Pinkbike Poll - Should Racing Be Restricted to Production Bikes and Components?
Taken to the level of professional sport, it costs a lot of money to go racing - especially so if your chosen sport happens to require wheels, gears, brakes and suspension. Cubic dollars alone, however, are no guarantee of success. Unless you can score a factory ride, chances are almost certain that you will be racing against riders who have access to one-off prototypes and technology that will not be available to you.
SRAM's second-gen Black Box Program DH rear derailleur was spotted by Fraser Britton in the Specialized pits.
"Factory" support is the Holy Grail for motorsport racing and increasingly so for mountain bike competition, because those lucky enough to score a ride can exploit technical advantages that are still in the development stages, and that are not yet scheduled for, or may never reach production. The oft-quoted statement that technology developed by factory race teams trickles down to the common man is only partially true. Race development is all about secrecy. Many innovations used to win races will never see the bike shop because they are either are deemed impractical or too costly to produce - but they did win races.
The one-off DH racing bike, manufactured by hand in Devinci's Chicoutimi, Quebec, factory for Steve Smith. It was designed to use 650B wheels and a prototype 650B-compatible RockShox BoXXer fork. The geometry and suspension was tuned specifically for one event: the pedally 2013 World Cup track at Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.
The period when all mountain bike racers competed on a level playing field upon bikes that were more or less the same items that could be purchased at their local bike shops is a stretch now. Scott's Team Swisspower has dominated the XC World Cup for a half a decade using hand-made tubular tires and it is no secret that two carbon frames that came from the same mold could have been built to virtually any weight and strength combination and look like twins. The suspension game has been heavily manipulated by factory teams with RockShox and Fox both fielding no-can-have forks and shocks. Bike makers' chassis improvements can be obvious, like a new linkage configuration - or invisible, like special-offset fork crowns and geometry changes. Less dramatic perhaps, but arguably important, are the not-quite-ready-for-sale drivetrains that the anointed ones get to use on race day. While podiums and championships are still being won by racers using stock equipment that is available to privateers, the fact remains that the exclusive availability of one-off bikes and hardware to factory-sponsored teams is an unfair advantage.
Fox technician Justin Frey working over Aaron Gwin's new RAD 40 fork prototype during his dominant 2012 season. The revolutionary air-sprung system would remain a guarded secret that year.
 | Who cares if privateer and corporate teams get stuck with last year's technology if it the practice ultimately results in better bikes and parts for the rest of us? |
Deep inside, the unfairness of factory support is something that most of us actually relish. Feature articles and secret sightings of one-off prototypes seen at the races, or in race testing, score huge numbers on Pinkbike. The fact that many innovations that evolve from race shops actually do trickle down to production gives us hope that some day we will have a chance to lay down our credit cards and experience their performance first hand. The argument in favor of cutting bike makers and component companies loose to develop anything they want for racing purposes is compelling, not just for the promise of better bikes for the common rider, but also for the raw excitement that it injects into the sport. Who cares if privateer and corporate teams get stuck with last year's technology if it the practice ultimately results in better bikes and parts for the rest of us?
- Suspended Productions photo
| The cliche' that racing improves the breed may be true, but it could be strongly argued that the production rule has done a much better job of bringing race technology to motorsports. |
I would, if I were a handful of seconds off the podium on the World Cup circuit and being routinely crushed by racers who had access to better equipment - which begs the question: Could a few changes in the sporting regulations provide a more fair arena for all competitors? Many forms of motor racing enforce a "production rule" that requires competitors to use vehicles and engines that are in serial production. To qualify, the engine and the vehicle can be a prototype or a pre-production item, but it must be produced and sold in specific numbers of units before those items are legally allowed in competition. Some forms of racing require the vehicle to be based upon a showroom stock model. Motocross has been using that model since the early 1980s. World Rally competitors must run production based engines and cars. The reasoning is to keep the playing field as even as practical and more importantly, to enable racing teams to compete directly with those who are sponsored by manufactures. The direct results of production regulations is that non-factory teams can and do win races and championships. The benefits to rank and file racers, however, may be far more reaching.
