I was provocative this week when I wrote a piece about WorldTour team funding and equipment. I didn’t anticipate how viscerally some of you would react to the suggestion that “the UCI should ban selling pro bikes to customers” – but perhaps that proves the point that pro cycling and ordinary cycling are still deeply wrapped up in one another.

There was a heady mix of outrage, humour and frustration, and amongst the worst of it – one guy called me a nasty name – there was also some thoughtful reflection.

Shimano 105 and SRAM Rival is, as another reader noted, “a million times better than what we used in the 80’s and in real dollars, cheaper.”

The question I was asking – clumsily for some – was not about consumer freedom, but about whether the current ‘race it on Sunday, sell it on Monday’ model is still a viable one.

Peter Coyle, who’s own thoughts inspired my original post, argued in a follow up post that whilst the core of my thinking was on the right track, the solution I’d offered was somewhat detached. He felt the idea of a tech lock just puts struggling bike brands under more pressure, and would kneecap brands that wouldn’t or couldn’t wear a change that seismic.

His alternative, which to me makes far more sense and again, deserves attention, was one of a homologation model, where brands would still be required to prepare their ideas for sale in products, but the resultant bikes would be sold as strictly limited homologation models.

Further, reimagining or restricting the UCI-competition badge for just those bikes, restoring its prestige, and adding value for customers that covet the very highest tech.

In this approach, people with the cash could still have the chance of buying one, or we as fans would have the chance to see one out on the road, but the limited approach would allow for pricing that might meet some of the development costs.

Crowd in Valentino Rossi's colours at a MotoGP race

(Image credit:  ANDREAS SOLARO / AFP via Getty Images)