why is there a wieght limit on bikes in the tour de france?

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

nrsnow
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 2:30 am

by nrsnow

why is there a wieght limit on bikes in the tour de france? People should be able to go all out...
Ridley Excalibur

Scott Spark LTD 8.15kg (retired)

Giant NRS (Retired)
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=104531

User avatar
Powerful Pete
Moderator
Posts: 4004
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Lima, Peru and occasionally in the Washington DC area.
Contact:

by Powerful Pete

UCI rules. Ostensibly to keep bikes "safe".

Moved to chat...
Road bike: Cervelo R3, Campagnolo Chorus/Record mix...
Supercommuter: Jamis Renegade...pastatrails.blogspot.com
And you can call me Macktastik Honey Pete Kicks, thank you.

by Weenie


rustychain
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:42 pm
Location: lat 38.9677 lon 77.3366
Contact:

by rustychain

You also can't ride a recumbent. It's my opinion that was the last rule the UCI got right ;)
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

User avatar
Powerful Pete
Moderator
Posts: 4004
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:22 am
Location: Lima, Peru and occasionally in the Washington DC area.
Contact:

by Powerful Pete

:mrgreen:
Road bike: Cervelo R3, Campagnolo Chorus/Record mix...
Supercommuter: Jamis Renegade...pastatrails.blogspot.com
And you can call me Macktastik Honey Pete Kicks, thank you.

User avatar
Dilbert
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:54 am
Location: South Africa

by Dilbert

Because some bike manufacturer thought it would be cheaper to bribe the UCI to put a weight limit on bikes than to develop lighter bikes all the time.
:twisted:

jvanv8
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Northeast USA

by jvanv8

Tour bikes in 1903 weighed 14kg (31lbs).
Anything less would be dangerous, crazy, and would not be in keeping with a classic bicycle, which is why in 100 more years we will still have a 6.8kg limit.
Crazy yesterday, crazy today, crazy tomorrow.
It's important to realize that structural, mechanical, and material engineering never change. Everything is still the same as 1903 as well as when they made the 6.8kg ruling.
Long live 6.8, forever!

[Sent via electro-mechanical punch card on my IBM 650]



... actually, I have no idea. :noidea:
AX Vial Evo: 4970g
Addict SL : 5235g
My Cycling Blog
Strava: Wayward Cyclist

smartasscoach
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:15 pm

by smartasscoach

Because even if Hein Verbruggen was busy with things like covering up positive doping tests, he still had time to come up with stupid stuff.

The UCI being a very traditional organization, kept up the tradition of inventing stupid stuff to regulate. And so here we are.

User avatar
Rick
Posts: 2004
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm

by Rick

Actually, to me it makes some sense that they limit the weight. At some point, bicycles really do become dangerously weak and uncontrollable. If it were "all out", there would definitely be bikes pushing the edge, and then bikes breaking. A crash of one bike can jeopardize the entire peloton. Also, the philosophy of bike racing is that it is a competition between athletes, not between technologies.
I know some think differently, but I like the old philosophy. I also oppose race radios. The riders should have to think for themselves.

jvanv8
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Northeast USA

by jvanv8

stuffing bottom brackets with lead so a bike is 'a safe weight' is just ridiculous though.
AX Vial Evo: 4970g
Addict SL : 5235g
My Cycling Blog
Strava: Wayward Cyclist

User avatar
Arky
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 5:06 am

by Arky

Personally, the limit makes it affordable for me to have something that is close to best. The Weight Weenies forum is composed of many cyclists with a large discretionary income or minimal expenses. This group can afford to go below the limit with very nice gear and I am truly happy for them. I really enjoy reading about your bikes.

I have a respectable income as a mechanical engineer. I am content with that and have no complaints. However, with a family of four, I cannot afford a top level bike with the best wheels until other priorities are taken care of. I can assure you that until I win the lottery or God gives me Thor's legs, the other priorities will be staring me in the face. My point is that most people can barely afford bikes that are close to the limit as it is.

Secondly, if there was not a limit, only the biggest teams would be twinkling up mountains in master engineered Mona Lisa bikes. I can assure you that none of us would have those machines. What you want, which is to have the best and have it legal, will elude your grasp again. Be careful what you wish for.

User avatar
dadoflam08
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:25 am
Location: Southern Great Southern Land

by dadoflam08

[quote="Arky"]Personally, the limit makes it affordable for me to have something that is close to best. My point is that most people can barely afford bikes that are close to the limit as it is.

quote]

The logic that less weight = greater cost doesn't really stack up in my mind - the most expensive bike in the peloton (Pinna Dogma) is also the heaviest (and probably not even down on the limit in most instances) There is plenty of evidence on this forum that low weight probably contributes less to high cost than branding and marketing.

Given the TDF represents the pinnacle of the cycling technologically as well as athletically and is professionally funded the min weight on bikes is certainly an opportunity lost to encourage innovation that would ultimately filter down and benefit the everyday cyclist.
'83 De Rosa Professional |'11 Baum Corretto |'08 BMC Pro Machine >6 |'86 Pinarello Team |'72 Cinelli SC |'58 Bianchi |'71 Cinelli SC |'78 Masi GC |'83 La Redoute Motobecane |'94 Banesto Pegoretti |'88 Bianchi X4 |'48 Super Elliott |'99 Look Kg281

apb27
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:58 am
Location: Ireland

by apb27

The TDF is first and foremost a race for cyclists, stating the obvious i know :) but reading some peoples comments one might assume it to be an
engineering contest. If the weight rule was abolished then certain riders/teams would have bikes that were significantly lighter than others.
And the argument would then start, “rider x beat rider y due to the bike”. We really don’t need that.
As it stands we generally accept that the bike has a small affect on the outcome of the races, and this seems a good reason to stick to the 6.8 rule.
As stated above some manufactures offerings currently would not even reach the limit.

rustychain
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:42 pm
Location: lat 38.9677 lon 77.3366
Contact:

by rustychain

+1
whatever weight limit we end up with will have no effect on the race or it's results. No limit and we will see more broken forks, wheels and such ( one reason the 6.8 was adopted).
WW Velocipedist Gargantuan

User avatar
madcow
Shop Owner
Posts: 3741
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: Tucson, Az.
Contact:

by madcow

My memory surely isn't what it used to be but as I recall it was in 1999 that Jalabert(a big ww fan) showed up at the Tour de France on a custom Giant TCR frame. I'm pretty sure the aluminum frame was said to be around 800 grams and delicate enough that it was going to be replaced after each stage. The total bike weight came in at almost exactly 14 pounds, 6.4kg. My understanding was that the UCI didn't feel this bike was safe enough to ride and they didn't want to see any catastrophic failures so just afterwards they passed the 6.8 weight rule. I guess they weren't accounting for the fact that just a few years after this bikes could certainly be built safely in that same weight range.

User avatar
ave
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Hungary

by ave

>People should be able to go all out...
What's wrong with having a limit? The Tour is a bike race, not an engineering contest.

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post