Minimum bike weights

GGBiker

Have heard some debate recently about 6.8kg min weight for road racing being outdated, what I have always wondered is why they don't make it proportional to the rider weight, 10-11% would be about right IMO.
The heavier riders get an unfair advantage riding a bike that is maybe only 7% of their weight vs maybe 12% for lighter riders. Would be easy to have a quick weigh in even just once before a grand tour and set the weight to be added (some teams need to do this already to get up to min bike weights).

Anyone else every thought about this or is it just a result of me lying awake at 2am?

Smokin Joe

It's you lying awake at 2am.

Bring that in and the climbers will be wanting drag brakes fitted to the stronger rider's bikes on the flat stages to even the sprints up.

jameses

Also, wouldn't it mean that heavier riders (who are already at a disadvantage when it comes to climbing) are forced to carry more weight uphill, disadvantaging them even further?

BrandonA

I can't see why you'd want to penalise heavier riders by forcing them to ride heavier bikes.

southdownswolf

Why not make it a minimum combined weight of 90kg, then see how well the climbers do :twisted:

According to Google - Kittel is 86kg, Greipel 80kg, Cavendish 70kg, Quintana 58kg, Contador 62kg, Froome 71kg

Quintana would need to be on a Boris bike to make up the weight...

ForumNewbie

southdownswolf wrote:

Why not make it a minimum combined weight of 90kg, then see how well the climbers do :twisted:

According to Google - Kittel is 86kg, Greipel 80kg, Cavendish 70kg, Quintana 58kg, Contador 62kg, Froome 71kg

Quintana would need to be on a Boris bike to make up the weight...

If that was the rule, Kittel could maybe get away with this bike which is advertised as being only 4.65kg:
http://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/trek-mode ... ok.html/2#
I was really surprised to see that you could buy a road bike as light as that considering the racing limit is 6.8kg.

crescent

southdownswolf wrote:

Why not make it a minimum combined weight of 90kg, then see how well the climbers do :twisted:

According to Google - Kittel is 86kg, Greipel 80kg, Cavendish 70kg, Quintana 58kg, Contador 62kg, Froome 71kg

Quintana would need to be on a Boris bike to make up the weight...

I'm amazed Froome is 71kg, he looks like a stiff breeze would topple him.
I read an article about pro bikes in a magazine recently. It was a selection of actual bikes used by a handful of pros with the bikes set up for a race. The weights varied quite significantly, from just above minimum up to almost 8kg if I remember rightly.

Daz555

Once we've crippled them on the climbs with heavier bikes we could also make the bigger riders wear fat suits so that they lose their remaining advantage - big guys are quicker on the flat and quicker downhill.

drlodge

Crescent wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

Why not make it a minimum combined weight of 90kg, then see how well the climbers do :twisted:

According to Google - Kittel is 86kg, Greipel 80kg, Cavendish 70kg, Quintana 58kg, Contador 62kg, Froome 71kg

Quintana would need to be on a Boris bike to make up the weight...

I'm amazed Froome is 71kg, he looks like a stiff breeze would topple him.
I read an article about pro bikes in a magazine recently. It was a selection of actual bikes used by a handful of pros with the bikes set up for a race. The weights varied quite significantly, from just above minimum up to almost 8kg if I remember rightly.

The Madison Genesis bikes are going to be about 8kg as that's what my 953 Rourke with Super Record weighs.

ugo.santalucia

If my bike was 7 Kg instead of 10, I could climb the col d'Arlaz in 41 minutes instead of 44... but in the economy of a 4:30 hours ride, who cares?

https://www.strava.com/routes/2079336

Ber Nard

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If my bike was 7 Kg instead of 10, I could climb the col d'Arlaz in 41 minutes instead of 44... but in the economy of a 4:30 hours ride, who cares?

https://www.strava.com/routes/2079336

Off topic, but I've just had a look at that ride on Street View. Slightly jealous.

ugo.santalucia

Ber Nard wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

If my bike was 7 Kg instead of 10, I could climb the col d'Arlaz in 41 minutes instead of 44... but in the economy of a 4:30 hours ride, who cares?

https://www.strava.com/routes/2079336

Off topic, but I've just had a look at that ride on Street View. Slightly jealous.

Yeah, a beautiful and underestimated area for cycling... I will write an article on my blog, I owe it to my motherland

team47b

southdownswolf wrote:

Why not make it a minimum combined weight of 90kg...

At 90kgs I would have to take all three of my bikes and I would still be 5kgs underweight :shock:

southdownswolf

team47b wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

Why not make it a minimum combined weight of 90kg...

At 90kgs I would have to take all three of my bikes and I would still be 5kgs underweight :shock:

team47b

...Chap at the back is clearly cheating

ai_1

GGBiker wrote:

Have heard some debate recently about 6.8kg min weight for road racing being outdated, what I have always wondered is why they don't make it proportional to the rider weight, 10-11% would be about right IMO.
The heavier riders get an unfair advantage riding a bike that is maybe only 7% of their weight vs maybe 12% for lighter riders. Would be easy to have a quick weigh in even just once before a grand tour and set the weight to be added (some teams need to do this already to get up to min bike weights).

Anyone else every thought about this or is it just a result of me lying awake at 2am?

I always assumed the main intention of the rule is to avoid excessive focus on weight reduction which would just end up making bikes more and more expensive and less reliable. As others have said, plenty pro riders use bikes that are well above the minimum limit so while the limit is now quite achievable without going to extremes it's still realistic so why bother changing it. It's not like this weight limit is stifling bike development. Those outside the pro ranks still look for lightweight bikes and super-lightweight components are produced to accommodate that market. Unlike high end motorsport, cycling equipment development is not entirely dependent on what the pros use.

No point in making bike weight proportional to rider weight IMO.
Heavier riders have an advantage on the flat where a heavier bike will make no difference to speak of and they have an advantage on straighter descents where a heavier bike would just add to it. On the other hand they have a huge disadvantage on the climbs which is why they never tend to be in the running for general classification. Added weight will just add to their disadvantage here and serves no purpose.

If anything lighter riders should ride heavier bikes to even up the GC competition but any system would end up unfair, overcomplex and unworkable.

Ber Nard

Ai_1 wrote:

I always assumed the main intention of the rule is to avoid excessive focus on weight reduction which would just end up making bikes more and more expensive and less reliable. As others have said, plenty pro riders use bikes that are well above the minimum limit so while the limit is now quite achievable without going to extremes it's still realistic so why bother changing it. It's not like this weight limit is stifling bike development. Those outside the pro ranks still look for lightweight bikes and super-lightweight components are produced to accommodate that market. Unlike high end motorsport, cycling equipment development is not entirely dependent on what the pros use.

"Heavy" pro's bike are generally in large sizes used by tall riders and set up for flat races where weight is less of a concern. Even then "heavy" is what - 7.5kgs? It's not a huge difference. There are still plenty of pro bikes with weights bolted to them to bring the weight up.

I think the minimum weight limit has pushed development to other areas - aero road bikes for example. It'd be interesting to see the weight limit dropped significantly to something like 5kgs to see how many riders/teams would ditch the trend for aero and choose light weight.