Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

·
Old Skool
Joined
·
719 Posts
Well Said Jim!

Jim Nazium said:
While the weight limit might slow down the advance of technology somewhat, racing is supposed to be a competition between athletes, not engineers. Also, I would hate to see the cost of a racing quality bike be any more of a barrier to entry into the sport than it is already. I say keep 'em sturdy and cheap (relatively). And FWIW, back when I was racing, all the bikes weighed well over 20 lbs, but racing was still exciting and fun.
I think we would all be happier if this sport were more prominent in the US. For that to happen it needs to grow. To grow it needs to be more accessible to more people. Equipment cost is a substantial barrier to participation as it stands. Continuing the weight quest will only exacerbate this problem.

I no longer race and am not familiar with the current rules for amateur racing, so please pardon my ignorance. However, if there is a weight limit in amateur racing, I would be in favor of raising it just to moderate the cost and encourage more people to participate.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Raise it, but include the rider: Total weight >100 kilos

They used to do that in some car racing classes: Race-ready weight of car, driver, fluids etc had to be at least a certain amount. The intent was to keep costs down and reliability up by discouraging stupid-lite construction. Personally, as a 110-kilo load all by myself, I like this idea a lot.
 

·
25yr Houston-Austin MS150
Joined
·
209 Posts
Mark McM said:
I'd be interested in what the answer would be if we turn this question around - why should they lower it? What purpose would it serve?
I never thought I'd find myself quoting Alan Alda, but there's an old episode of M*A*S*H with cockroach races, and Hawkeye (Alda) says that "people who go to those things only want to see a cockroach crash." I wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, but there could be some pretty spectacular failures associates with a team that thinks they can win on a 13-lb bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Piles said:
............besides, Ive said this many a time. Not many of those super lightweight team bikes weigh what they would like you to believe. Alot of pros are using bikes heavier than the bikes you and i ride. Part of the reason being that you and i can source the lightest component from here and there, the pros have got to stick to certain manufacturers that sponsor them.
I have to agree with this, an I'd add that the stronger pros often demand that their frames be beefed upped and stiffened, which adds even more to the weight of a stock frame.

I can't really agree with the folks who are arguing that the quest for lightness is somehow driving the price of a race worthy bike beyond the means of most working class cyclists. This technology comes with some stupid, crazy price tags, but it trickles down to bargain prices in a few years. And is anybody really going to argue that this years carbon Record Gruppo is less reliable than the stuff folks rode 20 years ago?

I say that a kid would have to wrench in a LBS for fewer months today to get race worthy -18lb bike than a kid would have had to wrench 20 years ago to buy a race worthy +20lb bike. To me that is progress, so remove the weight limit and lets all reap the benefits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
484 Posts
Who else here remembers when a shot filled mallet was in the bike tool box and you cranked your 6mm stem bolt on the bars untill it squeaked? There used to only be 3 torque settings, loose, tight , reef it untill you think it might snap.... now every mechanic has to have a torque wrench or be paranoid of breaking something. How many dare clamp thier frame in a workstand now? I love the new stuff but it's light enough.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
As the rules stand riders may ride a 6.8kg bike no matter what their build.

This gives an advantage to riders who are average to above average height. A small rider is hauling a proportionally heavier machine up the climbs.

If you weigh 68kg it's 10%, if like GH you are 75kg(165lb) it's a smidge over 9%. But if you're a Colombian climber who's under 60kg it rises to more than 11%.

Perhaps they should move away from arbitary rules such as this and the saddle set back one to ones that take the rider into account.
 

·
Old Skool
Joined
·
719 Posts
Saddle set back rule?

ultimobici said:
Perhaps they should move away from arbitary rules such as this and the saddle set back one to ones that take the rider into account.
Not to highjack the thread, but what is the saddle set back rule and what is the UCI trying to control with it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
MB1 said:
Yeah I believe in a heavier weight limit but what about all the millions of dollars manufacturers put in to those 900 gram frames. Im worried that, that rule change would set back the sport of cycling outside of proffesional racing. There still will be people buying those if their still in production, but what about the idiots that think that whatever Lance rides is the best? I would be delighted if the weight limit went up and those 10 pound giants went away but I beleive some of the sports interest would go away too.
 

