Professional Cycling For the Fans - bike weight requirements?

alright, so this is my first year to watch the tour (forgive me!) i've only been biking for a couple months...

anyway, i was watching a lance chronicle and they were weighing his bike and were worried that it was too light to be allowed in the tour...

what's the weight requirement and why is there one? what is the concern of having a bike that is "too light?" isn't that what everyone strives for? lighter and lighter bikes?

Bikes must be no less than 6.8 kilograms.

It's a safety concern. If you didn't enforce it you'd have teams doing things like drilling holes in their down tubes, seat posts and cranks in an attempt to lighten things.

Bikes must be less than 6.8 kilograms.

Less than...?

*edited to say less than*

G'day,

silly rule though, (or maybe just the way they enforce it!). Saeco on their 'dales last year just had little weights like fishing sinkers added to the frame, to reach the legal minimum. I can't see how doing that adds to the safety of the frame? Or is there a maximum amount of weight you can add to the frame in that sort of manner?. Cannondale are making a huge deal out here in OZ at the moment with the recent release of the 6-13 & the 'Legalise my cannondale' advertising. My LBS did up a 6-13 for show with all the lightest weight components they could find, just to see how light they could get it. I think it came in at 5.9kg without pedals.........so if I add a 1kg sinker to that is it legal?

cheers,

Hitchy

I wondered the same thing also. Yeah, you added some lead tape to the seatpost. The bike's legal but is it safer?

I thought an aluminum seatpost was used to get the prototype 6/13 up to weight last year.

I did see the Lance Cronicles episode where Trek showed up with an underweight bike. The Trek rep looked like the Grinch stole his Christmas when Brunyeel started to tear into him.

The weight rule is used to help even out the feild, keeping teams and bike companies from spending heaps of money to dominate the sport. Same logic goes into the "Standard" bike frame rule.

i think the tour de france should issue bikes, that are all exactly the same to everyone registered to the tour, a couple months before it starts.

a couple months is plenty of time to get use to a bike, and then the bike factor is completly eliminated, and its purly skill.

I think they did that, a long long time ago. But If that was the case, you wouldn't be riding your TREK.

It will never happen, Bicycle Sponsorship of Pro Teams = Advertising/Marketing Dollars, Advertising/Marketing Dollars = Pro Sports.

Other than the time trial stages, is there really a bike factor?

i think the tour de france should issue bikes, that are all exactly the same to everyone registered to the tour, a couple months before it starts.

a couple months is plenty of time to get use to a bike, and then the bike factor is completly eliminated, and its purly skill.

At this level of the sport, I seriously doubt that the brand of bike is making that big of a difference between winning as losing anyway. Case in point, Hamilton went from a Cervelo to a BMC this year and is still riding very well.

-mark

At this level of the sport, I seriously doubt that the brand of bike is making that big of a difference between winning as losing anyway. Case in point, Hamilton went from a Cervelo to a BMC this year and is still riding very well.

-mark

BMC is clearly better. in all the crashes, THIS year tyler just has a sore back! ;)

I'm not sure if this works but I think they should ride stock bikes :rolleyes: They should be the same bikes you or I could go and buy out of a shop with no enhancements :o If they already do that , cool but after watching the lance chronicals, I saw that they made a time trial bike just for him. I dont know if everyone can spend 3-6 weeks in a wind tunnel so having that advantage I think is kinda unfair :mad: I do think it is the bike.........sometimes :p

I think they did that, a long long time ago. But If that was the case, you wouldn't be riding your TREK.

It will never happen, Bicycle Sponsorship of Pro Teams = Advertising/Marketing Dollars, Advertising/Marketing Dollars = Pro Sports.

Other than the time trial stages, is there really a bike factor?


Not the bike as much as the components. I'm not Campy hatin', but the only Grand Tour I've seen a Campy equipped bike win has been a few Giro d'Italia won by Saeco on Cannondales, but without a Campy BB, but Cannondale's propritary BB.

BTW, the Decathlon bikes in the Tour are a Euro *mart bike.

Not the bike as much as the components. I'm not Campy hatin', but the only Grand Tour I've seen a Campy equipped bike win has been a few Giro d'Italia won by Saeco on Cannondales, but without a Campy BB, but Cannondale's propritary BB.

BTW, the Decathlon bikes in the Tour are a Euro *mart bike.

Riis, Ullrich, Pantani all won TdF on campy... ONCE rode campy and they won a lot of events too..... just ones folks dont pay attention to in USA...

campy or shimano is irrevelent

G'day,

perhaps diesel dan should watch more racing then...........I'm a DA 'freak', but the name on the Gruppo has never affected the result of a bike race,

cheers,


Hitchy

I'd watch more if there were more racing on TV. We've only been able to watch bike racing with some kind of regularity for about the last 4 years in the USA.

I'm not sure if this works but I think they should ride stock bikes :rolleyes: They should be the same bikes you or I could go and buy out of a shop with no enhancements :o If they already do that , cool but after watching the lance chronicals, I saw that they made a time trial bike just for him. I dont know if everyone can spend 3-6 weeks in a wind tunnel so having that advantage I think is kinda unfair :mad: I do think it is the bike.........sometimes :p

While it's true that Trek uses Lance as a human guinea pig, the stuff that's at first made especially for him does become available to the general consumer so you could go out and buy exactly what the pros ride. Usually they'll introduce this stuff at the end of the current season or beginning of the next model year. Case in point: The new Shimano Dura-Ace group. I think it would be a bad idea to force organizer pre-blessed and pre-designed bikes on the competitors. The TdF is not IROC.

