# UCI should NO WEIGHT LIMIT on BIKES



## jonleestrong (Jan 10, 2011)

I fell the UCI should change the weight limit of 15lbs (not sure of the exact number) and should exchange it for a strenght test. I feel that they are haulting the potential technology on road bikes. I'm glad that companies like Cerverlo with the "california" are still pushing forward besides this stupid law. Riders should be tested physically to their limits and their innovative equipment. I want to hear those that disagree and she some light of why they like the laws how they are right now.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

There are strength regulations in place. The weight rules used to be about safety, now they could be one of the things that are holding back cost escalation. Given the way costs have risen in the last 6 years (30-40% for a high end bike) I am all for keeping the rule.

Lift the rule and only a few will be able to afford the neat goods that result.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

davidka said:


> Lift the rule and only a few will be able to afford the neat goods that result.


Not really. Given that most teams are using ~900-1050g frames, it's not too hard to get under the UCI weight limit, especially for the smaller riders. For the most part, most teams are having to drop weights down the seat tube. I think they should figure out how much weight teams are adding on average and subtract that from the minimum weight requirement.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> For the most part, most teams are having to drop weights down the seat tube.


only because they choose not to put that weight into sturdier components, e.g. stiffer cranksets handlebars, and stems. Apparently they prefer some rolled up lead.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

jonleestrong said:


> I feel that they are haulting the potential technology on road bikes.


Yes, that's part of their job. In order to keep as many people as possible interested in the sport (both as spectators and potential participants), you have to make sure that there's a strong and visible connection between bicycle racing and just plain old bicycle riding, be that for transportation or fun. If technology is allowed into a sport unchecked, you generally wind up with a caricature of that sport that not many people can relate to. As a result, there are few participants, virtually no spectators and very few sponsors.

Photo below: The winner of the 2015 Tour de France—the first Tour de France after the UCI rescinded all technology rules in 2014..

/


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

jonleestrong said:


> I feel that [the UCI] are haulting the potential technology on road bikes.





wim said:


> Yes, that's part of their job.


+1 and thank you, wim.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> only because they choose not to put that weight into sturdier components, e.g. stiffer cranksets handlebars, and stems. Apparently they prefer some rolled up lead.


Depends on the rider. Sprinters are known to often opt for a slightly more rigid and beef up certain components. The climber folk do not need these and are forced to add weight.


----------



## dcl10 (Jul 2, 2010)

Its called the international cyclists union, not bike union. They are there to ensure the sport is about the riders not the bikes. That is exactly what such restrictions do. There are weight and equipment restrictions in motor sports as well for the same reason. If you care more about the technology and the bike than the racing part go ahead and build an 11lb bike, no one is stopping you.


----------



## aengbretson (Sep 17, 2009)

One just has to look at auto racing to see a good example of why some restrictions are a good thing. Compare F1 to NASCAR, specifically the dominance of particular teams/manufacturers. F1 has a revolving door of a dominant team, whoever spent the most time in the wind tunnel, on suspension, and their engines. NASCAR is much more like cycling, where everyone is basically running a slight variation of the same thing, and it comes down to the driver and the pit crew. I don't like watching people turn left for hours on end, but I also don't like seeing a CAR instead of a DRIVER determine who wins races.

Why do riders need a lighter bike? I'd be more in favor of modifying the 5cm saddle setback rule because that disproportionately affects shorter riders and women (who, due to frame geometry and saddle nose length often ride an effective STA that is slacker than most of our road machines).


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

Yeah you can build bikes that get close to 10 pound with the components today. 

For me cycling and racing should be about the person and not the machine. 

Pushing the threshold for weight creates the problem of gear that has a shorter lifecycle, and very high price tag. That's fine if you're a pro or rich, but most of us can't afford to buy a new bike every year or even every five years for that matter.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

heathb said:


> Yeah you can build bikes that get close to 10 pound with the components today.
> 
> For me cycling and racing should be about the person and not the machine.
> 
> Pushing the threshold for weight creates the problem of gear that has a shorter lifecycle, and very high price tag. That's fine if you're a pro or rich, but most of us can't afford to buy a new bike every year or even every five years for that matter.


I think 10lbs is a bit of an exaggeration.

If riders are able to ride reduced weight bikes, it's still going to be the person and fair since everyone has the option.

