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

rick_chasey

Weight limit makes it a fairly even playing field kit wise.

greasedscotsman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Weight limit makes it a fairly even playing field kit wise.

Not really. The teams with the cash will just put their money somewhere else, like aerodynamics.

rick_chasey

There's pretty limited gains to be had there given the other rules.

Diminishing returns.

Noone will lose a TT because they didn't have the latest areo frame.

greasedscotsman

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's pretty limited gains to be had there given the other rules.

Diminishing returns.

Noone will lose a TT because they didn't have the latest areo frame.

Doesn't matter how limited the gains are, for a pro cyclist, it's worth it.

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's pretty limited gains to be had there given the other rules.

Diminishing returns.

Noone will lose a TT because they didn't have the latest areo frame.

Really? Why then do manufacturers and teams invest so much time and money on it then?

I can remember who won all the recent TdF prologues, but I can't remember who came second, even though they probably only lost by a second or so.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's pretty limited gains to be had there given the other rules.

Diminishing returns.

Noone will lose a TT because they didn't have the latest areo frame.

Really? Why then do manufacturers and teams invest so much time and money on it then?

I can remember who won all the recent TdF prologues, but I can't remember who came second, even though they probably only lost by a second or so.

Teams don't invest much money. Time, sure, but teams always will put time in to test kit they use.

Manufacturers are in the game of selling sh!t and being seen to make gains sells stuff.

So many many bigger factors affecting a rider that the cut of his frams.

An unlucky gust of wind will cost you more than you save with a frame over say a prologue.

ddraver

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's pretty limited gains to be had there given the other rules.

Diminishing returns.

Noone will lose a TT because they didn't have the latest areo frame.

Really? Why then do manufacturers and teams invest so much time and money on it then?

I can remember who won all the recent TdF prologues, but I can't remember who came second, even though they probably only lost by a second or so.

greasedscotsman

Rick Chasey wrote:

Teams don't invest much money. Time, sure, but teams always will put time in to test kit they use.

How much per hour does a wind tunnel cost?

Rick Chasey wrote:

Manufacturers are in the game of selling sh!t and being seen to make gains sells stuff.

Alternatively. Manufacturers are trying to make a better product. If they make a better product, more people are likely to buy it.

Rick Chasey wrote:

So many many bigger factors affecting a rider that the cut of his frams.

An unlucky gust of wind will cost you more than you save with a frame over say a prologue.

Oh for sure, it's the rider that makes the biggest difference. But as I said before, you don't have to win a race by much. I'm not sure what the smallest measureable winning margin is, anyone know?

rick_chasey

It'll be that Strasbourg prologue between Hincape and Hushovd.

ddraver

Ah crap post fail

Meant to say the the answer to Dave's question is:-

Triathelets. These people see the "bike leg" as an annoyance that has to be dealt with before their run. If there is a product that will make them 10seconds faster over 50k then they will pay big bucks for it! whats more they ll go to an LBS becasue they don't know/care enough to be able to order it cheap from CRC.

That said I suspect that the major driver behind the aero boom is the weight limit. It's too easy to make a bike thats 6.8kg now so there needs to be another way to improve performance (discuss in road general please)

No_Ta_Doctor

Anyone for 2.7 Kg?
You'll have to get literally everything custom built, and it cost about $45,000

http://antranik.org/worlds-lightest-road-bike-at-2-7kg/

knedlicky

If there was no minimum weight limit, I wonder how much interest teams would actually have in using lighter bikes, given that there would be a definite diminishing return for the extra cost involved.

In 2009 (the only recent year for which I have bike weight data), although Sastre and a few others rode bikes at the 6.8 kg limit, many riders rode slightly heavier bikes (e.g. Horner, 7.2 kg, Cataldo 7.3 kg) and the average in the whole peloton was a bit over 7.0 kg.
So few teams cut it to the limit.

No_Ta_Doctor

knedlicky wrote:

If there was no minimum weight limit, I wonder how much interest teams would actually have in using lighter bikes, given that there would be a definite diminishing return for the extra cost involved.

In 2009 (the only recent year for which I have bike weight data), although Sastre and a few others rode bikes at the 6.8 kg limit, many riders rode slightly heavier bikes (e.g. Horner, 7.2 kg, Cataldo 7.3 kg) and the average in the whole peloton was a bit over 7.0 kg.
So few teams cut it to the limit.

I imagine that a few of the bikes will be a little heavier in case they need to changes bikes to a slightly lighter build (e.g. drop some power meter stuff) but keep the general setup.

joelsim

barrybridges wrote:

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.

kleinstroker

Where do they put the extra weight?
I bought an ex AG2R team frame last year and it did weigh more than the spec on the Kuota site, and when built up using same group as the team bikes it came in at exactly 6.8kg! I think the frame should have been a couple of hundred grams lighter than it was.

ddraver

Usually in the BB. The benefit of that is that it's in the best possible place in terms of bike handling, acceleration etc...

