Disc brakes in the Pro ranks.

ddraver

OnYourRight wrote:

This assumes there isn’t some sort of conspiracy.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the likes of Froome use discs in a climb-heavy race.

I find that assuming there isnt a conspiracy tends to be the safest/less crazy

Apparently Froome wanted to use them for his (unplanned you know) Peyresourde descent during the tour but it was basically too much of a faff to sort out.

dennisn

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick's point is that bikes currently need ballast to make the minimum weight requirement. Therefore there is scope for manufacturers to add some bells and whistles that weigh something, reduce the ballast and then sell more things.

If the weight limited was reduced there would be no incentive because additional weight would make the bike slower.

Perhaps they should start marketing mascots because I understand some amateurs are keen to look like the pros without exception and this could be a nice little earner. I could market a go faster blue bean character.

I see your point, sort of. Still, only pro's and some amateurs use ballast. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with anyone else. Guess it all boils down to me not understanding why there are so many lemmings falling over themselves to look like something they are not.

bobmcstuff

ddraver wrote:

One major difference between this year and last year is that we now have proper, Dura Ace and Red Disk brake set ups rather than the similar but not top of the range Ultegra or CX options that we had last year. Given that we re talking about riders that can feel variations of grams (apparently :-S ), that might be quite an important difference.

We are now genuinely comparing the best that shimano can make rim brakes with the best they can make disk brakes

If you watch GCN's guess the bike weight episode where they asked pros to guess the weights of their own bike, I'm not sure how good at this they actually are - most of the bikes were 7-7.8kg IIRC and most of them didn't really know. A lot of them seemed to assume they were on the weight limit only to be surprised to find they were over 7.5kg.

bobmcstuff

https://youtu.be/jMsgzD-JFQs that's the one

Alex Dowsett is a poor mathematician.

DeVlaeminck

bobmcstuff wrote:

ddraver wrote:

One major difference between this year and last year is that we now have proper, Dura Ace and Red Disk brake set ups rather than the similar but not top of the range Ultegra or CX options that we had last year. Given that we re talking about riders that can feel variations of grams (apparently :-S ), that might be quite an important difference.

We are now genuinely comparing the best that shimano can make rim brakes with the best they can make disk brakes

If you watch GCN's guess the bike weight episode where they asked pros to guess the weights of their own bike, I'm not sure how good at this they actually are - most of the bikes were 7-7.8kg IIRC and most of them didn't really know. A lot of them seemed to assume they were on the weight limit only to be surprised to find they were over 7.5kg.

Interesting. I suppose if they go for a standard build or have a limited range of equipment choices at least then they need to know the small riders have bikes over the limit which in turn will mean the bigger riders will have bikes further over the limit.

rick_chasey

dennisn wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick's point is that bikes currently need ballast to make the minimum weight requirement. Therefore there is scope for manufacturers to add some bells and whistles that weigh something, reduce the ballast and then sell more things.

If the weight limited was reduced there would be no incentive because additional weight would make the bike slower.

Perhaps they should start marketing mascots because I understand some amateurs are keen to look like the pros without exception and this could be a nice little earner. I could market a go faster blue bean character.

I see your point, sort of. Still, only pro's and some amateurs use ballast. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with anyone else. Guess it all boils down to me not understanding why there are so many lemmings falling over themselves to look like something they are not.

No-one apart from you is discussing amateurs.

If you want to, there are plenty of fora for you to choose from. I'm explaining why they have made an appearance on professional cyclist's bicycles.

rick_chasey

bobmcstuff wrote:

ddraver wrote:

One major difference between this year and last year is that we now have proper, Dura Ace and Red Disk brake set ups rather than the similar but not top of the range Ultegra or CX options that we had last year. Given that we re talking about riders that can feel variations of grams (apparently :-S ), that might be quite an important difference.

We are now genuinely comparing the best that shimano can make rim brakes with the best they can make disk brakes

If you watch GCN's guess the bike weight episode where they asked pros to guess the weights of their own bike, I'm not sure how good at this they actually are - most of the bikes were 7-7.8kg IIRC and most of them didn't really know. A lot of them seemed to assume they were on the weight limit only to be surprised to find they were over 7.5kg.

That is quite surprising. Why on earth give up 700 grams of dead weight? Plenty of full bikes you can get under 6.

andyp

Rick Chasey wrote:

That is quite surprising. Why on earth give up 700 grams of dead weight? Plenty of full bikes you can get under 6.

