However, Obree’s capacity to innovate came at a price. Old Faithful was banned amid fears by the governing body, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), that allowing such drastic changes to a bike’s setup would give innovators like Obree an unfair advantage.
With the Tour De France well under way, we met up with Obree to get his views on UCI regulations and the effect this has not just on the sport but on cycling as a whole.
Actually, I don’t think so. Every sport needs to be regulated. If there was no regulation, tennis players would be playing with rackets that are three feet wide and so on.
Isn’t there a danger that bikes will become identical?
Almost every bike is exactly the same now. If you go to a shop and buy a bike it will be the same bike as the rest, just with a different paint job and made by a different manufacturer.
If they changed the rules now people would be badly affected
It is like convergent evolution where cacti that have developed in different parts of the world are almost identical because they operate under the same rules (as imposed by earth). You would think they are closely related species but they aren’t.
The rules set out by the UCI have been the same for at least ten years. The manufacturer goes: here are the rules, let’s build a bike to its maximum potential within those rules. As a result they all look exactly the same and they all perform the same function even though they are built by completely different manufacturers.
If they changed the rules now, everything would have to adapt to a new level and people who have invested into this sport, the newcomers especially, would be badly affected. If the rules change then the goalposts move and everybody’s got to move their equipment which would be bad for the sport.
Yes I was because I was operating within the rules as they stood at the time. They subsequently changed after, and in response to, certain innovations I made. But now the rules are clearly defined, they state clearly that this is what you can and can’t do so it is not an issue and this has bought stability to the sport. Poorer countries can now just go and buy a bike from a manufacturer and compete on pretty much a level playing field. If innovation is happening then they can’t. And if you want to innovate then attempt the IHPVA record.
While I believe it’s good for the sport, it is bad for cycling as a whole
However, while I believe it’s good for the sport, it is bad for cycling as a whole because the industry is driven by what is good for racing bikes. They don’t want a commuter bike that is better than a racing bike. In terms of aerodynamics for example, I believe most bikes should have a fairing of some kind at the front almost like a moped, which would make it 20% more efficient. But that would make it faster than a racing bike.
Another example is regenerative braking on a commuter bike – when you put your brakes on, you get that energy back when you take the brake back off again. Incorporating an innovation like that would make cycling a lot easier for general cyclists but it doesn’t happen because innovation is not allowed at the very highest level.
Manufacturers need to move away from the governing body of the sport and make bikes for people who cycle to work or about the countryside and not in a competitive setting.