Just having a look through some pictures of pro's bikes on: [url] http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/photos/race-tech-dauphine-bikes-for-millar-martin-nibali-and-voeckler/226640 [/url]
Now, the UCI states the bikes must weigh no less than 6.8kg (14.99lbs). But these bikes don't have anything other than top drawer components on them. I've got an old cervelo r3sl, with old record 10 speed, clinchers and some average wheels, cheap pedals, 2 bottle cages and a computer, pump brackets etc and my bike still comes in at slightly less or slightly more than 14 lbs. I'd have to put something pretty shite on it to add half a kilo.
Looking at the photo's I can't see how they are getting the bikes up to weight. I heard that Cadel Evans had a cheapo cassette on his bikes to get it up to weight. I heard also that the UCI states that the components must be functional, so that you can't just zip tie a spanner to the downtube. I believe that some mechanics use heavy steel bolts etc, but i can't see that in the shots.
The riders pretty much use top of the line kit, so how are they adding the weight? I'm a bit of a nerd, but just interested.
Motor in the seat tube?!
Powermeters on the cranks add a bit of extra weight as do some beefed up stems and bars. They also add weights to the bikes, generally located in the sea-tube, or near the bottom bracket area.
I heard also that the UCI states that the components must be functional, so that you can't just zip tie a spanner to the downtube
Not sure that one's true - mostly they put ballast down the seat tube or in the crank spindle, though as above power meters/deeper section wheels add weight.
Andy
Not all are using SRM's thou. I have a powertap, a basic one and that only adds 300 grams over a really good hub lightweight hub. The deep dish wheel thing can't always account, as they don't always use them if it a mountain stage, windy, or both.
Maybe i'm wrong about the UCI rule on function, as it would be impossible get them up to weight otherwise?
Depends very much on the rider too.
Cavendish's Venge was massively overbuilt to deal with his raw power in a sprint, and as such came in about 2.5lb over the minimum weight limit. Mainly heavy strong bars, hugely strong stem, Power meter cranks, much heavier stiffer wheels than his opponents etc.
But then Contador's mechanic would routinely weigh his ultra light bike, and have to stick a lb or more of lead down the BB spindle to bring it up to 15lb on the nose.
If you've got to add weight, add it as low down on the bike as possible, and/or beef up potentially weak components if you can. 2 places to add weight without any ill effects are the BB (lead inside it usually) and the cassette (fitting cheaper heavier ones from lower down the range).
Thanks mboy, i'll melt down some fishing weights and stuff em in by BB before the UCI turn up on my door scuppering my Sunday ride to the cafe - again. 😛
What everyone else said, and also
I've got an old cervelo r3sl, with old record 10 speed, clinchers and some average wheels, cheap pedals, 2 bottle cages and a computer, pump brackets etc and my bike still comes in at slightly less or slightly more than 14 lbs.
I kinda doubt that, you sure?
Maybe i'm wrong about the UCI rule on function, as it would be impossible get them up to weight otherwise?
Total cobblers
Not many pro's run bikes on the weight limit. Seemingly quite a lot are over it a bit, though not as much as Cavendish. Whilst you or I would clearly be fine on a very light bike, the power that some of these guys have necessitates stronger (therefore heavier) components in many cases.
A £500 road bike is about 24lb, you can spend £15k on one I'm sure and end up with something that weighs 8lb and is still rideable. I think the UCI rules are to stop any kind of unfair budget advantage meaning any team with money can buy the best kit. At 15lb, you or I would walk into any bike shop and spend £4k on a bike that [i]could[/i] win the TdF. It's all about making the competition about the riders, not the equipment.