One of the reasons why manufacturers have been making frames even lighter...

kleinstroker

ddraver wrote:

Usually in the BB. The benefit of that is that it's in the best possible place in terms of bike handling, acceleration etc...

One of the reasons why manufacturers have been making frames even lighter...

Cheers! I wil investigate the next time i service the BB.

rick_chasey

No tA Doctor wrote:

Anyone for 2.7 Kg?
You'll have to get literally everything custom built, and it cost about $45,000

http://antranik.org/worlds-lightest-road-bike-at-2-7kg/

I want that bike.


Now.

Yellow Peril

Rick Chasey wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Anyone for 2.7 Kg?
You'll have to get literally everything custom built, and it cost about $45,000

http://antranik.org/worlds-lightest-road-bike-at-2-7kg/

I want that bike.


Now.

are you sure? take a look at that saddle, I don't know what the posterior equivalent of a beheading is (a be-arsing?) but you'd surely get one with that bad boy.

Yellow Peril

kleinstroker wrote:

Where do they put the extra weight?
I bought an ex AG2R team frame last year and it did weigh more than the spec on the Kuota site, and when built up using same group as the team bikes it came in at exactly 6.8kg! I think the frame should have been a couple of hundred grams lighter than it was.

I think ddraver is right about the bottom bracket. It makes sense that if you have to carry extra weight that it is used for additional stiffness in the power transfer area.

Squirrelpie

http://road.cc/content/news/76371-pro-b ... cultura-sl

Pro bike frames are not what you buy because they are two weak to handle professional racing!
These low weight frames are a gimmick and not capable of with standing proper racing yet can cost ridiculous amounts of money.
If the weight difference is only 40 to 50 grams why not reinforce them all? As you are paying for quality no? 50 Grams is nothing.
I think there may be a much larger weight difference cos some of the pro-bikes listed on this website and other seem to be much heavier than Id expect for their spec (based on off the peg weights).

TMR

barrybridges wrote:

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.

Except that's really nonsense. How many people who own expensive sports cars can drive those vehicles anywhere close to the edge? Less than 1% I'd expect. But that's not to say that pride of ownership isn't a massive positive; the joy of owning and driving an exemplary piece of machinery. Owning a Colnago or similar is really the same.

meagain

The UCI has always been essentially anti-innovation. In the '30s they retrospectively disqualified recumbents after Bobet (?) took a hatful of world records. It's the whole design that should be freed from their control. not just the weight.

ddraver

You say that but where would you stop? Smaller front wheels to get lower over the front? Old faithful's in TT's? Ok so now every rider from age 14 or Cat 4 up needs 2 bike to compete.

What about innovation in recumbent designs. The TdF would be a long line of people riding in low slung enlcosed 'bents.

Somewhere there needs to be a rule of what a bike actually is and how far you can go to maximise performance

meagain

"...a bike actually is..." anything with two wheels and powered solely by its rider. Is one view! And one I share.

ddraver

Well mine is significantly more comprehensive...

Daz555

meagain wrote:

The UCI has always been essentially anti-innovation. In the '30s they retrospectively disqualified recumbents after Bobet (?) took a hatful of world records. It's the whole design that should be freed from their control. not just the weight.

This would lead to a pro peloton full of these:



No thanks.

Cycle sport is centered around the basic principle of the "safety bicycle". If people want to race different kinds of bike then there are other sports which cater for such competition.

andrew_s

meagain wrote:

The UCI has always been essentially anti-innovation. In the '30s they retrospectively disqualified recumbents after Bobet (?) took a hatful of world records. It's the whole design that should be freed from their control. not just the weight.

You can design any sort of bike you like, sell it to anyone who wants to buy it, and the UCI won't stop you.
All the UCI are saying is that you can't use them in their races. The UCI think that racing should be about athletic prowess, and not a technical design exercise like F1 is. I'm sure that they would enforce the use of standard design bikes if they thought they could get away with it, probably along the lines of those used by the sainted Sir Eddy.

rick_chasey

Yellow Peril wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Anyone for 2.7 Kg?
You'll have to get literally everything custom built, and it cost about $45,000

http://antranik.org/worlds-lightest-road-bike-at-2-7kg/

I want that bike.


Now.

are you sure? take a look at that saddle, I don't know what the posterior equivalent of a beheading is (a be-arsing?) but you'd surely get one with that bad boy.

I have a perineum of steel.

And, let's be honest, I'd be seeking out every kind of steep hill to fly up out of the saddle anyway.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Anyone for 2.7 Kg?
You'll have to get literally everything custom built, and it cost about $45,000

http://antranik.org/worlds-lightest-road-bike-at-2-7kg/

I want that bike.


Now.

are you sure? take a look at that saddle, I don't know what the posterior equivalent of a beheading is (a be-arsing?) but you'd surely get one with that bad boy.

I have a perineum of steel.

And, let's be honest, I'd be seeking out every kind of steep hill to fly up out of the saddle anyway.

To be honest, I think I'd probably just have it wall mounted above the mantelpiece. Wouldn't even need any special mountings, couple of 1 1/2 inch screws should do the job easily.