Nico Lau piloting his prototype Fox Factory 34 RAD fork to third place in the Lake Garda enduro. Major bike brands and suspension makers are preparing teams for an assault on enduro for the 2014 season. With an emphasis on light weight, pedaling efficiency and downhill descending skills, we expect to see a lot of one-off designs and factory-only innovations.
Compare a motocross bike with a DH bike and it should be obvious that the motorcycle racer gets a lot more for the same money. It's embarrassing to me that the motorcycle manufactures can somehow manage to stuff a five valve, fuel-injected engine into the deal. Production rules force manufacturers to fast-track technology into their production race bikes. The evidence is beyond compelling. If suspension makers had to make 200 prototype forks or shocks and make them available to privateers before they could use them in competition, it could be a game changer. Same goes for tire makers and bike companies who plan to release a different chassis. The model could definitely benefit DH racing, but enduro is where the production rule could be most beneficial, as those events are becoming more widely attended by privateer racers who will soon be facing a hotly contested battle between factory teams. The cliche' that racing improves the breed may be true, but it could be strongly argued that the production rule has done a much better job of bringing race technology to motorsports. Perhaps the bike industry could learn a lesson here.
Should racing be restricted to production bikes and components?
Should there be a 'production rule' for mountain bike racing that ensures that bikes and components fielded by factory teams are sold in sufficient numbers to make the technology available to non factory racers?
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
In our sport, where the human is the engine, the equipment plays less of a role on the final outcome of the day than in motorsports but it definitely is still a factor. But I think the reality is that being picked up by a big "factory" team is more of an advantage because of the other "bonuses" over just having one-off equipment- you've got a good team mechanic (or several) that are able to test and setup that equipment just for you, they've done more research on different equipment advantages for different conditions (suspension,tires,etc.), better trainers & coaches, better travel arrangements and accommodations that you don't have to organize yourself and all the other "little" things that are taken off your plate when you're no longer a privateer. They may seem small but all of of those things eventually add up, especially over the course of a season, and take focus away from the actual racing element of the world cup.
Having said that, I do agree with RC that we currently have to pay a ridiculous amount for bikes, especially compared to motorcycles, however I'm not sure just imposing a "production rule" on racing is going to solve that issue.
So Marzocchi, should being selling way cheaper than everyone else since they make suspension for bikes and motobikes, since they have the resources already.
Also, Honda, Kawasaki, Yamaha, KTM and Suzuki should all really get in the bike market because their financial resources, engineers, and development systems would allow them to undercut existing companies. Of course Honda, Suzuki, and Yamaha already are bigger companies with fingers in the motocross game, so their bikes should also be cheaper. (And they are cheaper by a little compared to boutique brands.)
Also, How are Gas Gas and the other trials bikes still in the game when the more mainstream manufacturers could take over their field?
The truth is, the manufacturing and production capabilities are not what make motorcycles cheaper. It is the lack of variety. Their products are all so close to the same that they have to compete in price to get buyers, driving prices down.
Bikes are not so similar (though they are not as different as we like to think either). When you are the motor you notice little things and there is different preference for different riders on a larger scale. There is less financial competition between trek and specialized than there is between honda and ktm because some people just like certain bikes better when they ride them, but you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a blacked out honda and a blacked out ktm on the trails except at the pro level.
I also think there is a little gouging in the bike market. How different is a xt derailleur from an acera really? Aside from the clutch nothing on there is new. Just better materials, maybe an extra check on the line to make sure they aren't crap. Pennies a piece of difference, but hundreds of dollars off the shelf.
Will restrictions deliver? No, vultures like associations will attempt to regulate and with regulation comes sanctions. Let them ride whatever they want because it will look like this in the end anyway: Long top tube, low bb, single pivot, low spring rate and slightly more than 200/200mm travel and 60-63 HA.
Think about it this way, some frames are definitely better than others, but racers willingly ride all sorts of different bikes these days unlike back in the day when teams were re-badging Intense M1's (I think?) because it was clearly an advantageously better bike. So, it's OK to be on an inferior product, as long as it's the latest from that manufacturer? Do you really think being on the newest tech is all about performance? Their sponsors are promoting their products - that's why they have a team.