Originally IIRC, the weight limit was set because that was what was deemed safe for a minimum weight of a bike to be built. Anything lighter they said had potential to be unsafe. A bit like the speed limits haven't increased as car technology has advanced ( you have to laugh at stopping distances in the highway code), bike technology, especially since the inroduction of carbon and its strengths and build processes, has moved on a lot. A 13lb race bike could still easily be built strong enough.Think they discussed this on last years TDF
Curiously,the same weight limit is applied to mountain biking, so you could have a 15lb mtb which the UCI recon can take as much abuse as a 15lb road bike. For a light rider maybe i would say
RealMan - MemberWhat everyone else said, and also
I've got an old cervelo r3sl, with old record 10 speed, clinchers and some average wheels, cheap pedals, 2 bottle cages and a computer, pump brackets etc and my bike still comes in at slightly less or slightly more than 14 lbs.
I kinda doubt that, you sure?
Well my scales aren't cutting edge but the bike comes up the same as the shop scales. Does seem on the light side thou i'll give you that. I have got light inner tubes, that makes up some weight and the tyres are a little worn, so is the bar tape 😕
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I cant find any pictures atm, but i remember seeing an article in an old cycling weekly mag showing 100g and 50g weights stuck to the bottom of the pro's frames on the downtube and around the bottom bracket area so that the bikes made the weight.
there was one year cannondale had a 'legalize my bike' campaign going on, and riders literally had kitchen weights taped to their frames..
Sounds about right [i]fluxhutchinson[/i], I can't see that the cervelo of David Miller's or Thomas Voeckler's Colnago would meet the weight unless they added weight. I could get on weight weenies and tot it all up on a spreadsheet and check, but 1) I really can't be arsed and 2)i'm going to drink another bottle of wine. (i live in NZ, so that's allowed at this time of day).
I think that bar sprinters the ballast with weights must be it. Makes sense. That's what they do in F1 isn't it?
I think that, bar sprinters, the ballast with weights must be it. Makes sense. That's what they do in F1 isn't it?
They used to, they can't any more, the UCI added a clause to the weight rule that said the weight had to be structural, not just lead weights down the seat tube. And they do check (at pro-tour level).
Various ways around it, usually stuff like slightly heavier seatposts, steel bolts & QRs, possibly a lower grade front mech (common one on Campag used to be a Chorus f/mech instead of Record). Powermeters and SRM cranks put the weight up quite substantially. Double wrapped bars adds comfort and a few extra grams.
The Team Sky bikes all come in at about 7 - 7.2kg, some of the smaller frame sizes dip a bit under. Counter-intuitively, the track bikes usually weigh more. Chris Hoy's competition bike is about 8.3kg.
The weight limit thing as introduced when riders were drilling out their frames and components and it was leading to higher failure rates so they brought the weight limit in to stop that. But it hasn't changed with the introduction of carbon fibre - the UCI keep talking about changing or scrapping it but so far nothing.
They used to, they can't any more, the UCI added a clause to the weight rule that said the weight had to be structural, not just lead weights down the seat tube. And they do check (at pro-tour level).
So I didn't just imagine that then!
(common one on Campag used to be a Chorus f/mech instead of Record).
That was because record front mechs are shite, the counter plate is carbon and bends, making shifting down under power quite, well..... terrible. I keep meaning to get a chorus for my bike, the record one is awful. Looking at Voeckler's Colnago thou I can't see the added weight, except the saddle. His wheels must be quite a bit lighter than mine, and anyone running Sram Red would be saving a chunk also. I'd have to add 450 grams to mine, that wouldn't be easy without something nasty being bolted on. Not that I would ever have to, i'm just curious as to how it's done when their bikes are more modern and expensive than mine.
You sure your scales are zeroed properly? Unless its a midgets bike I can't see how its 14lbs. I've got a look 586, carbon bars, carbon wheels, titanium bits, etc... and it is 16lbs on my electronic scales.
i have heard of pro-amateurs putting ice down the seatpost minuets before weigh in. then during the race the ice melts and they have a lighter bike.
not to sure on how true this is though
anyone running Sram Red would be saving a chunk also
Compared to old 10sp Record? Not really - that was one of the lightest groups going (is what I have on mine). Personally I totally believe your weight - only a tad lighter than mine with a seriously light frame, and those "average" wheels of yours have pretty light rims.
