Forum menu
[quote="aracer"]How many failure related crashes did we have before the limit?Actual crashes, not many, failures, quite a few.
How many failure related crashes did we have before the limit?
The limit was brought in because it was round about the time when everyone was drilling out frames and components:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
That's one thing when it's on a chainring but when it comes to safety critical parts like steerer tubes, it was beginning to get silly. I'm not sure how many failures there were but carbon fibre was also just coming in and it was very much new, untried tech. The limit was put in as 15lb was seen as a suitable benchmark based on what was in use at the time.
The irony now is that the UCI have a frame approval process and also a wheel approval system yet, using those lists, you can go out and buy a UCI approved frame, a pair of UCI approved wheels and then use standard off-the-peg finishing kit and groupset to build a bike that weighs less than 6.8kg.
Which sort of makes the UCI weight rule look rather foolish when the rest of the UCI rules allow it to be breached.
I'd be against it being scrapped altogether as that could lead to a situation where companies are building one-off super light bikes. I'd rather they operated within some sort of level playing field framework.
the ramblings of my addled mind:
we're already at the point where sprinters are (aren't they?) ignoring the lightest bikes on offer, but instead opting for stiffer, heavier bikes.
So the pressure for lighter bikes that are stiff enough, is already there.
yes, you can buy frames/forks/bars/wheels/cranks that weigh less than those ridden in the tours, but i'm guessing they don't ride as well. Flex being the main problem?
i wonder if we've reached the point where the significant elements of an assembled race-ready bike are already as light as they're going to get* until we get nano-carbon technology delivering on it's hype.
(i won't be holding my breath)
The fact that
[quote=crazy-legs ]The limit was brought in because it was round about the time when everyone was drilling out frames and components:
The limit was introduced in 2000, drillium was a 70s thing, and had largely died out by then.
Has anybody got real examples from the late 90s of weight related failures?
The limit was introduced in 2000, drillium was a 70s thing, and had largely died out by then.Has anybody got real examples from the late 90s of weight related failures?
It made sense to have a 6.8kg limit when that was pushing the boundaries for bike weight and would have led to compromised components in late 90s.
However, today in a world where you can have reliable forks that weight 300g, frames that are 800g and wheels that are 1200g it doesn't equate.
Not sure why anyone really cares anyway, 6.8 is light enough and a good limit to give consistency and fairness.
[quote="aracer"]Has anybody got real examples from the late 90s of weight related failures?you won't find many, a lot of the manufacturers made the frames "single use" as they knew that they world fail. Giant/ONCE is one that springs to mind, sub 800 gram aluminum frames only for use uphill. Wheels that weren't safe for use with brakes (300 gram rims in aluminum with 24 spokes) also using track/tiny tubs on the road. (I wonder how many of the TT tumbles in the 90s were down to people running 18mm track tubs at 10-12 bar.)
[quote="kerley"]Not sure why anyone really cares anyway, 6.8 is light enough and a good limit to give consistency and fairness.The only people who actually care are middle aged middle class mamils, the people who are actually affected by it mostly don't care.
The only people who actually care are middle aged middle class mamils, the people who are actually affected by it mostly don't care.
Suspect bike manufacturers care quite a bit too as it's more opportunity for increases in development, cost and sales (probably to those suggested above!)
Don't think you can discount the psychology either though. Believing your bike is lighter or heavier, or just thinking it's the same, could all influence performance.
Obviously it's not quite the same but look at downhill- Peaty's mechanic stripped the paint off the wheels of his world cup bike to save weight. Realistically that probably made ****-all difference but if it makes him think "This bike is X faster than his bike" then that's a lift.
I used to think the UCI weight limit was a bad thing, stifling technological advances and hampering progress. The longer it has been in place though, we've seen some real developments elsewhere that have made far bigger impacts on bike tech than just losing a couple of kilos.
Yes, the Trek's and Merida's of this world have proved that for £10k or more they can sell you a bike that weighs 4.5kg or thereabouts. I've not ridden one so I can't say for absolute certainty, but I'd warrant that any of the UCI legal pro team bikes will be nicer to ride, and crucially faster against the clock!