This is the stupidest PinkBike Poll (the ones commissioned by the site) I have ever read.
If you go on about making it a restriction system like the WRC ad MX world. Why bother?! It's already in place. Who do people think does the future product testing that falls on the pages of the mags and web pages that you replace your bust and broken parts with????????
Completely unrelated.
The elite WC rider is there to gain his own national points to continue racing at the highest level, as well as to premote the standard you COULD get to if you TRAIN, FOCUS and put the EFFORT in.
The tech has bugger all to do with it in my opinion.
Have you watched a f1 race?
Your partially right that the cars have been restricted with small variation and funds been a big factor.
But. Few things. DRS has improved racing it improves overtaking/challenging and adds to the closeness of racing where cars are no longer stuck consistently behind others, some zones are too long though I agree and makes over taking too easy. But ultimately it has made racing closer. DRS goal is to make it a challenge or a possibles move to be made, not to allow a car to easily pass.
Pit stops there is only one rule in that you need to use both coumpound of tires with exception of wet races. So the only limit is 1pit stop and that's it. There is no other rules to min and max pit stops. It hasnt created any issue as most teams will run both compounds anyway due to wear and overall better race pace.
As for dictating tires that's ecsise Pirelli make tires specifically for each track to maximize racing entertainment. However yes this years tires are too soft they wear to fast and racers are having to cruise on them for too long to prevent wear.
Refuelling makes no difference it has minorly affected strategy but it still takes the same amount of time for refuelling so its increased the speed of pit stop and in thereby increased te importance of them while increases the speed of the race. It has dramatically reduced the safety hazard of refuelling too, it also have increased the engernneeing side in they need to make the are economical and te margins for fueling is tighter.
They get no more than 8engines per year without issue, any more and they drop 10grid spots for the race they put the engine in.
And Pirelli pick not make the tires for each race.
One I feel the wc is fair game other races like nationals, states etc should be restricted.
These lower platform are major development races for riders who want to make it, if wc riders are coming down to race they should be on the same playing field as everyone else (ie no unobtainable parts) this makes it fair for comparison and fairness for the racing.
On the flip many small businesses use theses platforms for developing thier own products. So my mind in this comes to one conclusion.
New development parts that will be come avaliable to the public are fair game , generally these parts are not drastically better but just the next gen so no issue.
Prototype parts that will never make it to product and are built only for pros should be kept to the wc cuircut.
If Joe public is of the standard to race in the Elite standings then they should have some sort of team deal underneath them anyway.
PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT OF THEIR OWN ARGUMENT HERE AND IT'S JUST SILLY.
This has nothing to do with "Joe Public" being at these races. He's there but he's on the sidelines yelling (like you are in your comment for some reason). But there are privateers at the world cup level.
Not everyone is bothering to read the possible options presented for this idea. You could make the restrictions just on race day so that innovations could still be tested. And "products being made available for purchase" doesn't have to mean there's 100k of them out there for the public- it's more like 200 available for all racers on the world cup to be able to purchase them.
It's not quite the black & white issue everyone wants to turn it into.
Say...when a Pro rider wins a National race in his elite category,and say sets a winning time of 2 minutes on his world cup bike.Then you have the winning rider of the senior race setting a time of 2 minutes and 5 seconds on his production bike.
Wouldnt the rider on the production bike be thinking hmm maybe if i had a world cup bike i would of got alot closer to the elite riders time maybe even beating his time.But the limelight is mainly taken by the Pro riders setting the fastest times on there world cup bikes.Is this right for National races?The Pros could choose to ride the teams production bikes making things slightly fairer for all of the riders to compare in a more true field.
Atleast this might show that a standard production bike is capable of setting the fastest time of the day.Just a thought.
Priveteers on the WC curciut may not receive big product deals but I can assure you that the individuals who do, have more than enough ability to do everything they currently do on standard stock parts. The products alone won't give a 5 second difference against someone else in the race unless the privateer is on equipment that is a few years old.
The main difference between a privateer and a pro team rider is the fine details of a support network. Mechanics that will fine tune your bike while they focus on the riding.
