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.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.
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.