'Dale Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 So, 6.8 kg is the weight limit for a "race ready" bike... Does it include water bottles?Does it include Polar/Garmin? Whatcha know, Riders?
AndreZA Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Without bottles but with everything else. That is why the riders don't mind riding with small laptops (read Garmins) on the bars as this help raising the weight.
'Dale Posted January 17, 2011 Author Posted January 17, 2011 Without bottles but with everything else. That is why the riders don't mind riding with small laptops (read Garmins) on the bars as this help raising the weight.Thanx, Mampara... Read about a 2010 Liquigas-Cannondale rider who had EXTRA WEIGHTS attached to his frame to get to the weight limit.
AndreZA Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Thanx, Mampara... Read about a 2010 Liquigas-Cannondale rider who had EXTRA WEIGHTS attached to his frame to get to the weight limit. Since about 2003 Cannondale had to add weight to get the bikes legal. They even had special kit to protest against the rule. http://www.dailypeloton.com/article_images/teams/2004/saeco/cunego-montergine2.jpg Edit: Eldron got the date right. Edited January 17, 2011 by Mampara
'Dale Posted January 17, 2011 Author Posted January 17, 2011 Since about 2004 Cannondale had to add weight to get the bikes legal. They even had special kit to protest against the rule. http://www.dailypeloton.com/article_images/teams/2004/saeco/cunego-montergine2.jpgBrilliant piece of cycling history I didn't know about. Thanx!
Eldron Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Thanx, Mampara... Read about a 2010 Liquigas-Cannondale rider who had EXTRA WEIGHTS attached to his frame to get to the weight limit. Dude - 'dale already had a "Legalise my Cannondale" in 2003 when their race bikes were prepped and ready to race below the 6.8kg limit. The yet to be released 'Dale no longer uses a carbon seat tube, although the front triangle is largely unchanged, still using carbon top and down tubes. The reversion back to an all-aluminium rear triangle has presumably been done to save weight, as the rear end can now be manufactured in one piece without lugs. But with the company carrying on with the 'Legalise my Cannondale' campaign at the 2003 Giro and Tour de France, and a frame weighing no more than 1000 grams, one wonders if this steed will indeed pass the UCI weight limit of 6.8 kilograms without the need for additional weights, like a heavier set of wheels. Edit: Beaten by 2 minutes Edited January 17, 2011 by Eldron
Eldron Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Since about 2004 Cannondale had to add weight to get the bikes legal. They even had special kit to protest against the rule. http://www.dailypeloton.com/article_images/teams/2004/saeco/cunego-montergine2.jpg And not a helmet amongst them - man I miss the pre nanny state days when we could take responsibility for our own actions...
AndreZA Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 But those were the days when they did ride with helmets but if the stage ended on a hilltop they could take it off. I saw a few fans along the road that got free helmets in those days.
Willehond Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Read in one of my local bike mags that Eddy Merckx has actually been pleading for an INCREASE in minimum weight as he thinks a lot of the crashes happening these days are due to the bike weights compromising safety. Some other technical experts agree and suggest that a minimum FRAME weight would be useful, but practically impossible to implement. I also beleive the weight limit relates to all items on the bike that cannot be removed by the rider whilst riding. The waterbottle and Garmin should therefor not be counted at the weigh-in
rock Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 helmetless racing - those were the days....... wonder how they got to the 'round number' of 6.8kg? seems to be 15lbs by the looks of things?
Eldron Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 Read in one of my local bike mags that Eddy Merckx has actually been pleading for an INCREASE in minimum weight as he thinks a lot of the crashes happening these days are due to the bike weights compromising safety. Some other technical experts agree and suggest that a minimum FRAME weight would be useful, but practically impossible to implement. I also beleive the weight limit relates to all items on the bike that cannot be removed by the rider whilst riding. The waterbottle and Garmin should therefor not be counted at the weigh-in George Hincapie - Paris Roubaix - say no more....ok that was a fork at t's worst scenarion but still... Surely there have to be strength and durability tests for bikes? I know there are test centres that can perform the tests but surely bike frames chould conform to EU safety standards ala ANSI for helmets? A broken frame holds way more danger than a helmet that doesn't conform!
Lucky Luke. Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Anyone think there's any truth to the rumour that riders have put ice in their seat tubes to beat the weight limit? Does the chance of a post-ride weigh-in make this not worth the risk? Edited January 17, 2011 by Luke.
'Dale Posted January 17, 2011 Author Posted January 17, 2011 Anyone think there's any truth to the rumour that riders have put ice in their downtubes to beat the weight limit? Does the chance of a post-ride weigh-in make this not worth the risk?
Minion Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Without bottles but with everything else. That is why the riders don't mind riding with small laptops (read Garmins) on the bars as this help raising the weight.The weight excludes any on-board accessories that could be removed during an event, so no Garmins. From Technical regulations for bicycles, a practical guide to implementation - p3 Edited January 17, 2011 by Edam
Willehond Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 George Hincapie - Paris Roubaix - say no more....ok that was a fork at t's worst scenarion but still... Surely there have to be strength and durability tests for bikes? I know there are test centres that can perform the tests but surely bike frames chould conform to EU safety standards ala ANSI for helmets? A broken frame holds way more danger than a helmet that doesn't conform!Nope, one of the problems is indeed that there are no safety standards that protect you when hurtling at 100km/h down a mountainside. If there were, bikes would weigh a hell of a lot more! Also, a lot of the risk comes from other weight weenie components like brakes with insufficient stopping power or rims that cannot handle the heat or carbon handlebars.stems/seatposts that look bling, but are not strong enough to handle us "normal" heavy riders who also want durability (i.e. last longer than a few races). The problem is that some of the light stuff is actually stong enough and stiff enough (and some heavy stuff are crap!), but at some point you have to compromise on safety/stiffness/durability and that's what they try to protect everyone against.
AndreZA Posted January 17, 2011 Posted January 17, 2011 The weight excludes any on-board accessories that could be removed during an event, so no Garmins. From Technical regulations for bicycles, a practical guide to implementation - p3 I wonder if the DA DI2 battery fall into that category?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now