TBH I find sport designs constrained by arbitrary competition rules to be inherently boring. Seeing as it's about the athlete and not the bike, why don't they just supply standard bikes to all of the athletes. They wouldn't even need to be any good, since it's just about the relative performance.
@@pwood5733Actually, it IS said about F1 racing, by a lot of people. 😉 As for competitive cycling, the governing body should allow any human powered cycle to compete in events. No one design is good in all areas, but what works well will bubble to the surface and be adopted by riders. If it works for one, it will probably work for many. In the end the riders get to compete on what they feel is best for them, but it's still the riders that compete with each other.
I haven’t done any thing for ages - that’s classic MB @3:35 The trouble is… he’s right. The large manufacturers haven’t actually done anything innovative, stifled as they are by the UCI and their marketing departments.
Totally agree with Mike. The UCI seem to tie themselves in knots over structural vs. aero so that they can stick with the (essentially) diamond frame to satisfy the bike manufacturers. A monocoque velomobile is both structural and aero but doesn't fit into their rules. The UCI's enforcement of rules has always been suspect - Graeme Obree's retrospective bans being a case in point.
As Mike mentioned it would have to be fared, as faring that would allow for the type of aerodynamics that was mentioned. Otherwise, no matter what the situation is.....loopholes or not. You also have to think about the cyclists safety also.
I get the feeling that this is exactly how any type of rule is dissected and studied to find a way to bend them in competion to gain an advantage until the loophole or space for interpretation is closed. HAs been ever thus, so nothin new there.....and the bike has been approved, so i would expect that the rules will be updated soon if there are too many complaints or too much winner by this bike. Interesting to think of this also being designed for team aerodynamics. Not sure there is any need to be beautiful if the aim is to win races/medals, its a bonus but not an aim.
Fun to hear M.B.'s thoughts. So more different moe expensive bikes. Beauty in eye of beholden. My '70 Mercian Cycle most beautifully built ever. Saw in Alameda Ca. Toy Store window and had to have it built up. All Campi $211.
John. '' What do you think of the state of Bicycle design at the moment....'' The best comment from Mike.'' No i have not done anything for ages''. The words from a true Master.
I think Mike is incorrect about BHPC rules. All those parts are structural, so not for purely aerodynamic purposes. Therefore allowed. I think the fork blades may create an organised vortex stream over the legs and slightly reduce the turbulence they cause.
Without caring for any rules, what would be done with upright bikes that would be more aero and so on without going lower and lower and at the end become a recumbent bike? The 1 hour speed record was done with a superman handlebar everything into that directions seems played out apart from the fact that even pros have back problems riding all day on road bikes.
Mike makes a LOT of sense I'd be interested in knowing his opinion on bike design since the UCI insisted on diamond frames - which, if any, design elements are useful in improving the performance of the bike (rather than for marketing purposes)
The UCI or whatever they like to call themselves these days, ought to let riders compete on whatever machine they like, as long as it is only human powered. Anything and everything would be tried, and eventually a number of designs would end up competing in each event, depending on what the individual riders feel works best for them. Any mechanical or aero "advantages" could be copied by others, and if it works better, will be adopted by those that want it. Nobody would be cheating or breaking the design rules, and crucially, cycle sport and cycle design would become interesting again.
I have to agree with Mike. It doesn't look good at all. Not sure it will be any better than any other track bike. I value Mike's opinion . He said that i hadn't finished my cranks properly , so i had to sort that out. Had a good laugh at the one answer to your question.
The design of this bike is not original apparently. British cycling just took an existing design and tweaked it. Apparently a ripped off design from "KU BIKES"
I'm very bored with the optics of roadbikes and trackbikes. Actually I'm so bored I liked the British bike most of the other designs (for Tokyo) as they were ugly as well to me and that one was at least extreme. Just like a Lambo or a Senna isn't pretty at all but the rediculessness provides the wow-effect. That seems to be the reason why I do like it and don't think it's any more ugly then the other ones. Keep in mind I have no clue of the rules and not much of a clue of aerodynamics in detail. But hearing the forks ratio is already against the rules, the team should be banned on day 1 for exactly that. And as this applies to the seat-stay-wings as well ... Don't fall for some "Okay we change the fork but then we can race, thank you, Mr Referee, Sir." Now I feel sorry for the athletes. I don't want to make their prep and training useless and for nothing ...