According to an article I read last night, Lance gave Shimano their first TDF win. I am not sure P Mech got that part right as Shimano has been around a while. But most of the wins I have seen were on Campy. I even remember Suntour components. :) Treck has announced that the postal bike will be available for sale in Aug, but has a $5k price tag. The 5.9 SL. My bud broke his OLCV and is getting the 5.9 std from Trek. All the big teams test and design a bike, we just here more about Lance as he has made cycling in the US. Before LeMond, the tour coverage and riding was a snippet on that ABC waste of space show. You had to wait for mags or info from europe :(

Some interesting numbers. Apparently not everyone was searching for the very last gram in the TdF. Here are weights for last year and this for specific riders.

I suspect that the bikes last year were mostly not the same models as this.

The weight could vary between riders, of course, because of frame size, wheels, etc. Weights are in Kg. as reported by Le Cycle.


Weight
Team Rider Bike 2004 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
Ag2R Portal Decathlon Penta Pro 8,01 8,195
Bouyges Pineau Time VXRS Ulteam 6,80 7,486
Cofidis Bessy Wilier Le Roi 7,545 7,57
CA Caucioli Look 585 7,087 7,185
D-L Evans Ridley Damocles 7,250 7,49
D C Trek 5.9 Madone ~6,8 7,0
D V Honchar Colnago C50 7,250 8,658
E-E Zubeldia Orbea Starship 7,12 7,475
F B Fasci Pinarello Dogma FP 7,940 8,16
Gerols Totschnig Sp S-Wks Tarmac SL 6,975 7,55
I B Zandio Opera Leonardo 7,93 8,205
FdJ Gilbert Lapierre Carb Xlite 7,28 7,6
L-C Petrov Cannondale Six 13 7,495 7,785
L S-W Beloki BH Global Concept 6,91 7,44
L-B Garzelli Bianchi Al 7,5 7,77
Phonak Landis BMC SLC 01 6,8 7,39
QS-I Boonen Time VXRS Ulteam 7,560 7,66
Rabo Menchov Colnago Extreme C 7,36 6,98
S D-P Piepoli Scott CR 1 6,8 N/A
CSC Roberts Cervelo Soloist C 7,18 6,9
T-Mobil Sevilla Giant TCR Advanced 7,295 6,95

you brought up a post thats over a year old

wow so much for the pinarello dogma being light. all that magnesium for only 8.2 kg? silly italians.

you brought up a post thats over a year old
And your point is?

Perhaps if more people continued an idea that is already extant, rather than starting a new thread every time a random thought popped into their head, this would be an easier place to obtain information.

Naaaaahhhhhhhh... :rolleyes:

And your point is?

Perhaps if more people continued an idea that is already extant, rather than starting a new thread every time a random thought popped into their head, this would be an easier place to obtain information.

Naaaaahhhhhhhh... :rolleyes:


Funny, I actually agree with you about the value of bringing up threads yet have been warned by mods on this site about doing that. From my conversation with a mod:

Mod
"Can you not bump a thread? We really prefer a member to NOT bump an old thread. We really think when a thread is dead, it is DEAD. To that end, we have noticed members doing this, so we want to discourage before it becomes habit, because if it does, we'll be forced to lock a thread after it's been inactive.
Please... respect this in the future. Let sleeping dogs lie..."


Me
"I will absolutely respect your request and will not do this in the future, but the logic escapes me. Threads can fall off the list of new posts well before the topic has died. It's a simple matter of the frequency of new posts combined with a temporary lack of interested posters. Furthermore, as soon as I bumped it, two more people posted to the thread. If someone bumps a thread three or more times or becomes obnoxious, then I can understand this policy, but please rethink your request."


Mod
"I understand what you're saying. But it becomes increasingly frustrating when members reopen old threads. We've often had threads that we've considered dead and buried reopened. And if we let some members reopen and say nothing, while we tell other members to not bump, then members will definitely comment about favoritism or whatever. So to be fair, we just ask everyone not to bump a thread.
Thanks for your help and cooperation."




It's not my site, so I play by the rules.

Mark

Funny, I actually agree with you about the value of bringing up threads yet have been warned by mods on this site about doing that.

I have not been. I guess I can expect to be.




"I understand what you're saying. But it becomes increasingly frustrating when members reopen old threads. We've often had threads that we've considered dead and buried reopened. And if we let some members reopen and say nothing, while we tell other members to not bump, then members will definitely comment about favoritism or whatever. So to be fair, we just ask everyone not to bump a thread.
Thanks for your help and cooperation."

Again, I guess I will hear. But I absolutely do not understand the rationale. Treat everyone the same: please do. Frustration because of reopened threads: why? I would like to understand the reason, which so far seems completely counterintuitive and counterproductive. Does it cause more work for the mods? If not, wouldn't the continuity of an idea, and fewer threads overall taking up (I assume) less space on the server, be preferable?



It's not my site, so I play by the rules.

As will I when/if they tell me I should not do it.