Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

41 - 49 of 49 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
DIRT BOY said:
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.

the nagain IRL has pushed for lower-budget racing and the have ok ratings and followings.

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.
You've pretty much nailed it. A few more comments can be made. First with the maturation of technology comes better durability, and as a result there are plenty of lightweight parts that are not fragile but instead everyday useable. Remember that at one time aluminum was thought to be too lightweight, in the right configuration, to be durable in bikes. Well, that's obviously not the case. Aluminum bikes made today are plenty durable....and plenty light.

Second, any form of wheeled competition has an underlying technological competition. It's the nature of racing. Mandating that bikes should weigh 20lbs won't change that. More importantly it won't improve anything. The fact is that bike weight is a very small component in whether or not Tom Boonen or anyone else wins. Note that Boonen's bikes are not weight weenie bikes and are pretty far aboe the UCI weight limit. Similarly lowering the weight limit won't change anything either. People are dead stupid if they actually think that a Pro Tour wrench or directeur sportif is going to allow parts on a bike that are less than reliable over the course of a race. Remember, they're in it to win, and they can't win if their bikes break.

Setting a higher weight limit or keeping it where it is also will not make racing less expensive. This is proven in every motorsport venue. Instead, money that would have been spent on something lighter gets funneled into better exploiting the rules.

Bike racing is evolving as are bikes themselves. Why set an arbitrary weight limit? The only reason could be to satisfy those that can't come to terms with the new technology or wrap their heads around the idea that lightweight doesn't mean fragile, that design, construction, and proper use of materials and product are the important factors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,934 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
I agree! let the rider have to figure it out. Or limit the amount of time they can use it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,669 Posts
bikeboy389 said:
It's all just so pointless, this arms race. If you like it, great, but don't kid yourself that it's doing us all some kind of good that you can build a 12 pounder.
I completely disagree. Suppose we'd have had this mentality starting in the 1970's. Would there be light and completely safe carbon frames today? Probably not. Go hop on a 25 lbs steel bike from that era and see how you like it compared to what you're riding today. I bet you will feel a big difference.

There's always going to be stupid light stuff out there, but you won't see pros riding it. People are smart enough to know that saving a few grams is not worth cutting a season short. And what is stupid light a few years ago is better engineered and safer as time goes by.

Technology gets better when there is an incentive to make it better. Take away that incentive and we all lose. Do I want a 13 lbs bike? Do you? If its safe and affordable, why on earth not?
 

·
n00bsauce
Joined
·
13,507 Posts
Who wants to be first to bring this topic up to poor old Georgie? BTW, who made that fork anyway?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,767 Posts
Mel Erickson said:
Who wants to be first to bring this topic up to poor old Georgie? BTW, who made that fork anyway?
According to this, the fork was made in-house and was from a satellite line of Bontrager. I don't think his steerer failure says anything about lightweight parts. First, his fork wasn't a lightweight fork. Second there were plenty of riders finishing on lightweight frames and parts. All of CSC were on R3's w/ CF steerers, including the winner, Cancellara.

Paris-Roubaix was breaking heavier steel bikes before Al and CF came along. It's one of those places where crap can just happen, no matter whether you're riding a tank or something at the weight limit.
 

·
100% torqued
Joined
·
766 Posts
The idea of combined bike and rider weight as most have mentioned won't work. Everyone has suggested that they reach a minimum weight by putting lighter riders on heavier bikes to even things out. This is simply unfair and bad thinking. Smaller guys put out less power. Big guys more. So by putting the lighter guys on heavier bikes you would be simply giving the big guys a huge advantage. The bikes need to weigh the same for all riders. Changing the weight for individual riders just will not work.

Let's look at the first thought: Let's put the light guys on heavier bikes. It might even things out on the big climbs a bit but once it get flat wher the big riders have an advantage on equal machines, they would gain an even larger advantage on lighter equipment if small riders were carrying an "evening" load.

I was thinking at first that the bike shold be a percentage of the riders weight to make things fair but this does not pan out either. Say 10% is the mark. A 200lb guy gets a 20 lb bike, and a 140 lb climber gets a 14 pound ride. Sound fair? Wrong. The large rider who is already at a disadvantage on the climb would then be punished by this rule and have to haul even more weight up the climbs. The light guys would destroy the big riders to an even greater degree. The bikes needs to be equal among all riders, this makes the bike as small a factor to the riders' success as possible.
 

·
Non non normal
Joined
·
10,094 Posts
I think everyone would agree that a real heavy bike (40 lbs) gives an advantage to the larger riders.


I think some are reluctant to admit that ultra light bikes give lighter riders an advantage if a larger rider can't use the same lightweight equipment safely. We all have seen manufacturer weight limits on lightweight wheels, pedals, etc. If a heavier rider that is competing at the pro level can't compete safely on a bike that is at the minimum weight then I think the minimum weight needs to be adjusted so that all riders can safely ride a bike that weighs in at the minimum.
 

·
n00bsauce
Joined
·
13,507 Posts
SD: Yeah and [Gent] Wevelgem. And yesterday on the reconnaissance, they rode for three hours on the cobble sections. Actually, we were stopped on the side of the road watching the team go by, all seven riders, and as George went by, he said: 'I'm hitting every hole, I'm trying to break them'; he was actually trying to tear them up!

GH was talking about the wheels but looks like he may have succeeded in tearing something up. I would not be riding races with significant stretches of cobbles on a fork with a carbon steerer. Especially a suspension fork like his. This introduces a whole nother stress variable onto the steerer.

Just noticed at the end of the interview they said it was an al steerer. Guess it should have been steel. ;-)

Finally, that long stem would also put more stress on the steerer. In pictures I've seen it looks like it broke cleanly right at the stem/headset juncture. Doesn't look like he was running any spacers. Surely he gets a thumbs up from the spacer police.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,501 Posts
I just feel sorry for Jose Rujano who at 49kg has to lug around a bike weighing almost 14% as much as he does. If he could ride my bike his watts/kg would increase 0.23 w/kg.
 
41 - 49 of 49 Posts
Top