ads-b - you probably don't have really light stuff like alexathome. For a start your frame's half a pound heavier, and the fact you mention carbon bars as light parts kind of suggests you don't really understand what's light and not with other bits, given that the vast majority of carbon bars are heavier than light alu ones (like the 200g ones I have). You also don't mention the groupset - as I said above, Record 10sp is seriously light, almost a pound less than something like Ultegra. Oh and a lot of carbon wheels will also be heavier than those notubes ones he has.
you have to laugh at stopping distances in the highway code
but you have to add in that you can pass an MOT with 50% braking efficiency + people fit cheapo tyres...
but yes still things like highway code have not changed much despite cars getting better.
I wasn't aware of the weight limit but it makes sense, these pro riders are so fit and they probably focus more on their own weight than the bikes.
Yeah, the wheels are light. I built them up with some el cheapo Mojon hubs (270 grams the pair, both 28 hole thou, with revolutions and alloy nipples, they came out at 1320 or 1340 i think. By pro standards thou they must be pretty average thou?
The scales seem pretty good, they weigh in my cinelli at 21lbs, and my training bike at 17lbs, so pretty spot on.
I didn't go flash on the pedals thou, as the titanium ones were not that much lighter than the cromo ones so i couldn't justify it.
I might take a look at sastre's bike, he must of added something somewhere.
Oh and mines a 56cm, so not weenie, although i don't think the smaller ones weighed in at much less, you are only taking a small thin ring of carbon out of 4 tubes.
As far as i can make out Sastre must of been ridding with some weighty V12 copies from Halfords to get that up to weight.
[img] 
[/img]
Interesting this and has caused me some head scratching. Given that there is a weight limit and ballast is added, why are pros' bikes (some, if not most, of which are custom built frames) not built to the weight limit? Or am I being naive and I should assume that ballast is removable post weigh in?
they are still wanting to test technology to get teh lightest possible bikes...the expense of low volume, heavier, custom tubesets, so you can buy what the pros ride etc.
If ballast is allowed and used it is beneficial to make the bike under weight so you can then add the weight in in more beneficial areas (ie nice and low down) than it being spread all over the bike. It also allows for fine tuning of components on the bike like changing wheels etc but then you se the ballast to get the bike back to the weight limit.
Ta. Logical in both cases, although it must be possible to overbuild in areas such as the bb which would allow weight to be located in the best possible place for a low centre of gravity. But that wouldn't then allow for the varying weight of components as Mathew says.
So, assuming I can afford a pro-team frame and all the bling components I would not be riding the same bike as the pros because it would be too light. I think we're being had. 😉
I'm not certain that they would be much point increasing mass in many pro tour riders bikes. If you look at the power output of pro riders of say the same weight as me (72 kg) then they are not much different to that of a competent club rider, except that they can of course keep up that amount of power for a lot longer than someone like me. Also the pro's weigh quite a bit less than your average Joe, and they get to bin their bike after a crash, season etc. Besides the terrible, truly terrible BH I had (apparently the same as Vino and Beloki) I can believe that most of the frames you get (bar some of the sprinters) are from the same mold.
Can't believe my BH was thou, made of over cooked Spanish pasta.
[url= http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&LangId=1 ]The UCI rule book[/url]
My carbon road bike is 6.9-7.0 kg but I prefer to ride my heavier Caad10 Ultegra (7.8kg) Has to be light and ride well too.
Remember seeing weights tied to the bottom bracket during races!
deep section wheels barely add anything unless your using ones with an aluminium brake track
ive got a 13.3 lb cannondale supersix with Enve 45's on
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Mostly for the pros they tend to add powermeters, overbuilt alu stem/bar combo (look at the Cavendish signature set) and things like comfier saddles or thicker bar tape.
The 6.8kg weight limit is daft.
schmiken - MemberMostly for the pros they tend to add powermeters, overbuilt alu stem/bar combo (look at the Cavendish signature set) and things like comfier saddles or thicker bar tape.
