The UCI states that the bikes pro riders race on need to be commercially available, but I don’t think that's right.
I appreciate that brands want to sell the same bikes that pro riders compete on – it’s a neat USP, and an impressive feat of engineering and marketing. Winning on Sunday and selling on Monday – it makes a lot of sense.
But in a sport as niche as downhill racing, does commercial availability really matter?
And could those rules mean we’re missing out on big brands that sit outside of cycling getting involved in our little sport, simply because they don’t ever intend on creating sellable bikes off the back of it?
History suggests that could be the case.
Honda dabbled with downhill racing for a few years with its truly iconic gearbox-equipped RN-01 downhill bike.
This was huge news at the time and kept the industry on its toes.
The key feature of the bike was its fully encased gearbox that, for a long time, no one had a clue as to what was inside. It also used a fork and shock made by Showa.
I remember vividly because the mechanics would remove the gearboxes after practice, and take them off to the hotel each evening, wrapped up so no one could see them.
Even at races where we were loading bikes in and out of trucks, Honda ensured no one could handle its bikes, even if one was placed in front of yours on the uplift truck.
Everything was bolted to beautifully crafted frames, optimised to balance stiffness and flex almost perfectly – or so the story goes.
However, at no point could you purchase the RN-01. Honda raced the bike from 2004 to 2007, and it didn’t sell a single bike.
The sense of mystery this created was second to none.
And I want even more of that mystery in downhill racing.
Broadening horizons
To recap, UCI rules state any prototypes used must be approved by its Equipment Unit first: “Authorisation will be granted only for equipment which is in the final stage of development and for which commercialisation will take place no longer than 12 months after its first use in competition.”
While we’re unlikely to see Honda coming back any time soon, other likely candidates could be tempted to make a splash if the rules were relaxed.
Porsche, owner of Fazua motors, and Yamaha are heavily involved in the bike industry.
Could a rule change encourage them to use cross-country or downhill racing as a marketing tool to sell their wares?
And what about McLaren, which has recently brought an eMTB to market. It's known for its involvement in road racing, albeit on a consultancy level, so why not mountain biking, too?
Scrapping the rule could encourage these behemoths of the automotive industry to dip their toes into the sport of mountain biking once again.
Whether they use it as a marketing tool, engineering experiment, or simply a chance to be involved with the (relatively) green sport of cycling, it feels as though mountain biking wins.
Same same but different
Marketing cash aside, there are other compelling reasons for brands to develop racer-only bikes.
Elite racers in downhill and cross-country can do mind-bending things on bikes that we mere mortals can only dream of.
Why should they be held back by design parameters because designers have to consider a bike’s marketability?
Now, I’d be naïve to think most racers at the pointy end of the sport aren’t on a bike tailored to them. Custom geometry, tuning to the nth degree and myriad parts unique to them are de rigueur for top-flight racers.
There’s scope to do more though – why shouldn’t we let the engineers flex their design muscles and push the limits without commercial restraints?
When I was getting into downhill racing, the results were dominated by the likes of Sunn, GT and Cannondale – brands that consistently rolled out bikes that would never grace a shop floor.
It was this race for mechanical supremacy – something Sunn, Nicolas Vouilloz and Honda were known for – that got me hooked on the tech.
Despite not being able to buy the exact same bike my hero Vouilloz rode, it never dampened my interest.
I would scour the mountain bike magazines and carefully rewind VHS tapes in a bid to spot exactly what was going on with these otherworldly machines.
The 'win on Sunday, sell on Monday' mantra sanitises things.
Don’t get me wrong – stroll around the pits at any World Cup event now and jaws will drop at the tech on offer. But I miss the days of the truly wild and wacky – the secrecy and mystery.
There have been glimmers – just look at Loïc Bruni’s Specialized and the Gamux that AON Racing will be riding in 2025. But we need more.
What can we learn from F1?
You and the bike brands may not agree with me, but I’m fine with never buying the exact same bike as the ones ridden by the best in the world.
Perhaps we should look to Formula One, where the drivers are there to sell the brand, not the car itself.
Bruni’s bike is probably the best example of a drool-worthy innovation that’s been kicking around the pits for years, without the remotest possibility of anyone being able to buy it.
But how is that possible?
This little nugget from the UCI regulations may help to explain things: “The manufacturer may request a single prolongation of the prototype status if justified by relevant reasons."
While we can’t know for sure whether or not Specialized intends to bring the bike to market, we can ask whether the fact punters can’t buy Bruni’s bike puts them off Specialized – I’d argue it’s quite the opposite.
Looking elsewhere, Greg Minnaar and Norco were seen doing all sorts with the back end of the bike, as was Amaury Pierron’s mechanic, using skinny steel chainstays on his Commencal.
Both of these changes look quirky and I’d say it’s highly unlikely we’ll ever see these mods in production.
So pro-only kit is out there – engineers and mechanics are clearly looking for advantages. But could there be more on the table if the UCI ditched its rule?
Should Atherton Bikes push its new, more affordable alloy downhill bike, leaving the new gearbox-equipped A.200.G for its top-tier racers only?
I don’t see that being a bad thing. Use the flagship bike to build the buzz, and sell the more affordable, practical bike instead. Makes sense, right?
There are glimmers of hope.
Compared to road riding, mountain biking is fortunate that the equipment isn’t governed as tightly, meaning there’s more freedom with geometry and weight, along with various other parameters.
The UCI has even updated those rules to include mixed-wheel-size bikes and added belt drives.
Maybe I’m a way off and, in fact, winning on Sunday and selling on Monday is a key part of business success for brands.
But in a sport as niche as downhill, I’m not sure it is, with sales of these very specific machines low.
So, come on UCI – let’s ditch the rule and see where it takes us. Bring back the quirky, wild and wonderful, and see what happens.
Who knows which brands might choose to get involved – it could be glorious.