Because they want reliability first and foremost. What use is a light bike if it breaks under hard efforts? There's always a trade off between robustness and light weight.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

dennisn wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick's point is that bikes currently need ballast to make the minimum weight requirement. Therefore there is scope for manufacturers to add some bells and whistles that weigh something, reduce the ballast and then sell more things.

If the weight limited was reduced there would be no incentive because additional weight would make the bike slower.

Perhaps they should start marketing mascots because I understand some amateurs are keen to look like the pros without exception and this could be a nice little earner. I could market a go faster blue bean character.

I see your point, sort of. Still, only pro's and some amateurs use ballast. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with anyone else. Guess it all boils down to me not understanding why there are so many lemmings falling over themselves to look like something they are not.

No-one apart from you is discussing amateurs.

If you want to, there are plenty of fora for you to choose from. I'm explaining why they have made an appearance on professional cyclist's bicycles.

To be fair, I had misunderstood your argument.

I struggle to believe pros actually care and had assumed the origin of the idea was bike manufacturers wanting to sell more to the lemmings. Yes, this means we are in disagreement.

rick_chasey

andyp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That is quite surprising. Why on earth give up 700 grams of dead weight? Plenty of full bikes you can get under 6.

Because they want reliability first and foremost. What use is a light bike if it breaks under hard efforts? There's always a trade off between robustness and light weight.

Ah come on. This isn't 1999.

My bike is 7 kilos and it's got £200 wheels on it. Wasn't even top of the range.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

I struggle to believe pros actually care and had assumed the origin of the idea was bike manufacturers wanting to sell more to the lemmings. Yes, this means we are in disagreement.

Pros might not care; I'd bet mechanics & team bosses would.

onyourright

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah come on. This isn't 1999.

Maybe that's the problem. In 1999 bicycles were reliable. The new featherweight ones made of plastic and electrics are not necessarily.

For the weight, consider also that today’s pros are packing transponders, power meters, GPS devices, and onboard cameras, each with batteries. Electric shifting weighs more too (I think).

Mostly, a kilogram here or there makes little difference anyway. But you can bet the climbers have 6.8 kg bikes on every climbing day. There, weight matters.

It’s interesting that lowering the UCI weight limit would benefit lighter riders most. But since they’re already strongest in the hills (and thus stage races), that may be bad for the sport.

Can’t help but think the sport would be best if technology froze around 1990, not that there’s any practical way to do that (and some sponsors would lose interest, so in a roundabout way it wouldn’t even be good for the sport).

Crampeur

OnYourRight wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ah come on. This isn't 1999.

Maybe that's the problem. In 1999 bicycles were reliable. The new featherweight ones made of plastic and electrics are not necessarily.

Coke-can thin aluminum, without the hydroforming and welding processes we have now? They definitely weren't.

Go to 30:20 here and watch Vandenbroucke's bars as he crosses the line. He actually cracked his frame at the headtube on the climb to the line, and that wasn't uncommon with early alloy bikes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPgDzp1yGQI

graeme_s-2

ddraver wrote:

Apparently Froome wanted to use them for his (unplanned you know) Peyresourde descent during the tour but it was basically too much of a faff to sort out.

Seems unlikely given the disc trial was suspended after the Paris-Roubaix slicegate and they were effectively banned from pro bikes long before the Tour started.

ddraver

Well if you look upthread you'll see where I posted that the disk brake ban was (supposedly) lifted back in June. Take up was minimal however...

bobmcstuff

Rick Chasey wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

ddraver wrote:

One major difference between this year and last year is that we now have proper, Dura Ace and Red Disk brake set ups rather than the similar but not top of the range Ultegra or CX options that we had last year. Given that we re talking about riders that can feel variations of grams (apparently :-S ), that might be quite an important difference.

We are now genuinely comparing the best that shimano can make rim brakes with the best they can make disk brakes

If you watch GCN's guess the bike weight episode where they asked pros to guess the weights of their own bike, I'm not sure how good at this they actually are - most of the bikes were 7-7.8kg IIRC and most of them didn't really know. A lot of them seemed to assume they were on the weight limit only to be surprised to find they were over 7.5kg.

That is quite surprising. Why on earth give up 700 grams of dead weight? Plenty of full bikes you can get under 6.

Can think of a couple of explanations-

- The video was shot on a flat day therefore they would have had deep sections and possibly aero frames. On the flip side, Dowsett did insist on going and getting his climbing bike which you would assume would be bang on 6.8kg, but it was 7.08kg - still giving away 280g on the limit.

