Cav's Bike Heavy?

Ron Stuart

I recently read this extract from a bikeradar article.

Cavendish's Venge weighed in at 16.86lb (7.65kg) when we caught up with him in May and his new race bike is likely to be in the same ballpark – teammate Alex Dowsett's Dogma 2 is 17lb (7.71kg). While we've put in some miles on the Venge, we haven't had any saddle time on the Dogma 2 yet, so we can't compare the frames in terms of stiffness or ride feel.

I am surprised that a team that bases a lot of it’s strategy on “Marginal Gains” uses bikes that have a mass that is over the minimum UCI limit by over 13%.
For Cav who relies in one respect on blistering acceleration and in another to ‘survive’ the mountains surely a 13% ( nearly 2 full biddons) added penalty isn’t good.

I ride a 6.818kg Scott Addict up hill and down dale and wouldn’t be happy with 7.71kg under me. Is it the DI2 gumph that is adding the load :?:

Omar Little

Aero bikes like the Venge tend to be a bit heavier and for a sprinter like Cav then (within reason) stiffness is going to be more of a factor than weight. Just look at the stem he uses, it is pretty huge.

Dont know about the Dogma 2 but im pretty sure previous one was originally considered a bit too heavy for sky and Pinarello had to get some weight off, change paint job etc.

rick_chasey

For a sprinter, it's AAAALL about stiffness.

Weight comes a distant 2nd.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

For a sprinter, it's AAAALL about stiffness.

Weight comes a distant 2nd.

I've heard the same applies for women too

Tom Butcher

Surprising they can't hit the minimum weight given that some Cannondales have to have weight added - and Cannondale's are generally considered stiff frames if nothing else - and that Cav is a small rider so he'll be on a small frame. Yes he's a sprinter but he's not the most powerful sprinter out there and aren't small frames inherently stiffer anyway.

Omar Little

Tom Butcher wrote:

Surprising they can't hit the minimum weight given that some Cannondales have to have weight added - and Cannondale's are generally considered stiff frames if nothing else - and that Cav is a small rider so he'll be on a small frame. Yes he's a sprinter but he's not the most powerful sprinter out there and aren't small frames inherently stiffer anyway.

Would the comparision with the Supersix not be with the Tarmac SL4 rather than the Venge though? (no idea what an SL4 weighs but i assume it is lighter than the Venge!)

Tom Butcher

Yes sorry was thinking more of the Pinarello he'll be riding next year rather than the Venge - agree that an aero frame has more reason to be slightly over weight.

pedro118118

I wouldn't have thought Cav needs to be on his Venge in the mountains - there's no sprinting to be done there - unless it's to try and make the time-cut?! Horses for courses, isn't it?

Pokerface

Ron Stuart wrote:

Is it the DI2 gumph that is adding the load :?:

Di2 adds weight. So does the SRM. And the frames are bulkier and stiffer than the Scott.

SLX01

Why would it matter weight is not everything its just an obsession with some cyclists, there are also marginal gains in stiffness and aerodynamics.

LangerDan

Each year "Le Cycle" magazine prints a list of the weights of around 20 specific riders bikes as measured at the TdF. A suprising number of them are over 7kg -not by much (usually 7.1 or 7.2 kg) - but there were very few riders at the 6.8 kg. The 2008 garmin Felts were over 8 kg IIRC.

EKIMIKE

Consider the Sky Dogma:

The frame is 'heavy' @ 1400g ish. The Dogma 2 is only 30g lighter.
Shimano is 'heavy' full stop
Shimano Di2 is even 'heavier'
Deda stuff is 'heavy', their claimed weights are consistently 30% less than actual
Power meters aren't light.

Much of that applies to HTC/Spec:

Venge is aero frame with larger tubes: it will be 'heavy' probs. 1300/1400g
Di2.
PRO stuff ain't light at all.
Power meter.

