BHPC Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Public: Open to anyone > Any Other Business
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Wider Acceptance
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Starting a new topic? Please try and put it in a relevant forum (Riding, Building, etc) but if you're not sure it's better to post in any forum than not to post at all.


Wider Acceptance

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
jdp298 View Drop Down
Visitor (moderated)
Visitor (moderated)
Avatar

Joined: 24 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jdp298 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Wider Acceptance
    Posted: 22 August 2017 at 10:30pm
This is something that piqued my interest on another forum, but it's also a subject that varies widely by country, so here goes nothing to see what we think. Is this on someone's agenda already? Who is it if so?

The central concept, is there such a thing as a Recumbent Manufacturer's Trade Body? Should we try to start one? UK/Europe only or whole world? What would be the aims?
  • To get recumbents as separate classes into as many bike races as can be persuaded
    • Target list? US/Eur/RoW?
  • To have the UCI ratify Faure's hour record from 1934? Good press to be had with that one and the rest of the world loves a legal battle in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (expensive though it is).
  • Recommend a series of standards (as above) with as much flex in them as possible (see Mouton's exclusion in the 60s)
  • Coordinate the campaigning from different countries' clubs and manufacturers
    • To put coordinated pressure on the UCI reps from each corner of the globe
  • Finally, with my most Machiavellian hat on, to generate human interest stories of how unfair the recumbent ban is on talented and deserving individuals, whether they be disabled or not, and to sell that story to
    • Cycling press
    • Insurance companies associated with cycling
    • Legislative assemblies (members of parliament, congressmen...)
    • Who else can we think of?
Other thoughts: I'm less keen on a single-style standard, there needs to be room to do the unusual and strange. LWB/SWB, doesn't matter to me.  And neither do I think there should be a 'controlling mind' behind the wider recumbent push. I think it would be useful to use anything a manufacturer or racer or advocate is doing anyway to make a more coherent impact in the places of most effect, but I wouldn't be asking people to change their marketing schedules to accommodate the same.
Back to Top
AlanGoodman View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Club Chairman

Joined: 04 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Online
Points: 6302
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AlanGoodman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 August 2017 at 10:40pm
You're definitely banging your head against a wall trying to get any sense out of the UCI... They've had their heads stuck so far up their arses since 1934 that all they can see now is British Cycling's feet...
Number 47
Back to Top
Woolly Hat View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member


Joined: 12 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Woolly Hat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 August 2017 at 10:01am
In my experience most roadies aren't interested in recumbents at all and i would expect UCI to use that as justification for no change. Demand from a niche market or branch of cyclesport isn't going to sway UCI decisions based on the conventional racing majority. Even if you wanted to try, where would the significant funding for the campaign come from? Certainly not the recumbent manufacturers.

As i understood it, the whole reason for being of the IHPVA and BHPC (and others) was to get around the intransigence of UCI. Unless the various recumbent organisations have got millions of members that nobody knows about we wouldn't have enough strength to petition for this change.

Generating public interest in recumbents is likely to be a priority for all organisations but with limited members and therefore funds, this effort will also be limited. I would imagine the same goes for the recumbent manufacturers due to the low demand in a niche market. It's all a bit chicken-egg egg- chicken.
Ross Low Racer undergoing overhaul ready for next season
Back to Top
atlas_shrugged View Drop Down
Committee
Committee


Joined: 03 November 2014
Location: Cambs
Status: Offline
Points: 327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote atlas_shrugged Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 August 2017 at 10:19am
@jdp298 This is a great vision which hopefully the BHPC will support. Can we add this to the agenda for Hillingdon AGM?
 
Alan's warning is relevant as we can only apply effort where we expect to get results.
 
As a first step can we get a letter sent to the CTT as per Lee's proposal last year to get acceptance of road TT for recumbents.
 
The video by John of being turned away from Lee Valley is very powerful evidence of a need to get changes made to end discrimination against recumbents / velos / streamliners etc IMHO:
 


Edited by atlas_shrugged - 23 August 2017 at 10:29am
Back to Top
Andrew S View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 14 March 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 1773
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andrew S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 August 2017 at 12:20pm
The UCI embraces various cycling disciplines, not just road and track: BMX, MTB, cyclocross and, most recently, paracycling. So HPVs could conceivably be adopted as another discipline at some point.

However the benefits of UCI recognition would be mostly for the participants rather than the manufacturers - sponsorship, publicity, insurance, etc. If anything the manufacturers would lose out if the heavy hand of standardisation started to be applied. Would ICE and Velomobiel really want to be hampered by rules on minimum frame weights, disc brakes, etc, even if there were a prospect of a higher public profile?
Back to Top
Woolly Hat View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member


Joined: 12 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Woolly Hat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 August 2017 at 1:01pm
Standardisation would certainly hamper the home builder aspect that has ultimately led to a lot of the manufacturers we have today. It would also simplify things for the conventional cycle manufacturers to potentially drown the recumbent specialists out of the market, particularly if the UCI limited innovation through regulation. That is if they thought the market could be big enough to invest in.

The idea of trying to follow the paralympic example is sound but how could the UCI embrace such a wide variety of machine types we see at meetings? Would it be best to try to define our own "standard" specification that could be proposed to UCI for initial approval and then add more design types? Rear drive tadpoles, streamliners or low racers could fit into a skeleton brief without getting too bogged down in details?


Ross Low Racer undergoing overhaul ready for next season
Back to Top
atlas_shrugged View Drop Down
Committee
Committee


Joined: 03 November 2014
Location: Cambs
Status: Offline
Points: 327
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote atlas_shrugged Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 August 2017 at 1:26pm
Completely agree with Alan and Andrew.
 
So which bits from the vision of @jdp298 can we take which would be achievable and also would not disadvantage BHPC members?
 
At present our members are being actively disadvantaged from racing at Silverstone (Lee) and Lea Valley (John). We should at the very least push for the same rights as paralympic and triathlete cyclists IMHO.
Back to Top
jdp298 View Drop Down
Visitor (moderated)
Visitor (moderated)
Avatar

Joined: 24 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 30
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jdp298 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2017 at 2:53pm
I'm not sure we're in a position to lobby UCI for recognition, and the consequent problems of standardisation it might bring. However, if we can pick off child organisations, be that the TT people or Ride London authorities, then that seems a good route to attack.

Method; suggest a few phone calls to insurers of the events and ask them specifically about recumbents. This doesn't cost us anything beyond our time, and maybe a few invites to our races at Hillingdon or anywhere close to them. 

Another thought occurs, do we have anyone inside Sustrans who can even spell recumbent? There's a known cycling lobby of which Sustrans is 1 party, but we should at least have them acknowledge our corner within and without cycling. Again, it's a few phone calls to begin with and maybe a visit or 2 so hopefully pretty cheap. The thing that might hold me back from them today is I don't know if our story is coherent enough to put forward. Are we completely clear what we want from the cycle lobby that's different from what they already do, and has a moral pull they shouldn't ignore?
Back to Top
AlanGoodman View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Club Chairman

Joined: 04 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Online
Points: 6302
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AlanGoodman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2017 at 3:45pm
jdp298 I'm struggling to work out who you are as there is no real name or location showing... Big smile
 
I'm assuming from your post that you are a BHPC member and attend races - Can you confirm either here or by PM so that we can change your forum status to "BHPC Member" if that's the case please?
 
Number 47
Back to Top
Yanto View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 992
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Yanto Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 August 2017 at 7:36am
I think first of all the basic question should be asked from recumbent manufacturers and owners as to whether they perceive there is a need for acceptance by "official" bodies, with the detailed knowledge of the pros and cons of being recognised.

If the problem is a couple of venues don't want recumbents in any way shape or form the organisers of those have to be lobbied, and lobbied hard, if they site "insurance innit" then demand copies of the insurance docs specifically banning recumbents, write to papers about descrimination, carry on with social media lobbying, it's probably like chipping away at Mount Rushmore with a hand chisel but eventually a result may be attained.

There is of course one cycling body that could be cited as an example of open arms inclusion (not just the BHPC) that being Audax UK, and indeed all other countries Audax associations, if they can do it so can others, and whilst undertaking an audax you are covered by their insurance so the no insurance cited at some events can be bounced back and rubbished, the only caveat being that an audax is always a non-competitive event, despite having to BEAT the clock.

I'm all for fighting battles, but I'm not sure there is a battle to be fought here, bar the two incidents cited.


Ian, not so ex racer but still of dubious capability
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.02
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.