UCI to review the 6.8kg weight limit rule

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.

campbellrae
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:20 am
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

by campbellrae

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...

User avatar
Kayrehn
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:06 pm

by Kayrehn

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...

HillRPete
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 8:08 am
Location: Pedal Square

by HillRPete

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.

bikewithnoname
Posts: 999
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:29 pm
Location: UK

by bikewithnoname

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!, 2x MTB 'dales

BikeAnon
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Location: NY USA

by BikeAnon

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.

TimW
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: England, UK

by TimW

Good couple of posts above, agreed.

catbill
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:31 am

by catbill

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

CarlosFerreiro
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Location: Shetland, Scotland

by CarlosFerreiro

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?

BikeAnon
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 6:36 pm
Location: NY USA

by BikeAnon

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.

mallardducks
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:19 pm

by mallardducks

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.

mattr
Posts: 3480
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

To be fair, the massive range of fitness levels in amateur racing will make more difference than 5 lbs of bike.

eric
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Contact:

by eric

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.

NiFTY
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:26 pm

by NiFTY

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 5.02kg SL3 6.77 Slice RS 8.89 viewtopic.php?f=10&t=110579" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5430
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/ucis-outdated-6-8kg-minimum-bike-weight-rule-to-be-replaced-40656/ wrote: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.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post