Fuji SL 1.1 http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=140134&hilit=Fuji
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.
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.
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 Extreme-C KOM
Ciocc Aquila Genius tubing
Colnago Master Olympic
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?
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.
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.
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.
- Posts: 5430
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
A lof of people have been cheating by a pound then. Either that, or the author (or proofreader) had a bad math (typo) day.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.
- Similar Topics
- Last post
- 71 Replies
- 7948 Views
Last post by bearsdidit
Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:12 pm
- 7 Replies
- 1358 Views
Last post by mattr
Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:58 pm
- 21 Replies
- 1409 Views
Last post by alcatraz
Fri May 04, 2018 2:38 pm
- 33 Replies
- 2017 Views
Last post by mustafah009
Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:02 am
- 3 Replies
- 658 Views
Last post by FIJIGabe
Mon Aug 07, 2017 5:04 pm