To say the products give them the upper hand is not really an argument in my eyes. All of the top
Riders in every country have shown their ability on production bikes to get to where they are today. Apart form the odd new designed brake lever, disc caliper/rotor or mech, there isn't really any difference in products that's made from the production side. Tuning is performed by the teams own mechanics that are fully qualified and employed by the company/team. It's no different than you taking your bike to a suspension company like J-Tech suspension, Tftuned or mojo to get service and custom tuned to your specifics. All the WC privateers will have already done this.
Products need to be tested under race conditions as this is where they need to be tested. If it's not tested at its intended limits, why bother making something. Practice runs aren't the same as race day runs.
Who on the WC curciut is using a none production bike? GT, yes but this will no doubt become a production bike like everything else. The only difference at the moment is the factor of 650b and 29er wheels thrown into the mix.
People who think the bike doesn't make a difference need to stick with walmart rigs. It is a better investment since the bike doesn't matter.
The wc platform is massive if a privateer places 20th they will catch the eye, at that level they are seen easily even with lower results and if they are at that level they will need to prove it at that point, the wc is the pinincle wc races I had no issue with prototype parts.
On national and state or Oceania level I think it needs to be restricted. These platforms are much smaller and you rarely see anyone who finishes off the podium, likewise these platform are not for pros these are for the other unheard of up and comers and while pros will attend these platforms are mostly for the unknown and future riders, the platform needs to be for these riders not wc riders, havin prototype parts is hurting.
Parts are important and yes the rider will ultimately be the deciding factor if you have two riders who have great runs the parts could be the deciding factor whether they finish 1st or 5th.
Lets take a downhill run that takes 4min to finish.
So 240seconds. If we assume parts make up just 1% of the speed that is still a 2.4second gain from parts.
If we are comparing two dh bikes (ie comparable rides) I beleive the gain in parts is probably only 1-3% but you can see over a 4min run that can equate from a 2.4-7.2second gain.
As I said earlier though.
New development parts that will be come avaliable to the public are fair game in any arena, generally these parts are not drastically better but just the next gen so no issue for me at any race domestic or otherwise.
Prototype parts that will never make it to product and are built only for pros should be kept to the wc cuircut.
Let the innovation continue, there's realistically very little on a bicycle that can't already be bought by the end consumer if they're willing to pay, and unlike motorsports where more money = faster vehicle, the rider's ability outweighs the bike's by such a massive amount that having "production" based racing is a total waste of time. Especially when you consider that the majority of modifications out there are made by the everyday joe, and are things like custom fenders, chainguide mods, pedal mods etc.
Did you mean: biker is a dominating factor so some new stuff can't help much, yet don't stop inventing that new stuff? As crazy as it may sound, makes perfect sense to me!
Other then that I think RC missed a point - race only gear makes racing/biking in general more interesting to follow - think Honda or Millyard with that tank damper and the 7 page discussions that followed. People clearly love stuff like that.
Everyone would love to get there hands on the best gear but it wont happen so to make it a little fairer on them let the top lads right production stuff in there race runs, or bring back the skin suit I bet you'd see some lower field guys hey maybe even some of the top guys sport them just to gain some extra time which racing is all about.
On another note they could do a charity race every year every rider on the same bike and the same components or maybe they can race each other’s bikes by drawing it out of a hat.
As a governing body, yes they probably do. (It's not hard to beat the UCI)
But, really, how much innovation has there been in dirt bikes over the past 5-10 years compared to the same time period in bicycles? You could argue that's a result of limiting what's getting out onto the track.
Barely wasted my time reading it or the obvious comments that will point out the obvious stupidity of the topic at hand.
Desperate articles like these make Pinkbike look out of touch, and...desperate. Yes it is the winter, not alot to talk about. But sometimes it's better to write nothing at all than to write something stupid.
This article is worse than RC's mostly irrellevant and misinformed article on the future of enduro. Even the safety wire article wasn't as silly as this. When he tries to apply motorcycle thinking to mtb it comes across as stupid desperation. I still like him overall but I think Pinkbike should be a little more selective in these increasingly predictable troll polls RC engages in.
