Weight Minimum for Bike?
- Thread starter juvel01
- Start date
Minimum weight for any UCI/USCF sactioned race is a little under 15 pounds. Unsanctioned local races typically do not enforce weight restrictions.
artmichalek said:
Right - 6.8 kg. I've never seen a weigh in at an amatuer event but I suppose it could happen... especially if one of the other riders were to complain.
It is EXTREMELY unlikely that the OP has a sub 15 pound bike and didn't KNOW it was a sub 15 pound bike.
I'm 6 feet tall. How in hell would you get a 60 cm bike (for me anyway) under 15 lb! I'm not sure that with all carbon parts I could get under 15 lb. How big is your frame?
Well, we're talking about someone literally a foot shorter than you riding a 43 compact geometry frame. So under 15 pounds is by no means a stretch (well, financially its a stretch but we wont go there).
However, that being said, maybe you guys can help settle an arguement. The bike is currently spec'd WELL below 15 pounds (we're talking well into the 12 pound range - and one thing to consider is that I dont even weigh 100 pounds so bear that in mind). Now, orginally this bike was going to be for me to train on, do some fun rides, etc. However, now I'm thinking I might actually want to tinker a bit in some low level, VERY amateur stuff on this bike and I dont know if having a bike this light is really a good idea. One other thing to note is that I am, by nature, incredibly competitive so what is low level local stuff this year could very well turn into something more than that next year.
Apart from the cool factor of some of the parts we've spec'd out, should I look at not going this light?
My current training bike is 20 pounds (an almost stock OCR 1), and to be honest I am really hot to trot, so to speak, to ride the new one. I'm starting to place parts orders this week (already have the frame) so I would appreciate knowing other points of views.
However, that being said, maybe you guys can help settle an arguement. The bike is currently spec'd WELL below 15 pounds (we're talking well into the 12 pound range - and one thing to consider is that I dont even weigh 100 pounds so bear that in mind). Now, orginally this bike was going to be for me to train on, do some fun rides, etc. However, now I'm thinking I might actually want to tinker a bit in some low level, VERY amateur stuff on this bike and I dont know if having a bike this light is really a good idea. One other thing to note is that I am, by nature, incredibly competitive so what is low level local stuff this year could very well turn into something more than that next year.
Apart from the cool factor of some of the parts we've spec'd out, should I look at not going this light?
My current training bike is 20 pounds (an almost stock OCR 1), and to be honest I am really hot to trot, so to speak, to ride the new one. I'm starting to place parts orders this week (already have the frame) so I would appreciate knowing other points of views.
juvel01 said:
If you're talking about that Giant TCR, no, it's not too fragile for racing. If you've got it below 15 pounds you could just put on a heavier saddle and seatpost for race day and make it legal, then swap back for whatever else you use a 12 pound bike for.
If you have some other bike then you'll have to decide for yourself if it's robust enough to stand the rigors of racing - it's not really a weight issue but the UCI had to draw a line somewhere.
juvel01 said:
Just remember that even for a light rider, that racing is stressful on bikes (no slowing for rough pavement, shifting under load, etc...). As such, make sure that all of the superlight stuff is suitably tough for the rigors of racing. Your supercompetitive nature might not be to pleased if you are sitting by the side of the road because an ultralight piece of carbon whatever splinters while the 17-18lb bikes speed ably down the road.
UCI limits are not really adhered to in this country for amateur racing.
My thoughts are that your priorities for racing ought to be reliability and quality of performance first and lightness second. That being said, if you are starting with a sub-1000g frame, you could get under 15lbs with reliable stuff if your budget allows.
John - some good thoughts and it was one of my concerns (though not really on the center of my radar screen until your analogy of watching the 18 pound bike go screaming by while I sit there with carbon bits). 
My thought has been that if something is certified for a rider who is 150 pounds, I'm most likely not going to tax it enough to break it, however even though I am so small and light, I am all leg (34 inch inseam) and they are very strong from my other sports so I want to be sure that this light drivetrain we are looking at is going to hold up. Thanks for the reality check!
My thought has been that if something is certified for a rider who is 150 pounds, I'm most likely not going to tax it enough to break it, however even though I am so small and light, I am all leg (34 inch inseam) and they are very strong from my other sports so I want to be sure that this light drivetrain we are looking at is going to hold up. Thanks for the reality check!
juvel01 said:John - some good thoughts and it was one of my concerns (though not really on the center of my radar screen until your analogy of watching the 18 pound bike go screaming by while I sit there with carbon bits).
