UCI weight limit permanent?

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted over
time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in materials
and design.

Adjusted over time or not, IMO it does stifle materials and design
innovation.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted over
time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in materials
and design.

Adjusted over time or not, IMO it does stifle materials and design
innovation.

Initially, this might have been the case. But a manufacturer can easily
make the bike lighter and then add weight to bring it up to UCI limits. If
anything, I think the weight limit has saved some poor pro from stupid light
parts that could break.
-----------
Alex

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted over
time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in materials
and design.

Adjusted over time or not, IMO it does stifle materials and design
innovation.

Initially, this might have been the case. But a manufacturer can easily
make the bike lighter and then add weight to bring it up to UCI limits. If
anything, I think the weight limit has saved some poor pro from stupid light
parts that could break.

There's still innovation in any event. The 6.8kg requirement just
spreads the innovations around a bit. Pros and semi-pros who can't
afford the latest and greatest in *every single part* can go for the
light stuff to the limit of their budget, then fill in with some
good-but-heavier stuff without a penalty. Everybody has their own
opinion about what's important to shave and what's important to leave
beefy; the weight target just leaves a bit of room for people to
choose beefy where they prefer it.

If the weight limit were applied to individual components, then the
impetus to innovate probably would be stifled significantly. But it's
not.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Werehatrack said:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:14:37 -0700, dw wrote:

> Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted over
> time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in materials
> and design.

Adjusted over time or not, IMO it does stifle materials and design
innovation.

Initially, this might have been the case. But a manufacturer can easily
make the bike lighter and then add weight to bring it up to UCI limits. If
anything, I think the weight limit has saved some poor pro from stupid light
parts that could break.

Note that there are still some pro bikes (notably TT machines, but even
normal stage-race rides) which come in hundreds of grams above the
weight limit. We're not at the point yet where everyone just specs a
Shimagnolo Dura-Record build on the sponsor's (or their secret custom
builder's) best carbon-alloy frame, then sighs and adds a set of weights
and plans the inevitable "LEGALIZE MY HUFFY" promotional campaign.

Quoted message said:

There's still innovation in any event. The 6.8kg requirement just
spreads the innovations around a bit. Pros and semi-pros who can't
afford the latest and greatest in *every single part* can go for the
light stuff to the limit of their budget, then fill in with some
good-but-heavier stuff without a penalty. Everybody has their own
opinion about what's important to shave and what's important to leave
beefy; the weight target just leaves a bit of room for people to
choose beefy where they prefer it.

If the weight limit were applied to individual components, then the
impetus to innovate probably would be stifled significantly. But it's
not.

The weight limit is a good, non-stifling idea. They might want to
revisit it when mid-grade bikes with mid-grade component groups start
coming in at 6.5 kg. Taiwan and China are now building carbon fibre
frames, so it's probably a matter of time, but I think we're a few years
away from that.

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

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

Quoted message said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

The weight limit may help "innovation", if it wasn't there, my guess is
people would just go for stupid light all the time. Innovations like aero,
vibration damping, 10speed and electric groups would left at the side of the
road in the search to reduce weight. Weather or not these innovations are a
good idea or not, I leave up to you. But the weight limit does give them
room to move on some of these ideas.

(dw) said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

I went quite a few years with no involvement with cycling beyond just riding the
things from time to time. About 12 years of no magazines, or online reading
beyond finding a tire or part once in awhile.

So lately I get interested in what's out there. More carbon fiber than ever,
aluminum frames are ordinary and a lot of really fancy low-spoke wheels are
advertised. My first thought seeing some of this stuff was "wow, has the
technology gotten that much better, or are they just trying to get away with
it?" It's mostly the latter. Real world wheels for actual riding still look (and
pretty much weigh) like they did 15 years ago.

The ONLY weight related "innovation" in the last 12 years or so has been that
people are willing to spend more money and are seemingly more willing to accept
equpment failure induced crashes. All of the materials and technologies existed
long ago, the only thing missing was the $6,000 bike customer and the pro rider
who was willing to accept the possibility of catastrophic stem and handlebar
type failures to save a few grams. You could've had a 14 pound bike two decades
ago, except no manufacturer thought you'd pay that much or accept the risk.

Barring some new materials it'll be awhile before there's any reason to lower
the weight limit. Hell, even with new materials it'll take time to develop and
research.

I'm all for innovation. It's a good thing and we've seen some very positive
ones; this thing of building the shifters into the brake lever housing, huge.
Great idea. The rest has been mostly a matter of incremental development and an
ever inflating expectation of what a bike should cost.

Ron
cranky past my bedtime

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

Quoted message said:

(dw) said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

I went quite a few years with no involvement with cycling beyond just

riding the

Quoted message said:

things from time to time. About 12 years of no magazines, or online

reading

Quoted message said:

beyond finding a tire or part once in awhile.

snip

Quoted message said:

Ron
cranky past my bedtime

Now THAT's an unusual involvement in cycling - riding a bike!
Hugh Fenton

Judging by the changes, amendments, revisions, and re-revisions of the
past forty years, it looks like nothing about UCI regulations is permanent.

--
"Bicycling is a healthy and manly pursuit with much
to recommend it, and, unlike other foolish crazes,
it has not died out." -- The Daily Telegraph (1877)

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

It also discourages the use of that dangerous element, drillium.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

The weight limit may help "innovation", if it wasn't there, my guess is
people would just go for stupid light all the time. Innovations like aero,
vibration damping, 10speed and electric groups would left at the side of the
road in the search to reduce weight. Weather or not these innovations are a
good idea or not, I leave up to you. But the weight limit does give them
room to move on some of these ideas.

Maybe it would be best to increase the limit?