As for gear with a shorter life cycle, we may be at the edge of what technology can do or perhaps not. A 15lb bike of today is MUCH stronger and reliable than a 15lb bike from 15 years ago. Go back 30 years and I can't imagine a bike being reliable at that weight. 

Even if the weight limit were reduced, riders aren't stupid. They're NOT going to sacrifice weight for reliability. Trying to save an extra pound at the cost of something that might not make it to the finish line isn't even an option.


----------



## jonleestrong (Jan 10, 2011)

Price should not be an issue. Bicycle Companies aren't going to stay in business if they are selling $20k bikes that are 8 lbs. They might sell a handful but where they make their money is from the $2k to $5k range for a complete bike. Hopefully if each bicycle company had their "super bikes" there would be a trickle down effect as the years move on and we have better technology. I like having the combination of man and machine especially when it comes to TT bikes. If you don't like this combination you can always quit biking and take up running...Blahh


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

jonleestrong said:


> Price should not be an issue. Bicycle Companies aren't going to stay in business if they are selling $20k bikes that are 8 lbs. They might sell a handful but where they make their money is from the $2k to $5k range for a complete bike. Hopefully if each bicycle company had their "super bikes" there would be a trickle down effect as the years move on and we have better technology. I like having the combination of man and machine especially when it comes to TT bikes. If you don't like this combination you can always quit biking and take up running...Blahh


I like your style! :thumbsup: 

I think the UCI limits are holding the technology back to a certain extent, although on the same token, the weight limit seems to have made frames within a given weight range to be much stronger than previous frames at the same weight. 

I'm biased because I'm a small rider, but by design, our frames and bikes can be lighter. A rider I know is even smaller than me and I recall the team manager commenting on how much more weight they had to add to his bike while the larger riders were much closer to the UCI weight limit.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Depends on the rider. Sprinters are known to often opt for a slightly more rigid and beef up certain components. The climber folk do not need these and are forced to add weight.


I did not say anything whether it was needed or not. I merely said how the teams choose to stay within the weight limit.


----------



## dhtucker4 (Jul 7, 2004)

The UCI limit is 6.8 kilograms, which is just under 15 pounds. The UCI had that same weight standard over 10 years ago, it's time to move to another weight standard for the pros. Can you name anything technological that hasn't improved light-years in 10 years?

The thing I don't like about NASCAR is that it's always the same - left turn, straight, left turn and then another straight.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

dhtucker4 said:


> The thing I don't like about NASCAR is that it's always the same - left turn, straight, left turn and then another straight.


whereas crits sometimes goes clock wise


----------



## troutmd (Sep 7, 2007)

Level playing field ... bike + rider should weight the same as the competition..


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

troutmd said:


> Level playing field ... bike + rider should weight the same as the competition..


Like the handicaps in horse racing.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Personally I like the idea of the weight limit. When you have to add weight to a bike allows pros to choose something like a powermeter rather than a spare chain in the seat tube. Doing that potentially gives the general public some cool data on the ability of the pros during races. In time it also lowers the price of power meters for amateurs as they become more and more common in the pro ranks. I personally would much rather ride with an SRM or Quarq than a hunk of lead in my BB.


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

troutmd said:


> Level playing field ... bike + rider should weight the same as the competition..


It would have to be a % of weight, or that severely handicaps smaller riders. I think it would be easier to just have weight classes for bike weight. 

Rider; Bike
80+ kilo: 7.2 or 7.4kg
70-80 kilo: 6.8kg 
60-70 kilo: 6.4 
under 60: 6.0

Something like that. Maybe 200 or 300g steps rather than 400.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

Cycling doesn't need technological innovation to be compelling. It would be just as exciting even if they instituted Keirin-style regulations on equipment, and the same guys would win.

Unlike F1, NASCAR, etc, a big part of the appeal of cycling is that the pros are riding the same equipment as Joe Sixpack.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

chase196126 said:


> It would have to be a % of weight, or that severely handicaps smaller riders. I think it would be easier to just have weight classes for bike weight.
> 
> Rider; Bike
> 80+ kilo: 7.2 or 7.4kg
> ...


I like this and it makes sense, which obviously means the UCI would *NEVER* agree to anything like this. :idea: I would think if they had their way, they'd add a percentage of weight for the light riders and allow for less weight on the larger riders.


----------



## Hula Hoop (Feb 4, 2009)

I think dropping it to 14 lbs might be in order given todays technology, and would
retain the safety factor and limit disparities at the same time.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

pretender said:


> Cycling doesn't need technological innovation to be compelling. It would be just as exciting even if they instituted Keirin-style regulations on equipment, and the same guys would win.
> 
> Unlike F1, NASCAR, etc, a big part of the appeal of cycling is that the pros are riding the same equipment as Joe Sixpack.


electric shifting, $5k frameset, $2k wheels, plus $1.5k for the disk. 
Yeah sure, that's exactly what joe sixpack is riding.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

A weight limit is a good thing, but I believe it should be more in line with the weights of top spec'ed race bikes that consumer's can purchase, so maybe more in the 6.5 kg - 6.6 kg range.

I'd like to avoid a situation wherein a rider like Michael Rasmussen shows up to a mountain stage on an all custom sub 10 lb super-bike.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

mendo said:


> A weight limit is a good thing, but I believe it should be more in line with the weights of top spec'ed race bikes that consumer's can purchase, so maybe more in the 6.5 kg - 6.6 kg range.
> 
> I'd like to avoid a situation wherein a rider like Michael Rasmussen shows up to a mountain stage on an all custom sub 10 lb super-bike.


It's only fair considering he weighs about 20lbs. Then again, he could have a 2lb bike, but I don't see his team getting too many invites, anyway.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

No weight limit at all definitely would be dangerous not just in, say, the TdF but also the cycling world. I could see desperate pro riders using ultra light bikes/wheels that just barely pass some type of strength test. Then of course cycling fans and amateurs would want to use these very same setups, despite warnings because, well, it was used in the TdF and so it must be safe! 

Another potential pitfall would be some new, super expensive weight reduction technology dominating the sport that only a select few of teams could afford. Perhaps some compound that has an unheard of production cost but is very light, so that we would see a $500,000 5-pound bike. It's true current TT bike technology can get pretty expensive with $10k+ bikes, but that technology is mainly concerned with just the shape of the bike/wheels, which can be produced and emulated much easier in comparison.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

spade2you said:


> I like this and it makes sense, which obviously means the UCI would *NEVER* agree to anything like this. :idea: I would think if they had their way, they'd add a percentage of weight for the light riders and allow for less weight on the larger riders.


So you feel the regs are arbitrary? Or that the UCI specifically has it out for light riders?Keep in mind that neither the bike nor the rider's weight will matter nearly as much in a fully faired recumbant.

If the UCI wasn't putting the brakes on technological development we would barely recognize the bikes being raced. Personally, I don't think that would be a good thing. Meanwhile, people are free to spend as much as they'd like on the weight-weenie ride of their choice -- at least until they toe the line in a UCI sanctioned event.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> No weight limit at all definitely would be dangerous not just in, say, the TdF but also the cycling world. I could see desperate pro riders using ultra light bikes/wheels that just barely pass some type of strength test. Then of course cycling fans and amateurs would want to use these very same setups, despite warnings because, well, it was used in the TdF and so it must be safe!


Again, with cycling being about winning, nobody is going to use gear that can't survive a race. Sure, there can be failures from time to time, but I personally think it's good to know that the frame, components, wheels, etc, _can_ be used by the pros and survive. I'll never be able to sprint like Cav or TT like FC, but I'm genuinely satisfied knowing that it should be able to withstand my efforts and racing.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Again, with cycling being about winning, nobody is going to use gear that can't survive a race. Sure, there can be failures from time to time, but I personally think it's good to know that the frame, components, wheels, etc, _can_ be used by the pros and survive. I'll never be able to sprint like Cav or TT like FC, but I'm genuinely satisfied knowing that it should be able to withstand my efforts and racing.


In general I also agree but with a weight limit removed I think it's safe to say the durability of bikes/wheels among the pro ranks would become closer and closer to the bare minimum - this is kind of evident by some riders going to length just to get their bike within a few grams of the minimum.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cableguy said:


> In general I also agree but with a weight limit removed I think it's safe to say the durability of bikes/wheels among the pro ranks would become closer and closer to the bare minimum - this is kind of evident by some riders going to length just to get their bike within a few grams of the minimum.


I agree that there's the _potential_ for this, but a rider's rig is often subject to many races as well as wear and tear from transportation. I kinda doubt a sponsor would be willing to give a team virtually unlimited parts of something unreliable. Besides, the lack of reliablity would eventually become apparent and probably be more bad press than anything else.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

the UCI is doing their job regulating and preserving the sport.