·
n00bsauce
Joined
·
13,507 Posts
I say get rid of all the silly equipment rules. It would open up the market and we would start to see a lot of innovation. I, for one, would like to see corked frames. They'd send those riders flying up the mountains. Juiced tires would be welcome, too. Helium anyone? Why they'd positively float up those climbs. Why not battery assisted cranks? Boonen is unstoppable now, just think of what the energizer bunny could do. Why, the skys the limit. Tear down those artificial barriers I say.

P.S. It would also solve the doping problem!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
704 Posts
Having got out cycling for years before leaving England, and not re-entered until well after arriving in the US, I missed a lot. I well recall about 7 - 8 years ago, walking out of a grocery store just north of DC and there's a car parked by mine with a Trek Y-Foil on the back. I had never seen anything remotely like it, had a great conversation with the owner, who told me that the UCI's rulings had made this incredible looking machine a non-starter as it couldn't be road raced.

SInce, I've seen odd photos of what the regular looking bike could have become, and it's obvious that the UCI's heavy hand was there to keep things looking like they always have. The tri scene obviously has to be a lot more free-thinking over this - they come up with some wild looking machines that are very seriousl dedicated to their intended task,

Pro racing would have produced some incredible machinery - it's reasonable to assume that it would have developed similarly to motor racing, where often the wheel count is the only connection between race car and family fugbox. Looking at that Y Foil, I couldn't start to imagine what may have happened to our beloved bike if development of suchlike hadn't stopped.

But I'd also near bet on that there'd still be builders building steel tubed "diamond" frames for us old fogies too.

The weight limit - rather pointless. You don't build a team's palmares by having your top pros standing around the start while "Weight Weedies Monthly" takes photos of their new uber-lite toys - knowing full well they'll never make the finish before something breaks. Pro teams wouldn't put riders on bikes that might not take whatever even a regular road race can hand out to a bike - never mind the pave based Classics. We might see some lighter bikes in the pro peleton, but not by all that much.

But industry would be offering ever lighter stuff to the buyer segment who 'win' by paying to off grams over their peers... Which, looking at some forums, it seems to happily do right now.

Even with no rules like the shape, weight and saddle position business, a pro level race bike is going to be a trivial percentage of the cost of putting a div one team rider atop the podium at any major event, singe day or grand tour

Funny old world ain't it?

Dereck
 

·
Darling of The Lounge
Joined
·
4,751 Posts
I say...

keep the weight restriction where it's at.

If anything should be restricted by the UCI, I say the use of two-way radios. It would nice to see a rider be able to develop a better sense of tactics instead of having to be addicted to a radio for information on the race.

My 2 cents...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,974 Posts
No!

The sport should be about competition not technology. What benifit would come from lowering it for the fans or riders? Keep it a level playing field.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,674 Posts
Retro Grouch said:
keep the weight restriction where it's at.

If anything should be restricted by the UCI, I say the use of two-way radios. It would nice to see a rider be able to develop a better sense of tactics instead of having to be addicted to a radio for information on the race.

My 2 cents...
Too true. It's great to see a rider either not have an earpiece or rip it out and attack!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
Howzitbroke said:
At 20 lbs we could see FS road bikes with disc brakes in Paris Roubaix.
Aerodynamics would play a bigger part. We could have 36 speed drive trains.
It could get nutty. All the light, simple, technology would get put to even more evil uses. More computer stuff for monitoring bikes and riders on race bikes. Lugged steel would unfortunately, not return. Progress is progress and regardless of the rules we would not go backwards. Race bikes will remain simple and beautiful machines only if the weight limit gets lowered or removed. More stuff has been added now, Powermeters and telemetry transmitters for example, and other stuff will show up as a basic bike gets farther below the UCI limit and teams have more room to add gizmos.
Pros rejected FS and even front shocks at PR long ago. The record average speed at PR was set on simple old technology ridden by hard men. Pro racing should be about the best man winning. Stupid light stuff is for Mt. Washington and dillusional fat boys caught up in lightest d!ck contests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
If innovation is what you are after then the weight limit may actually help, depending on your definition of innovation. If the weight limit dropped then we would just end up with lighter, possibly weaker bikes. Not much innovation in my mind really, just process and some material improvement ie shaving material of tube walls is not being particularly innovative.