My thought has been that if something is certified for a rider who is 150 pounds, I'm most likely not going to tax it enough to break it, however even though I am so small and light, I am all leg (34 inch inseam) and they are very strong from my other sports so I want to be sure that this light drivetrain we are looking at is going to hold up. Thanks for the reality check!
34" inseam, very strong legs, and less than 100 pounds? I can't even imagine that.
Apart from the pressures of racing on a bike falls are kinda common in Cat 4-5 races. The lighter carbon frames are not meant for crashes. I just saw a Scott Cr1 with head tube straight offjuvel01 said:John - some good thoughts and it was one of my concerns (though not really on the center of my radar screen until your analogy of watching the 18 pound bike go screaming by while I sit there with carbon bits).
My thought has been that if something is certified for a rider who is 150 pounds, I'm most likely not going to tax it enough to break it, however even though I am so small and light, I am all leg (34 inch inseam) and they are very strong from my other sports so I want to be sure that this light drivetrain we are looking at is going to hold up. Thanks for the reality check!
in the last moth balls criterium here in SB. Also remember, once you crash a carbon frame you REALLY dont feel that sure about it anymore.
Ok Diablo, I give, I'm sure my version of "very strong" and your version of "very strong" are probably not the same.bluecann said:and "well into the 12 pound range"? somethings fishy.
Yes, 43 cm frame. I am 5'1" tall and have NO TORSO at all, literally, on this 43 cm frame I will still be running a 90 stem. I tried the 50cm Trek (not compact geometry) and while it fit my legs well, I couldn't reach the drops without stretching all the way out. So, I am either a very odd fit or I've been fit very wrong, but my 43 cm OCR1 seems to fit me fairly well (though the crank length has been not easy to establish, seems no matter what crank I'm on I'm either chewing on my knees or have a lot of bend in my leg at full extension, and yes, I'm messing with seat height, but thats a whole 'nother story). I am fairly new at all the road bike thing so if you guys are seeing some awful error on my part, I have no problem with you pointing it out!
Why fishy, Bluecann?
Am I missing something? I'm pretty sure I have the complete parts list, did my grams to ounces properly but I'll double check it.
I have always wondered why people do not put on heavier rims to get up to the minimum weight. I know that the pros put weights in the seat tube or bolt weights on the bottom of the frame to get up to the minimum weight, but from a physics standpoint, it seems that putting the extra weight in the rims would have an advantage. Angular momentum in the spinning wheels would be increased (even if only slightly), which should have no disadvantage on climbing or on flats compared to added dead weight somewhere else on the bike, but would increase speed and stability on the downhills. If you have to add weight, it makes sense to me to put it where it could work for you during part of the ride instead of always working against you.DiabloScott said:
It's not cheap, but it's certainly possible. M2Racer put together a Ghisallo that came in under 8.bluecann said:and "well into the 12 pound range"? somethings fishy.
Is this a troll? This issue has been fought out at least a few hundred times here and more recently in today's Velonews post by Lenard Zinn:RickF said:
http://www.velonews.com/tech/report/articles/9662.0.html
RickF said:
Because of the inertial mass generated from the wheels, this is the worst area where you can compensate for weight in order to get to the UCI limit. That is why pros compensate for it elsewhere.
juvel01 said:
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/articles.php?category=roadbikes
This site showcases a lot of light bikes well below the 15lb weight limit. The lightest is a 9.1lbs. beauty.
Without really trying, my TCR composite T-Mobile size S bike with campy record, CF crank and American Classic CR420 AL wheels, weigh approx. 16lbs.
hd reynolds said:
Excel Sports www.excelsportsboulder.com had an interesting catalogue recently where they built the lightest bike possible using only stuff that they could buy from their own catalogue and it came in at 12-1/2 pounds so I don't find the "claim" fishy, but it's still remarkable.
And if you assume that the 34" inseam was a mistake the rest of his post is believable. I'm 32" leg and 70" high so that's 46% leg. He claims to be 34" leg and 61" tall so that's 56% leg... I'll believe it when he posts a photo of himself.
For the record "he" is a "she" and I'm not posting a photo. Great, so now I'm thinking that they didn't measure my inseam correctly (which was done quite awhile ago at a bike shop when I got fit for my mtn bike (which is a 15.5) and I have been using that number ever since).DiabloScott said:
If 34" isnt right then I'm going to need to rethink my crank AND frame (which I already bought) as we used that measurement when spec'ing everything out. Well, that just made my day, ugh.
I am honestly asking for opinions on all this, I do appreciate all the feedback.
Similar threads
