UCI to lower bike weight limit?

[FlashUNC]

Surprised I haven't seen this posted yet, and apologies if a duplicate thread. Cookson calls the current weight limit imposed by the 1997 Lugano charter arbitrary and silly. More change afoot it seems...

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/...n-bikes_349994

[Mr. Pink]

I am reminded of the chapter in F1 racing in the late 70s, when cars became very unsafe in the quest for lighter weight and improved aerodynamics. Some day soon, a rider will be lying on the side of a French road, seriously hurt or dead, and then, of course, there will be an outcry for safer, stronger bikes. Fingers will be pointed, of course. Columns written. But, money will be made.

[CunegoFan]

I am reminded of F1 changing from "driver vs. driver" to "engineer vs. engineer". Now winning the championship is a matter of who has the best car (and can beat his teammate, who has the same car).

The Lugano charter was a good thing. It emphasized that competition should be between riders not equipment. Things had gotten totally out of hand with crazy bike designs for time trials.

One of the reasons Cookson was elected was to get rid of technical regulations so the industry can make more money. There is a group of team owners who want pro cycling turned into Formula 1 with all its concentration on tech differences between teams. They think that is the way to sell the sport to the masses.

[carpediemracing]

Another forum had the same discussion. I think either the weight will go down, significantly, or there will be some leeway for commercial reasons.

For example, if you carry a UCI approved camera and related broadcasting equipment, that could count as part of your bike. Therefore if all that stuff weighs 1kg then your bike can be 5.8kg without the camera stuff. But you have to race with the camera stuff, the idea being that that particular rider is furthering the sport by doing the camera stuff.

Cookson has said that he thinks cycling should embrace things like on-bike cameras for race coverage but that right now there isn't a reasonable way to stream video from a bike. Perhaps in the near future there will be, and to get good coverage you don't want to compromise the camera bike's rider.

Without consideration for cameras I think a reasonable weight limit would be at least 1kg lighter. My bike, which has a 1200g frame, alum bars, a 250+ gram steel stem, steel cassette, regular Look pedals, even an aluminum post, is just around 7.2 kg. Literally 0.15 kg could come off just from my stem, and of course my frame is pretty solid compared to current offerings.

Also there could be a size allowance. A smaller bike could be made a little lighter and smaller riders tend to weigh a bit less so there's less need for massive tubes or whatever. A 90 lbs woman, for example, isn't going to stress a wheel set quite as much as a 185 lbs guy. Of course I used to be that 185 lbs guy and rode a bike that a 90 lbs woman might have ridden so there's that argument against such a rule.

[Ozrider]

6.8kg is out of date. I weigh over 90kg and have been riding a Parlee Z5 weighing 6.1-6.4kg including Garmin mount and sensors, depending on which wheels were fitted for the last 4 years without any issues.
Granted my power output is way lower than a pro, but my weight is quite a bit higher.
No trick parts on the bike except EE brakes, otherwise stock Dura Ace and Enve bar, stem and post.
These days you can walk into a shop and easily buy a bike weighing under 6.8 kg with many now around or below 6kg.
With some pros having to add non structural weights to get their bike to 6.8kg it is a joke, the bikes themselves are lighter even with power meters.
Even dropping to 6.4kg would be more realistic, and maybe looking at weights per size, although this would be harder to regulate.
It is pretty ridiculous that weekend warriors are riding bikes that are lighter than what the pros ride. Probably one of the only sports where the fans are able to ride "better" equipment than the pros.

[winmonster]

They are currently adding ballast to the bikes and using beefier components to hit the minimum weight limits. This shows the rules are outdated. Note to manufacturers, though: I want something that will last and can survive a topple or small crash. No uber light stuff for a punter like me, please.

[Louis]

I don't see how this could possibly improve the types of frames and components I use. Yes, they'll be lighter, but also more expensive and more likely to fail due to "incidental contact."

[carpediemracing]

Originally Posted by Louis

I don't see how this could possibly improve the types of frames and components I use. Yes, they'll be lighter, but also more expensive and more likely to fail due to "incidental contact."

I would imagine it's like the nice helmets. Sure there's a 250g helmet out there, or a 650g frame, or whatever, but that doesn't mean we mortals have to buy it. It's only if one wanted to buy it that one would.

I can't afford the high end stuff regardless but if there was a combination of light weight and some level of component testing then we might see some interesting progress with parts/etc.

On the other hand it would be interesting to see what pros would do if, say, they couldn't always use a nice beefy chainring to meet the minimum weight, or would those steel front derailleur cages go away? Etc.

[ceolwulf]

Originally Posted by Louis

I don't see how this could possibly improve the types of frames and components I use. Yes, they'll be lighter, but also more expensive and more likely to fail due to "incidental contact."

hmm well you could think of it this way, this might happen - right now the ultra-light stuff, because of this weight limit, is specifically not aimed at the pro peloton - if the weight limit were reduced or eliminated, it would now be considered for professional use, and receive better engineering and more thorough testing, improving it for everyone - maybe.

[Louis]

I think the rate at which stuff wears out is probably much more important to guys like us than it is to pros. Yes, reliability is important to them, and they don't ever want to have a shifter go bad, but they don't really care if a chain only lasts 300 miles before it's junk - they'll just change it after each stage.

What's important to them isn't necessarily what's important to us.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

Surprised I haven't seen this posted yet, and apologies if a duplicate thread. Cookson calls the current weight limit imposed by the 1997 Lugano charter arbitrary and silly. More change afoot it seems...

http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/...n-bikes_349994

It would make more sense as a percentage of rider weight, to indeed make the playing field level, IMHO..but the manufacturers wouldn't like that, of course.

[Jgrooms]

1997. Its coming up on 20 yrs since the rule was est! Composite & component advances move on-way on, but time stands still for the UCI.

[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)

[soulspinner]

Just so I understand, computers, cages, cameras, and power meters are legal if they are used in the race?

[Jgrooms]

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)

Heck get rid of derailures while were at it.

Unsupported? Go race gravel & ditch the mickey mouse usac show.