UCI weight limit permanent?

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.

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

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

In article ,
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

In article ,
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

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article ,
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.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article ,
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.

In article ,
Werehatrack wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article ,

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, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

In article ,
Werehatrack wrote:

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:46:58 -0400, Alex Rodriguez
wrote:

In article ,

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, http://www.wiredcola.com
Verus de parvis; verus de magnis.

"dw" wrote in message
om...
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.