UCI to lower bike weight limit?

[Tandem Rider]

Originally Posted by witcombusa

Much to do about nothing. I wish thay would raise the min. weight to get some actually useful, durable bikes again.

how 'bout going back to UNSUPPORTED racing (and more mixed surfaces)

Not sure if that would accomplish anything. I did one of these 2 weekends ago, plenty of fast dudes on CF with aero stuff. I'm guessing their bikes were near or below the limit. 100 miles of gravel with some mud thrown in. No support, it was a race. No casualties from exploding carbon fiber frames.

[Tandem Rider]

Originally Posted by JimmyTango

If frames are already being engineered for weekend warriors with no min weight limit, and so are being run with weights ADDED for pro use... How is lower ing the weight limit going to make bikes "more dangerous"?

...if the extra weight was currently being built into the equipment in the form of structural redundancy to add a greater degree of durability I could see more validity to the "heavier is better" argument, but it seems to me the bikes are already designed to be "too light" and are just having arbitrary weight added for the sake of the rules.

I could totally get behind the idea of rigorous strength and durability standards, but the weight limits don't seem to be a good way to meet that issue head on.

In my observation, the Mfgr's have durability pretty well addressed, and will keep it that way, Pro Racer on their bike breaking a frame in a race = headlines and a bad reputation for YEARS. Remember the damage control by Trek after George broke a fork in a crash at PR, rejoined the race and later finished breaking the fork causing a SECOND crash? It was a fork from a heavier, lower end bike that he was using to get the clearance needed, AL steerer/CF blades.

[Ti Designs]

I'm curious about the performance of some of those sub 15 pound bikes, so here's what I'll do: I'm going to have hill climbing days this fall/winter where I take my 27 pound fixed gear up all of the local hills (there are a few). I am inviting all those people with ultra light bikes to join me. A 13.5 pound bike should have twice the performance of my boat anchor with wheels, we can finally document this performance advantage!

[soulspinner]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

I'm curious about the performance of some of those sub 15 pound bikes, so here's what I'll do: I'm going to have hill climbing days this fall/winter where I take my 27 pound fixed gear up all of the local hills (there are a few). I am inviting all those people with ultra light bikes to join me. A 13.5 pound bike should have twice the performance of my boat anchor with wheels, we can finally document this performance advantage!

[Fivethumbs]

To allow a manufacturer to build an underweight bike and then add weight to make the limit defeats the purpose of the rule. The new rule will allow teams to keep from having to add the weight.

[Joachim]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

I'm curious about the performance of some of those sub 15 pound bikes, so here's what I'll do: I'm going to have hill climbing days this fall/winter where I take my 27 pound fixed gear up all of the local hills (there are a few). I am inviting all those people with ultra light bikes to join me. A 13.5 pound bike should have twice the performance of my boat anchor with wheels, we can finally document this performance advantage!

Only somewhat reliable if you ride the 13.5 pound bike in addition to the 27 pound fixed gear.

Why do people assume a linear correlation between weight and performance?

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by Joachim

Why do people assume a linear correlation between weight and performance?

Actually, I was expecting a reverse correlation - it may have something to do with the rider...

[leftyfreak]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Actually, I was expecting a reverse correlation - it may have something to do with the rider...

Perhaps it works this way...

The lower the weight of the bike, the lower the performance of the rider on said bike.

That's a direct correlation isn't it?

[soulspinner]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Actually, I was expecting a reverse correlation - it may have something to do with the rider...

Ya think?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Actually, I was expecting a reverse correlation - it may have something to do with the rider...

tee hee...

[firerescuefin]

Tempest in a Teacup

No one is forcing you to ride anything. You want to ride lugged steel, 32 spoke box section rims, with a 15 year old gruppo......and tout that it's better than everything being made....knock yourself out.

Bike manufacturers are in the business of marketing and selling. Additionally, they are about all that pro cycling has anymore as far as financial support. So yeah, they need to sell the idea of innovation when they market new stuff....even when the gains are nominal/incremental.

The safety concerns are irrational IMO. Lots of strong/lightweight stuff out there that holds up well enough for its intended purpose. I wouldn't run some of it, but that's my choice.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

I'm curious about the performance of some of those sub 15 pound bikes, so here's what I'll do: I'm going to have hill climbing days this fall/winter where I take my 27 pound fixed gear up all of the local hills (there are a few). I am inviting all those people with ultra light bikes to join me. A 13.5 pound bike should have twice the performance of my boat anchor with wheels, we can finally document this performance advantage!

I'm not sure what your point is. I'll bet if you compared your climb times with Cameron Cogburn (your neighbor in Cambridge, MA, and is the winner of the 2012 & 2013 Mt. Washington Hill Climb) on his 12.6 lb. bike, his times would be quite a bit faster - but what would that prove? If you switched bikes, he'd still be faster.

Maybe you're trying to point out that there is much larger variation in weight and power between riders than between bikes, which of course is very true. But bike weight still counts, roughly in proportion to total rider+bike weight. If you and your bike weigh 180 lb., and you remove 9 lb. from your bike (5% of the total weight), you'll almost certainly go almost 5% faster up steep hills.

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I'm not sure what your point is.

Really?

[jlwdm]

Originally Posted by Ti Designs

Really?

Really. It makes no sense. Same rider different bikes makes sense.

It is consistent with your historical posts though. We actually do know your point here. A better rider on a heavier bike can beat a poor rider on a lighter bike. That is not the issue.

Jeff

[FastforaSlowGuy]

These threads always descend into stupidly oversimplified debates. Of course the rider makes more of a difference than the bike. Nobody disagrees, anybody who does is an idiot, and suggesting that it's a contentious issue is putting up a straw man to make a tired point.

Equally true is that bike weight makes a difference. Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that bike weight plus rider weight equals total weight going uphill. Reducing one or the other means less mass to move. Eighth graders know this. But they probably also know that bike mass is less than body mass, so sacre dieu, bike weight has less impact than body mass. Again, a tired point.

The reason people CARE about bike weight is that it's "free" speed uphill. For elite folks who don't have much extra mass to lose, that's a real advantage. It's not like Andy Schleck had a gut he could shed. For those of us who have plenty of spare mass, but perhaps not the time / will to drop it, it's still relevant. I can grab a beer with the guys, and still drop weight off the total uphill mass. Plus, like a lot of the silly stuff we do, obsessing over weight is fun for some. If it's not for you, then well, nobody cares.