Any Articles On Lance Armstrongs 2005 Bike ?

"Bugsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Will he be using the Madone again or something new ?

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct ?

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer to
me !!

Cordially

Such a troll.

"Bugsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct ?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer to
me !!

Because over the Tour, 75g on the bike costs something like 10 seconds.

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Peter

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bugsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct

?

Quoted message said:

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me !!

Because over the Tour, 75g on the bike costs something like 10 seconds.

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Peter

Please refer us to a 15 lb steel framed complete bike.

"Joselas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bugsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct

?

Quoted message said:

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me !!

Because over the Tour, 75g on the bike costs something like 10 seconds.

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the
idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Peter

Please refer us to a 15 lb steel framed complete bike.

I was looking at the Columbus tubing site yesterday. They have a new steel
tube set (Life, I think) that is pretty light. I'd be interested to know
how light you could get a machine (say 54cm) with that tubing and all the
carbon gizmos on the market today. I'm going to guess 16 1/2 to 17 lbs.?

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

This limit has already been reached. A couple of well known ultralight
carbon, aluminum and ti manufacturers products are breaking in simple falls.
One Spanish product has broken the top tube (!!) falling over in a grass
field. One guy asked his bike shop (when he found out that since he was
riding in a crit the frame wasn't covered by warranty) "Does that mean that
I can't fall down on this $10,000 bicycle?"

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Could you please point me to a steel frame that comes in within a pound of
the UCI limits?

Tom Kunich said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

This limit has already been reached. A couple of well known ultralight
carbon, aluminum and ti manufacturers products are breaking in simple falls.
One Spanish product has broken the top tube (!!) falling over in a grass
field. One guy asked his bike shop (when he found out that since he was
riding in a crit the frame wasn't covered by warranty) "Does that mean that
I can't fall down on this $10,000 bicycle?"

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Could you please point me to a steel frame that comes in within a pound of
the UCI limits?

Wouldn't carbon fibre be around a 1 or 2lbs for the frame and the
balance of the parts would keep it under 15 lbs. Seems a shame to have
actually add weight to a bike to make it reach the weight limit !!

Hey, what's the best website to buy a GIRO pneumo helmet in Canada ?

How light can you make a useable road bike now?

Quoted message said:

"Bugsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct ?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer to
me !!

Because over the Tour, 75g on the bike costs something like 10 seconds.

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Peter

Darrell Criswell said:

How light can you make a useable road bike now?

Not sure if these rules have changed for 2005, found using
google.

The weight of the bicycle cannot be less to 6.8 kilograms.

http://www.letour.fr/2004/docs/reglement_us.pdf
http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules/ch01_general.pdf

---
"BitwiseBob" - Bob Anderson
Eugene Oregon

In article <[email hidden]>,

B Lafferty said:

"Joselas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Allen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bugsy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes.

> Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
> technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer

to

Quoted message said:

> me !!

Legal minimum weight is 6.8 kg, or just a hair under 15 pounds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because over the Tour, 75g on the bike costs something like 10 seconds.

If there were no weight limit, then some people would play games of
stripping the bike down to bare minimum weight and hoping it didn't break
under them, someone would get unlucky and be seriously hurt or killed.

On the other hand, the weight limit is where it is now because the UCI
thinks everyone still rides steel frames and hasn't got around to the
idea
that carbon frames can be made a lot lighter without compromising safety.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please refer us to a 15 lb steel framed complete bike.

I was looking at the Columbus tubing site yesterday. They have a new steel
tube set (Life, I think) that is pretty light. I'd be interested to know
how light you could get a machine (say 54cm) with that tubing and all the
carbon gizmos on the market today. I'm going to guess 16 1/2 to 17 lbs.?

I would guess that it is quite possible to build a demonstration bike
with a steel frame that was under the UCI limit. It mostly depends on
how stupid you are willing to be with the component selection.

Behold the 10.93 pound bicycle:

http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=200

That's not the lightest bike on the site. The quoted weight for the
Dedacciai U2 frame (a fancy Al frame with carbon stays) is 900g. I'm
pretty sure 2000g frames are easily possible in steel. Assuming a
straight frame swap is possible, that leaves you with a 13ish pound
steel bike, and you're all ready to be fitted for your "Legalize My
Columbus Life Tubing!" jerseys.

