Isn't it time to ditch the 6.8kg weight limit?

bernithebiker

With so many frames now below 1kg, and DA Di2 lighter than the mechanical version, it seems many pro riders are having to add weights to their frames, even when using powermeters, etc.

The 6.8kg limit harks way back to the days when a bike that light was a very rare thing, but things have progressed and noone would suggest that today's crop of Supersix, SL4's etc. are dangerous.

Adding 250g lead weights to your bike is making the ruling look a bit stupid.

Is it not time to revise the figure down to a more sensible 6.0kg, say?

hammerite

Or frame manufacturers could supply bikes to teams that meet the weight limit with all componentry on.

greasedscotsman

Wouldn't it be better to have a weight limit that's proportional to how big the rider is rather than just a single limit? Or alternatively as the weight limit was brought in to stop riders using bikes that were too fragile, how about some sort of strength test.

A single, all encompassing weight limit seems a bit pointless to me, even if it's one that's reduced to 6.0kg.

rebs

The weight of a bike was just a means to try to encourage bikes to be a certain strength. Thought it would have been better to have a standard where bikes need to be able to withstand such and such pressure/stress within the frame to be deemed safe. That way anyway a manufacture can make the bike as light as possible will be good for everyone?

gavbarron

The weight limit as a safety factor is pretty pointless when applied to the bike as a whole. Just make a limit on the frame itself. Or better still, introduce some form of stress/strain test the frame must pass to be deemed safe to race

mr_poll

greasedscotsman wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to have a weight limit that's proportional to how big the rider is rather than just a single limit? Or alternatively as the weight limit was brought in to stop riders using bikes that were too fragile, how about some sort of strength test.

A single, all encompassing single weight limit seems a bit pointless to me, even if it's one that's reduced to 6.0kg.

There is an article in last months cyclist mag about rules, many people saying how daft a lot are and how they stifle innovation. However one thing that came out was that the UCI have don't have enough ppl on the ground at races to police the rules and therefore they do oversimplify, as things are being missed now (they site the example of Cav when he won the worlds - he wore a detachable cover on his hemet, 3 mths later the Lotto team were banned from wearing the same helmet at the TDU). Your rule would make it even harder to police.

Not saying it's right but I guess the UCI's reasoning is, remove it and the start a weight weenie arms race, lighter bikes may mean less strong and therefore unsafe esp in a crash. Ssame article talks about impact on front forks and wheel which cost a fortune for manufacturers to test/prove, weight is a "good" ready reckoner on strength.

Daz555

One of the advantages of the weight limit is that it allows innovation in other areas - electronic gears, power meters, digital displays and disc brakes (won't be long) for example which would never see the light of day if pro cycling was obsessed primarily with weight.

sharky1029

The weight limit was introduced not for safety not just to do with frames, people kept running what were effectively single use chainrings and other equipment which made it dangerous.
That said, now, it is easy to get bikes that weigh well under that value and it becomes a selling point that bikes are UCI illegal. I think the weight limit should be gradually lowered in order to aid the technological development of bikes. If it were to be changed to 6.5 kg then most teams would just have to remove the additional weights from their bikes to get near to it with only a few needing redesigns. Eventually, it would be reasonable to go to 6kg as with carbon development getting better almost every day, it sounds possible to be able to buy bikes of that weight for under 3 grand in the next 5 years.
But then again, when has anyone ever said that the UCI has been helpful and helped the development of bikes?

Also Shimano dura ace Di2 is lighter than the mechanical version due to the simplicity of the shifters and lighter cabling.

Daz555

Lowering the weight limit a little over time would appear to be a sensible option.

barrybridges

I don't see what the issue is when it comes to safety.

If a bike manufacturer makes a bike that is so light it becomes unsafe, market forces will act to make that bike unpopular (e.g. if a frame breaks because it is so light, I very much doubt teams will use it).

In some ways, it's a bit like doping in cycling.

If the risks outweight the benefits, people generally are deterred. But the 'benefits' currently outweight the risks (poor testing procedures, chances of being caught etc) so that's why people do it.

Bike manufacturers should be encouraged to make bikes that are as light as possible. It's called innovation.

If they go too far and the bike fails for lack of structural integrity, the popularity of that bike will decline because the risks (accident) outweight the benefits (weight).