I'd wager that the majority of pro's bikes come in over 6.8kg. But why would they report anything else? They want to keep their sponsors happy so they're going to say it's 6.8.

zippypablo

7.5kgs isn't a heavy bike though is it?
As SLX says, weight is an obsession with some.
Bikes are also about handling, stiffness and increasingly, aerodynamics.
Ernesto Colnago doesn't focus solely on frame weight.

runaway

If Alex Dowsett's bike had some light wheels, bottles removed, mechanical Dura Ace and no SRM it would be getting close to the weight limit. Most pro's don't use very light bars and stems as stiffness and reliability are more important to them.

t4tomo

Ron Stuart wrote:

I ride a 6.818kg Scott Addict up hill and down dale and wouldn’t be happy with 7.71kg under me. Is it the DI2 gumph that is adding the load :?:

you know the weight of your bike to nearest 100th of a kilo? Thats a serious weight obsession


2 points:

The specks of mud on the underside of teh frame have probably just added a couple of 100ths

The 4-5 kilos of excess body fat you carry are making a much bigger difference than your bike being 0.9kg lighter than Cavs

EKIMIKE

And even so, 6.8 bike is only really going to count for much on long, long climbs.

In which case they ditch the deep section wheels for shallows and end up at near enough 6.8.

Like pretty much everyone has said: weight is only one thing to factor in. Durability, stiffness, aerodynamics, sponsorship (most importantly) are others which arguably take precedent.

TimB34

LangerDan wrote:

Each year "Le Cycle" magazine prints a list of the weights of around 20 specific riders bikes as measured at the TdF. A suprising number of them are over 7kg -not by much (usually 7.1 or 7.2 kg) - but there were very few riders at the 6.8 kg. The 2008 garmin Felts were over 8 kg IIRC.

Le Cycle also had a quote from a team mechanic last year (can't remember which one) saying that they try and stay well over 6.8kg, just in case either they or the UCI commissaires have incorrect scales.

Tom Butcher

I think the point is when you have 5-6k to spend on a bike it should be possible to get a bike that is pretty much on the limit which is as stiff as you makes any difference and handles well etc etc - especially in a small frame size. In fact it is possible as some teams show.

We all know that teams are tied to certain bike and equipment suppliers but there's no doubt that having a bike 1k over the weight limit is a case of a marginal gain missed. That's something concrete that you know will make a difference - unlike transporting your own beds about, having a sports psychologist etc etc

Rodrego Hernandez

Firstly, there is no way you can tell the difference between those 2 weights.

Secondly, pros value function over form. Stiffness and durability are priorities over light weight.

Lastly, the coment about accuracy of scales is spot on. The UCI can't even be trusted to check saddle tilt on a flat surface so having accurate scales is a pipe dream!

greasedscotsman

pedro118118 wrote:

I wouldn't have thought Cav needs to be on his Venge in the mountains - there's no sprinting to be done there - unless it's to try and make the time-cut?! Horses for courses, isn't it?

Maybe he should have used it, he might not have missed the time cut on both the Galibier and Alpe d'Huez stages at the Tour this year!



(acutally, I think he used the Venge on the mountain stages, probably didn't want to go changing bikes too much mid race....)

cougie

I think it just shows that weight isn't that important in the scheme of things.

As soon as you add 2 bottles on a bike you've increased it by 1.5kg. Dont know about you - but I cant tell how full my bottles are just from climbing with the bike ?

MaxwellBygraves

zippypablo wrote:

7.5kgs isn't a heavy bike though is it?
As SLX says, weight is an obsession with some.
Bikes are also about handling, stiffness and increasingly, aerodynamics.
Ernesto Colnago doesn't focus solely on frame weight.

As an amateur I agree with you. But if cycling was your living and you were at the top of your sport, then wouldn't you do anything in your power to maximise your chances of sucess?

I agree with those saying that this seems like quite an obvious marginal gain to be had and I don't understand why its not being taken advantage off...

lostboysaint

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

zippypablo wrote:

7.5kgs isn't a heavy bike though is it?
As SLX says, weight is an obsession with some.
Bikes are also about handling, stiffness and increasingly, aerodynamics.
Ernesto Colnago doesn't focus solely on frame weight.

As an amateur I agree with you. But if cycling was your living and you were at the top of your sport, then wouldn't you do anything in your power to maximise your chances of sucess?

I agree with those saying that this seems like quite an obvious marginal gain to be had and I don't understand why its not being taken advantage off...

