move. When the UCI or whoever decides not to allow bikes that are too technically advanced, or simply lightweight, for their tastes--or when they decide to regulate just about anything else, their rationale is always something along the lines of "We want the man, not the machine, to win."
I could respect such a stance if the UCI, the USA Cycling or any other governing body were serious, or at least consistent, in enforcing policies about performance-enhancing drugs. But, if Lance Armstrong used drugs (and intimidated his teammates into silence about it), I find it hard to believe that the UCI, USA Cycling or any other governing body didn't know. Given that the Tour de France's--and competitive cycling in general's--reputation was in tatters after doping scandals involving the Festina team as well as other riders, the UCI and other organizations had every incentive to look the other way when Lance--especially with his "feel good" story--won.
Perhaps the folks at UCI, USA Cycling and similar organizations are wearing costumes: those of "concerned guardians" of their sport.
By the way: The bearded guy in the first photo is holding an image of a bike the UCI banned twice. First, the Lotus 108 was barred under a 1987 ban on carbon-fiber monocoque frames. Then the prohibition was overturned, but after a number of riders raced successfully on the 108, the UCI used its "Lugano Charter" to outlaw Lotus' racing machine once again.
It seems, however, appropriate, to write a post about this:
It seems that everyone and everything in that photo is in costume. Grant Petersen sometimes refers to lycra racing kit as a "costume." And millennials with "ironic" beards and shaved heads are, by definition, in costume.
I couldn't help but to think, though, that the bike is in costume, too. I mean, aside from the fact that it has two wheels, pedals and handlebars--and no motor--it doesn't bear much resemblance to other bicycles I've seen. Perhaps it's really a tuning fork in the guise of a velocipede.
British Cycling collaborated with Lotus and Hope Engineering--British makers of sports cars and high-end bicycle componentry, respectively--to build the bike. BC's track racing team plans to ride it in the 2020 Olympics--unless it is banned.
Don't get me wrong: I am not against developing such bikes. Racers want every advantage they can get, and the hopes of a nation ride (pun intended) on its national team. I just hope that new bikes made for everyday riders aren't made to look like that--or, more important, require the proprietary technology that is of little or no use to anyone who isn't trying to set a record or win a medal.
At the same time, if the bike is banned by the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) or just about any other governing body--as Matthew Beedham expects it to be--I think it would be a hypocritical and simply dishonest move. When the UCI or whoever decides not to allow bikes that are too technically advanced, or simply lightweight, for their tastes--or when they decide to regulate just about anything else, their rationale is always something along the lines of "We want the man, not the machine, to win."
I could respect such a stance if the UCI, the USA Cycling or any other governing body were serious, or at least consistent, in enforcing policies about performance-enhancing drugs. But, if Lance Armstrong used drugs (and intimidated his teammates into silence about it), I find it hard to believe that the UCI, USA Cycling or any other governing body didn't know. Given that the Tour de France's--and competitive cycling in general's--reputation was in tatters after doping scandals involving the Festina team as well as other riders, the UCI and other organizations had every incentive to look the other way when Lance--especially with his "feel good" story--won.
Perhaps the folks at UCI, USA Cycling and similar organizations are wearing costumes: those of "concerned guardians" of their sport.
By the way: The bearded guy in the first photo is holding an image of a bike the UCI banned twice. First, the Lotus 108 was barred under a 1987 ban on carbon-fiber monocoque frames. Then the prohibition was overturned, but after a number of riders raced successfully on the 108, the UCI used its "Lugano Charter" to outlaw Lotus' racing machine once again.
