UCI Weight-Limit (Ruling 1.3.019)

[openmind]

formula 1 is all about the car.

 

If f1 cars were limited to 1999 technology, we would have a far fairer outcome and the best drivers would consistently win and they could then be considered sportsmen.

 

But as I said, it's all about the car and the motor industry.

If it was all about the car, why do the teams need expensive drivers, just get the chief engineer to drive the car. And how do you explain talents like Schumacher and Rossi that keep winning despite changing teams? Rossi moved to Yamaha because they had the worst bikes - he wanted more of a challenge. He still won.

[rudi-h]

How light can frames / bikes go before it becomes a safety factor?

The more you push the envolope (make things lighter), the less reliable they tend to be, fact of life.

 

Lets say one day we have a 5kg weight limit.... this might be ok under normal circumstances but what happens when riders do something thats not so normal i.e. hit a pot hole or something while riding at speed... snap crackle pop...oooh look ma no teeth

 

I get what you are saying but ensuring safe design by weight criteria is absurd.  If you want to specify how strong/tough a frame (or any other object for that matter) should be from a structural point of view, then you need to specify its strength/stiffness/maximum stress etc. and not its weight.  Its almost like saying that a construction crane is safe as long as it weighs at least e.g. 10 tonnes.  The design of a component is what makes it safe, not the weight.

 

I'm not in the bicycle design industry so I can't say for sure, but in virtually every other industry in the world a large part of the IP of manufacturers and design firms are the fact that they understand the loading conditions that any specific component/structure will be exposed do, hence they are in a much better position to make these calls than the UCI.

 

If I had to weld a bike frame in my garage, I won't even be able to make a bike as strong/stiff as my Santa Cruz frame if I threw 20 kg's of steel at it.

[Zatek]

May be If there is a safety test like in F1. Bike must be able to ride over bumps with a 100kg load at 60 km per hour or something like that and remove the weight limit. That way you will still have your safety aspect and tech can move forward to lighter bikes but not to compromise on safety.

 

I don't volunteer, they can use a dummy or a simulator.

[rudi-h]

 Well, actually everyone is still pushing the envelope on getting their own product lighter, because your bike does not come complete from one manufacturer, so its your choice what you want lighter and what you want to be heavier.

 

Just think, powermeters became all more used when riders could race with them and have their bikes on weight limit, so the weight limit helped the powermeter market to grow. Same with aero bikes and gear, after the manufacturers found that it does not matter to get it lighter than it is, they started making it more aero, now you have aero and light bikes.

 

So the weight limit has its uses as well, it made that manufacturers stop thinking only about weight and start to develop a better allround product.

 

true.  but in that case they should mix it up a bit like with F1 specifically to drive the technology that they feel should be improved in vehicles in general.

 

As an example, long ago F1 cars were limited to 3 litre naturally aspirated engines which forced car manufacturers to perfect this type of engine.  Then came 1.5 litre turbo which forced the guys to perfect turbo engines.  Now they have KERS which forces them to look at regeneration and efficiency etc.  Next they will likely have restrictions on something else which means that the industry continuously evolves in areas that might now have developed as rapidly without the F1 teams throwing cash at it.

 

If the UCI really want to "steer" the development of bicycle technology just like F1 does in the motor industry, they should mix up the rules from time to time to allow for new ideas and innovation!

[JA-Q001]

May be If there is a safety test like in F1. Bike must be able to ride over bumps with a 100kg load at 60 km per hour or something like that and remove the weight limit. That way you will still have your safety aspect and tech can move forward to lighter bikes but not to compromise on safety.

 

I don't volunteer, they can use a dummy or a simulator.

They are actually starting this as well, thats why you see the UCI approved sticker/sign on all of the top frames availible in the shops. This is to certify that the frame is strong enough and of correct build, this also stops pros from riding prototype equipment that may fail, all equipment used should already be availible to the public. (This is for all UCI ranked races actually, but its difficult to enforce outside of the pro tour.)

[JA-Q001]

true.  but in that case they should mix it up a bit like with F1 specifically to drive the technology that they feel should be improved in vehicles in general.

 

As an example, long ago F1 cars were limited to 3 litre naturally aspirated engines which forced car manufacturers to perfect this type of engine.  Then came 1.5 litre turbo which forced the guys to perfect turbo engines.  Now they have KERS which forces them to look at regeneration and efficiency etc.  Next they will likely have restrictions on something else which means that the industry continuously evolves in areas that might now have developed as rapidly without the F1 teams throwing cash at it.

