UCI approve disc & looking at weight limit

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

stripes
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:58 am

by stripes

Wow, sooner than expected.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



deek
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:32 pm

by deek

ms6073 wrote:
deek wrote:Huh? How are they not breaking the 3:1 rule?

Only bikes used in events that fall under the UCI regulations have to meet the UCI 3:1 rule. Except for certain pro events, the majority of triathlons do not fall under the UCI regulations.


Yeah, I get that.

I said the Felt IA and the Shiv Tri purposely ignored the 3:1 rule. Then Grill said that they aren't.

User avatar
kkibbler
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:30 am

by kkibbler

Shiv Tri and Felt IA violate the rule. Shiv TT and Felt DA are compliant. Different frames.

climbandpunishment
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:40 am

by climbandpunishment

BeeSeeBee wrote:
jeffy wrote:what are the real world implications of the 3:1 rule change?


It seems like we've started to really hit an aero plateau, where everything is pretty damn fast, and you're talking about only giving up a couple of watts between different bikes.


As an aerodynamicist by trade, I respectfully disagree. I believe you're partly correct, in that we may be at a plateau for what bike companies can achieve with their current level of technology, but even conservatively speaking there is substantial room for improvement over even the best current aero frames, even assuming the 3:1 rule is here to stay.

Not to pick on any one manufacturer, but take the Specialized Venge as an example. From their tests (data via their Win Tunnel videos, plus some simple math (0.5 s/km savings = ~5 watts drag ) Specialized says their top Venge is only about 12 watts faster than a 1980s round-tube Allez. Frankly it'd be kind of pathetic if that were the pinnacle of bike aerodynamics; round tubes are incredibly poor aerodynamically compared to a sophisticated, well-designed airfoil section (~ 25x more drag). And I'm not picking on Specialized here; most current "aero" frames are actually worse than that, though some are also better.

A bike takes very roughly 60 watts to push through the air at around 25 mph, of course depending on the rider, wind, and many other factors. Even the best aero frames today, with components chosen specifically for low drag, optimistically only cut 20-30 watts off that. And that's assuming we can't use bike frame geometry to reduce drag on the rider, too, which we are already seeing done, albeit on a very simplistic level so far. That leaves 30+ watts of room, even from conventional bike geometry.

Aerodynamic technology potentially has a very long way to go in the bike industry. What's lacking so far is not the technology, but rather a bike industry understanding of how to apply the sort of advanced technologies already used in aerospace and other industries. I think that's great news though - it means bikes (and my very un-aerodynamic self :P ) can still get faster, sooner or later.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 3651
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

It would be cool to see how low can you get with a racing bike, or how aero not to cause any issues with stability in crosswinds. On the other hand bikes are so helluva expensive (yeah i know teams dont pay msrp but still) that would only create major gaps between what certain teams ride, similar to F1. Like someone said above, hardly any bike touches the limit now - most are circa 7kg up to 7.5kg, just like those few hundret grams didn't really matter in certain conditions
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

MNX1024
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:21 am

by MNX1024

This is surprising, Didn't expect them to embrace the change this early. Though the weight limit should've been visited much earlier.

User avatar
ITTY
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:08 pm
Location: Bremerton, WA

by ITTY

I'm surprised to hear you guys say that most pro bikes aren't at the limit. I was under the impression that it was pretty common practice to add lead weights or unnecessarily heavy parts in order to make weight.
Moloko Plus 6.24 kg

"We haven't located us yet"

deek
Posts: 406
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:32 pm

by deek

kkibbler wrote:Shiv Tri and Felt IA violate the rule. Shiv TT and Felt DA are compliant. Different frames.

I know, all I was pointing out was that there are already frames that don't follow the 3:1 rule. Not sure why everyone keeps disagreeing without contradicting me. Oh well.

BRAIN also reported that the UCI is making a decision within the month.

This seems like an odd strategy:
Several suppliers said the UCI could allow road-discs to be used at two fall events this year as a test. Exact details were vague but sources said the UCI would offer two "tickets" per pro-tour team that would enable the team to use road-discs in the two events if they chose to do so. But no one seemed to know the exact details on how the test would be structured, when and where the events would be held, and how neutral support would be managed given the mix of wheels.

mattr
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

ITTY wrote:I'm surprised to hear you guys say that most pro bikes aren't at the limit.
depends on team and rider. Tour team leaders, climbers and short arses may well need to add weight to their "best" bike.
Rouleurs, sprinters, classics riders, TT specialists, i.e. those more concerned with finishing the race on one bike will more than likely be on or over the limit.


User avatar
bigfatty
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:53 am

by bigfatty

just saw this news on cyclingnews. I don't like it, not one iota.

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

Guess we will all have to start saving our money as eventually bike makers won't create rim brakes any more. Need new frames and new wheels and new group sets. Start saving!
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
F45
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

It's going to be funny. Every wheel change will instead be a bike change. Team cars will have to change wheels out on the go. No more neutral service.

I'm envisioning seatposts and stems with little motors so the length can by changed while riding. That way it will be faster to throw a rider a bike, let him adjust it to fit.

WeightySteve
Posts: 291
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 10:44 am

by WeightySteve

53x12 wrote:Guess we will all have to start saving our money as eventually bike makers won't create rim brakes any more. Need new frames and new wheels and new group sets. Start saving!


This is a massive coup for the bike industry.

If they approve Discs then 90% of our existing bikes are not re-usable, and the 5,6,7K per bike spent will depreciate to almost nothing as no-one will want to buy bikes (or even components) with rim brakes.

Previous major group-set updates (Toestraps->Clip in, Downtube shifters->STI, Mech -> Electric, Cable pull/brake modulation), have always just been a groupset upgrade, and could generally be done component by component. (Even with Mech->Elec, the cranks, brakes, pedals, stayed the same).

And if/when you replaced your frame, a new BB/Headset/Stem swap meant the rest of your existing bits were generally re-usable.

This update requires basically a whole new bike. If the UCI adopt road discs, It's basically a "reboot" for road bikes.

So just as you're finally happy with the bike(s) of your dreams, in 2 years time they will be dinasours, and another 10K+ will need spending.

And how about mixed rim/disc groups? Never mind the pro-teams, they could afford (because they wont have to actually buy anything!) to replace their entire fleet overnight no doubt if the UCI said they had to, but amateur road races are a whole new story. I appreciate CX has mixed fields, but generally you don't get a massive pack of 60+ riders wheel to wheel @ 30mph in CX.

There's no way Ama RR's (or lower down the food chain, spirited local club runs) can reboot to Discs. And a mixed field would be like track race with half the field with brakes and half only being able to back-pedal. Lethal!

Why not try to attract new cyclists (hence more bike sales), with eg. better TV coverage for races, more closed road AMA races/sportives, better integration with traffic and better segregation on non-city roads (to make training safe), and education of governments regarding safety and clamping down severely on maniac drivers,

Instead of making the existing crowd buy everything again.

The UCI's reason for implementing the weight limit was attempt to limit the cost of bikes to make the sport more affordable for poorer teams/amateurs.

Bad move UCI!
Last edited by WeightySteve on Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AndreLM
Posts: 479
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:53 pm

by AndreLM

It seems UCI is giving the choice to use it or not. It will be interesting to see which teams will CHOOSE to use it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply