Readers respond to 'How light is too light?'

Tech letters, November 16, 2004

Readers respond to 'How light is too light?'

I don't think the 6.8 kg benchmark is necessarily a fair determination, but there does need to be some stipulation to keep the bikes as "stock" as they can be and keep the deciding factor, in competition, among the athletes themselves. Perhaps that means only being able to utilize "production" equipment. Equipment that has been in production for at least a year prior to the event you are entering. Unfortunately, any limit or stipulation that is imposed will be arbitrary and have to be reviewed each season as technology continues its progress.

I am an ex-GP technician who come from a long family of cyclists, and as much as I relish the challenge of building some machine to be the lightest possible, I consider that unlike in motor racing, cyclists are the motor and racing should be much more between man, than about machines. Also do not forget the sport base was a blue collar one but slowly "la course a l'armement" is turning this into a sport for the more fortunate. So to keep this sport well in its roots I turn a deaf ear to the constructors who see the possibility to expand their price tags into the stratosphere "in the name of technology" with their right hand on the heart and their left one on their wallet.

Maybe at some time when prices have stabilized and most racing bikes need to have 1 or 2 kg added to be legal, and conform to a crash test like in F1, then maybe we should consider lowering the actual minimum weight, but by then we are going to see prototype bikes with carbon disk brakes and wheels, on tubeless tires with different compounds to match the weather. I can foresee the future, but can our sport survive it? This a very serious question .

I think the 6.8 kg limit is too low now. How can Bolivians afford them? Or me? The bike companies feel otherwise because they want to sell more expensive bikes, not because they are turned on about innovation per se. Let them innovate in other areas, if they wish to do it for the sake of doing it. I would love to have round, rather than lumpy, sewups, and have them easily repairable. I would love to have better shifting, and more comfortable seats, and handle bars that don't break. I would love to have better paint, smoother, more long lasting bearings, a chain grease that worked, tires that grip better and a heat seaking rocket that goes up the exhaust pipe of cars that run you into the ditch...

3. The problem with putting featherlight bikes in the hands of consumers is one of maintenance. It's one thing to put an exotic, unobtainium frame in a stable of dozens of bikes that are serviced daily by pro-team mechanics. It's quite another to put it once a year in the hands of a random bike-shop wrench or - worse - a consumer who does most of his wrenching himself. ("What was that clamp-on derailleur diameter again?") Perhaps Cannondale 6.13's should be "legalized" when they come with a torque wrench...?

4. Even in the hands of team mechanics, high-end components and frames are failing at an alarming rate. Some commentators have suggested that the high number of crashes at the 2004 Tour de France was due in part to carbon components that don't hold up under stress as well as alloy or steel. For example, carbon wheels still don't brake as well as machined aluminum wheels, especially in the wet. And carbon handlebars that are overtorqued will crack catastrophically, whereas alloy bars will merely crimp or bend; cracked carbon handlebars were responsible for at least one massive pile-up during a sprint finish at the TdF. And those bars were under the care of pro-team mechanics!

5. Even if it's a bad idea for the above-mentioned maintenance and safety reasons, there's nothing stopping bike companies from marketing lighter versions of pro-race bikes to the masses. If Scott makes a 900-gram frame for Saunier-Duval, how about a 500-gram frame for the guy who buys a Ferrari but never drives over 55MPH? If the market truly wants insanely light bikes, surely the UCI can't hold back the flood. (I'm not sure the market really cares all that much, but that's another discussion.)

It would seem to me that this is a storm in a teacup, driven more by bike companies looking for a marketing edge. The UCI (I'm guessing here, but I think it's a safe guess) aren't doing this for cynical reasons. It's a bit like minimum weights in Formula 1 and so on- everyone knows they could be lighter, but that's not the issue. The issue is access to the sport (and here the F1 example falls away like so many 500g carbon road frames...) and ensuring that it's a riders heart, lungs and legs, not their rig, that gets them to the front of the peleton.