Basically, until the UCI weight limit was introduced, everyone used to think the key to making bikes faster was to make them lighter. Over the last few years this has been proved to be hogwash on all but the steeper climbs, and that aero does indeed trump light weight. If the riders themselves were only concerned about weight, all their bikes would be bang on the 6.8kg weight limit (which most are not as proved many times).
Removing the weight limit barely registers these days on the pro's radars. Yes, 15 years ago they were up in arms about it, but technological developments have rendered the weight limit largely pointless...
FWIW my own road bike is down at about 7.3kg ready to roll (pedals, cages, Garmin mount etc included as they should be) and though I could easily have made it lighter, I didn't feel the need at all. In fact since I fitted slightly heavier, stiffer and more aero wheels, the bike not only feels faster but Strava anecdotally backs this up too.
I'm not sure weight or lack of is the be all and end all. Whilst crazy low weights are achievable I don't think manufacturers/racers want to get the numbers down at the cost of sprinting stiffness, power transfer and pin sharp handling.
Take Giant for example. Their top end disc Defy frame is lighter than their Pro Tour spec road race frame.
And there you have it. They could build superlight frames for the pro's but they'd be a little bit pants.
And I applaud the fact that they care more about Kittel winning Tour stages on an engineered bike, than pleasing stat obsessed riders with more money than talent.
That said I'm sure in time both lightness and the best engineering will be one and the same thing.
mboy, wheels are great example of superior engineering over inferior weight.
Getting like that with frames, especially some aero models.
Not arguing to keep the UCI weight limit BTW. It would be great for the market, I know people that obsess over weight and would pour money into the cycling market. And we'd see some great machines on the mountain stages. Other than that weight and perfect engineering aren't one and the same just yet.
Remove the weight limit but penalise component failure a la F1 engine rules etc.
adsh, not sure what you mean there as I know sod all about F1.
Do you mean if a bike broke purely due to it not being up to the job, they couldn't grab another off the team car?
Evil, but I like it.
Like your missus saying she won't come and get you if you have a mechanical 😕
Interesting that there is an assumption that superlight frames would be noodly and a bit rubbish. How much of that is down to a lack of investment in building very light and stiff frames as a result of the weight restriction? If the rule were lifted I'd expect to see pretty much everything get lighter with little loss in strength or function (aero etc.) due to there being a real driver to ditch weight.
Appreciate that some pro bikes are still a few 100g over the limit but if manufacturers can build bikes that are just as good but a kilo or two less, a real significant amount, you can bet the pro's would be riding them.
mrblobby yes they would 'if' the weight and efficiency are in (perfect) harmony.
And dropping the UCI rule would bring that closer.
Myself? still buying another steel race frame next year.
Enjoying racing the Volare then oldgit? Something custom for next year maybe?
I've not ridden one so I can't say for absolute certainty, but I'd warrant that any of the UCI legal pro team bikes will be nicer to ride, and crucially faster against the clock!
I'm not so sure, a lot of pro bikes are set up a bit weirdly - massive drop to bars, huge stems, narrow bars. I'd probably rather ride a production Emonda SLR 10 than many team bikes. The 'faster' thing will depend on the situation too won't it, uphill the lighter bike will go faster, all other factors being equal.
Enjoying racing the Volare then oldgit? Something custom for next year maybe?
Probably another factory one. TBH they seem better, better VFM and technically. Cinelli Nemo Tig.
But yes loving it. Just prepping it for next year.
njee20, you see some weird stuff on bikes when you wander around the buses. Ten ton saddles, really cheap alloy bars and stems and personal trinkets slapped on frames!
njee20. You mean when the pro's do this? the weight loss engineers 😕 must bang their heads on their desks.
Darn lost the image, basically Campagnolo SR equipped Ridley X-Night cyclo cross bikes used by Lotto Belisol for the P-R
Sort of. More the oddities of pro bike set up for mere mortals. I was responding to mboy's comment that a pro bike would be much nicer to ride than a featherweight production super bike like the Emonda SLR 10. I'm not so sure.
Darn lost the image, basically Campagnolo SR equipped Ridley X-Night cyclo cross bikes used by Lotto Belisol for the P-R
Nice those...