UCI Weight Limit

richardjallen

I am assuming the minimum weight limit that I understand is imposed is there for safetly reasons and the UCI believe a bike less than this weight must have compromised strength to lose weight.

Assuming that is the reason for the limit, don't they realise they are out of date when people put weights in their bikes to get them above the minimum weight? The weights do not add anything to the bikes integrity, they only increase the weight. Therefore the bikes must be strong enough anyway.

I know everyone else must have thought this. I also assume they revise their rules sometimes.

Kléber

There is also the cost issue, for riders in developing countries a 6.8kg bike is beyond reach.

Besides, no bikes in the Tour de France do have weights, only a few have to be "weighed down" by heavier items like a big saddle or a SRM powermeter. It's an anachronistic rule but for most pros, they have sponsored bikes with bog standard parts and frames which are above 7kg. Some do have lighter bikes and there are tales of having to drop chains inside the seattube for extra weight but this is rare. Maybe 6.5kg would be a fairer limit?

But this is the UCI, home of bizarre rules. They set rules on bike position which do not vary according to size, Andrei Sosenka has to ride within the same rules and Leonardo Piepoli.

richa

Kléber wrote:

Besides, no bikes in the Tour de France do have weights, only a few have to be "weighed down" by heavier items like a big saddle or a SRM powermeter

Sure I saw a piccie of weights underneth Mayo's saddle at this year's TdF.

andrewgturnbull

Kléber wrote:

There is also the cost issue, for riders in developing countries a 6.8kg bike is beyond reach.

Besides, no bikes in the Tour de France do have weights, only a few have to be "weighed down" by heavier items like a big saddle or a SRM powermeter. It's an anachronistic rule but for most pros, they have sponsored bikes with bog standard parts and frames which are above 7kg. Some do have lighter bikes and there are tales of having to drop chains inside the seattube for extra weight but this is rare. Maybe 6.5kg would be a fairer limit?

But this is the UCI, home of bizarre rules. They set rules on bike position which do not vary according to size, Andrei Sosenka has to ride within the same rules and Leonardo Piepoli.

Hi there.

Chains in the seat tube? You're much better off with some crushed ice in there for the pre race weigh in, as long as your mechanic didn't forget to drill a hole under the bb so that any, er, rain water will drain out...

Cheers, Andy

Kléber

RichA wrote:

Sure I saw a piccie of weights underneth Mayo's saddle at this year's TdF.

OK, maybe a few have them for marketing purposes but the majority of bikes weigh over 7kg. Pros actually want solid machines that do the job, few care for the lightest trick components.

As for ice, I'd heard of that being done before but I think TT bikes are weighed before the stage, but road bikes are weighed afterwards, the winner's bike is checked. Besides, a commissaire would only have to touch the ice, or to notice the water dripping out in the July sun...

drenkrom

For once, I think the UCI did something good with this rule. It levels the field in international races and helps to ensure the bike does not make the winner. I think the rule could be amended to lower the minimum weight for ProTour and Pro Conti teams that are sponsored by companies looking to put their best products in the spotlight, as there is a commercial justification there. Still, I remember reading that only two manufacturers had petitioned the UCI for a change to the rule. Scott and Cervelo, I believe.

andyp

drenkrom wrote:

For once, I think the UCI did something good with this rule. It levels the field in international races and helps to ensure the bike does not make the winner.

:shock:

Kind of fiddling whilst Rome burns though, no? It might 'level the field' in races as far as bikes are concerned but meanwhile the pharmecutical assistance that most Euro pros might have turns that level field into one totally in favour of the richer countries.

Innovation is important in bike racing and applying arbitary weight limits curbs this. If something fails in a race a pro will stop using it so it should be left up to their judgement as to what they want to ride.

nwallace

Kléber wrote:

As for ice, I'd heard of that being done before but I think TT bikes are weighed before the stage, but road bikes are weighed afterwards, the winner's bike is checked.

Thinks of Ken Tyrell's team's 1 year disqualification from F1 for a rather ingenious way of running underweight cars which was arguably within the rules (they were allowed to top up all fluids at the time) then realises that the only things that get refilled on racing bikes are the riders and drinks bottles.

If the UCI want to stick with the It's the rider not the bike approach to the sport then keeping a sensible minimum weight is one way of doing it along with ensuring all bikes are clear relatives of the safety bicycle.