Think about tennis,

up to the 70's it was all about small wood rackets with gut strings on natural playgrounds ( sand, grass ). The players needed to be able to "build" their points by moving around the opponent until they could place a winner.

There was no regulation whasoever on the equipement for pro tennis.

come, firs metalic rackets with synthetic strings, now carbon fiber extra light large rackets with stiff polyester strings.

Result ? the player can now hit the ball harder and with less precission but with lots of spin, and then still keep the ball in the now synthetic "fast" hard courts.

This completely transformed the sport.

Now it is a brute force sport where players with big biceps pound the ball as hard as they can from way behind the baseline until the oponnent fails to respond or is overplayed by its power. 

This results in an uglier and more violent sport with many top players sustaining knee/shoulder injuries due to overuse/overstress.

Do you really want that the cycling as sport goes the same way ?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I really don't see cycling changing that much if they change the requirements, to be honest. However, I highly doubt any changes will happen in the next 5 years.


----------



## troutmd (Sep 7, 2007)

MikeBiker said:


> Like the handicaps in horse racing.


For every mountain top finish there should be a 50k TT on the flats. Also, TTT times should apply, not the arbitary assigned times. The death-on-a-cracker team of climbs already have their advantage.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

I'd prefer if they upped the weight limit to 20 pounds per bike. Make it old school steel frames and heavy 36h 3 cross straight gauge spokes. A real tank. 

Let the strong men sort it out from there. 

Personally I'm tired of all the innovation. Everytime you turn around someone is changing the BB, head tube, seat mast, shifters, cranksets, carbon wheels with carbon spokes and carbon hubs....ect. If you bought a bike a couple of years ago you're already behind the times. Cycling is turning into the fashion industry.


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

heathb said:


> I'd prefer if they upped the weight limit to 20 pounds per bike. Make it old school steel frames and heavy 36h 3 cross straight gauge spokes. A real tank.
> 
> Let the strong men sort it out from there.
> 
> Personally I'm tired of all the innovation. Everytime you turn around someone is changing the BB, head tube, seat mast, shifters, cranksets, carbon wheels with carbon spokes and carbon hubs....ect. If you bought a bike a couple of years ago you're already behind the times. Cycling is turning into the fashion industry.


+101

Cycling should be a democratic sport every one can afford. It is a physical sport, so it makes no sense to ride around with very fancy equipment that excludes more than half of the world population.

I am all for going back to steel bikes with strong wheels. I would even put a limit on the amount of spare bikes a team can use. A reasonable limit off course. 

At the same time I would not do away with commodities such as thriathlon bars for TT, and 10 speed STI/Ergopower shifting or integrated BB.

I think we should keep the true advances and get rid of those that obtain only a marginal difference, but enough to win a couple of seconds in the GC.

That would not even withhold the industry from making very expensive bikes as a big part of cyclists are poseurs and would then buy the most fashionable stuff within the regulations. Even going back to steel there could still be a difference in lugs, geometry, subjective feel of the bike. But everyone would fight with the same weapons and we might see some competitive Latin-Americans, Asians, or why not Africans.

Off course, this does not fit in the Euro-American dominated ranks of the UCI.


----------



## ghostryder (Dec 28, 2009)

I like the sport just fine. Reducing the bike weight limit, will make bigger riders obsolete.


----------



## CabDoctor (Jun 11, 2005)

ghostryder said:


> I like the sport just fine. Reducing the bike weight limit, will make bigger riders obsolete.













HAHAH I weight 129lbs rrr:


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

matchmaker said:


> +101
> At the same time I would not do away with commodities such as thriathlon bars for TT, and 10 speed STI/Ergopower shifting or integrated BB.
> 
> I think we should keep the true advances and get rid of those that obtain only a marginal difference, but enough to win a couple of seconds in the GC.
> ...


I would go much further. I would do away with the TT bars only because I don't feel we need them. That's what the drops are for. Just think if there were no more TT bars we wouldn't have to look at those ridiculous grown men in the aero position out for a 10 mile loop on sunday.

I to would keep the shifters as long as they are manual, but I'd make it 8 speed for strength. You can keep the integrated BB as that fad will fade eventually as well, once some engineer trys to hold on this his job. 

Right now the manufacturing scene is extremely competitive. Everyone is trying to outdo each other, making last year obsolete. If you race, you can't help but notice the bling as far as the eye can see. I race in an area where there's a high concentration of wealth, mostly yuppies. How I would love to see everyone on basically the same style steel framed bike with the same gear, this would welcome outsiders to the sport that don't want to look like noobs in front of those pulling down six or seven figure salaries. It would also welcome into the sport the very people these yuppies are trying to keep out. I mean how many of us want to race with guys that have $3K wheelsets and take a risk of wrecking and have to face the idiot if it happens to be your fault, none of us need to deal with this crap. 

I look at the old footage of the classics and see these gladiators on these basic bikes with strong legs and think, why can't we do this and save a few bucks.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Call me a little crass, but is there a certain hint of jealousy with what the pros are using? Sure, it would be nice if I was riding a TT bike with Campy's new electronic gruppo, but I'm not losing sleep and wishing they had to use what I use. 

These guys are the best of the best, I expect them to use the best!


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

spade2you said:


> Call me a little crass, but is there a certain hint of jealousy with what the pros are using? Sure, it would be nice if I was riding a TT bike with Campy's new electronic gruppo, but I'm not losing sleep and wishing they had to use what I use.
> 
> These guys are the best of the best, I expect them to use the best!


Thats got nothing to do with it. For me it's about not having to race with guys that have all this stuff. And it's not about any supposed advantage that it provides it's more about the stress of making sure nothing happens on my end to risk anything happening to some guys $10K bike. 

Last year I watched a rider I know go down and take another rider down with him busting up this guys rear wheel Campy Bora Ultra which cost something like $3500 a set. The guy started hassling him in the parking lot and giving him grief. This is the kind of crap that none of use should have to tolerate anymore. I don't want deal with these yuppies stressing the rest of us out.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

heathb said:


> Thats got nothing to do with it. For me it's about not having to race with guys that have all this stuff. And it's not about any supposed advantage that it provides it's more about the stress of making sure nothing happens on my end to risk anything happening to some guys $10K bike.
> 
> Last year I watched a rider I know go down and take another rider down with him busting up this guys rear wheel Campy Bora Ultra which cost something like $3500 a set. The guy started hassling him in the parking lot and giving him grief. This is the kind of crap that none of use should have to tolerate anymore. I don't want deal with these yuppies stressing the rest of us out.


I saw a lot of riders go down last year. Price didn't seem to have much to do with it. 

There is no shortage of threads like this, but the fact that you seem to focus on costs shows something.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

I agree that a weight limit needs to exist. However it should be comparable to what real people are already riding. Regulations should change with the times.

As for people riding uber expensive gear... if they want to do a group ride while showing off their bling they need to accept the fact that some fred or non fred can and might muck it up. Plain and simple. 

It would be pretty boring if every rider in the tour had to ride the same exact bike. At least cycling is flexible and teams can ride whatever they're sponsored. NASCAR sucks now since every car is the same.


----------



## MisterC (May 26, 2007)

My bike is 15 lbs. I make 40k a year. I'm a real person. I'm riding.

It's called sacrifice. the Pros do it EVERY DAY. Try it sometime.

And yeah you've got kids blah blah blah. Here's a lesson. DONT HAVE KIDS.

And if you can't deal with people being upset after a crash then competitive cycling isn't for you. Nor is rugby, rollerblading, frisbee or beerpong. Know your rights. Act within them.

Excuse my frustration seizure. Certain arguments just make me crazy.


----------



## matchmaker (Aug 15, 2009)

MisterC said:


> My bike is 15 lbs. I make 40k a year. I'm a real person. I'm riding.
> 
> It's called sacrifice. the Pros do it EVERY DAY. Try it sometime.
> 
> ...


This sounds indeed very frustrated. Maybe try having kids, that might give another dimension to your life.


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

matchmaker said:


> This sounds indeed very frustrated. Maybe try having kids, that might give another dimension to your life.


Yeah, some people also feel that having kids will save a failing marriage.


----------



## Lazy Spinner (Aug 30, 2009)

I wonder how many bike manufacturers would get sued out of business after lots of wealthy lardasses get hurt when their 12 lb. carbon bike explodes underneath them? 

"But..but..that's what the 125 lb. TdF champion rides and I want it for Saturday morning club ride! If it's for sale at the LBS then it should have carried my 250 lbs. of (insert high dollar, big ego profession here) ass without failing. I'm the victim here!!! I'm owed... " 

I really don't get the weight weenie thing. It seems like the middle aged white version of building a rice rocket. It's got state-of-the-art carbon this and aerospace grade titanium that but is still propelled by a underpowered four banger. Looks good but, it never gets raced.


----------



## PhatTalc (Jul 21, 2004)

heathb said:


> I'd prefer if they upped the weight limit to 20 pounds per bike. Make it old school steel frames and heavy 36h 3 cross straight gauge spokes. A real tank.
> 
> Let the strong men sort it out from there.
> 
> Personally I'm tired of all the innovation. Everytime you turn around someone is changing the BB, head tube, seat mast, shifters, cranksets, carbon wheels with carbon spokes and carbon hubs....ect. If you bought a bike a couple of years ago you're already behind the times. Cycling is turning into the fashion industry.


I agree with this post. Bikes should be simple and racing should be about athleticism, at all levels of the sport. Cyclists have always been nerdy concerning equipment, but now the obsession with stiffness and aeodynamics has got boring. Worst of all, bikes are now the ugliest they have ever been and I hate ugly bikes.


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

There are equipment restrictions in EVERY pro sport out there. I see no problem with the weight limit in pro cycling.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

I'm glad that the limit is set where it is. If the limit were eliminated (or merely lowered) then all bikes above the lower limit would lose their "cred" and 15 lb bikes would suddenly be considered "heavy" and my 18 lb bike would be considered an archaic tank.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Lazy Spinner said:


> I wonder how many bike manufacturers would get sued out of business after lots of wealthy lardasses get hurt when their 12 lb. carbon bike explodes underneath them?
> 
> "But..but..that's what the 125 lb. TdF champion rides and I want it for Saturday morning club ride! If it's for sale at the LBS then it should have carried my 250 lbs. of (insert high dollar, big ego profession here) ass without failing. I'm the victim here!!! I'm owed... "
> 
> I really don't get the weight weenie thing. It seems like the middle aged white version of building a rice rocket. It's got state-of-the-art carbon this and aerospace grade titanium that but is still propelled by a underpowered four banger. Looks good but, it never gets raced.


The companies will just need to put weight limits on the product if it can't handle a 250lb rider. Zipp, has weight limits on their 202s, and they're not going out of business. Just look on the bright side, if the frame/components can handle a 250lb lardass AND the power from professional sprinters, normal riders will be fine. 

I get that there are plenty of fatties riding 14lb bikes with an XXL KOM jersey, but I happen to be closer to 120lbs with a decent motor and I love powering up the hills on my race bike. I simply don't like the fact that I'd have to add weight simply because my components and smaller frame simply weigh less than someone using a larger frame.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> Result ? the player can now hit the ball harder and with less precission but with lots of spin, and then still keep the ball in the now synthetic "fast" hard courts.
> 
> This completely transformed the sport.


FYI, Grass is the 2nd fastest tennis court surface, AstorTurf is 1st. Hard court are 3rd.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

RkFast said:


> There are equipment restrictions in EVERY pro sport out there. I see no problem with the weight limit in pro cycling.


I agree, but the current weight limit is too high. These limits MUST change with technology. Other sports adapt. Take Golf for instance on equipment.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

*wheels uci*



dcl10 said:


> Its called the international cyclists union, not bike union. They are there to ensure the sport is about the riders not the bikes. That is exactly what such restrictions do. There are weight and equipment restrictions in motor sports as well for the same reason. If you care more about the technology and the bike than the racing part go ahead and build an 11lb bike, no one is stopping you.


They should use "regular" wheels (32h), since they are so "fast"& its about the rider not the bike.


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

steel515 said:


> They should use "regular" wheels (32h), since they are so "fast"& its about the rider not the bike.


Actually, they do.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/2009/probikes/?id=tom_boonen_specialized_roubaix_sl2_09

But that's besides the point. I'm still looking for a valid argument for how reducing the weight limit could possibly improve the sport.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

I just read an article about the men behind the scenes at Specialized. The chief engineer responsible for whether a frame gets approved or not stated that the pro's don't really care about weight. They care mostly about stiffness. 

Those who care about weight are the everyday consumer.

I'll post the name of the magazine when I go back to work tomorrow.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

frdfandc said:


> I just read an article about the men behind the scenes at Specialized. The chief engineer responsible for whether a frame gets approved or not stated that the pro's don't really care about weight. They care mostly about stiffness.
> 
> Those who care about weight are the everyday consumer.
> 
> I'll post the name of the magazine when I go back to work tomorrow.



I read that too. It's the latest issue of Road Bike Action. The Specialized article is a good read.


----------

