74% of road.cc readers say the UCI's 6.8kg weight limit should be lowered or scrapped entirely

Redvee wrote:

Wasn't there a pro team riding a Cannondale with brass weights stuck to the top tube to bring it upto weight 5 years ago?

Been a few bikes that have been seen with this. Id happily see the rule lifted. And if it were, It would see an end to disc brakes. If you want a mega light bike its rim brakes all the way. Any climber will happily sacrifice stopping power over a bike thats 1-2 kg lighter.

PRSboy wrote:

Who cares what the UCI do.  If you don't want to officially race, then you can build whatever weight bike you want, just like we could buy disc braked road bikes long before they could be used in a race.

The UCI surely has a number of bigger fish to fry. Changing the weight limit won't help the sport or make it more interesting.

Pro races are the main way for manufacturers to persuade punters to part with silly amounts of money for bikes and parts regardless of the items' effectiveness. They are the only ones that would benefit from a change in the limit.

The crap talked about disc brakes being heavy and that small, light riders are disadvanted is just people putting their own spin on it. If you're that bothered about weight then eat less and train smarter.

Simon E]</p>

<p>[quote=PRSboy wrote:

The crap talked about disc brakes being heavy and that small, light riders are disadvanted is just people putting their own spin on it.

I disc braked bike will always weigh morre than a rim braked bike though. Even if you used the lightest most space age disc components, you can do so with rim brakes which have far fewer components and no hydraulics which weigh more no matter what you make them of so an elite climber will always pick the mega light rim braked bike every time.

Smoggysteve]</p>

<p>[quote=Simon E wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

The crap talked about disc brakes being heavy and that small, light riders are disadvanted is just people putting their own spin on it.

I disc braked bike will always weigh morre than a rim braked bike though. Even if you used the lightest most space age disc components, you can do so with rim brakes which have far fewer components and no hydraulics which weigh more no matter what you make them of so an elite climber will always pick the mega light rim braked bike every time.

Total weight, you're probably right at the moment, although it's not to do with the hydraulics per se (e.g. hydraulic lines are typically lighter than cabling and the lightest mainstream disc groupset is fully hydraulic). As for whether it matters if the limit is lowered, i'm not so sure - as the total goes down we're getting into the realms of diminishing returns and aero is going to probably dominate it , especially on long descents.

fukawitribe]</p>

<p>[quote=Smoggysteve wrote:

Simon E wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

The crap talked about disc brakes being heavy and that small, light riders are disadvanted is just people putting their own spin on it.

I disc braked bike will always weigh morre than a rim braked bike though. Even if you used the lightest most space age disc components, you can do so with rim brakes which have far fewer components and no hydraulics which weigh more no matter what you make them of so an elite climber will always pick the mega light rim braked bike every time.

Total weight, you're probably right at the moment, although it's not to do with the hydraulics per se (e.g. hydraulic lines are typically lighter than cabling and the lightest mainstream disc groupset is fully hydraulic). As for whether it matters if the limit is lowered, i'm not so sure - as the total goes down we're getting into the realms of diminishing returns and aero is going to probably dominate it , especially on long descents.

Hydraulics require fluid and a reservoir for said fluid. As for the aero bit, climbers spend most of their time either sat in the peloton where aero is negated by the fact they are drafting in the bunch and climbing at speeds that dont take advantage of aero

Smoggysteve]</p>

<p>[quote=fukawitribe wrote:

Smoggysteve wrote:

Simon E wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

The crap talked about disc brakes being heavy and that small, light riders are disadvanted is just people putting their own spin on it.

I disc braked bike will always weigh morre than a rim braked bike though. Even if you used the lightest most space age disc components, you can do so with rim brakes which have far fewer components and no hydraulics which weigh more no matter what you make them of so an elite climber will always pick the mega light rim braked bike every time.

Total weight, you're probably right at the moment, although it's not to do with the hydraulics per se (e.g. hydraulic lines are typically lighter than cabling and the lightest mainstream disc groupset is fully hydraulic). As for whether it matters if the limit is lowered, i'm not so sure - as the total goes down we're getting into the realms of diminishing returns and aero is going to probably dominate it , especially on long descents.

Hydraulics require fluid and a reservoir for said fluid.

Yep, the line weight saving includes the fluid and the resevoir may add to the total weight or not (e.g. in the case of the Rotor).

Smoggysteve wrote:

As for the aero bit, climbers spend most of their time either sat in the peloton where aero is negated by the fact they are drafting in the bunch and climbing at speeds that dont take advantage of aero

Quote:

aero is going to probably dominate it , especially on long descents. 

My main point however, was that hydraulics in and of themselves do not automatically add to the weight and may actually decrease it,

Smoggysteve wrote:

Even if you used the lightest most space age disc components, you can do so with rim brakes which have far fewer components and no hydraulics which weigh more no matter what you make them of

Smoggysteve wrote:

I disc braked bike will always weigh morre than a rim braked bike though. Even if you used the lightest most space age disc components, you can do so with rim brakes which have far fewer components and no hydraulics which weigh more no matter what you make them of so an elite climber will always pick the mega light rim braked bike every time.

Have you asked them?

And even if they do choose rim brakes does it matter to anyone else? Do people choose their tyres, saddle or handlebar tape based on what a pro rider uses? Do you eat the same diet and do the same training? Have a following car with spares, clothing and bottles?

A 1kg reduction saves ca. 2 seconds per 100m of vertical ascent so even over a ride with 2,000m of ascent you only gain 20 seconds. TBH unless you're racing hill climbs or very steep/mountainous gran fondos then making a fuss about weight is merely an indulgence.

justDave wrote:

If you have no limit then some manufacturers are going to push the envelope, perhaps at the risk of rider safety. Perhaps the UCI could devise strength tests for frames, wheels and other critical components, and use these instead. 

it's simple to build a UCI-approved frame into a bike, with stock components, that's miles under the 6.8kg weight limit. The Trek in the article is a perfect example: a full shimano groupset and bontrager wheels and finishing kit. it's expensive gear, but it's all stock stuff. That bike's almost a kilo lighter than the weight limit.

The UCI have been talking about certifying components but i think manpower is the issue. The approved frames list is a few pages; how many wheels/handlebars/stems/seatposts/saddles are out there? if they did, though, then the weight limit is redundant.

dave atkinson wrote:

justDave wrote:

If you have no limit then some manufacturers are going to push the envelope, perhaps at the risk of rider safety. Perhaps the UCI could devise strength tests for frames, wheels and other critical components, and use these instead. 

it's simple to build a UCI-approved frame into a bike, with stock components, that's miles under the 6.8kg weight limit. The Trek in the article is a perfect example: a full shimano groupset and bontrager wheels and finishing kit. it's expensive gear, but it's all stock stuff. That bike's almost a kilo lighter than the weight limit.

The UCI have been talking about certifying components but i think manpower is the issue. The approved frames list is a few pages; how many wheels/handlebars/stems/seatposts/saddles are out there? if they did, though, then the weight limit is redundant.

Shouldn't be too much of an issue really, there is maybe 8 different groupsets used by teams and only 45 teams in Pro-Conti and World Tour to get their stuff approved. Most will be using sponsored stuff and those that aren't will normally be using a brand that sponsors another team (Froome riding a Spez Power). Taking into account most team have 3/4 frames on the list it couldn't be too bad surely?