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

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:14:37 -0700, dw wrote:

> Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted over
> time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in materials
> and design.

Adjusted over time or not, IMO it does stifle materials and design
innovation.

Initially, this might have been the case. But a manufacturer can easily
make the bike lighter and then add weight to bring it up to UCI limits. If
anything, I think the weight limit has saved some poor pro from stupid light
parts that could break.

There's still innovation in any event. The 6.8kg requirement just
spreads the innovations around a bit. Pros and semi-pros who can't
afford the latest and greatest in *every single part* can go for the
light stuff to the limit of their budget, then fill in with some
good-but-heavier stuff without a penalty. Everybody has their own
opinion about what's important to shave and what's important to leave
beefy; the weight target just leaves a bit of room for people to
choose beefy where they prefer it.

If the weight limit were applied to individual components, then the
impetus to innovate probably would be stifled significantly. But it's
not.

This is not clear thinking. The weight of the bike is the sum of the
weights of its parts. The question is whether making the bike (ie,
any part) lighter, taking account of reliability limits, helps to win
the race.

If it does, you try to innovate.

If not, you don't try.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email hidden]>,

David L. Johnson said:

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted over
time?

_ It's relatively recent ( 2000 ) and there is no scheduled
time adjustment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in materials
and design.

Adjusted over time or not, IMO it does stifle materials and design
innovation.

_ I believe that's the point really. Rightly or Wrongly the UCI
wants races to happen on bikes that regular people can buy in the
store and have some connection to bikes of the past. See the
Lugano Charter.

http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_pre2000/comm_19990611.htm

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQVxSxGTWTAjn5N/lAQGHOwQAtW3DCG5lt8NGWSW0av59cwNUt5fGuVjt
ddjjMxsLVvU68+uNaR/MfLRQnFtM7tgOZ3NKYVmFbVYNzIF4VIkY9bkSL8VCpdzJ
aUqmo06Y5QjcnKkVYQbuN5enNLvs3qw38aTJ2vpTqfjS+YlBfvmSTSbUyH2o9ACc
KfydqDBjZ7Y=
=6Wse
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:02 +0100, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

It also discourages the use of that dangerous element, drillium.

Dangerous perhaps, but it is one of the prettiest.

Ron

Ryan Cousineau said:

The weight limit is a good, non-stifling idea. They might want to
revisit it when mid-grade bikes with mid-grade component groups start
coming in at 6.5 kg.

But this would never happen under the current weight limit, since there is
no way to promote such a bike by getting a popular pro to race it.

A weight limit is the wrong idea, anyway. If you are worried about
peleton safety, then impose performance standards, not weight limits. If
someone can manage to build a strong 1-pound frame, then people should be
beating a path to his door, not avoiding him since his bikes are
"illegal". If such a 1-pound frame is not strong enough, then it will
quickly disappear; that's the idea behind innovation. Arbitrary
restrictions are in general counterproductive.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]

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

Quoted message said:

"stu" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

The weight limit may help "innovation", if it wasn't there, my guess is
people would just go for stupid light all the time. Innovations like

aero,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

vibration damping, 10speed and electric groups would left at the side of

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

road in the search to reduce weight. Weather or not these innovations

are a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

good idea or not, I leave up to you. But the weight limit does give them
room to move on some of these ideas.

Maybe it would be best to increase the limit?

maybe, would it really matter if the bikes were 9kg? just think of the ideas
the marketing department would come up with then. 🙂

RonSonic said:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:02 +0100, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

dw said:

Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design.

It also discourages the use of that dangerous element, drillium.

Dangerous perhaps, but it is one of the prettiest.

How so? Besides being weightless, drillium is also invisible.

--
Tom Sherman

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

The weight limit is a good, non-stifling idea. They might want to
revisit it when mid-grade bikes with mid-grade component groups start
coming in at 6.5 kg.

If someone can manage to build a strong 1-pound frame, then people
should be beating a path to his door, not avoiding him since his bikes are
"illegal".

A 1-pound frame wouldn't be illegal.. unless the
total bike weight didn't meet 6.8kg. There is nothing
stopping manufacturers making a 1-pound frame
rule-wise. Make a superlight frame and then add
weight elsewhere - make the cranks stiffer (and heavier),
make the bars stiffer (and heavier). If the frame is light
and safe, the bike's total weight is the concern, not the
frame alone.
Manufacturers can always add material to a light
frame design to push it up to the weight limit - they
could make it stiffer or more aero.
Keep the restriction - weight isn't everything.

hippy

Tom Sherman said:

RonSonic said:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:02 +0100, Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

dw wrote:

>Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
>over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
>materials and design.

It also discourages the use of that dangerous element, drillium.

Dangerous perhaps, but it is one of the prettiest.

How so? Besides being weightless, drillium is also invisible.

Haven't you seen those drillium inserts installed in aluminum and steel
components? True the beauty has as much to do with the craftsmanship as the
material, nothing is more than what you make of it. Back in the 60s and 70s
master craftsment would inset perfectly clear cylinders of drillium into any
part they could clamp under a machine tool. Some would allege that it weakened
the component but there are always naysayers.

Some attempts were made to build entire components from drillium. It's said that
one emperor had an entire gruppo of the stuff.

Ron

dvwlt-<< Anyone know if the existing 6.8kg mininum bike weight gets adjusted
over time? If not, it tends to remove an incentive to innovate in
materials and design. >><BR><BR>

'Innovate' is a big word. I'd say lighter bicycles are certainly lighter but
failures and expense has gone off the page.

More and more emphasis on the bicycle, more marketing department input, less
'racing department' input.

Way to much thought and importance placed on the bicycle, IMO..for the
'average' cyclist. Not nearly enough placed on the rider.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"