Of course, our example bike is pretty stupid-light: sub 1100g wheelset,
carbon fibre chainrings, brakes that weigh 90g apiece, and downtube
shifters to save a few more grams. The scary part may be that I don't
see any really exotic parts on this bike besides those. Nothing that
wasn't ridden in last year's tour, anyways.

For a slightly less insane example, here's a 12-pound Scott with Ergo
shifters and aluminum chainrings:

http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=285

888g frame. Let's pretend that we swap that for our heroic 2000g steel
frame. Final weight: 6670g, just under the legal limit, and we didn't
even have to remove the 9g water bottle cage.

I don't have a problem with the present weight limit. Whether anyone
wants to admit it or not, a bike built to the weight limit these days is
still a pretty special thing. The trend in pro bikes will probably be to
hover near the weight limit, but optimize for better aerodynamics. Look
for deep-section wheels in more stages and races, for one thing, and on
days you wouldn't expect: if you can build a 6.8 kg bike with
deep-section wheels, why not use it on a mountain day?

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

"Ryan Cousineau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would guess that it is quite possible to build a demonstration bike
with a steel frame that was under the UCI limit. It mostly depends on
how stupid you are willing to be with the component selection.

Behold the 10.93 pound bicycle:

http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=200

That's not the lightest bike on the site. The quoted weight for the
Dedacciai U2 frame (a fancy Al frame with carbon stays) is 900g. I'm
pretty sure 2000g frames are easily possible in steel. Assuming a
straight frame swap is possible, that leaves you with a 13ish pound
steel bike, and you're all ready to be fitted for your "Legalize My
Columbus Life Tubing!" jerseys.

Of course, our example bike is pretty stupid-light: sub 1100g wheelset,
carbon fibre chainrings, brakes that weigh 90g apiece, and downtube
shifters to save a few more grams. The scary part may be that I don't
see any really exotic parts on this bike besides those. Nothing that
wasn't ridden in last year's tour, anyways.

For a slightly less insane example, here's a 12-pound Scott with Ergo
shifters and aluminum chainrings:

http://www.light-bikes.com/bikegallery/BikeListing.asp?id=285

888g frame. Let's pretend that we swap that for our heroic 2000g steel
frame. Final weight: 6670g, just under the legal limit, and we didn't
even have to remove the 9g water bottle cage.

I don't have a problem with the present weight limit. Whether anyone
wants to admit it or not, a bike built to the weight limit these days is
still a pretty special thing. The trend in pro bikes will probably be to
hover near the weight limit, but optimize for better aerodynamics. Look
for deep-section wheels in more stages and races, for one thing, and on
days you wouldn't expect: if you can build a 6.8 kg bike with
deep-section wheels, why not use it on a mountain day?

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

Nice post and links. Thanks!

Ryan Cousineau said:

That's not the lightest bike on the site. The quoted weight for the
Dedacciai U2 frame (a fancy Al frame with carbon stays) is 900g. I'm
pretty sure 2000g frames are easily possible in steel. Assuming a
straight frame swap is possible, that leaves you with a 13ish pound
steel bike, and you're all ready to be fitted for your "Legalize My
Columbus Life Tubing!" jerseys.

a frame is only about 20% of a bikes weight.

a lugged steel frame (like SL, SLX) in a medium size is about 2000 gms.
a tigged frame of say Foco can be 1700 gms. or less. a typical alu
frame like cannondale is about 1400 gms.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And 7 kgs is too light save for a one or two season bike. A local racer
has busted about half a dozen carbon forks now by hitting hay bales. And
he's buying the best.

The manufacturer must love him, but he might be better off with slightly
less fragile forks in crits. Or just learning to corner.

Peter

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Yv7Sd.8240$yr.7358@okepread05...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>How light can you make a useable road bike now?

Not sure if these rules have changed for 2005, found using
google.

The weight of the bicycle cannot be less to 6.8 kilograms.

http://www.letour.fr/2004/docs/reglement_us.pdf
http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules/ch01_general.pdf

And 7 kgs is too light save for a one or two season bike. A local racer

has

Quoted message said:

busted about half a dozen carbon forks now by hitting hay bales. And he's
buying the best.