MTB riders have benefited from the no assistance rule- bikes have to be tough and self-serviceable. Roadies don't have this, but what a minimum weight might bring is durability and aerodynamic efficiency otherwise neglected. If engineers know they have a certain weight they have to work with, they may well still push the structural elements to the limit in order to be able to afford themselves extra material in other areas (in particular I think aero forks, rims, down tubes, seat tubes and seat stays). This will lead to better bikes.

I read your column with some disgust at the complaints of the weight limit. As a college student, I know I won't be able to afford a 15lbs bike for some years, and I am a bit jealous of all those who can. Somehow, despite my engineering and physics background, I favor traditional bike designs. I love pictures of Eddy Merkx and Lemond and such riding those bikes with cables popping out the tops of the brake hoods and levers on the down tubes. Cycling is far too much of a rich man's sport, and racers can get too caught up in trying to get an edge through their equipment.

If the UCI let me write the regulations, all road bikes would have downtube shift levers(if any) and weigh at least 20 lbs. I think downtube shifters would make the racing that much more exciting since racers would have to anticipate moves, gear choices for steep climbs, and when to go in a sprint, requiring that much more skill and adding another element to the strategy of racing. I think it's a bit too easy to pop into a lower gear when you're suffering on a climb, no thought or anticipation to the pace you'd like to keep on the hill, simply a response to those around you. And almost anyone can afford a 20lbs bicycle with downtube shifters, leveling the playing field for everyone. Though I would be willing to comprimise and have some sort of rider size based weight minimum. I think those two traditionalist rule changes would make cycling more of a sport and less of a game.

Push the weight limit up.....To what, I don't know ! When you start having to pay $ 6,000 - $ 8,000 for a bike. It gets a little crazy. How and why do bike companies continue to produce lighter and lighter bikes each year. I would like to see the sport get bigger in the USA....But, when people find out the cost of good equipment...It becomes a negative for the sport. We are not all rich, or have big sponsors that give us equipment.

From a consumer standpoint, I think the weight limit is a great idea. It will force bike companies to make durability, rigidity, and aero dynamics more important. It might even make people realize that taking half a pound from your bike does not make the slightest difference if you are twenty pounds over weight. I also really enjoy the more aero dynamic frames and wheels. I know the UCI is rather picky when it comes to these types of advances but a more aero bike is far superior to a lighter bike, ask anyone in physics.

I'm sorry but all this seems like a bunch of complaining to me. Just ride the bike. Guys 5 years ago rode heavier bikes. Guys 25 years before that rode ones that compared to modern standards are tanks. Who cares? Stop whining! You want a project to work on to improve performance of your bike? I'll give you one. Follow US Postal and a few other of the D1 teams and look WHERE the weight of the bike is, not what the total gram count is. Do you ever see a Postal Trek or T-Mobile Giant with "heavy" wheels like Mavic Ksyriums? Nope. But you see lots of these on "ultralight" bikes from other teams all the time. Why is this? Why make your frame and kit so light that you have to spec out relatively heavy wheels to meet the limit? You wont see many of the big budget top pros falling victim to this. Remember its not so much HOW HEAVY a bike is but rather WHERE that weight is. Enough of the sub 1000 gram frames... use lighter wheels.

In cycling, the competition should be between the riders and not the equipment. Yes, we love the bicycles they ride and dream of the day when we can buy the same bikes, but once the race begins we want to see the best riders win races, not the best bicycles. For this reason, a weight limit is helpful to ensure that no one rider has too much of a technological advantage and wins races not because of his skills, but because of his team's deep pockets. However, a limit should not impede technological progress. Every so often, whether every one year or three years, the weight limit should be re-evaluated. If enough bike makers can prove that they can build lighter bikes without sacrificing safety, then the limit should be lowered to a new level that still ensures that riders have an equal footing. Frames should also be subject to mandatory stress testing to make sure that safety is not sacrificed as weight limits get lower. This would be a good compromise keeping manufacturers and fans happy without sacrificing the safety, integrity, and philosophy of the sport.