It's actually fairly common. Other sibling comments have a lot of examples, but one I'd like to focus on is the swimsuit arms race in competitive swimming. It really got started with Speedo's LZR Racer suit at the 2008 Olympics, where 98% of swimming medals were won by someone wearing one of these suits.
However, there were serious issues with cost and accessibility. These suits cost a lot of money to develop and manufacture, which was passed on to the swim teams. The LZR Racer could cost $550 per suit, with each suit only lasting a handful of races before requiring replacement. This gave a huge advantage to wealthy teams and swimmers with good sponsorship deals, and talented swimmers without a lot of financial resources were left in the dust.
Then there's the basic question of "what skills do we want to measure and reward in this sport?" With swimming, it got to the point where races were won not in the pool, but in the R&D department of swimwear companies. The swimming organizing bodies felt that swimming competitions should be focused on the athletic ability of individual swimmers instead, so advanced swimsuits were banned.
Don't get me wrong, I like F1 a lot, and part of that is the cool cutting-edge technology the teams develop. But for most sports, heavy technological development doesn't lead to more exciting competition, it just adds barriers to entry.
> 98% of swimming medals were won by someone wearing one of these suits.
> This gave a huge advantage to ... teams and swimmers with ... sponsorship deals
Is the former caused by the latter or caused by performance enhancement?
Speedo sponsoring all likely medal winners into their new product seems like a reasonable explanation. Given that I've never heard of another brand, I assume speedo has a fairly large budget for sponsorships. I don't know anything at all about swimming though, just wanted to throw that out there.
I don't understand how $550 a suit is an exorbitant cost.
You're paying coaches, nutritionists, doctors, managers, etc. What's an extra $550 every now and then?
Sure, maybe a less-well off swimmer can't afford to train with the suit in every practice swim like a wealthy team/swimmer can - but that wealthy team/swimmer already has advantages in everything else.
When the National Hockey League allowed synthetic sticks (aluminum, carbon fibre) in the late 1980s there was a quick uptake as players began to learn how to get greater puck velocities over the old wooden ones. The cost to the game is the phenomena of the exploding stick, which happens far more often than with the old lumber ones and can directly affect the outcome of the game as the dejected player skates away from a missed opportunity.
They actually try to just block without the stick until the play ends and it looks rather silly. I've also seen them dive and punch the puck which doesn't seem like it should be legal but the rules seem to be limited to prohibiting grabbing the puck.
A similar feel is pro cycling and the UCI. Cycling is much cheaper to innovate and test, so the UCI is constantly and aggressively banning new things. Unfortunately consumer bikes generally follow the UCI trends so we miss out on improvements, but the sport retains its “purity”. Very important though - the fastest approach in a Tour de France stage would be a carbon fiber recumbent for the flat sections, then switching to a super light (not aero) bike for large climbs, then switching to a heavier and super aero bike for descents.
Other easy tech that was banned is seats with a lip on the back, so you could push your butt up against it to drive more power. And the “puppy paws” handlebar position - more aero but banned outside of time trials.
I find the road cycling arms race really fascinating too, especially for tech focused on measurement rather than performance. See the 2021 ban on diabetic-style glucose monitors during races [1], the recent restriction of carbon monoxide-based hemoglobin testing [2,3], and the possible upcoming ban on breath sensors during races [4].
On the other hand, because there's a minimum weight for bikes, and frames and wheels are too light now, we get cool tech like motorized derailers and disc brakes
A very small number of teams aren’t well funded, have sponsorship issues, or whatever else and actually run less than top end components. I don’t recall who but there were bikes at either TDF or vuelta maybe last year with group sets which you could’ve just gone to the store and bought better ones.
There are stories like this in marathon running shoes (something like 3D printed to the athlete's exact gait and basically last just a single race) and swimming (the michael phelps olympics dolphin suit).
I'm sure cycling and golf have been doing things like this since forever.
