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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:27 pm
Posts: 103
NiFTY wrote:
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.


Don't we want the small manufacturers in the pro peloton, surely it's a good thing that there is a choice and variety? Also having pros using equipment from `niche manufacturers' is probably an effective way of testing such components. I've read through the UCI equipments regs and I don't like what I see. Do we really want the sport to go down the golf route, where the equipment regulations lose sight of the fact that for most people it's a game. I spent hours one day on the internet attempting to find out whether one of my partner's golf clubs complied with a new rule change, and I noted websites suggesting that the rule change was brought in to stimulate sales of clubs. As for the UCI's insistence on `lawyer tabs', even for pro teams, give me a break. A UCI spokesman when pressed on tabs could only cite one occasion ever when a crash in a pro race might have been caused by a quick release failure, Cavendish a few years ago, however the video footage does not show this at all. So now we have the ridiculous situation of mechanics unwinding and winding back up quick releases (Tour de Flanders last Sunday), laughable given the excellence of Campagnolo's original design. For `equipment safety' read money, and pressure from the big manufacturers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Shetland, Scotland
NiFTY wrote:
Re: Amateur racing - who cares. If my bike is 1kg lighter than a competitors because I have more funds than so be it.
How about if you can usually ride your bike in lower class UCI affiliated events, as the organisers take a pragmatic approach to enforcing the rules at that level, but once or twice a year you randomly get someone working to the letter of the rules and get told you can't start as your frame is not on the UCI approved list? Consistent enforcement of the rules at amateur level has already been a particular issue with the UCI aero rules and the like....


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 1:38 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:26 pm
Posts: 367
Currently most people on here would have to add weights to their bikes to race. Anyone with a frame over 3 years old would need a new frame as it wouldn't carry a UCI compliance sticker. Anyone who rides enve 6.7s would not be able to run them (too deep for road race). How many people have checked whether their TT bike is UCI legal. Lets get real mate, it is an issue for a few, who might well already have an issue with the rules as they sit currently.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 219
Location: Shetland, Scotland
If you set up the rules one way then you have some stuff that is probably not an issue for non-pros, unless under certain circumstances. If you set up the rules another way then it's not an issue for non-pros under any circumstances. I'd prefer the 2nd one :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 2:43 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Clermont, FL
agreed with catbill.
Also, the translation of lower weight typically means more money.
It's not really a bid deal for the pros.
However, for us common folks, that translates to even more expensive equipment for the masses (consumers).

_________________
-2010 Colnago EPS SR11
-2011 Colnago C59 SR11
-2011 Colnago Prestige
-2007 Cervelo P3C DA7800


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:50 am
Posts: 57
I saw that Norway had increased the weight limit to 8 kg for junior riders racing official races. They did it because of the cost for young riders

Sendt fra min HTC One med Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2014 12:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Frames from before the UCI approval process started (2011 model and earlier) don't need approval.
See the UCI approval FAQ.

And of course some countries like USA do not require UCI approval for regular amateur racing, only national championships and large pro races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 8:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:10 pm
Posts: 138
Looking at Giro course and its 120kph descents, deadly crashes we have seen there, nobody gives a damn about pro's safety. It has to be spectacular, nothing else. Why would they prevent them from using 700g frames which will snap resulting in huge crash?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 1:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 2:10 am
Posts: 238
BikeAnon wrote:
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.

Maybe the future is to replicate what the FIA do and design rules and criteria for professional tours only, and not for amateur club events.

I had a read through the UCI time trial regulations the other night and I was completely baffled by their complexity and stupidity. Disqualifying cyclists for bending their elbows or wrists too much? Sounds like Olympic walking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 4:12 am
Posts: 62
I imagine the Pro's would welcome the weight change, a lot of pros use alloy parts to add weight, but I'm sure for most of the pro peloton the switch to carbon would be well received for comfort!
Also Sagan rumoured to have 400g solid steel crank spindle on his super-six, it's just silly that things like that are necessary. Pro teams are probably spending more money getting custom weights made for frames than they would be shaving off some grams using readily available parts. So although cost for some teams could be an issue, I think a reducing to 6.3kg would be easily in budget for a lot of teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 12:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:19 pm
Posts: 586
I think they should make the weight limit a percentage if the riders weight limit. Thus allowing 45kg rider to ride lighter gear than the 75 kg riders who will exert more force


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:48 am
Posts: 975
That argument doesn't hold water. It would further penalise big riders, that are already at a disadvantage because they are less aerodynamic and have to push more of their own mass uphill. This is NOT offset by increased power output! Think I'm wrong? How often do you see a big guy win a GT? Rarely! In comparison it's more common for smaller cyclists to win various sprints, ITT's, classics etc.

Even ignoring the ramifications for the riders, it would be a complete mess to enforce a policy like that. The UCI has enough trouble with checking TT position etc, let alone having to weigh bikes and riders.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:20 am
Posts: 330
.


Last edited by Causidicus on Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1637
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Also, UCI approval means that the frame dimensions pass UCI scrutiny (i.e. 3:1 aero section, angles etc). Not that the UCI approves the frame structurally.

The approval sticker is there so the officials don't have to measure bikes at the races.

In the USA, amateur races below national championships don't follow the UCI bike rules. You can have a bike as light as you can afford.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2014 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 11, 2014 5:22 pm
Posts: 3
For 2000, 6.8 kg was hard to reach and furthermore they didn't have the technology we have today.It's quite easy to reach this limit.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 5:26 pm 


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


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alpinestar, Google [Bot] and 62 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. Neil Pryde Bura weight limit?

in Road

IamnotWiggins

13

1543

Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:07 pm

IamnotWiggins View the latest post

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

in Road

123GO

10

1972

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

169

Mon May 19, 2014 7:14 pm

mambo View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Bont Riot review

in Road

stubob

13

4930

Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:59 am

choplee View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. KCNC Garmin Mount Review.

in Road

Shortsocks

4

517

Tue May 20, 2014 1:42 pm

53x12 View the latest post


It is currently Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:28 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