[19 / 4 / ?]
Last thread >>1553392
Lets get it straight once and for all. It's time for CX bikes to be homologated by one rule or another. The question is whether the homologation regime should reflect the origins of the sport by restricting equipment to that used in recent road racing seasons or attempt to make CX more relevant to the average cyclist by adopting a minimum production rule, as is common in motorsport.
>>1553489
>>1553511
>CX doesn't need to justify its existence to you. Simply don't buy any CX specific gear and go have fun out in the woods on your road bike, my guy.
Sure it does. This isn't about what I personally want to ride, but having a sustainable cycling discipline that can attract fans on its own merit and has a defining reason to exist. Without either of these rules in place, CX is nothing but an irrelevant oddity, rendered obsolete by XC.
>>1553495
>You say only old road bike shit should be allowed in cx races because you can't afford a cx bike…
I didn't say that. The reason for these restrictions is to rebuild a distinct identity for CX. They may have an effect on cost, though it will probably be small, particularly 'grandfather' homologation.
>As for regulations, they are there for a reason. They keep the discipline from becoming an arms race gear wise
The regulations I propose have the potential to be much more effective in this regard than the current regulations. Grandfather homologation would restrict CX riders to road gear which would be very unlikely to appreciably develop in the direction of improved CX performance. Production-based homologation would limit development to that which the mass-market will bear the cost of and accept for everyday use - a much smaller domain.
>>1553683
>um, what? which one is it anon?
I propose two alternatives to revive CX. Either one would improve on the current situation.
Lets get it straight once and for all. It's time for CX bikes to be homologated by one rule or another. The question is whether the homologation regime should reflect the origins of the sport by restricting equipment to that used in recent road racing seasons or attempt to make CX more relevant to the average cyclist by adopting a minimum production rule, as is common in motorsport.
>>1553489
>>1553511
>CX doesn't need to justify its existence to you. Simply don't buy any CX specific gear and go have fun out in the woods on your road bike, my guy.
Sure it does. This isn't about what I personally want to ride, but having a sustainable cycling discipline that can attract fans on its own merit and has a defining reason to exist. Without either of these rules in place, CX is nothing but an irrelevant oddity, rendered obsolete by XC.
>>1553495
>You say only old road bike shit should be allowed in cx races because you can't afford a cx bike…
I didn't say that. The reason for these restrictions is to rebuild a distinct identity for CX. They may have an effect on cost, though it will probably be small, particularly 'grandfather' homologation.
>As for regulations, they are there for a reason. They keep the discipline from becoming an arms race gear wise
The regulations I propose have the potential to be much more effective in this regard than the current regulations. Grandfather homologation would restrict CX riders to road gear which would be very unlikely to appreciably develop in the direction of improved CX performance. Production-based homologation would limit development to that which the mass-market will bear the cost of and accept for everyday use - a much smaller domain.
>>1553683
>um, what? which one is it anon?
I propose two alternatives to revive CX. Either one would improve on the current situation.
