i have said it before and i will say it again, there is a very good reason bicycle design has never really changed since the two triangle was invented.
bike snob said it first. all these avante garde flashy design shits should stay out of something they know nothing about.
The reason is rules and inertia.
I don't want to start an argument about this, but I have to point out that bicycle design has changed a hell of a lot over the past 100 years, it's just that most breakthroughs in racing are banned within a year or two of their debut. The only reason diamond frames and drop bars are still used is because of UCI rules, not because they're perfect. Hence designs like y-frames, the Lotus monocoque bikes, recumbents, Obree superman/tuck bars and countless other things that the UCI have banned - all of these are (proven to be) faster than what we would see on a 'traditional' bicycle. They simply aren't produced by mainstream manufacturers, because most of their R&D budget goes into ways of making best bikes that comply to the rules, rather than making the best possible bikes.
The reason is rules and inertia.
I don't want to start an argument about this, but I have to point out that bicycle design has changed a hell of a lot over the past 100 years, it's just that most breakthroughs in racing are banned within a year or two of their debut. The only reason diamond frames and drop bars are still used is because of UCI rules, not because they're perfect. Hence designs like y-frames, the Lotus monocoque bikes, recumbents, Obree superman/tuck bars and countless other things that the UCI have banned - all of these are (proven to be) faster than what we would see on a 'traditional' bicycle. They simply aren't produced by mainstream manufacturers, because most of their R&D budget goes into ways of making best bikes that comply to the rules, rather than making the best possible bikes.