In any event, there is no risk of a dangerous bike making it onto the open (consumer) market for that very reason.

barrybridges

Thinking aloud here, I think I remember an episode about 10 years ago where Credit Agricole had a snarl-up in a TTT where some of their frames snapped as a result of the bikes being light but weak?

edhornby

Bear in mind that 6.8kg is attainable by teams on a tight budget with off the shelf frames and components - if you lower the bar then you risk pricing out new teams, last thing we want cycling to be is a deep pockets only sport

bernithebiker

edhornby wrote:

Bear in mind that 6.8kg is attainable by teams on a tight budget with off the shelf frames and components - if you lower the bar then you risk pricing out new teams, last thing we want cycling to be is a deep pockets only sport

My SL4 Sworks is 6.0kg (in a 54) without a great deal of effort on my part (Mavic Ultimate tubulars).

To be honest I think you'd have to try pretty hard to make it OVER 6.8kg!

As has already been said, strength testing etc. is too complicated, and wheels can fail just as frames can, so an overall bike weight seems the simplest way to limit bikes that are too weak. But 6.8kg is just too high. Make it 6.4 with a gradual reduction to 6kg. Otherwise research in lighter bikes and components (a good thing surely) may simply dry up.

mike6

The weight limit, as it stands, is outdated, but why scramble to save 200g on a bike when its easier, and free, for a rider to drop a kilo in bodyweight. Not all the pro's have this to lose but the rider is still, by far, the biggest impediment to forward motion.

greasedscotsman

sharky1029 wrote:

The weight limit was introduced not for safety not just to do with frames, people kept running what were effectively single use chainrings and other equipment which made it dangerous.

What other equipment?

Mr Dog

So when I turn up to a race on my 10kg tank the fact you have more money than me gives you an advantage. Whilst manufacturers have this ball park weight to aim for means, even at a lower level of racing, we are competing on a level(ish) playing field. Take these parameters away and the gap widens even further between me and the guy on Cervelo r5 with Sram Red with £1500 wheels. So I'm happy for it stay.

greasedscotsman

Of course, some bikes aren't even close to the weight limit anyway.

barrybridges

Mr Dog wrote:

So when I turn up to a race on my 10kg tank the fact you have more money than me gives you an advantage. Whilst manufacturers have this ball park weight to aim for means, even at a lower level of racing, we are competing on a level(ish) playing field. Take these parameters away and the gap widens even further between me and the guy on Cervelo r5 with Sram Red with £1500 wheels. So I'm happy for it stay.

I get what your saying, but that train of thought leads to a race to the bottom. What about the people who have a 20kg tank - should you be penalised to help them?

In any event, you've got to put these weights into perspective. A full large water bottle is 1kg. Any savings in equipment are generally outweighed (no pun intended) by the excess body mass of the guy riding. Being lean and slim costs much less than any equipment.

FYI, The average human poo is 122g.

Squirrelpie

Bike industry has always tried to use weight as a selling point. Its just an old selling point from the era of metal bikes.
Unfortunately they are caught in the past when bikes were heavy, they lack the imagination and carry on reducing frame weight for the sake of selling people a new bike they don't actually need.
Motor sports have weight limits on vehicles so it only make sense that there is a weight limit for cycling.
Also the fact that bikes are limited to the same weight each year, you can compare riders performance (as long as they arent drugged) year on year.

Yellow Peril

what sort of lightweights are achievable these days? I think I remember Storck selling the lightest proddy bike a few years ago at around 7kg that has obviously been surpassed. Is 5kg reliably attainable?

Macaloon

barrybridges wrote:

FYI, The average human poo is 122g.

Some fanatical weight weenies go so far as to sell their souls to shave off the unnecessary 21g.

bernithebiker

barrybridges wrote:

FYI, The average human poo is 122g.

I could have sworn this morning's was at least 200.....

ddraver

Remember that there is also a competitiveness part of the weight limit too wherby it's in place so that super rich people can't buy a superior bike, and thus gain an advantage, over a less rich person.

Now, there are a lot of holes in that argument from the start, but it's not all about safety...One would hope that the farce of the UCI Sticker system would deal with the safety aspect.

Interestingly there is no such limit for MTB's which one might expect are more likely to fail and (XC racers) are just as weight obsessed

barrybridges

bernithebiker wrote:

barrybridges wrote:

FYI, The average human poo is 122g.

I could have sworn this morning's was at least 200.....

Have you been eating those lead pellets again?

In all seriousness, for us mere mortals the kind of weight differences that a bike manufacturer might be able to shave off are utterly worthless - that was my point. But this was an argument for lowering the limit - to encouraging innovation at a professional level - and technological advancement.