Regarding breaking CF forks, whatever he's hitting with sufficient force
to
break forks would probably bend a steel fork or frame. The energy's gotta
go
somewhere.

Why doesn't he quit hitting haybales?

Believe me, it HAS been suggested. But if that many forks have been sheered
off you have to worry about long term CF frames that are ultra-light.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And 7 kgs is too light save for a one or two season bike. A local racer

has

Quoted message said:

busted about half a dozen carbon forks now by hitting hay bales. And

he's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

buying the best.

Regarding breaking CF forks, whatever he's hitting with sufficient force
to
break forks would probably bend a steel fork or frame. The energy's

gotta

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

go
somewhere.

Why doesn't he quit hitting haybales?

Believe me, it HAS been suggested. But if that many forks have been

sheered

Quoted message said:

off you have to worry about long term CF frames that are ultra-light.

First, slamming into haybales is not a normal activity for a road bike,
unless your name is Justin.

AFAIK, long term resiliency is a strength (no pun intended) of CF. However,
one of CF's weak points is catastrophic failure, as illustrated by your
local racer. Whatever force is causing the CF forks to break would also
likely damage a steel frame, requiring replacement just as the CF fork does.
Does the local racer manage to stay on the bike when the forks snap, or does
he get tossed off it? If it's the latter, then safety is a moot point. He's
not snapping them in the normal operation of the bike.

Bob Anderson said:

Darrell Criswell said:

How light can you make a useable road bike now?

Not sure if these rules have changed for 2005, found using
google.

The weight of the bicycle cannot be less to 6.8 kilograms.

http://www.letour.fr/2004/docs/reglement_us.pdf
http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules/ch01_general.pdf

Hardly anyone in the US is a pro riding under UCI stricture. So "rules" don't
matter and don't answer the question.

Tom Kunich said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Yv7Sd.8240$yr.7358@okepread05...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >

Quoted message said:

>>How light can you make a useable road bike now?
>
> Not sure if these rules have changed for 2005, found using
> google.
>
> The weight of the bicycle cannot be less to 6.8 kilograms.
>
> http://www.letour.fr/2004/docs/reglement_us.pdf
> http://www.uci.ch/english/about/rules/ch01_general.pdf

And 7 kgs is too light save for a one or two season bike. A local racer

has

Quoted message said:

busted about half a dozen carbon forks now by hitting hay bales. And he's
buying the best.

Regarding breaking CF forks, whatever he's hitting with sufficient force
to
break forks would probably bend a steel fork or frame. The energy's gotta
go
somewhere.

Why doesn't he quit hitting haybales?

Believe me, it HAS been suggested. But if that many forks have been sheered
off you have to worry about long term CF frames that are ultra-light.

Have you also informed him that crits have corners?

Bugsy said:

Will he be using the Madone again or something new ?

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct ?

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer
to me !!

Cordially

Not Armstrong's bike, but probably more or less the same. It's
Michael Barry's Madone -->
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2005/probikes/?id=barry_discovery_trek

J. Spaceman

Jason Spaceman said:

Bugsy said:

Will he be using the Madone again or something new ?

I heard that bikes have to be at least a minimum weight is that correct ?

Seems a shame to force bikes to be a minimum weight ! Why not let
technology dictate the lightest bike possible, seems like a no-brainer
to me !!

Cordially

Not Armstrong's bike, but probably more or less the same. It's
Michael Barry's Madone -->
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2005/probikes/?id=barry_discovery_trek

J. Spaceman

Strange that no articles on Lance new bike are out, perhaps it is top
secret ?!

Tom Kunich said:

Could you please point me to a steel frame that comes in within a pound of
the UCI limits?

There is no weight limit for frames. If you buy the lightest, most
expensive carbon fibre parts you can easily build a 6-kilogram bike. If
you then replace the frame with a light steel frame (Dedacciai EOM 16.5
tubing or similar, less than 1500 grams), you're still well below the
UCI limit.

The UCI weight limit is not much of a challenge these days. My new bike
is only about 300 grams above it and it has a fairly heavy carbon fibre
frame, traditional spoked wheels and just a mix of Record and Chorus.

-as