(Always Sunny... anybody?)
and what was wrong with his article on the future of enduro?... i thought it was spot-on in identifying the basics... what about it is misinformed?
"Production rules force manufacturers to fast-track technology into their production race bikes. The evidence is beyond compelling".
A production rule, such as one requiring around 200 to 250 production versions to be sold to the public, has done nothing but introduce more innovative versions of parts, frames and components to be, safely, used by a wider variety of athletes in the sports in which it has been implemented.
So remind me again why it is a bad idea?
As the 34 RAD article the other day pointed out (www.pinkbike.com/news/Riding-FOXs-RAD-34-Fork.html), and I quote:
"A lot of what we learn through the RAD program is considered for production but many times what an elite World Cup racers wants is not necessarily what a consumer wants, or even what an elite racer would want to ride on a regular basis. - Mark Fitzsimmons, Race Program Manager"
This begs the question that if their elite level riders are determining the direction that their R&D is going, and that same direction is at odds with the wants and needs of us the consumers, why should there be any benefit to us, the end users? Sure, the elite racers get products that suit them down to the ground, however, again as has been mentioned on many an occasion, you would be forgiven for thinking that an entire line of first generation CTD dampers look to have been brought to market having had scarcely sufficient quantities of testing.
Further to that, take a look again at the RAD 34 article. It seems to suggest that whilst the RAD lines will continue to be made available to their elite athletes, Fitzsimmons adds "certain RAD-level products might be available as aftermarket upgrades in the near future". With emphasis on the might.
Even then, do they need to use WC level events to do their research. Of course not, Fox and any of the big names have more than enough opportunities to do what testing they need to do to determine what will work and what will not without the need to use WC races.
Yet a production rule will level the playing field, and make for better racing.....
-In Rally and almost all forms of spec motorsport, "based on production" is a very loose term. The mountain bike industry hasn't even come close to exploiting this rule to the extent that more established and more technically involved sports have. Even the most advanced products from SRAM and Fox still resemble their showroom counterparts, that derailleur being a great example. It still has a cage, two pulleys and a big spring right? It's not that revolutionary. Compare that with a production based Subaru 2.0 liter boxer engine that would make roughly 260hp and about as much torque. Now add an enormous turbo, anti-lag, water injection, hugely complex mapping and electronics, and out the other side comes a 300hp but almost 900 ft/lb of torque ( at least in the "old" group A era) that can run for days at max and not break. Having 4 cylinders and being an engine is about where the similarities stop.
I say bring it on. Give the best riders all the craziest and most advanced stuff you can think of. You throw enough mud at the wall eventually some of it will stick...and we will benefit.
Please always add an extra option for the rest of us who are non-conformists. I would've voted "I don't care. It doesn't bother me whatever anyone wants to do." I'm not a racer but, isn't the ability to do what ever anyone (that includes Corporations) wants, whether it be to the detriment of some other people, the essence of being free?
Love and hate.
I want manufactures going totally mad being able to try one off prototypes with crazy innovation, no limits, yes one bike might have a small advantage or on the other hand it might fail spectacularly but you will only find out if you let them try. Then maybe in a year or two we will all have access to it. I don't think that 95% of riders are able to push their current equipment to the limit so having the latest prototype is hardly necessary for us.
And as for world rally having to have to use production cars and engines, they have to use a production shell and thats about it. The engine, suspension, turbo, gearbox, diff, aero... to name a few are all custom items, or did you think your $15, 000 VW polo was the exact same model as the one Sebastien Ogier is throwing about the Spanish mountains?
For example an unlimited race so all the elite stuff we already have - then sub series for 4k and 2k bikes - then for fun the up to £500 argos/halford junk bike series haha :-D
You do have a point about the model year snafu. You could only do it at the pro level where the riders are on new rigs annually already.
However, every company needs to test their components first to see whether there's any real benefit which wold make the product worth producing/buying.
The only thing I would agree with is selling the racing prototypes to other non-factory teams.
The catch is that the company can put an outrageous price tag on it thus not making it actually available in practice. This is pretty stringently enforced in the road cycling world but no-one in the MTB world seems to care (e.g. Honda bikes existing for many years but never being available) Wink
This UCI rule is why you can buy the frames and helmets used to win so many Golds on the track at the Olympics through UK Sport... I believe a frame is something like £20k and a helmet £10k on their website.
The other way companies on the road get around this rule is I believe there is a "prototyping period" after which it must be made publicly available or scrapped. Truth is though hardly any UCI rules actually get enforced in MTB unless there is an uproar from lots of teams e.g. skin suits.
Placing a "stock" regulation would be a fantastic thing for the sport, in my opinion. It would essentially open the book of "blackbox" level components (and every companies equivalent) to the public, which would be a great thing.
They can still R & D test with other avenues, it just wouldn't be on the WC circuit... so it's not like they suddenly can't develop technology because they can't race with it. There would be no cost increase for dev.
equipment.
This rule doesn't prevent innovation. It makes it available to the super rich.
Your argument is like saying, "let's pull those rocks/roots/obstacles out of the trail because that one racer can't maneuver them." Guess what? If you don't have the skills to handle the course, go home and get them. If you don't have the parts to race a race effectively, go back to work and make some money to buy them. Not everyone who's winning is winning on prototype stuff... Train harder, work better, ride faster, be amazing and a win it'll be.
Basically you have said the big developments are done. Like there is no new thing to change the game. It would be funny if some new tech that shaves serious seconds was coming out next season since then you'd be eating your words. Some pro on something that cuts 30 seconds even though he was not as fast a rider as the guys around him.
I know I know. Nothing is going to change it by that much any more. We are paying more and more for less and less improvement.
I hope that is not entirely true.
That being said, if people are that bent out of shape about these things, why not make a stock and modified class? It's worked for auto races for years!
As for wheel size arguments, let people do what they want I think it just depends what size each person feels most confident with (confident rider will give u way more speed that shiny new kit or bigger wheels) I think world champs proved no wheel size is better in DH especially on the that track, was still the same guys at the top whichever wheel they had.
Moan over
The prototypes the pros are running aren't necessarily better.
They are in prototype stage and maybe in some cases they are gambling not using the production models.
However thats the companies R&D so the consumer can ride more advanced technology in the future.
The fast one on the mountain is 90% the skillful rider and just 10% of the equipment!
similar technology… minus the engine yet we pay ridiculous prices for a solid dh bike
granted the motorcycle set up will be different, they still have "little" bumps… they are just bigger than what we would imagine on a mountain bike. But their "big" bumps are also much bigger than ours.
I agree motorcyclist aren't going to be as picky about weight, but there is still a lot of money going into design of both.
"food for thought."
you can't honestly tell me bike companies aren't making a killing on us buying these 10k bikes
obviously the pro mtber's aren't getting $30,000 put into the bikes. We don't have motors. But that came straight out of the text and we have seen it happen if you watch the world cup series (prototype fox forks, custom bike frame from devinci, etc.)
For someone who is into biking it is easy to justify just as much for a bike as a bike…with a motor. but from someone looking in, it looks absurd.
again, you can't honestly tell me bike companies aren't making a killing on us buying the 10k bikes. i'd be willing to be they have over a 40% markup price for these.
I think the bike that we can get are so good these day many people cannot push them past the fullest potential, but I think we are in the mindset it is the bike and needs to be better if I want to win.
I think that the prices should be lowered considerably, not like %5 less... but at the least %30-%40 less!!!
you dimwits do realize that by selecting this answer you're effectively blocking innovation in anything you can buy?
if they had to race production items wouldn't they have to improve production stuff in order to have better stuff to race on?
bah, doesn't matter anyways, seems marzo nailed the damper in 380, i don't think anyone could ever need any more, i mean it's effectively avy level stuff, the only problem is ppl need to learn to tune and tinker with it
Companies forced to produce their curting edge gear on a large scale in order to race it would release only what they could afford.
The current system eliminates a lot of lost profit, allowing prices to be lower.