Rowing had the sliding rigger boat which was banned in international competition within a year of first being used.
(In a normal racing rowing boat, the athlete sits on a sliding seat, while their shoes and the rigger with the oarlock are fixed to the boat. In the 1980s, boats were developed that had the shoes and rigger as a unit that slid, while the seat was fixed, which was more efficient as it meant that the boat hull and the athlete's mass moved together.)
On the other hand, first carbon-fibre oar shafts and later asymmetrical "hatchet" oar blades were adopted near-universally within a few years of their invention.
There are videos on YouTube of people using banned golf clubs that are super interesting - sand wedges with big holes in the club head so they slice through the sand, or comically large driver heads.
ARandumGuy|11 months ago
However, there were serious issues with cost and accessibility. These suits cost a lot of money to develop and manufacture, which was passed on to the swim teams. The LZR Racer could cost $550 per suit, with each suit only lasting a handful of races before requiring replacement. This gave a huge advantage to wealthy teams and swimmers with good sponsorship deals, and talented swimmers without a lot of financial resources were left in the dust.
Then there's the basic question of "what skills do we want to measure and reward in this sport?" With swimming, it got to the point where races were won not in the pool, but in the R&D department of swimwear companies. The swimming organizing bodies felt that swimming competitions should be focused on the athletic ability of individual swimmers instead, so advanced swimsuits were banned.
Don't get me wrong, I like F1 a lot, and part of that is the cool cutting-edge technology the teams develop. But for most sports, heavy technological development doesn't lead to more exciting competition, it just adds barriers to entry.
parineum|11 months ago
> This gave a huge advantage to ... teams and swimmers with ... sponsorship deals
Is the former caused by the latter or caused by performance enhancement?
Speedo sponsoring all likely medal winners into their new product seems like a reasonable explanation. Given that I've never heard of another brand, I assume speedo has a fairly large budget for sponsorships. I don't know anything at all about swimming though, just wanted to throw that out there.
umbra07|11 months ago
You're paying coaches, nutritionists, doctors, managers, etc. What's an extra $550 every now and then?
Sure, maybe a less-well off swimmer can't afford to train with the suit in every practice swim like a wealthy team/swimmer can - but that wealthy team/swimmer already has advantages in everything else.
cf100clunk|11 months ago
jdsully|11 months ago
soared|11 months ago
Other easy tech that was banned is seats with a lip on the back, so you could push your butt up against it to drive more power. And the “puppy paws” handlebar position - more aero but banned outside of time trials.
tmiku|11 months ago
[1] https://www.bikeradar.com/news/uci-bans-supersapiens [2] https://www.uci.org/pressrelease/the-uci-bans-repeated-inhal... [3] https://www.bicycling.com/news/a61677020/carbon-monoxide-reb... [4] https://archive.ph/XMrVg
krupan|11 months ago
gadders|11 months ago
I guess other (banned) examples would be the LZR swim suits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZR_Racer) and the Nike Vaporfly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Vaporfly_and_Tokyo_2020_O...)
I think I am also right in saying that you can buy a road bike that is better than the ones permitted in the Tour de France.
lapetitejort|11 months ago
Recumbent bikes have been banned since 1934[0]! Remarkable machines. I'd love to ride one in a civilized location one day.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recumbent_bicycle
soared|11 months ago
floatrock|11 months ago
I'm sure cycling and golf have been doing things like this since forever.
Ichthypresbyter|11 months ago
(In a normal racing rowing boat, the athlete sits on a sliding seat, while their shoes and the rigger with the oarlock are fixed to the boat. In the 1980s, boats were developed that had the shoes and rigger as a unit that slid, while the seat was fixed, which was more efficient as it meant that the boat hull and the athlete's mass moved together.)
On the other hand, first carbon-fibre oar shafts and later asymmetrical "hatchet" oar blades were adopted near-universally within a few years of their invention.
soared|11 months ago