UCI weight limit permanent?

"stu" wrote in message . au...
"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.

Maybe it would be best to increase the limit?

Werehatrack wrote in message . ..
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.

This is not clear thinking. The weight of the bike is the sum of the
weights of its parts. The question is whether making the bike (ie,
any part) lighter, taking account of reliability limits, helps to win
the race.

If it does, you try to innovate.

If not, you don't try.

Werehatrack wrote in message . ..
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.

This is not clear thinking. The weight of the bike is the sum of the
weights of its parts. The question is whether making the bike (ie,
any part) lighter, taking account of reliability limits, helps to win
the race.

If it does, you try to innovate.

If not, you don't try.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
David L. Johnson wrote:
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?

_ It's relatively recent ( 2000 ) and there is no scheduled
time adjustment.

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.

_ I believe that's the point really. Rightly or Wrongly the UCI
wants races to happen on bikes that regular people can buy in the
store and have some connection to bikes of the past. See the
Lugano Charter.

http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_...m_19990611.htm

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQVxSxGTWTAjn5N/lAQGHOwQAtW3DCG5lt8NGWSW0av59cwNUt5fGuVjt
ddjjMxsLVvU68+uNaR/MfLRQnFtM7tgOZ3NKYVmFbVYNzIF4VIkY9bkSL8VCpdzJ
aUqmo06Y5QjcnKkVYQbuN5enNLvs3qw38aTJ2vpTqfjS+YlBfv mSTSbUyH2o9ACc
KfydqDBjZ7Y=
=6Wse
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
David L. Johnson wrote:
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?

_ It's relatively recent ( 2000 ) and there is no scheduled
time adjustment.

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.

_ I believe that's the point really. Rightly or Wrongly the UCI
wants races to happen on bikes that regular people can buy in the
store and have some connection to bikes of the past. See the
Lugano Charter.

http://www.uci.ch/english/news/news_...m_19990611.htm

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQVxSxGTWTAjn5N/lAQGHOwQAtW3DCG5lt8NGWSW0av59cwNUt5fGuVjt
ddjjMxsLVvU68+uNaR/MfLRQnFtM7tgOZ3NKYVmFbVYNzIF4VIkY9bkSL8VCpdzJ
aUqmo06Y5QjcnKkVYQbuN5enNLvs3qw38aTJ2vpTqfjS+YlBfv mSTSbUyH2o9ACc
KfydqDBjZ7Y=
=6Wse
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:02 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
wrote:

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.

It also discourages the use of that dangerous element, drillium.

Dangerous perhaps, but it is one of the prettiest.

Ron

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:25:02 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
wrote:

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.

It also discourages the use of that dangerous element, drillium.

Dangerous perhaps, but it is one of the prettiest.

Ron

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:27:12 -0700, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

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.

But this would never happen under the current weight limit, since there is
no way to promote such a bike by getting a popular pro to race it.

A weight limit is the wrong idea, anyway. If you are worried about
peleton safety, then impose performance standards, not weight limits. If
someone can manage to build a strong 1-pound frame, then people should be
beating a path to his door, not avoiding him since his bikes are
"illegal". If such a 1-pound frame is not strong enough, then it will
quickly disappear; that's the idea behind innovation. Arbitrary
restrictions are in general counterproductive.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:27:12 -0700, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

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.

But this would never happen under the current weight limit, since there is
no way to promote such a bike by getting a popular pro to race it.

A weight limit is the wrong idea, anyway. If you are worried about
peleton safety, then impose performance standards, not weight limits. If
someone can manage to build a strong 1-pound frame, then people should be
beating a path to his door, not avoiding him since his bikes are
"illegal". If such a 1-pound frame is not strong enough, then it will
quickly disappear; that's the idea behind innovation. Arbitrary
restrictions are in general counterproductive.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all
_`\(,_ | mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so
(_)/ (_) | that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am
nothing. [1 Corinth. 13:2]

"dw" wrote in message
m...
"stu" wrote in message
. au...
"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.

Maybe it would be best to increase the limit?
maybe, would it really matter if the bikes were 9kg? just think of the ideas
the marketing department would come up with then.