Or would it? Testing would still happen, but would instead have to take into account long term use as well as high performance. Fox in particular would benefit from that. And testing would still happen. Pros might just get busier in the off season with parts tests.
I'm torn on this.
Making race parts available for serial production, however, is a different deal. Prices are typically through the roof, but that is what one-off parts cost and that is acceptable for teams who have already antied up hugely for a WC racing series and need that extra five percent performance increase to get their racers up to the front and give the big boys a go.
As far as the liabilities go, many race shops lease major components to privateer teams, (engines, for instance) and require them to return them after their contracts run out.
Sorry strayed away from this. I don't think there should be any caps on factory riders. These fancy one off parts are a trickle down part if it works. Might be a bit heavier for durability, but we will get it someday. I saw the FSA prototype brakes out on my trails 3 years ago. Do I wish I had them, maybe, but he's a faster rider than me, so it would not have made a difference. Most of the fastest guys will in fact be fast, no matter what they ride. Well in Gwin's case, not sure what happened there. I don't like seeing the prices of stuff skyrocket to have a better part, but that said, since returning back to mountain biking at a serious level 4 years ago, after a 4 year break, the parts today are way better than 20 years ago, even 10 years ago. So I think the prototyping and one off stuff is good as a whole and a Factory rider should be treated as such, only the best.
2) In regard to mass-saving you can argue if using mass-production parts would provide the equal condition between works teams and privateers. As manufacturer you can still either select the best parts from the lot or produce "worst-case parts" within the production tolerances whereas average joe will get a random part from the shop.
3) Ok, in terms of special coating for suspension parts, special compound tyres, etc... you really need the support of "big" companies, but 'honestly for one-off for links to change suspension goemetry, offset bushes, offset headsets, some of the drivetrain modifications, .. you really don't need factory support for proto parts or them having been offered at $$$. Some basic engeineering knowledge, some friends/family with access to equipment, etc... can do a lot. I have seen several interesting DIY solutions, however almost exclusively from people with (relatives with) experience in .... yep, motorsports again...
Manufacturer support will always give a benefit in terms of access to parts (blueprinting), knowledge (!) about the product, etc... and the possibility of special parts, however since the impact of the rider is huge and partially you can make up with some ingenuity without huge budgets for me the advantage of testing parts in a racing environment is more important.
It may amaze the public how much stuff gets developed but never released. Some large companies as much as 80% is never released to the public. SRAM and Shimano are only small companies, but will still have many R&D components which never make it to the market for one reason or another.
I saw what the UCI did to restrict road bike innovation...completely retarded. As soon as someone had a new idea, they'd write a rule to squash it. (Mr. Obree?)
There is very little, and arguably nothing of real significance, that a privateer cannot obtain that a factory rider can.
If there is not enough ingenuity there to figure out a 7 spd tight cassette or to get your fork set-up properly, then you have bigger issues than being in the Black Box program.
If there was a game-changer - say a very effective gearbox, as an example - it would be available, because the demand would there and they'd want to sell them, right? They would not hold back so their DH WC riders had an advantage...they want to sell product.
Prototypes are products that are being tested as possible production items. And there are clearly benefits to allowing this. Products get tested, bugs are worked out, we find out what works, what doesn't and eventually (hopefully) the products trickle down to the common man.
'One offs' on the other hand are a different story. These are things like Steve Smiths World Champs bike, and those tires the Scott XC team uses etc. Things that are custom produced for special situations for specific riders, like a bike specific to a certain venue. Its one thing to tune or set up a bike for a particular race, but to create a whole new custom frame? These are the type of things that clearly not every rider has access too and perhaps should not be allowed.
But now things have changed:
I am all for making companies run production models of prototypes, in the name of "advancing" the sport.
I have lost any sympathy that I had for bike companies.
Keep restrictions out of it. The best will ride whatever they have, straight to the top. They didn't start out on primo factory shit, and they don't need it to win. Those whose wins depend on (or blame for their loss) having (or not having) fancy one-off proto gear aren't really winners, now are they? Winners do what they have to do to get where they want to be. The end.
Leave the top guys on prototypes (just like motogp and F1) and have some cheap beginners type racing.
(I know I'm going to get flamed for this idea!)
