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  [ 36 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:53 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7309
Location: Geeeelong!
http://m.bikeradar.com/road/news/articl ... ced-40656/

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au Forum Jedi


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:53 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:20 am
Posts: 349
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Beaten to it! Seems like a sensible move, given how far the technology has come since the introduction of the rule. I wonder if it could prompt teams with certain suppliers to switch(Sky spring to mind)? Given how 'heavy' Pinarello frames have been, I can't imagine they will be delighted to have a 4-500g weight penalty over the likes of Cannondale...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 260
Finally, somebody had some sense. Everyone was adding weight just to meet the limit and the point about the rule encouraging the use of safer/sturdier equipment was refuted long ago...

_________________
Trek Mad-one 7 Series team colours http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=115500&start=15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:37 pm 
Offline
Formerly known as wassertreter

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Posts: 1947
Location: Pedal Square
campbellrae wrote:
Beaten to it! Seems like a sensible move, given how far the technology has come since the introduction of the rule. I wonder if it could prompt teams with certain suppliers to switch(Sky spring to mind)? Given how 'heavy' Pinarello frames have been, I can't imagine they will be delighted to have a 4-500g weight penalty over the likes of Cannondale...

Not convinced. We're seeing rumors all the time, that pros' frames are beefier than regular ones, and that Pinarello's and Colnago's frames would be closer to what they give their pros.
Still, it's good that the ruling is reviewed, quite an arbitrary restriction. Nobody (particularly not pros) want to lose time or DNF with a mechanical, so I think lifting it would not turn everything upside down.

_________________
Bikes: Raw Ti, 650b flatbar CX


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:29 pm
Posts: 618
Location: UK
Sounds like manufacturers will have to pony up to pay for ISO tests on all their race components, likely leading to niche suppliers (i'm thinking the likes of FMB tyres, Berner cage/pulleys etc) being unable to supply the pro-peleton goign forward. I feel sure Spesh, Trek and the like are fully supportive of this one...

_________________
"We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities." Oscar Wilde

Pegoretti Responsorium
Parlee Z5i
Donhou Commuter
1946 MacLeans Featherweight (L'Eroica!)
1991 Cannondale SM1000 (currently being renovated)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Posts: 84
I'm against it. For the reasons bikewithnoname mentions.

The world made "better" baseball bats or golf balls many years ago. The games are not improved by allowing people to use them. The equipment race in cycling is bad enough as it is. This would make it worse, but not make racing better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 2:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Posts: 375
Location: England, UK
Good couple of posts above, agreed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:31 am
Posts: 77
My humble opinions:

1. Its not about a lower number/weight, the existing UCI 6.8 kg minimum is not working at all. The fact that pro teams can add lead pieces or metal bits to meet the 6.8kg means that they can cheat on the rule. I mean, what a 400gram piece of lead that stick to the bottom of the down tube can do to make your bike stronger or increase safety when in a fall or crash? Obviously not, right.

2. If the weight of the frame is the most essential part of the rule. Why UCI never consider simply put a minimum weight to the frame and fork? If a frame is feather light but other components in the bike such as the wheels, chain, groupset etc. make up the 6.8kg minimum requirement. How safe can the bike be? Now, try to think of it from the other way round.

3. Its never just about the weight anyway, right? And if that is the case, UCI should strictly impose a rule on the frame or bike manufacturers to publish relevant crash test data, strength or stiffness measures that better reflect the safety of the bike or frame.

I personally is not just looking for a lower minimum weight requirement. I like to see a set of more effective regulations on bike for road safety. After all, road bikers are on the same tarmac as car drivers.

_________________
Colnago C59 KOM
Colnago Extreme-C KOM
Ciocc Aquila Genius tubing
Colnago Master Olympic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 221
Location: Shetland, Scotland
Easy rule for the pro peloton.
Different for others.
Old models, companies making custom frames or doing low production runs, re-badgers not bothering because of the cost of testing. All end up with you not able to use your non-labelled frame in a low end UCI affiliated event?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Posts: 84
catbill wrote:
....After all, road bikers are on the same tarmac as car drivers.

This brings up a "problem" with some sports.

Regular people have access to the same equipment as pros. No one will argue that an F1 car should be allowed on the street, nor that street cars should be allowed in F1 racing.

As CarlosFerreiro just pointed out... any non-pro can go to a UCI bike race. Non-pros don't end up in an F1 seat.

If UCI must consider ALL racers, and not just the top pros, the standards will not be perfect for anyone in the sport, but they can at least be fair across the board.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:19 pm
Posts: 10
IMO there should be a weight limit rule for amateur racing - not so much for strength or safety reasons but for cost reasons. For example, with no weight limit rule, is it fair that a junior with no money ends-up racing on an 18lb bike versus a junior with lots of money racing on a 13lb bike? Sure they're gear restricted anyway but you probably get my point.

Of course it would have to be enforced - no one enforces bike weights around here and I'm sure there are people showing up for hilly races with 13lb bikes versus lots of other people being on 18lb bikes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Posts: 1937
To be fair, the massive range of fitness levels in amateur racing will make more difference than 5 lbs of bike.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1716
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Weight limits to "equalize" amateur racing is a bad idea. People with money can spend it on many ways to increase performance- power meters, coaching, aero equipment, diet, more training time, less non riding stress. Many of those are worth much more than a lighter bike. (however compared to many other sports, money buys a limited advantage in bike racing. You still have to do the work and have some genetic ability).

The UCI should not be making rules for both pro racers and regular local amateur racers. The two groups are too different. Many of the local amateur races I do are run by a staff of 2-4 people. Adding equipment verification to their work load would be a serious additional burden.

The UCI requiring ISO certification for parts will have a negative effect on smaller manufacturers, competition and innovation. I hope the USAC will continue to not follow UCI equipment regs except for pro and national champ level races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:26 pm
Posts: 430
I think this is good news. To those saying the ISO rules may put small manufacturers out of the pro peloton, well yes, highly likely. But if the 6.8kg rule is for safety, and these niche manufacturers have never tested their products, then surely, having safety tests in lieu of weight limits is much more sensible. Re: Amateur racing - who cares. If my bike is 1kg lighter than a competitors because I have more funds than so be it. As people alluded to car racing previously, in road races such as the targa tasmania, there are car classes - and air restrictors but there is no limit to someone running a stripped out tuned porsche GT3 in the same race as a stock 911 gt3. As long as they both meet safety regs as scrutineering.

_________________
Evo 5.63kg SL3 6.66 viewtopic.php?f=10&t=110579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 3:32 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 5081
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
The 6.8kg (15.99lb) rule – 1.3.019 in the UCI rule book – was applied in 2000.
A lof of people have been cheating by a pound then. Either that, or the author (or proofreader) had a bad math (typo) day.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alorast, Google Adsense [Bot], lilearl75, Orfitinho, Sjoerd 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. 3T Rigida Ltd Fork Weight Limit?

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

drainyoo

17

563

Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:59 pm

drainyoo View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Colnago EPQ review

in Road

123GO

10

2091

Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:11 pm

Calnago View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Review of SQ labs 611 race

in Road

mambo

0

203

Mon May 19, 2014 7:14 pm

mambo View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Giro Aspect Review

in Road

thatdkid

1

589

Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:52 am

Tqubed View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. November Bike's New Frame - Review

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

bobalou

23

3382

Sat Dec 14, 2013 4:04 pm

carlislegeorge View the latest post


It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 1:41 pm

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