- Safety factor - e.g., 5% error in measurement on a 6.8kg bike would be 340g off, and the mechanics probably think it's not worth the risk that their scales read differently.

- The mechanics build the bikes up to 6.8kg and then add bottle cages, transponders etc. Maybe also a safety factor for them as the UCI might remove/break peripherals when they take the bikes for investigation (I've no idea how they go about it, and I'm not 100% sure what is and isn't included in the weight limit)

- Maybe that's the amount of weight the bottom bracket motors add

I think mainly though my explanation would be that ~200g doesn't really matter so it's safer to just build the bike to 7kg as you don't have any worries about the limit then.

rick_chasey

Fwiw if we're talking marginal gains, that's s big gaping one.

ddraver

bobmcstuff wrote:

ddraver wrote:

One major difference between this year and last year is that we now have proper, Dura Ace and Red Disk brake set ups rather than the similar but not top of the range Ultegra or CX options that we had last year. Given that we re talking about riders that can feel variations of grams (apparently :-S ), that might be quite an important difference.

We are now genuinely comparing the best that shimano can make rim brakes with the best they can make disk brakes

If you watch GCN's guess the bike weight episode where they asked pros to guess the weights of their own bike, I'm not sure how good at this they actually are - most of the bikes were 7-7.8kg IIRC and most of them didn't really know. A lot of them seemed to assume they were on the weight limit only to be surprised to find they were over 7.5kg.

I assume it's the variation that they notice, not the exact weight...

bobmcstuff

ddraver wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

ddraver wrote:

One major difference between this year and last year is that we now have proper, Dura Ace and Red Disk brake set ups rather than the similar but not top of the range Ultegra or CX options that we had last year. Given that we re talking about riders that can feel variations of grams (apparently :-S ), that might be quite an important difference.

We are now genuinely comparing the best that shimano can make rim brakes with the best they can make disk brakes

If you watch GCN's guess the bike weight episode where they asked pros to guess the weights of their own bike, I'm not sure how good at this they actually are - most of the bikes were 7-7.8kg IIRC and most of them didn't really know. A lot of them seemed to assume they were on the weight limit only to be surprised to find they were over 7.5kg.

I assume it's the variation that they notice, not the exact weight...

Sure, but in the context of the current discussion since you can build a disc bike to the UCI limit (or certainly to the 7-7.8kg most pro bikes seem to range between) then the doesn't need to be any variation between what they're used to and a disc bike.

ddraver

Fine, but that's a pretty new thing.

graeme_s-2

ddraver wrote:

Well if you look upthread you'll see where I posted that the disk brake ban was (supposedly) lifted back in June. Take up was minimal however...

ddraver wrote:

Also - http://cyclingtips.com/2016/05/leaked-n ... l-in-june/

June eh?

Any big races happening in July?

I don't think this ever happened

CyclingTips wrote:

CyclingTips learned in May that the short-lived disc brake trial period for elite-level racing was to be provisionally reinstated this month but last week’s planned meeting between the three key invested parties didn’t go as smoothly as some had hoped. There was some progress — namely, that disc brakes are now officially legal worldwide for mass-start amateur events such as gran fondos. However, discs continue to be banned for elite-level racing such as this month’s Critérium du Dauphiné and Tour de Suisse, as well as UCI-sanctioned events on national and international calendars.

http://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/disc-bra ... bjections/

Since the trial was suspended after Paris-Roubaix, I don't think it has been reinstated for any 2016 races.

ddraver

No, but there was enough tak for Sky to consider using disk brake bikes for their (unplanned you know) descent of the Peyresourde....which is why i brought it up...

ddraver

One of the CX twitterers is saying that the UCI are mandating that the discs have to be "chamfered" (i.e. not sharp)....which I must say is a smart move.

alan_sherman

They are not really sharp now. I think they mean that the outer circumference has to be round (from the side) and also the profile rounded (from the front). Wavy discs are pretty pointless TBH.

bendertherobot

I took it that they meant that the leading edge needs to be chamfered to remove any 90 degree angles (there being no 90 degree angles even on wavy rotors). Which, with such a small surface area leads at least my brain to think "sharper."

gweeds

Potentially a sharper leading edge but less so on the side edges.

kleinstroker

As I mentioned two pages back

larkim

If rotors are about 2mm thick, a rounded cross section of a tube with a diameter 2mm doesn't sound like a particularly sharp leading edge to me if they were rounded with that sort of profile. I don't ever recall cutting myself on a 2mm copper cable.

dish_dash

Boonen apparently riding a disc brake Venge next year...

rick_chasey

Ffs.