Why couldn’t you make the same version of this video about the Lotus bike GB used?

If you want innovation, then the countries / teams that put in the R&D effort need to get some advantage back. If you want a level playing field (from a tech perspective) then all teams should be on the same kit. The UCI is trying to balance the two objectives. It's never going to be perfect.

Not surprising in the least.

When you think about the limitations to access track cycling, there is going to much less of these frame sold. And while the material may be relatively cheap, the tooling costs be astronomical. Even at £60,000 depending on the number sold the company will still be make a loss

I agree. If you can not buy it readily, then it should not be allowed in comperitions. And I think UCI should set a limit to the pricetag of bikes, which can be used.

This is such a good idea

@@garyfromtescos It is! Brillant!

Fantastic idea, however when people buy cars they register them with the DVLA (in the UK or whoever in other countries) making it easy to inforce the rule for Rally cars.

Also the rule has had the piss taken many times in the past. It would turn out 300 people that happen to work at Factor bought them 😄

Great. Can't wait to buy the bicycle equivalent of a Renault 5 GT Turbo 2 for dirt cheap just because a manufacturer needs to sell x of them.

I'm amazed they didn't make any regards to that on the video. Also, what are you going to use to mount the optional bottle cages to that frame? Zip ties?

You make a good point! Although I'm sure that countries with less of a budget wouldn't be too keen on that idea

You are assuming that the standardized bikes used in the Olympics would be outrageously priced, which they don't have to be. I propose they use Japanese steel-framed mamachari grocery-getters.

@@Frostbiker ha ha that would be great! but no, a decent cheap bike would do:)

​@@gcntechI like to believe they made a one of for Ollie

In all sports?

Did you go with Magenta? I might be interested if it was Magenta

That would've been fun!

I should have watched the whole video before commenting 😂

I think they'd get around this by footing some of the R&D bill. Especially since the material costs for these bikes aren't low (especially with 3D printed titanium getting involved more and more now), they'd likely be able to justify 50,000 EUR pretty quickly.

What about teams being sponsored by the bike company? Teams generally will also get wholesale at a minimum, even with attainable bikes like Argon 18

Do you understand how manufacturing works?

Make them all use wal mart bikes

For some more interesting tech innovations, why not check out our 'Quantum Leap' film about the Hope track bike on GCN+ 👉 gcn.eu/HopeHBT

OSPWs on track bikes???

I guess that's also a part that should be available to be legal.

Lets make it happen 😂

Take! My! Money!

To be fair, that is NOT the same motorbike... it might have the same name, frame and base engine, but it won't win any races in SBK.

We made a film about the Hope track bike on GCN+ that may interest you! 👉 gcn.eu/HopeHBT

Because it needs to be about the rider, not the bike. F1 is all about the car - 50% of the grid could be World Champion in a superior car.

Those are paid for by the ones (nations/teams) who order this bike now anyway. If they wouldn't pay for it, the brands would not make them.

The manufacture of this bike would be minor compared to the cost of R&D that went into designing this bike. Even having different sizes wouldn't add much cost to the manufacture process.

This

All that's going to do is stifle technology development. There will always be cheaper options available to the public. The rule right now is insulting, just get rid of it and embrace the tech development with the understanding it's going to be expensive and not everyone will get it.

​@@dylan-5287different story with Olympic competition due to the ethos of the Olympics. While not cheap, bobsledding seems to do the best job at this even though regular folks don't buy them

I@@dylan-5287 I hear you with regards to technology development but still if you’re from a country that doesn’t have the money to purchase super expensive bikes you should still be given an opportunity to compete. We want to see who has the best athletes not who has the most money.

Not that much more of a waste of money on this bike than a bike where you could actually fit it...

Because their standard pricing spreadsheet tool almost certainly has a "round to next '9'" formula in it...

If you're using nascar as an example then all the companies are in the clear - it has two wheels, a seat and a handlebar... close enough.

They are "for sale" but unavailable. I had a custumer(when I was a bike fitter) that loves German everything offer them much over their claimed asking price but they just kept telling them they were unavailable

Better than "image not available" - I think the UCI did actually stamp down on that one!

Check out our 'Quantum Leap' documentary about Hope on GCN+ 👉 gcn.eu/HopeHBT

Apparently you haven't seen the costs associated with molds. When I was into mechanical PC keyboards as a hobby, we (keyboard enthusiast forum) asked Signature Plastics about making molds for a spacebar that they already make but just moving the stems to accommodate different keyboard switch layouts. They were more than willing to, if we paid for the molds. That pricetag was $15,000. And they don't last forever.

Depends how many you sell, got to pay for R&D, tooling and production line setup costs whether you sell 1,000 bikes or 100,000... As a general outline assume the materials cost is 15-20% of RRP, the manufacturing labour cost about 5%, the manufacturer then markets it, deals with all the logistics, inventory holding costs, warranty costs, manufacturing yield costs etc. and sells it at about 50-75% of RRP (50% to an international distributor, 75% to a dealer in their country already where they might act as the distributor), and the bike shop sells it at 80-100% of RRP (or maybe below their cost if they get stuck with it for over a year and have to dump it in a sale) You mostly pay for multiple profit margins, which is why direct to consumer brands come in much cheaper (I won't say "better value" because often the people in the process can add a lot of value). The build up of cost/pricing is similar in many many industries. One of the main issues with bike companies is that there are just so many of them... very few have the scale to sell high volumes of a single model/size.

Olympics apparently require bikes that are available to the public, but to my knowledge there isn't much enforcement on how easy it has to be to get one, nor any requirement on production numbers.