UCI weight limit permanent?

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by dw, Sep 29, 2004.

  1. dw

    dw Guest

    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.
     
    Tags:


  2. 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.

    --

    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
     
  3. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    says...
    >
    >
    >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.
    -----------
    Alex
     
  4. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

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

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    >says...
    >>
    >>
    >>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.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  5. In article <[email protected]>,
    Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>,
    > >[email protected]
    > >says...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>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.

    > 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 protected] http://www.wiredcola.com
    Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.
     
  6. stu

    stu Guest

    "dw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > 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.
     
  7. RonSonic

    RonSonic Guest

    On 29 Sep 2004 11:14:37 -0700, [email protected] (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.


    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
     
  8. Hugh Fenton

    Hugh Fenton Guest

    "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 29 Sep 2004 11:14:37 -0700, [email protected] (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.

    >
    > 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.

    snip
    > Ron
    > cranky past my bedtime


    Now THAT's an unusual involvement in cycling - riding a bike!
    Hugh Fenton
     
  9. 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)
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. dw

    dw Guest

    "stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "dw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > 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?
     
  12. dw

    dw Guest

    Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > >says...
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>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.
     
  13. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    In article <[email protected]>,
    David L. Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
    >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?


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

    >>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-----
     
  14. RonSonic

    RonSonic Guest

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

    >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.

    Ron
     
  15. On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:27:12 -0700, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

    > 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]
     
  16. stu

    stu Guest

    "dw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "stu" <[email protected]> wrote in message

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

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

    Tom Sherman Guest

    RonSonic wrote:

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

    --
    Tom Sherman
     
  18. hippy

    hippy Guest

    "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote
    > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:27:12 -0700, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
    >
    > > 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
     
  19. Ronsonic

    Ronsonic Guest

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:11:30 -0500, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

    >RonSonic wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:02 +0100, Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>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
     
  20. 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"
     
Loading...
Loading...