HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 945
Great. Then maybe you wouldn't mind if the UCI banned all those useless expensive trinkets from competition?

BTW. 7.5kg vs 6.8kg up Alpe d'Huez would make about 40 seconds difference for most good riders. It would also allow 105 to be run instead of DA or a steel frame to be run against a Cervelo RCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:56 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1226
Location: In the industry
Interestingly, when UCI weighed the pros' bikes, most were above 7kg. In fact, many were above 7.3. So...

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 342
Location: Denmark
airwise wrote:
Great. Then maybe you wouldn't mind if the UCI banned all those useless expensive trinkets from competition?

BTW. 7.5kg vs 6.8kg up Alpe d'Huez would make about 40 seconds difference for most good riders. It would also allow 105 to be run instead of DA or a steel frame to be run against a Cervelo RCA.

I wouldn't mind if they banned airattack and deepwheels, but it's only because I don't like the looks of them. Most people don't race up alpe duez. Do you?

_________________
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=88933&p=768794#p768794


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:15 am
Posts: 62
Location: Utah
Murphs wrote:
Ksyriums are worse than most deep carbon wheels in cross winds, so that argument is invalid



Agree!

I rode a set of Fulcrum Racing 1 and the bladed spoke in cross winds was scary! Bladed spokes were effected by wind way more than the Enve 65's that I put on my bike next.

_________________
Custom Steel is the ONLY way to roll!
http://beyonddork.blogspot.com/
http://www.kelsonbikes.com/
http://www.bebikes.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:13 am
Posts: 825
Location: Utah
Whether this happens or not I do not know, but....

am I missing something.

When you look at the peloton 90-95% of the riders are on less than 65mm rims. The deepest rims used seem to be Bora's (at 53mm, right). Others are on:
-carbones (cosmic or Ultamite) and those are about 45-50.
-cormas being used are about 45-55, correct?
-Reynolds 46 (mainly)
-Shimano 50mm
-Hed 5's or 6's usually
-Zipp 303 & 404
-Lightweight 47-53

So that only leaves about 5% of the peloton (Cav and a few others, right?).

Sure there are some that ride deep reims, but in the pro peloton, that has got to be only about 5%. Just not that big of a change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7446
Location: Los Angeles
I don't see this ruling dramatically affecting anything.

The only ruling from the UCI that seemed to have generated the most contention is the 'lawyer tabs' or 'lips' on the forks. Everything else has come with a general response from the peloton/teams as "meh" or indifference.

_________________
Exp001


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 521
Location: Netherlands
airwise wrote:
Kraaf wrote:
p.s. the above mentioned tests of braking performance are outdated. Most manufacturers have gotten much better at getting that part right, some pretty much equalling alloy rims. (Try Tour Magazin, for instance.)


Could you possibly post the results of the scientific tests showing carbon rims to offer the same braking force and reaction times as their aluminium counterparts please?


Yes, I could. But instead, I'm going to be lazy and just quote from page 51 of Tour 5/2013 "Lightweight and Zipp have mastered the issue of braking on carbon rims; the numbers are partly better than some aluminum rims."
The fact that other manufacturers haven't mastered this yet (like my 'old' Edge 1.38s when wet), says little about carbon. This just proves again that blanket statements about a material just don't hold up. It depends. And blanket (uninformed, arbitrary) rules don't make cycling better or safer.

As a sidenote, as an organization that has drastically reduced the number of doping controls while boasting about their anti-doping program and then attacked those who dared to mention this, any action on their part should be viewed with the greatest skepticism. Stop changing the freaking rules and keep your hands off our bikes. That should be the general response.



P.s. I'm not going to debate Tour's testing. Their protocols can be easily found. I used to think I was a geek.

_________________
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm
Posts: 521
Location: Netherlands
prendrefeu wrote:
I don't see this ruling dramatically affecting anything.

The only ruling from the UCI that seemed to have generated the most contention is the 'lawyer tabs' or 'lips' on the forks. Everything else has come with a general response from the peloton/teams as "meh" or indifference.


Assuming this is the case, again, we're talking about a handful of pro's. Vastly outnumbered by all the other categories. I'll keep saying it. Stop messing with the goramn bikes. They ain't broke.


p.s. Having a little personal experience with bike-checks helps to get into this state of mind. 'Kafkaesque' is a good word there.

_________________
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:14 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7312
Location: Geeeelong!
airwise wrote:
This is somewhat misleading TP. If exotic wheelsets were banned in the first place and minimum weights increased to 7.5kg, it would be massively cheap for "people trying to earn a living from cycling" to compete with anyone out there. They could just rock up with a 105 equipped ali frame and compete on an equal footing. Hey kids and their dads could compete. Isn't that a good thing?