Check my link at the top, it was the absence of these items that caused me to question how the weight was being made up, ie carbon saddels ti pedals, carbon bars etc. Looking at Sastres bike he has a lumpy seat post, but everything else looks pretty light, can't tell on the bars thou. Most alloy bars weight in at below 240grams. And those wheels are at least 200 grams lighter than mine with those tyres.
do you get a warm glow when you see the weight of your bike? or does a torpid miasma of gloom descend upon you when you fail to get below the UCI limit?
dirtyrider - Memberdeep section wheels barely add anything unless your using ones with an aluminium brake track
ive got a 13.3 lb cannondale supersix with Enve 45's on
That is very nice, what size?
http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/pro-bike-carlos-sastres-cervelo-testteam-cervelo-r5-26918/
Turns out they used to weight Sastre's bike too.
[url= http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34033&LangId=1 ]The UCI rule book[/url]
Whoa. Never realised it was all as ridiculously over-defined as that. It starts off well ("Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine.") before prescribing how many mm your seat must be aft of the BB shell, and the ratio to which tubing can be ovalised. Bonkers.
schmiken - Memberhttp://www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/pro-bike-carlos-sastres-cervelo-testteam-cervelo-r5-26918/
Turns out they used to weight Sastre's bike too.
Case closed. I'll shut the door on my way out.
Whoa. Never realised it was all as ridiculously over-defined as that. It starts off well ("Bicycles shall comply with the spirit and principle of cycling as a sport. The spirit presupposes that cyclists will compete in competitions on an equal footing. The principle asserts the primacy of man over machine.") before prescribing how many mm your seat must be aft of the BB shell, and the ratio to which tubing can be ovalised. Bonkers.
It is silly, but i guess you have to say what a bike is otherwise people will turn up on recumbents.
[img] 
[/img]
I give you Steve Bauer.
The weight limit thing as introduced when riders were drilling out their frames and components and it was leading to higher failure rates so they brought the weight limit in to stop that.
Alf Engers ? 😀
[img] 
[/img]
The 6.8kg weight limit is daft.
Quite the opposite IMO.
It makes for an effective level playing field. This isn't motor racing, where the manufacturers are competing for honours as well as the drivers. This is cycling, where it is supposed to be all about the rider. The UCI weight limit helps in this respect.
Besides, how much faster do you think they would be on a 12lb bike rather than a 15lb one?
[url= http://http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html ]This'll tell you[/url] the average speed for every tour.
It's not got much faster since the early '90's - but then again drug use is slightly less prevalent nowadays.
How much lighter are today's bikes than those of 20-25 years ago?
weight makes little difference to speed!
Oh and **** me what is Bauer riding 😀
It makes for an effective level playing field. This isn't motor racing, where the manufacturers are competing for honours as well as the drivers. This is cycling, where it is supposed to be all about the rider. The UCI weight limit helps in this respect.
Except that's not the point of the weight limit. When most manufacturers are adding heavier parts then it's not reducing the budget either, we're not seeing some teams struggling desperately to achieve 6.8kg, it's easy.
I think it's good in that it's driven innovation in aerodynamics, and perhaps things like Di2/EPS and power meter technology wouldn't have come in the same way if the weight limit were scrapped, but I'd happily see it taken down by a couple of pounds to see what happens.
It makes for an effective level playing field. This isn't motor racing, where the manufacturers are competing for honours as well as the drivers. This is cycling, where it is supposed to be all about the rider. The UCI weight limit helps in this respect.
So how is it fair, or a level playing field that Emma Pooley has to ride a bike which is just as heavy as the one Fabian Cancellara rides?
A few years ago that Cancellara was using cheaper (heavier) [url= http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2007/tour07/tech/probike.php?id=/tech/2007/probikes/tour_cancellara_csc_cervelo ]FSA gossamer[/url] cranks rather than carbon. I guess this helped with the weight and stiffness.
Apparently that was down to their stiffness.