@@christonamtb4089 It absolutely is, though it looks like someone binned the rulebook before designing this bike. I have no doubt our opponent's own copies of the rulebook are being thoroughly scrutinised in the search for any interpretation of any rule which might get this bike banned.
não consigo intender nada , do que ele esta fando. porque o yuo tube não esta traduzindo para Português. mas desde já obrigado seus videos são muito legais
He’s just jealous he didn’t think of it. It’s much better looking than his ugly inventions. If they can push the limits of the rules and get away with it, good for them! 😄
@@kwacker45 He probably does - there are a lot of ugly bikes to my eyes in Mike Burrow's past. But I know many don't agree. It's an interesting one. He seems to think the road cyclists are missing a couple of easy advantages with his top tube/seat tube comments, but track bikes haven't really changed much in years so I find this new approach interesting even though it'll likely be banned after the games.
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
TBH I find sport designs constrained by arbitrary competition rules to be inherently boring. Seeing as it's about the athlete and not the bike, why don't they just supply standard bikes to all of the athletes. They wouldn't even need to be any good, since it's just about the relative performance.
It's called Keirin, and it's awesome!
I guess same could be said for f1 racing
@@pwood5733Actually, it IS said about F1 racing, by a lot of people. 😉 As for competitive cycling, the governing body should allow any human powered cycle to compete in events. No one design is good in all areas, but what works well will bubble to the surface and be adopted by riders. If it works for one, it will probably work for many. In the end the riders get to compete on what they feel is best for them, but it's still the riders that compete with each other.
Mike Burrows is 100% on point, no surprise.
I haven’t done any thing for ages - that’s classic MB @3:35
The trouble is… he’s right. The large manufacturers haven’t actually done anything innovative, stifled as they are by the UCI and their marketing departments.
I nearly chocked on my porridge....classic lol
i came here for watching disassembling a bike and stayed for the song at the end of the video
All teams should ride keirin racing certification bikes. Anything else is BS.
Totally agree with Mike. The UCI seem to tie themselves in knots over structural vs. aero so that they can stick with the (essentially) diamond frame to satisfy the bike manufacturers. A monocoque velomobile is both structural and aero but doesn't fit into their rules. The UCI's enforcement of rules has always been suspect - Graeme Obree's retrospective bans being a case in point.
As Mike mentioned it would have to be fared, as faring that would allow for the type of aerodynamics that was mentioned. Otherwise, no matter what the situation is.....loopholes or not. You also have to think about the cyclists safety also.
I get the feeling that this is exactly how any type of rule is dissected and studied to find a way to bend them in competion to gain an advantage until the loophole or space for interpretation is closed. HAs been ever thus, so nothin new there.....and the bike has been approved, so i would expect that the rules will be updated soon if there are too many complaints or too much winner by this bike. Interesting to think of this also being designed for team aerodynamics. Not sure there is any need to be beautiful if the aim is to win races/medals, its a bonus but not an aim.
Fun to hear M.B.'s thoughts. So more different moe expensive bikes. Beauty in eye of beholden. My '70 Mercian Cycle most beautifully built ever. Saw in Alameda Ca. Toy Store window and had to have it built up. All Campi $211.
It went black and we got music after you tapped out the screen
I think that was the plan - you don't need to see the musician to appreciate the music.
John. '' What do you think of the state of Bicycle design at the moment....''
The best comment from Mike.'' No i have not done anything for ages''.