One I feel the wc is fair game other races like nationals, states etc should be restricted.
These lower platform are major development races for riders who want to make it, if wc riders are coming down to race they should be on the same playing field as everyone else (ie no unobtainable parts) this makes it fair for comparison and fairness for the racing.
On the flips my small businesses use theses platforms for developing thier own products. So my mind in this comes to one conclusion.
New development parts that will be come avaliable to the public are fair game , generally these parts as not drastically better but just the next gen.
Prototype parts that will never make it to product and are built only for pros should e kept to the wc cuircut.
Personally, I like the rules being open on mtn bike racing because these are merely human (and gravity) powered vehicles. If you want to take the chance of running trail bike tires in a WC DH race, you are able to make that call. If you want to try a prototypic frame that is lighter than ever and has very little testing time, that is your gamble. I like this about the racing. You have to cross the finish line faster than everyone else. Reliable parts are very likely to cross the finish line. Super light or prototypic parts are potentially higher performance that help you cross the line faster, but not without risk.
I say, if Mitch Ropelato wants to podium on his 29" trail bike, go for it! If Minnaar wants to race champs with a condom-wall tire, go for it! If KHS only runs 27.5 DH bikes, go for it! Danny Hart would have won 2011 champs on a tandem fixed gear 29er fatbike with Avid Elixirs.
Limiting equipment to large production runs, certain tread compounds, weight restrictions, etc doesn't let each rider optimize thier own race. Motorsports are a huge expensive pain in the ass compared to bicycle racing. I say let the mountain bikers and their teams run whatever equipment they have the best chance on (as long as the only power to the wheels is from legs or gravity.)
This is actually a mis representation of the facts. "Production based" means selling a relatively small number of cars world wide to qualify, privateers (and wanna be boy racers) snap up those 'production cars' and use their own resources and finances (from other sponsors) to tune them to within 0.001% of what the rules allow.
Specialised, Santa Cruz, Giant, Devinci would easily meet any kind of production criteria witht the sales of their "WC" or "Race" builds currently so they are in effect running along similar production lines.
Racing has always been about development.
Your recent article about $5000 Fox rear shocks. Would I buy one if I could? I might. I am willing to switch to BOS suspension based on a conversation with the Canfield brothers (in person) this year. Would I benefit from what the shock provides? Probably not, I am probably not a fast enough or 'go big enough' rider to really benefit. I don't race either. Would the fact that I would be able to more closely tune my bike to the way I ride result in a greater level of safety and enjoyment for how I like riding - probably.
All we need is a good variety of tracks that over the length of a season determine the best riders by challenging every skill set. I am sure Greg Minaar would not be that much slower on equipment that you or I could buy. Harry Heath is a privateer as is Ed Masters and they have both beaten 'factory' riders this year. They need to monetise the opportunity that those results give them in order to secure the sponsorship to develop a private program or be attractive to an established team.
So please give em a laser-blackbox-gear, nitrogen-shock-systems and of course 22,35645432inch wheelsets.
:-)
Let lance smoke crack and ride fast but have a race for pure human performance also.
Now to frame that within the above argument (which you resurrected simply to make an unsupported supposition and insult my user name)
To make sure I got this straight, you are saying that the innovations in the handmade bike market contribute significantly to the race scene and the market as a whole?
If that is what you are saying I would like a few examples.
How many hand made small brands even race at the world cup level? If it is a lot then I understand your concern.
I look forward to hearing from you in a few months.
Change the rule and suddenly it is more like those guys are on bikes you could have some day!
Taletotell I agree u will never drive an f1 car but bikes are very different, after all a cheap car it like 10k but a cheap bike is like 100 quid so paying 6k for a dh bike is pretty much like buying an F1 car (and you can buy old ones if your super rich) just like bikes you can buy what it essentially the same as the racers prototypes just a few years later, so you can and probably do ride a black box shock it just isn't back box anymore, we need pro only prototypes so they can be tested and developed properly to create better products for us, after all to the companies the pros are basically development and advertising tools as we R there ones that give them the money.
Racing is where product innovation happens. Go for it.