It's not misleading at all. As it's not even what is being debated here.

The current rules are also not what is hurting participation rates. I'm on my local club's committee, work in with my State and National body, have raced around my country and overseas. Bike weights and wheels are not issues.


You had a go at someone in your thread of going down the Sarenne, where he theorised something about you not going at the pace of Pro's - yet you had evidence otherwise.

However here you are doing precisely what he was doing, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Deep wheels are not inherently dangerous, slow to brake or any of the subsequent issues you've thrown up about them. This is the UCI again missing the boat on what should be a priority to fix.

And Twitter seem to agree

https://twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis/status/ ... 3126874112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 4992
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
Before we get too carried away stating this impending rule change as fact, can we attempt to get verification beyond what some guy on a website says that the illustrious Paul Lew said?

In a comment at http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/06/19/reynolds-updates-attack-assault-strike-wheels-new-aero-profile-disc-brake-options-more-new-rims/, in reference to the statement in the article Starting in 2014, UCI events will limit wheel depth to 65mm for mass start events, article author Tyler Benedict wrote:
Matt- That comment came from Paul Lew, who reportedly sits on some related commission or board at the UCI (along with folks from many other wheel brands). Maybe the UCI is just waiting to surprise everyone with that rule on a start line (kidding). I’ll see what I can find out.
As of yet, over 2 days later, he has made no follow-up comment in that article.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:39 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7312
Location: Geeeelong!
I've had a chat to someone here in Australia, he said this was "old news".

Verifying if "old news" means "it's well known to be happening" or is "was suggested but won't be enacted".


Either way, is not Paul Lew off on a tangent.

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 1:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:48 am
Posts: 1142
Location: Central USA
Did anyone read down to the last paragraph of that article:

"Unrelated but interesting given current trends, Lew says as a general rule, disc brakes double the drag of your wheels".

That's along the lines of what I heard rumors of elsewhere such as from Cervelo - discs are something I don't need, something that is heavier, and something that negates all the nice aero we've worked toward - so please don't force it onto me. :evil:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 am
Posts: 34
Tinea Pedis wrote:
Deep wheels are not inherently dangerous, slow to brake or any of the subsequent issues you've thrown up about them. This is the UCI again missing the boat on what should be a priority to fix.


I agree with your point that they aren't dangerous but is that what is being implied with the rule change? In the absence of any official announcement I will predict it will be a mixture of curbing aerodynamic influence and aesthetics.

In any case I agree with the change if it goes ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 945
Tinea Pedis wrote:
However here you are doing precisely what he was doing, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Deep wheels are not inherently dangerous, slow to brake or any of the subsequent issues you've thrown up about them.


We'll have to agree to disagree. I've seen enough evidence to suggest that my points have some merit, and none to suggest they are not.

Image

Image

Sadly I can't find any data from tests regarding stability in gusts but I've yet to ride a high profile rim that does not make me aware of wind direction and cause corrections.

Maybe someone can recommend one to try. So far I've ridden Zipps 404 FC, LW Std C, Reynolds DV46 and Mavic CCU amongst others - all over the past 24 months so happy that they are current models. But sadly I have nothing from a lab to offer up here - only anecdotal evidence.

I still don't understand the argument in favour of keeping them in UCI sanctioned events though. Sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:56 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7312
Location: Geeeelong!
As stated, ad nauseum, you are not a professional bike rider. Your point was based on professional bike riders. Nothing you have proves your point. Mine and others can however attest to the contrary. Yet, as mentioned, you refuse to accept it.

(maybe keep this in mind next time someone disagrees with you)

You're staunchly anti-aero. Always have been. For what reasons I have no idea. However coupled with hearing that this is that is coming, short of a new president deciding against it, debating this (I use that term loosely) is pointless.

Grazie UCI.

I'm out.

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:56 am 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], HakeemT, LabRatMatt, MSNbot Media, zedi and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. UCI events and custom build wheels

in Road

kavitator

10

864

Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:12 am

kman View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. UCI to review the 6.8kg weight limit rule

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

Tinea Pedis

21

1889

Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:34 am

eric View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Neil Pryde Bura weight limit?

in Road

IamnotWiggins

13

1400

Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:07 pm

IamnotWiggins View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2014 Evo Hi Mod

in Road

Blackbike

2

1172

Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:25 pm

Nebby View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2014 Tarmac, SL4 or SL5?

in Road

TerribleCadence

11

11617

Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:28 am

Tinea Pedis View the latest post


It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 5:10 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB