|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycling and vegetarianism | Preston Crawford | General | 434 | September 25th 04 09:38 PM |
Calorie Estimates.... | LaoFuZhi | UK | 59 | July 26th 04 07:17 PM |
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong | Marc Brett | UK | 191 | July 20th 04 08:05 PM |
How to cycle for weight loss | Daniel Crispin | General | 163 | June 13th 04 11:15 AM |
Braking Technique | asqui | Racing | 55 | July 25th 03 04:16 PM |