The words from a true Master.
why the end of the video is just a black screen
I think Mike is incorrect about BHPC rules. All those parts are structural, so not for purely aerodynamic purposes. Therefore allowed. I think the fork blades may create an organised vortex stream over the legs and slightly reduce the turbulence they cause.
Without caring for any rules, what would be done with upright bikes that would be more aero and so on without going lower and lower and at the end become a recumbent bike? The 1 hour speed record was done with a superman handlebar everything into that directions seems played out apart from the fact that even pros have back problems riding all day on road bikes.
The nujabes song at the end is nice !
I think mike is right, and your laughter is also. cheers
Mike makes a LOT of sense
I'd be interested in knowing his opinion on bike design since the UCI insisted on diamond frames - which, if any, design elements are useful in improving the performance of the bike (rather than for marketing purposes)
The UCI or whatever they like to call themselves these days, ought to let riders compete on whatever machine they like, as long as it is only human powered. Anything and everything would be tried, and eventually a number of designs would end up competing in each event, depending on what the individual riders feel works best for them. Any mechanical or aero "advantages" could be copied by others, and if it works better, will be adopted by those that want it. Nobody would be cheating or breaking the design rules, and crucially, cycle sport and cycle design would become interesting again.
Mike absolutely bang on !
I have to agree with Mike. It doesn't look good at all. Not sure it will be any better than any other track bike. I value Mike's opinion . He said that i hadn't finished my cranks properly , so i had to sort that out. Had a good laugh at the one answer to your question.
beauty is in the eye of the ugly holder
or is it
beauty is in the ugly eye holder
something like that
Or was it bi holder? Wait, no thats not it either...
That bike has won m0st 0f the events it has c0mpeted in dude!
The design of this bike is not original apparently. British cycling just took an existing design and tweaked it. Apparently a ripped off design from "KU BIKES"
I'm very bored with the optics of roadbikes and trackbikes. Actually I'm so bored I liked the British bike most of the other designs (for Tokyo) as they were ugly as well to me and that one was at least extreme. Just like a Lambo or a Senna isn't pretty at all but the rediculessness provides the wow-effect. That seems to be the reason why I do like it and don't think it's any more ugly then the other ones. Keep in mind I have no clue of the rules and not much of a clue of aerodynamics in detail. But hearing the forks ratio is already against the rules, the team should be banned on day 1 for exactly that. And as this applies to the seat-stay-wings as well ... Don't fall for some "Okay we change the fork but then we can race, thank you, Mr Referee, Sir." Now I feel sorry for the athletes. I don't want to make their prep and training useless and for nothing ...
eu sou fã desse coroa, ele é muito inteligente
Let's see if it wins gold
Imagine the shame of bending the rules that far and NOT winning.
@@weevilinabox I thought rule bending was part of the sport.
Let's Hope it wins gold, surely?
@@Dare2Doubt is that a pun?
@@christonamtb4089 It absolutely is, though it looks like someone binned the rulebook before designing this bike.
I have no doubt our opponent's own copies of the rulebook are being thoroughly scrutinised in the search for any interpretation of any rule which might get this bike banned.
não consigo intender nada , do que ele esta fando.
porque o yuo tube não esta traduzindo para Português.
mas desde já obrigado seus videos são muito legais
I'm all for the Team GB bike to get banned. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie :D
They t0asted the Aussies!
I can deal with the love !
He’s just jealous he didn’t think of it. It’s much better looking than his ugly inventions. If they can push the limits of the rules and get away with it, good for them! 😄
I'm guessing you don't know this man's history
@@kwacker45 I think that's the point. This is future not the past
@@kwacker45 He probably does - there are a lot of ugly bikes to my eyes in Mike Burrow's past. But I know many don't agree. It's an interesting one. He seems to think the road cyclists are missing a couple of easy advantages with his top tube/seat tube comments, but track bikes haven't really changed much in years so I find this new approach interesting even though it'll likely be banned after the games.
Much better looking? What use is that? It's about power transfer and primarily aerodynamics. How dumb can you be?
I agree with Mike , ugly looking bike