>>1949648The discussion boils down to
>WHY do the UCI set the rules that they set?The answer is simple, they don't want any tech/innovations that embarass the sport by making it seem 'uncool' to members of the public who don't participate in the sport. They set the rules that procyclists must abide by based on people that don't ride bikes, don't watch cycling and dont care about the sport just so they won't be rude or mock it and deter people in the sport from continuing. In this same vein, they want the 'pro's' bikes to look like the bikes 'we' ride. All of this is to allow for more sales and it is the brands themselves that not only support but actively want and push for this.
Now this doesn't mean that brands don't try and skirt the rules, because a win on the big stage is also super profitable, so they always look for an edge, but overall they're happy for UCI over-reach because it makes their consumer goods (the bulk of their profit) look better and sell better.
It's very similar to the phenomenon of banned-advertising that people realised when cigarette advertisements got made illegal in many places. It actually made the tobacco companies become more profitable, because now they don't have to spend any money on advertisements but still sell a similar amount of cigarettes. People wondered, why didn't they advertise in the first place? Simply to compete, if one company spends £10,000,000 advertising their brand, they will steal consumers from other brands, so the other brands start advertising to. They all end up basically keeping the status quo, with the 'best' advertisements winning out year on year. Now if a cigarette company manages to find a way to advertise when everyone else is banned from doing so, they would make significant profit. This is the same reason that bike brands in UCI events try to push the rules to win the race while also supporting those rules, because restriction is actively good for them.