If it gets down to arguments of "he is a great climber isn't he", "no he is on a 3 kilo bike and the guy behind him is on a 10 kilo bike", "so?"

blackhands

RichA wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Besides, no bikes in the Tour de France do have weights, only a few have to be "weighed down" by heavier items like a big saddle or a SRM powermeter

Sure I saw a piccie of weights underneth Mayo's saddle at this year's TdF.

Stupid place to have weight as the C of G is raised.

Cervelo reckon their SL bikes are ballasted as well as being stronger and stiffer.

Monty Dog

It's now possible to buy a sub 7kg bike for about £1500, such that the expense argument is superfluous. Considering the relative costs of running a cycling team, the cost of the bike is pretty insignificant in comparison to things like hotels and travel - perhaps the UCI should be requesting that teams should only stay in Formula 1 style hotels to make the sport more accessible and affordable? I think the one area where the UCI should take control in terms of medical supervision for teams - the doctors would be employed by the UCI and assigned on a rota basis to monitor the teams - the direct employment of doctors by teams / riders should be prohibited. I know it's not perfect, but it would level the playing field considerably.

Kléber

There's nothing to stop riders from visiting a private doctor. As you say though, it's true that you can get cheaper bikes. As technology improves and costs fall, the limit should fall over time to correspond. But as I say, most pro bikes are actually on the heavy side, apart from CSC, Unibet and Saunier Duval, plenty of teams are on quite heavy machines.

craigenty

drenkrom wrote:

For once, I think the UCI did something good with this rule. It levels the field in international races and helps to ensure the bike does not make the winner. I think the rule could be amended to lower the minimum weight for ProTour and Pro Conti teams that are sponsored by companies looking to put their best products in the spotlight, as there is a commercial justification there. Still, I remember reading that only two manufacturers had petitioned the UCI for a change to the rule. Scott and Cervelo, I believe.

I'm also with you on this. As it stands at the moment I can afford a bike the same as a top pro and go and ride it up Mont Ventoux or Alpe d'Huez.
If pro bikes were 5 kilos and cost 10 grand I'd never know what it would be like to ride one up an Alp. Just like I'll never know what it's like to drive an F1 car.

DavidBelcher

richardjallen wrote:

I am assuming the minimum weight limit that I understand is imposed is there for safetly reasons and the UCI believe a bike less than this weight must have compromised strength to lose weight.

Assuming that is the reason for the limit, don't they realise they are out of date when people put weights in their bikes to get them above the minimum weight? The weights do not add anything to the bikes integrity, they only increase the weight. Therefore the bikes must be strong enough anyway.

I know everyone else must have thought this. I also assume they revise their rules sometimes.

There are also handling issues, especially on descents, which is another reason that the weight rule came in - a bike too light in relation to the rider atop it can be overly "twitchy" down hills and round corners. If you're a shorter rider on a small frame whose sources of equipment mean that you're on a team-issue bike which would be within the rules in a bigger size but under weight for your frame size, there's not much choice other than to artifically weigh the bike down. This is sometimes done by using a sprinkling of lower-grade bits, e.g. alloy cranks not carbon, Centaur or Chorus front mechs in place of Record, cheaper models of saddle in place of skinny SLR types, etc.

David

skut

blackhands wrote:

RichA wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Besides, no bikes in the Tour de France do have weights, only a few have to be "weighed down" by heavier items like a big saddle or a SRM powermeter

Sure I saw a piccie of weights underneth Mayo's saddle at this year's TdF.

Stupid place to have weight as the C of G is raised.

Cervelo reckon their SL bikes are ballasted as well as being stronger and stiffer.

I'm fairly certain that I read somewhere that (counter-intuitively) a higher C of G makes a bicycle more stable..... however - I have witnessed arguments about physics/maths get really out of hand on a certain defunct forum, and so I am willing to back down at the slightest hint of dissent

nick hanson

When you think of a few grams of weight bonded under the saddle to bring the bike up to the weight limit,then you consider the number of KILOS sat above the saddle,then I wouldn't worry about the centre of gravity,due to adding weights,would you? :roll:

rustychisel

nick hanson wrote:

When you think of a few grams of weight bonded under the saddle to bring the bike up to the weight limit,then you consider the number of KILOS sat above the saddle,then I wouldn't worry about the centre of gravity,due to adding weights,would you? :roll:

Quite. Any of us (ie many) who ride with a saddlepack or even a spare tube and a couple of tyre levers strapped under the saddle can attest there's no measurable balance and performance difference.