If Joe Bloggs wants to spend £10k to get a bike weighing 5kg then fair play to him; but the joke is ultimately on him as it's 99% likely he's not at a level of fitness where he can really justify having such a light bike.

What I mean is that there's no point spending 200% more on a bike to save 1kg if you've got 1kg of spare fat on you that you could get rid of for free.

For Wiggo etc, marginal gains though.

barrybridges

ddraver wrote:

Remember that there is also a competitiveness part of the weight limit too wherby it's in place so that super rich people can't buy a superior bike, and thus gain an advantage, over a less rich person.

This backs up my post just now - I don't see the argument here. If they're super rich then it's almost irrelevant unless they are already so super-fit that that extra weight advantage actually means something.

If you've got a MAMIL spending vast amounts of money to shave a few grams on their bike then ultimately we're all the ones laughing, because chances are everyone else has the ability to make the kg up through training.

The affordability argument only comes into it at the very highest level, surely?

Mr Dog

What the pro's ride is merchandising to promote a feeding frenzy.I fully support the weight limit, not just 'cos I have a heavy bike bike, but because it's fair sport.
If i buy a £200 pair of football boots a kid in slippers can still skin me. If however he has a smaller goal to shoot at it changes to an unfair advantage.

pat1cp

barrybridges wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Remember that there is also a competitiveness part of the weight limit too wherby it's in place so that super rich people can't buy a superior bike, and thus gain an advantage, over a less rich person.

This backs up my post just now - I don't see the argument here. If they're super rich then it's almost irrelevant unless they are already so super-fit that that extra weight advantage actually means something.

If you've got a MAMIL spending vast amounts of money to shave a few grams on their bike then ultimately we're all the ones laughing, because chances are everyone else has the ability to make the kg up through training.

The affordability argument only comes into it at the very highest level, surely?

There's also the Olympics to consider. The riders from Burkina Faso should be riding similar equipment to the grossly over funded "Team GB".

Tom Butcher

I'd keep the weight limit - it's a simple way of stopping competition on weight and compromising strength and longevity. As a bike racer if I spend a lot on equipment I want it to last - I don't have the money to treat my bike like a throwaway commodity.

As far as the pros go - i want to see a race between riders not kit manufacturers. If it were down to me I'd still have them on steel bikes and 10 gears max to keep the skill of being able to ride big and small gears in the sport.

EPO Delivery Man

I've said this for ages. Why even have a weight limit?? why constrain design and development?

I know you can say 'it creates a level playing field...blah blah blah' but so what? Pro Racing is the pinnacle of the sport, it should be about cutting edge tech, no weight limits, the best kit money can buy. End of.

Ive just read BMC have produced a new bike thats under the weight limit and Cadel Evans had to virtually bolt bricks to it to bring it up to the limit. So let me get this straight, BMC spend thousands over 2years on computers and software to produce the best aero, power and stiffness in a frame, with cutting edge components and tech only for the mechanics to bolt a couple of lead weights to the frame 'anywhere they can' just to make it legal?

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..oh lordy..please forgive myself as i sit here p*ssing my pants with laughter...

Seriously? is it only me that finds this ironic?

For f*cks sake UCI, drop the weight limit and be the best, otherwise its going the way of Formula One, boring restrictions and rules. What next? a pitstop for two types of rubber compound??

bernithebiker

Well, I enjoy riding a 6.0kg bike, it feels lively and handles quickly. If they bring out a 5.0kg one, I would be interested as it would most likely increase my riding enjoyment.

Am I ever going to challenge the local Cat 1's? No, unlikely now at 42 years old, but it doesn't mean I can't have fun trying....!

Anyway, the trend seems to be to go for aero rather than weight savings, so maybe for now, we've hit the bottom (or is that the top?)

jezzpalmer

bernithebiker wrote:

Well, I enjoy riding a 6.0kg bike, it feels lively and handles quickly. If they bring out a 5.0kg one, I would be interested as it would most likely increase my riding enjoyment.

This is around 5.2Kg IIRC, it's also quite nice to look at if you don't like colours.
http://www.westbrookcycles.co.uk/bikes- ... 13-p210851

Last year's version was 4.95Kg, and a snip at £1000/Kg.
http://www.paulscycles.co.uk/m7b0s6p431 ... IMATE-2012

I think changing the restrictions of frame geometry would lead to more innovation that weight.
The difference a 1Kg will make to the racing is negligible, but some changes to the geometry/positioning and aero restrictions could make a big difference.