UCI minimum wieght requirements
-
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:14 am
- Location: Shoalhaven
UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby GAV!N » Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:45 am
I thought the minimum weight of 6.8kg was not only to ensure fairness, but also to ensure bikes were built sturdy enough to withstand high stress environments without failing etc.
It seems strange in this day and age with the way frames, wheels and groupsets are going that this is still the minimum. Seeing that team mechanics are often putting weights inside seat tubes just to bring up the weight, surely this indicates the minimum could and should be brought down??? I'm surprised it's even legal to do this!
Thoughts?
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:54 am
-
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:14 am
- Location: Shoalhaven
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby GAV!N » Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:31 am
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Nobody » Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:17 am
Like most people, I don't race. But most development of higher end road equipment is done through pro racing as both a testing/development tool and marketing exercise. I think at least some manufacturers would agree that a very low weight limit would stifle product development for real world road applications.
- MattyK
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 1:07 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby MattyK » Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:39 am
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby RonK » Sun Jun 08, 2014 9:38 am
If it was about the technology, racers would all be tiny jockeys riding featherweight recumbents and travelling at > 100kph on the flats.
- herzog
- Posts: 2174
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 9:50 pm
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby herzog » Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:26 pm
Cycling is truly about the engine. Unlike other sports, in cycling you can't really say "he only won because of the bike". All of the top level bikes are basically equal. Unlike say f1, you put the giro winner on another pro peloton bike and he'll still win it.
-
- Posts: 14305
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby warthog1 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 6:40 pm
-
- Posts: 1426
- Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 8:51 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby lobstermash » Sun Jun 08, 2014 7:41 pm
How on earth would they keep selling these fandangled new increasingly fragile and short-wearing products if they don't get the pros using them?GAV!N wrote:
It seems strange in this day and age with the way frames, wheels and groupsets are going that this is still the minimum. Seeing that team mechanics are often putting weights inside seat tubes just to bring up the weight I'm surprised it's even legal to do this!
Thoughts?
If they wanted to build a bike to exactly 6.8000001kg, my money's on that they could if they were free to use whatever components they wanted... Or if they were the ones driving the 'tech', rather than the other way around.
- Ross
- Posts: 5742
- Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Ross » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:48 pm
- Nikolai
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:55 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Nikolai » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:33 pm
It's a useless, meaningless rule. Especially when everyone knows it's almost never enforced (except in local world championships)
- Alex Simmons/RST
- Expert
- Posts: 4997
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm
- Contact:
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:33 am
I've had my bike weighed maybe 6-10 times over the years. Not common, but it happens.Nikolai wrote:The 6.8kg rule never stopped frame and component manufacturers to develop lighter products. If the overall package went over the limit, mechanics would take care of it.
It's a useless, meaningless rule. Especially when everyone knows it's almost never enforced (except in local world championships)
-
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 5:01 pm
- Location: Goulburn, NSW
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby brawlo » Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:02 pm
-
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
- Location: Middle East, Melbourne
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby ironhanglider » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:32 pm
Cheers,
Cameron
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Xplora » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:40 am
It seems that most of the riders are actually above the UCI limit. Evans' Giro bike weighed 200 grams more on the flats than the mountains because of wheel choice. Cancellara was pushing 7.4kgs IIRC.
I understand that some people don't understand the weight limit but it has succeeded, creating a safe, and tech limited, peloton. I don't think a weight limit is damaged the sport of cycling. I certainly think the recent changes in F1 are damaging it; but the reality is that the top F1 teams have hundreds of millions for the budget, and the neverending sinkhole of cash had created bad racing. Cycling isn't in the same situation.
- KGB
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:49 pm
- ozdavo
- Posts: 997
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 12:03 pm
- Location: Gold Coast (nth)
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby ozdavo » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:10 pm
There are quite a few frames well under 700g, and a few framesets under 1000g, so IMO they have become ridiculously light!brawlo wrote:The frames themselves have not become ridiculously light...
Sent from my iThingy using Tapatalk
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Xplora » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:17 am
Oz, I reckon the lighter frames is a good thing, as is light groupsets and light wheels. It gives a rider a choice. You can have a 6.8 kg bike with crashability - alloy stems, seatposts etc, or 6.8 with good aero - deep wheels, or 6.8 with a durable groupset (ultegra/chorus instead of DA/SR). You will be trimming weight right to the bone if you're throwing away weight on zipp 808s but the option is there. If there was no weight limit, there would be no ability to compete on a hill without SRAM Red, with carbon wheels and cockpit - all of which have an incredible markup on their alloy competitors.
-
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:14 am
- Location: Shoalhaven
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby GAV!N » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:08 pm
I was never suggesting there should be NO weight limit. I was suggesting perhaps changing it to say 6.5kg would be suitable, due to the abovementioned lighter frames, and examples such as weights being put in seat posts, just to bring up the weight.Xplora wrote: If there was no weight limit, there would be no ability to compete on a hill without SRAM Red, with carbon wheels and cockpit - all of which have an incredible markup on their alloy competitors.
- Xplora
- Posts: 8272
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
- Location: TL;DR
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby Xplora » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:39 pm
It doesn't matter what the line is. 6.5, 6.2, 5.5.... People will push the envelope regardless, but crazy light (sub5kg) isn't part of the landscape for pro cycling.
It is the choice of the teams to make bikes super light that need to be weighted to achieve the 6.8kgs. That is weight they could have used to make a stiffer bike. These guys aren't mere mortals, Cav and Greipel have special handlebar setups to reduce flex in the sprint. I would suggest that a sprint could be less safe if dudes were using 6kg bikes instead of 7kg bikes.
It's all speculation, but I have concluded I prefer the conservative approach to the rules that the UCI applies. The times when they have wavered from their calling - to present a sport that resembles traditional cycling - it has been a dog's breakfast. I think of the Flying Scotsman, Boardman's Superman, and then the acceptable TT bars and helmets which are ridiculous, then the Bont Chronos shoe which was banned for being solely for aero benefit (HUH?!)
It makes the tech side a bit less interesting, but it makes the athletic side much more interesting. As someone who rides a few crits, it's already ridiculous out there with the deep dish carbon wheels and SRM power meters. I don't want 5 kilo bikes ensuring I am going to be completely outgunned on the climb because I don't have 20 grand lying around.
- mitchy_
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:15 am
- Contact:
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby mitchy_ » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:45 pm
6.8kg isn't random in imperial... 15 lbs.Xplora wrote:I dig where you are coming from, Gav, I guess I just don't quite see the point of dropping it because it's another 300 grams. Who CARES about 300 grams? That's a loaded question of course. But the reality is that we have a line in the sand, arbitrary as it is, and that's a wonderful thing for the reasons above.
- g-boaf
- Posts: 21320
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm
Re: UCI minimum wieght requirements
Postby g-boaf » Sat Jun 14, 2014 9:42 am
I don't see a need for them to change the limit. If you make it 6.5kg, they'll do the same thing.GAV!N wrote:So I was wondering the other day, is the UCI ever going to bring down the minimum weight requirements?
I thought the minimum weight of 6.8kg was not only to ensure fairness, but also to ensure bikes were built sturdy enough to withstand high stress environments without failing etc.
It seems strange in this day and age with the way frames, wheels and groupsets are going that this is still the minimum. Seeing that team mechanics are often putting weights inside seat tubes just to bring up the weight, surely this indicates the minimum could and should be brought down??? I'm surprised it's even legal to do this!
Thoughts?
I'm sure you could further regulate this to prevent that happening.
My own bike is just on 6.8kg with its bidon cages and so on. That's light enough. My track bike is 7 as well.
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.