richwagmn said: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 said: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.
fatandfast said: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.
hfer07 said: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!!
my first though was the UCI weigh compliance but they don't seem to care at all.....
+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.BroDeal said: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.
BroDeal said: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.
djconnel said: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 ).
Me = 87.75 kgsihavenolimbs said: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 said:Me = 87.75 kgs
My bike = 8.33 kgs
So I'd need to add weight to it :-((