Puzzled at UCI weight limit on bikes

[richwagmn]

So we all know that mfgs can make crazy light bikes today. Why does the UCI impose a min weight for bikes? Is it really a safety issue or are they concerned with the prices of the bikes affecting smaller budget teams?

 

[Bobby700c]

So we all know that mfgs can make crazy light bikes today. Why does the UCI impose a min weight for bikes? Is it really a safety issue or are they concerned with the prices of the bikes affecting smaller budget teams?

I believe it is ostensibly to do with safety, but whatever the official reason, I agree with it. It stops racing turning into an equipment 'arms-race', which, as you mention, keeps costs down. I certainly don't think there would be any benefit to removing the restriction.

 

[TheNJDevil]

I bike weight minimum should not be removed, but it should be lowered. Not significantly lowered for the reasons mentioned above, but it's current value is too high. Lower it by 10% and leave it there for 2-3 years and review again at that time.

 

[bobbins]

6.8 was the weight agreed by a group of the main manufacturers, the UCI want to make cycling a more global sport and maintaining a reasonable weight such as 6.8 makes it realistic for developing nations to afford bikes that don't leave them at a disadvantage when compared to more affluent nations.

 

[fatandfast]

I believe it is ostensibly to do with safety, but whatever the official reason, I agree with it. It stops racing turning into an equipment 'arms-race', which, as you mention, keeps costs down. I certainly don't think there would be any benefit to removing the restriction.

No. The structural integrity is not extensively tested. Weights(hunks of lead) are put in the seat tubes and cavities inside BB shell to add the grams that are needed to comply with the standard. The thickness of the tubes and minimum spoke counts have continued to go down.Tire weights are also constantly being reduced(improved?) when some paper thin sidewalls give out on a wicked decent they will change that rule. Another dirty secret is how many guys don't use carbon bars and stems.The same guy that checks the bike at L'Eroica is the UCI's tech adviser.The UCI banned Trispokes because peoples arms and heads could get cut off and you see how that worked out.If you want to win their heart send them a cassette of your favorite 70's music.

 

[forty four]

as technology advances cost for lighter bikes goes down as well. the weight and tech restraints should be reviewed and changed every 5 years. its not a safety issue anymore most any bike with light wheels is sub 15lbs.

 

[ImmaculateKadence]

No. The structural integrity is not extensively tested. Weights(hunks of lead) are put in the seat tubes and cavities inside BB shell to add the grams that are needed to comply with the standard. The thickness of the tubes and minimum spoke counts have continued to go down.Tire weights are also constantly being reduced(improved?) when some paper thin sidewalls give out on a wicked decent they will change that rule. Another dirty secret is how many guys don't use carbon bars and stems.The same guy that checks the bike at L'Eroica is the UCI's tech adviser.The UCI banned Trispokes because peoples arms and heads could get cut off and you see how that worked out.If you want to win their heart send them a cassette of your favorite 70's music.

That could be catastrophic.

I like the weight limit. It should be reviewed and reconsidered, but not lowered if it will ultimately compromise structural integrity of bikes and endanger riders. Screaming down a descent at about 50 mph/80 kph on a sub 15 pound/6.8kg bike is pretty crazy when you really think about it. I know they add weights, but what is preventing teams from adding power meters to each bike? Sponsors?

 

[galaxy1]

it really amazes me that they add lead weights to hit the 6.8kg - but scrimp on weight in other areas with untested carbon fibre components in safety-critical areas.

if i had a few hundred grams to spare "for free" i would make damn sure the stem was made of something nice and solid. i'd also run comfier saddle and bars (surely there is scope to do this and then wear lighter, unpadded, gloves and shorts?).

 

[hfer07]

have you guys checked out the new Cervelo called "california "project"? that's insane how they're pushing technology to achieve a frame so light!!
http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/engineering/project-california/
my first though was the UCI weigh compliance but they don't seem to care at all.....

 

[fatandfast]

have you guys checked out the new Cervelo called "california "project"? that's insane how they're pushing technology to achieve a frame so light!!
http://www.cervelo.com/en_us/engineering/project-california/
my first though was the UCI weigh compliance but they don't seem to care at all.....