 

If the UCI really want to "steer" the development of bicycle technology just like F1 does in the motor industry, they should mix up the rules from time to time to allow for new ideas and innovation!

But this has happend in terms of Aero technology (which also has the 3:1 and double triangle rule to govern it) and even the rapid development in powermeters.

[rudi-h]

But this has happend in terms of Aero technology (which also has the 3:1 and double triangle rule to govern it) and even the rapid development in powermeters.

 

i'm not saying the UCI and their rules had no positive effect whatsoever.  But let's face it, by enforcing a handful of "restrictions" they are NOT nearly as pro active and pivotal to technology development in bicycles as they could be and would like anyone to believe.

 

Perhaps if they restricted maintenance intervals etc. in stage races instead, we could have had bikes but that can go for an entire 3500km stage race on a single chain?  Stuff like that could have been useful to us as consumers, but weight limits?  I don't think it changed our world.

 

Your comment about power meters, aero etc. are valid and I am sure that they have sold a lot more power meters in the pro peleton in the last 5 years as a result of the weight issue.  That said, power meters are exceptionally useful to the serious cyclists and coaches alike and I seriously doubt that development in this area would have been much behind had it not been for the weight rule.  Same goes for aero, the mere fact that there are TT's and sprint races ensures sustained development in this field to a large extent anyway.

 

It's a free world, so I say unless there is a very specific end goal for any "restriction" or rule, let the innovators and entrepreneurs of the world have the freedom to come up with the bikes, gadgets and components that are the best.  The UCI just doesn't employ enough creative people to revolutionize the bike world.

[Patchelicious]

i'm not saying the UCI and their rules had no positive effect whatsoever.  But let's face it, by enforcing a handful of "restrictions" they are NOT nearly as pro active and pivotal to technology development in bicycles as they could be and would like anyone to believe.

 

Perhaps if they restricted maintenance intervals etc. in stage races instead, we could have had bikes but that can go for an entire 3500km stage race on a single chain?  Stuff like that could have been useful to us as consumers, but weight limits?  I don't think it changed our world.

 

Your comment about power meters, aero etc. are valid and I am sure that they have sold a lot more power meters in the pro peleton in the last 5 years as a result of the weight issue.  That said, power meters are exceptionally useful to the serious cyclists and coaches alike and I seriously doubt that development in this area would have been much behind had it not been for the weight rule.  Same goes for aero, the mere fact that there are TT's and sprint races ensures sustained development in this field to a large extent anyway.

 

It's a free world, so I say unless there is a very specific end goal for any "restriction" or rule, let the innovators and entrepreneurs of the world have the freedom to come up with the bikes, gadgets and components that are the best.  The UCI just doesn't employ enough creative people to revolutionize the bike world.

But they employ just enough to restrict it.

[Dicky DQ]

I get what you are saying but ensuring safe design by weight criteria is absurd.  If you want to specify how strong/tough a frame (or any other object for that matter) should be from a structural point of view, then you need to specify its strength/stiffness/maximum stress etc. and not its weight.  Its almost like saying that a construction crane is safe as long as it weighs at least e.g. 10 tonnes.  The design of a component is what makes it safe, not the weight.

 

I'm not in the bicycle design industry so I can't say for sure, but in virtually every other industry in the world a large part of the IP of manufacturers and design firms are the fact that they understand the loading conditions that any specific component/structure will be exposed do, hence they are in a much better position to make these calls than the UCI.

 

If I had to weld a bike frame in my garage, I won't even be able to make a bike as strong/stiff as my Santa Cruz frame if I threw 20 kg's of steel at it.

Agreed, a number of bikes are now under the weight limit, but all they do is add weight, so where does that make the bike safer. 

 

The the bike is now at the weight limit but still structurally the same as the underweight bike. In fact it could now be in an even worse state as it is having to carry more weight than it would normally.

[SwissVan]

I get what you are saying but ensuring safe design by weight criteria is absurd.  If you want to specify how strong/tough a frame (or any other object for that matter) should be from a structural point of view, then you need to specify its strength/stiffness/maximum stress etc. and not its weight.  Its almost like saying that a construction crane is safe as long as it weighs at least e.g. 10 tonnes.  The design of a component is what makes it safe, not the weight.

 

I'm not in the bicycle design industry so I can't say for sure, but in virtually every other industry in the world a large part of the IP of manufacturers and design firms are the fact that they understand the loading conditions that any specific component/structure will be exposed do, hence they are in a much better position to make these calls than the UCI.

 

If I had to weld a bike frame in my garage, I won't even be able to make a bike as strong/stiff as my Santa Cruz frame if I threw 20 kg's of steel at it.

 

Agreed weight (as per your examples) is not a guarantee that a frame is structural sound.

Ideally frames should be built to a "specification" and tested to see that they meet or exceed the specification. 

 

Unfortunately this would probably be to complex a process for the cycling industry.....who would regulate or control the testing? Can the different manufacturers be trusted to do this on their own....?

 

I bet all the different manufacturers would not even be able to agree on a specification...

[SwissVan]

Agreed, a number of bikes are now under the weight limit, but all they do is add weight, so where does that make the bike safer. 

 

The the bike is now at the weight limit but still structurally the same as the underweight bike. In fact it could now be in an even worse state as it is having to carry more weight than it would normally.

 

Change the bike weight limit to a bare frame weight limit?

[andydude]

My two cents to add; I'm all for technology and obviously seeing the best that can be made, but I'm trying to think about the wider repercussions, especially towards the developement side. We already have problems with the rich kids rocking up at races with R100k+ bikes while some can't even afford a R10k bike, and yes, it makes a difference, physically and mentally. Perhaps the answer is to have a standard bike with standard parts up to u/16 level and only after that can you use your own bike. By then the talent can be identified and if you're good enough you can get a sponsor for a good bike if you can't afford it. A bit of a tangent, but I was thinking out loud!

[Patchelicious]

My two cents to add; I'm all for technology and obviously seeing the best that can be made, but I'm trying to think about the wider repercussions, especially towards the developement side. We already have problems with the rich kids rocking up at races with R100k+ bikes while some can't even afford a R10k bike, and yes, it makes a difference, physically and mentally. Perhaps the answer is to have a standard bike with standard parts up to u/16 level and only after that can you use your own bike. By then the talent can be identified and if you're good enough you can get a sponsor for a good bike if you can't afford it. A bit of a tangent, but I was thinking out loud!

Standardization in the development levels has worked well in motor racing, think Redbull cup, Formula Ford ect.

 

That could be a thing the UCI could look at. BUT on the high end we need to let technology evolve, thats the point of technology

[GoLefty!!]

I recall that the weight limit was a safety consideration. Much like our speed limits on our highways were introduced in the 70's as a result of the oil crisis at the time. It has evolved into a road safety strategy. The reality is that today's cars are capable of doing much higher speeds and is much safer at these speeds than what my dad's Passat was in 1978, but other factors mean that our speed limits will probably not be raised anytime soon. I am quite happy for bike weights to remain at the current minimum. The result is that bikes are stiffer and stronger than in 1999, making for a better ride. I'd hate to be riding a 4,9kg noodle right now. 

 

 

the main factor for speed limits is that it is most cost effective to design a  car to be safe at a velocity of 55Km/hr into a solid wall. Increase the impact velocity by 10km/hr and the design cost of the vehicle goes by a factor of 2.

 

the 6.8kg limit was set with safety in mind but there was no science behind. there was some statistics though as the study concluded that frame failure rates below 7Kg were higher than the that for frames above 7Kg. So 6.8Kg was selected because it still represented an achievable goal for less wealthy teams whilst still representing a challenge for manufacturers to achieve safety in the design.

 

there's still very few bikes that get down to that limit and last.

[GoLefty!!]

Agreed weight (as per your examples) is not a guarantee that a frame is structural sound.

Ideally frames should be built to a "specification" and tested to see that they meet or exceed the specification. 

 

Unfortunately this would probably be to complex a process for the cycling industry.....who would regulate or control the testing? Can the different manufacturers be trusted to do this on their own....?

 

I bet all the different manufacturers would not even be able to agree on a specification...

 

 

 

A specification can be agreed upon but it would mean that manufactures would need to submit bikes for independent testing and that data would need to be public and I can see some serious BS artists not wanting that....

[GoLefty!!]

yip, the UCI are being knobs about this.  stops the tech development and WE end up biting on the short end with 5 year old technology being sold to us at 2015 prices.

 

same thing with disc brakes for road bikes.  disk brakes are better, so why can't we have them on road bikes.  fortunately I do understand that disc brake road bikes will be trialed in the Paris Roubaix this coming year, so hopefully in a year or two down the line it will become the standard.

 

 

 

whose fault is that? the UCI or the crowd who built your bike?