On the other hand Once manufactures have to start adding weight to frames to stay legal they can then start to look at things like disc brakes, suspension, more gears, electric shifting ... In road biking these types of developments could be described as innovative.

Just think on the potential. Super stiff bikes that have huge gear ranges with small step that change perfectly at the switch of a button. This same bike could ride like butter because of suspension and still stop on a dime in the wet because of disc brakes. Those same disc brakes would allow you to lower the spin mass of your wheels by removing the need for the rim to support braking. As you can guess the list could go on.

Of course the question is do we really need this or is the problem still our legs. :) Certainly the manufactures need it to keep you buying and buying, hence the slow and steady pace of innovation.
 

·
Island Hopping cyclist
Joined
·
430 Posts
The minimum weight rule has allowed for some innovative gear to be used. Power Taps and power meters can now be used in compitition and still keep the bike as light as legally possible. Also, items such as shoes and helmets are becoming lighter, as those aren't weighed before the race and excessive weight can be lost in those areas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
Several posts above have alluded to juniors. I'd add, along those same lines, that if cycling is to become a global sport, there needs to be a limit on technology. If those in developing nations are to be able to afford moderately competitive equipment, some limits are needed. This probably applies more to $12,000 TT bikes than a weight limit on road racing bikes, but the argument is the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #39 · (Edited)
Lots of interstesing arguments form both sides...

on this issues. I persoanlly like see pats get lighter ONLY if the strength and durability are there.

Take Syntcae for instance. their F99 stem is about as light as you can get and probaly one of the strongest stems out there. Also Schmolke bars and seatposts which have been used by Jan and others are the lighest bars and one of the strongest.

I am a ww so I would like to see it lowerd, but again not at the sake of strenght or durablity being compromised.

I also like the idea of a bike and rider weight together.

yes some of these really "light weight" parts are expensive, but some are not. Again Syntace F99 stem are under $80!

I don't see how exspensive parts or light weight ones wil keep others from riding. You don't need it to go bike a bike and ride.
Many lower-end to mid range parts can be made to look like what the "pros" ride id that is what get's someone to ride.

But I don't think riding/having what the pros ride will hinder the sport from growing. It the competion and innovation that keeps people interestead.

Look at NASCAR. yes you use to be able to drive and build the EXCAT same car they used to race on the track until, what 10 yrs ago? Did it hurt the sport? No. it's growing!

F1 the most techological sport probaly. I think most watch this stryle of racing because of the technology. yes it's got out of hand, but it's the most popular in the world.

Then again IRL has pushed for lower-budget racing and the have ok ratings and following.

Again see great ponits on both sides. And in the end racing is baout competion between athletes, but it's also a competition between, brands and technologies.

eventually these "racing" technology will trickle down to moderate priced bikes.
It happened on the MTB side very fast. LX and now Deore feature XTR technology form just 3 yrs ago!

Does seem slower on the road side though, but 105 now shares the same stuff from DA again 3-4yrs ago?

Again just wonderng if the 14.99lb number is the right number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
Hmm, the sport is very accessible. You can get a decent entry-level roadie for $600 that will do 80% of the population fine!

back in the day did $400 BMX bikes keep mnay kids form riding? NO!
That was big time money when I was akid for a Mongoose, DG, redline, etc..
But I did fine on my $50 Huffy till I mowed some lawans and bought a used Mongoose.

I would say over 75% of the biking population from rec to mid class racers don't need more than a $1000-1800 ride.

Remember, needing and wanting is another story!
You only need $600 to RIDE!

hell a nice used ride form ebay, your pawn-shop or a garage sale really.....
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top