The CA project is said to be a "reliable" 700 gram frame. There are guys building with Ti that have dependable bikes at 12.5 pounds. They have bikes that are sub 11 pounds but have weight restrictions. There are probably a bunch of small framed men and women that could ride a 12 pound bike if they belly up with the cash. I would be happy to be tooling on anything sub-15 pounds.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Cervelo is working hard to achieve what the Germans achieved a decade ago.

 

[twothirds]

You referring to the FES bicycles? Or brands like Storkc and Canyon?

 

[BroDeal]

I say raise the weight limit by a half a kilo at least. I would rather have bike makers compete on beauty and craftsmenship than, mostly bogus, technical benefits.

 

[fatandfast]

I say raise the weight limit by a half a kilo at least. I would rather have bike makers compete on beauty and craftsmenship than, mostly bogus, technical benefits.

+1. it will allow lots more people to make good bikes.(even more than now) TT bikes should be at a 5 pound limit. No mass start = you should be able to trust your maker/builder.

 

[djconnel]

The higher the weight limit, the less fair to smaller riders, who may have a superior power / mass, but a lower power / ( mass + bike mass ).

The limit is motivated by safety, but it's clear the safe limit is kilograms lower, especially for smaller riders including a disproportionate number of women.

If you're going to set a safety-based limit, it should be 5.0 kg now and re-evaluated every year.

 

[Black Dog]

I say raise the weight limit by a half a kilo at least. I would rather have bike makers compete on beauty and craftsmenship than, mostly bogus, technical benefits.

A big +2.

Safety, Reliability, Durability, Performance...make for a good bike. Lift the restrictions on weight for up hill time trials...let them go to town on bikes when the risk of death is near zero and a crash involves one rider.

 

[usedtobefast]

lighter,faster. is good. going backwards in the tech area, is not. having said that, i used to crush guys on Lightspeeds and Merlins with my Tommasini.
and i liked it.

 

[ihavenolimbs]

The higher the weight limit, the less fair to smaller riders, who may have a superior power / mass, but a lower power / ( mass + bike mass ).

I think it should have a proportional rule. Say 10% of rider weight or 8 kg, whichever is lowest for that particular rider. Women riders and pure climbers often have to lug (proportionally) very heavy bikes up hills. Proportionality also takes care of safety in most situations too.

Though this will start an arms race amongst 40 kg midgets, each trying to build 4 kg bikes.

 

[Hawkwood]

I think it should have a proportional rule. Say 10% of rider weight or 8 kg, whichever is lowest for that particular rider. Women riders and pure climbers often have to lug (proportionally) very heavy bikes up hills. Proportionality also takes care of safety in most situations too.

Though this will start an arms race amongst 40 kg midgets, each trying to build 4 kg bikes.

Me = 87.75 kgs
My bike = 8.33 kgs
So I'd need to add weight to it :-((

 

[St. Elia]

I don't get the argument.

The manufactures ARE making bikes below the legal limit and they are raced on. This is not a safety issue. Yes teams add weights to their bikes to meet the min. however there wheels are lighter and that is a big advantage as we all know. How are heavier bikes (with weight in them) safer on down hills?

The more affordable argument? have you guys been to a bike shop lately? Back in the day almost any one could afford a top level bike that a pro raced, now a days? only old fat guys that have fat bank accounts can afford a bike that the pros race, hell I can't even afford a set of wheels

Why they have this rule is beyond me I think that is because they are out of touch and haven't been on a bike in far too long. Same goes for the restrictions on tt bikes. As far as it coming down to a "arms race", most bikes are close enough that this is not an issue.

I also think that there is lots of room for pretty bikes just look at the NAHBS, some really cool bikes there every year, if your not racing just get one of these if you can afford it

 

[dsut4392]

Me = 87.75 kgs
My bike = 8.33 kgs
So I'd need to add weight to it :-((

I think you missed the "whichever is lowest" part of the hypothetical rule.

I reckon the theory has merit, but using the current 6.8kg as a starting point (i.e. 10% of body weight or 6.8kg, whichever is lower) would make more sense seeing that it's easy enough to meet safely even for a large frame size.