Because, as has already been suggested, the power/weight issues mean that a bike built right down to the weight limit may not make it to the line when being stomped on that hard. You've got to be in it to win it remember, not sat nursing a broken stem/bars/frame and with the dentist on speed-dial 100m from the line.

shinyhelmut

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

zippypablo wrote:

7.5kgs isn't a heavy bike though is it?
As SLX says, weight is an obsession with some.
Bikes are also about handling, stiffness and increasingly, aerodynamics.
Ernesto Colnago doesn't focus solely on frame weight.

As an amateur I agree with you. But if cycling was your living and you were at the top of your sport, then wouldn't you do anything in your power to maximise your chances of sucess?

I agree with those saying that this seems like quite an obvious marginal gain to be had and I don't understand why its not being taken advantage off...

On the contrary, as has been mentioned previously, if I were a pro being paid to ride my bike then I'd ride whichever bike my sponsor told me to ride.

Pross

Won't the bike need to be at its lightest legal weight in its smallest frame size though and although Cav isn't the tallest he isn't the shortest either. OK you could go lighter and add ballast to the smallest frames but that seems a bit pointless and it is probably better to have a bit more carbon to give additional stiffness where it is required.

jdmotion

Shame there isn't a steel stage/event, where the riders have to use an old school steel framed bikes, with no electronic shifting. Could go all the way and have down tube shifters. Just one event in the year? It'd get loads of attention for sure.

Rodrego Hernandez

Pross wrote:

Won't the bike need to be at its lightest legal weight in its smallest frame size though and although Cav isn't the tallest he isn't the shortest either. OK you could go lighter and add ballast to the smallest frames but that seems a bit pointless and it is probably better to have a bit more carbon to give additional stiffness where it is required.

It is the individual bikes that are weighed, not just one particular model / size.

ozzzyosborn206

Rodrego Hernandez wrote:

Pross wrote:

Won't the bike need to be at its lightest legal weight in its smallest frame size though and although Cav isn't the tallest he isn't the shortest either. OK you could go lighter and add ballast to the smallest frames but that seems a bit pointless and it is probably better to have a bit more carbon to give additional stiffness where it is required.

It is the individual bikes that are weighed, not just one particular model / size.

exactly, he is saying that for a tall riders bike say a 56/58 to be on the limit, and small riders bike say 52/54 would be under it, therefore they could add stiffness on the chain stays or add weights to help it reach the limit.

MaxwellBygraves

lostboysaint wrote:

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

zippypablo wrote:

7.5kgs isn't a heavy bike though is it?
As SLX says, weight is an obsession with some.
Bikes are also about handling, stiffness and increasingly, aerodynamics.
Ernesto Colnago doesn't focus solely on frame weight.

As an amateur I agree with you. But if cycling was your living and you were at the top of your sport, then wouldn't you do anything in your power to maximise your chances of sucess?

I agree with those saying that this seems like quite an obvious marginal gain to be had and I don't understand why its not being taken advantage off...

Because, as has already been suggested, the power/weight issues mean that a bike built right down to the weight limit may not make it to the line when being stomped on that hard. You've got to be in it to win it remember, not sat nursing a broken stem/bars/frame and with the dentist on speed-dial 100m from the line.

I agree, but 7.5 kgs just seems excessive. As has already been suggested, Cav is a small rider and not the most powerful sprinter so I think there is room to save a few hundred g's off that weight. IMHO.

Edit: reading back makes me sound like a massive weight weenie. Which I am.

Pokerface

There's no real reason why a frame manufacturer can't make a frame that is BOTH stiff and light to cater to the sprinters. Some already do it - others don't.

But it's also when you throw in all the 'extra' stuff that the weight adds up. If Sky were riding the Dogmas but used different components, then the overall weight would be lower.

plowmar

Ron Stuart wrote:
I ride a 6.818kg Scott Addict up hill and down dale and wouldn’t be happy with 7.71kg under me. Is it the DI2 gumph that is adding the load Question


you know the weight of your bike to nearest 100th of a kilo? Thats a serious weight obsession Very Happy

Its worse , that's in the 1000 ths. :roll: