You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know 15lbs was introduced some time back, but I weighed my Canyon today and it came in at 15.5lbs with pedals. Given its nowhere near the top of the range, only has ultegra, and standard clinchers, I'm thinking you could safely build up a bike considerably lighter.
So what would the pro bikes be coming in at if there was no min limit (but it still had to be safe, realiable and ridable - ie not that daft 5lb bike I saw posted here once)
I only ask as I'm really bored...
I'm interested in how much ballast the pro bikes need to carry to make race weight.
I do like the fact that it is an equal factor, but time for a revision, yes I think so.
100lbs. It would make them look healthier.
No weight limit for the bike but weight limits for entering certain race categories, if the organisers decide to impose them.
Manufactures are always going to make bikes that the market can afford, so price will dictate weight, common sense with dictate ridablity.
How much does that new Trek Emoda weight? Something silly like 4.8 kg for the top model (£11000 grand though :o). I don't see a massive problem with the weight limit staying at 6.8 kg for the moment, after all the sport should be about the riders, not a about how light their bikes are.
Interestingly the relatively high weight limit has meant a lot of other development in technology (sort of the ballast someone referenced above). It's been in part responsible for driving frame aerodynamics, power meters and electronic shifting, all of which are heavier than standard components. As for the 'ballast' most pros run fairly common or garden allow finishing kit because they don't need the weight saving of carbon parts.
I'm interested in how much ballast the pro bikes need to carry to make race weight.
Actually they're not allowed ballast anymore, all weight must be structural, hence 105 chains and cassettes and alu finishing kit etc. having a 12lb bike and sticking 3lbs of lead in the seat tube rather undermines the weight limit.
I certainly think you could take a couple of pounds out with no ill effects these days.
I do like how it's provoked innovation in other areas too - aerodynamics, power meters etc.
I do not think there should be a weight limit. As long as all the parts pass safety tests etc.
Rather penalises the lighter rider. 6.8kg is a far larger percentage of the total weight for a 60kg rider than one weighing 85kg, if you take power to weight ratio to include the bike as well.
I do like how it's provoked innovation in other areas too - aerodynamics, power meters etc.
I certainly think it encourages having a watt meter as its effectively weight free. Although I don't know that power meters are a sensible use of the weight or innovation
Testing every component for strength would be a night mare
Its seems sensible to have a easy to achieve weight limit. It removes the desire to ride a risky bike to save grammes and I'm sure provides a useful cost saving to teams that aren't bike manufacturers and top amateurs. I assume Team TREK would love to be riding 5kg bikes that they could then flog for £20,000 🙄
It wouldn't be good thing if to get a down to the limit bike cost over £10,000 or are we at the point were pricing people out would be seen as a good thing?
Testing every component for strength would be a night mare
But they basically do - it all has to be UCI approved.
It wouldn't be good thing if to get a down to the limit bike cost over £10,000 or are we at the point were pricing people out would be seen as a good thing?
Most ProTour bikes are going to be around or >£10k, particularly if you factor in the upgrades - ceramic bearings, power meter etc. The Trek Emonda is actually £700 cheaper than an equivalent spec Madone, weirdly.
I think they should drop the current bike weight limit and place limits on major components. Say 750g for a frame, 400g for the fork, 1350g for a bare wheelset, basically anything structural has a minimum weight.
The rest can be where the weight saving/durability/function trade off is played out...
But they basically do - it all has to be UCI approved.
I though the testing just mean the frame was the right shape and the the wheels didn't fall apart as they failed. Not that the components were strong enough for the job
If a current tour bike is £10,000 surely a lower weight would mean higher costs