shaharidan

ive seen and read a few things recently about differences in racers TDF bikes for flats and mountains. most of the things have been about LA of course. about how his climbing bike is lighter than the bike he uses in flats.
ive also seen and read things that say his bike is right on the lower wieght limit.
so heres the questions.
1) is there a lower wieght limit for road racing bikes, and if so what is it?

2)is the wieght limit different for different types of stages, if not how can they lower the wirght of the bike thats allready at the limit? also why not uses the lightest bike possible for all stages?

3) in formula 1 racing theres a lower wieght limit. all the cars are below this limit, so the teams add wieghts to bring them up to the limit. yet they are still always looking for places to shave wieght. the reason they do this is because it allows them to add wieght in places that will help with vehicle balance and handling.
do they do something similar to racing bikes?

i know these are newb questions, thanks for taking time to read and answer

chuck1sd

I believe the lower weight limit set by the UCI is 14 or 14.5 lbs. They feel that a bike that is lighter than that is unsafe..It is just another example of the UCI wanting to suppress new technology in order to supposedly keep the field even. They have outlawed the TT superbikes, the bikes with 700c rear and smaller front wheels, they even outlawed Graeme Obrees bike and then his riding position(superman position), all in the name of fairness. About the only thing they have done that is good is require the pro peleton to wear helmets!

Ajay213

Well I think the durability issue is probably a pretty good one, articles about LA and his bike choices always point to durability and comfort for his choices. When they hit the mountains he hops on the lightest bike possible (5900 with all the lightweight goodies), but they talk about how the bike doesn't have the comfort for the long flat stages, and how they are concerned about durability in things like the wheels (since they use some very nice ultra-light weight wheels - ie something that may not take the abuse of 40mph peleton rides through the cobblestones).

USPS also uses fatter tires than they could, something like 700x23's instead of something even smaller because they worry about flats, which caused problems with the TT bikes because it was designed for a 700x19 tire in mind (so the tire rubs the chainstays during cornering with the disc wheels, or at least it did at one point).

I don't think they do anything with ballast, at least not like they do in car racing, the dynamics involved are quite a bit different, not to mention the speeds and the way a bike vs a 4-wheel car corners, etc. Although I think they probably make trade off's in certain areas. For instance they probably go for the lightest possible wheels/tires/tubes/cranks/BB/etc to reduce the rotating mass to the smallest possible amount. And then use the rest to bring the bike up to the min weight. LA even goes so far as to use super-light cassette's (something like 1/2-2/3 the weight of the usual Dura-Ace cassette), but only during the mountain stages...at least according to the article.

Andrew

shaharidan

great info Ajay thanks, still one question though.
the trek 5900 wieghs less then the 5200 ( moutain vs flat bikes),
so the 5200 is heavier than the lower wieght limit, and the 5900 is at the limit or maybe heavier?
ive seen people talk about his bikes on tv and in books, and several times mentioned that Lance's bike is right on the lower wieght limit. but they dont really say what bike they are talking about. i'm begining to think they have no idea what they are talking about.

Ajay213

Everything I've read says he rides/rode a 5500 for the flat or non-mountain stages and a 5900 for the moutains.

Here's a piece from https://www.lancearmstrong.com/lance/...2/tech-archive
Now that the road is turning up, LA will switch to his other ride. He has been riding the flat stages on his 5500, the dark blue bike with the red and white stripes. Made from the slightly heavier, yet slightly more flexible and comfy OCLV 120 (120 grams of carbon per square meter of material), the 5500 is well suited to Peloton life in the flat stages.

The 5900 Superlight will now be the bike of choice... Made from the lighter, stiffer, more efficient OCLV 110 (110 grams of carbon per square meter of material), the 5900 will shave crucial weight, and provide a more responsive, stiffer frame for putting all of LA's power from his crank to moving him briskly up the hills.

The other main difference, other than the frame, is the fork. The 5500 uses the Air Rail fork from Icon, an alloy steerer and crown, with OCLV 120 legs bonded to the crown; recognizable by its gentle curve. The fork on the 5900 uses an alloy steerer, but it has a one piece crown and leg section, made from OCLV 110; it has straighter blades that are angled forward to compensate for a lack of curve.

Also look for him to switch to the OCLV Bontrager Race Lite Carbon hoops to drive his Hutchison tubular tires. The lower rotational weight at the rim will help the efficiency of power transfer, and also reduce overall bike weight. Back in 2000, when the Superlight was debuted, LA was also switched to a down tube shifter for the front derailleur, and putting a Dura Ace brake lever in place of the normal STI Brake/Shifter combo lever on the 5500.

When the road turns up, every gram counts.

That's from last years tour. This year looks to be a little bit of suprise as their's supposedly a new Trek bike that Lance will ride during certain stages - https://www.velonews.com/tour2003/tec...es/4353.0.html

Trek aims for new heights with Madone
Waterloo has been particularly tight-lipped about its latest high-end road racer, which will replace the 5900 Superlight. Lucky for us, information has just leaked out on the bike that Lance (and possibly his teammates) will race on in certain stages of the Tour. Here's the scoop:

The new bike, to be called the Madone 5.9, features a radically aero' OCLV tubeset - one that pushes the UCI envelope regarding aerodynamics. Both the top and down tubes are radically flared, while the seat tube also sees heavy shaping to reduce windage from the rear wheel. The frame also incorporates an "A-Stay" seat-stay cluster for added lateral stability.

The company says the Madone 5.9 is the "culmination of Trek's decade-long knowledge of working with carbon technology." It is claimed to be the lightest, most streamlined frame ever produced by Trek while keeping in mind the proven geometry and the ride characteristics of the 5900 USPS Superlight.

Andrew

shaharidan

thanks again Ajay!! great info

Rossgo

I have noticed in the mountian stages of the 2002 tdf LA was using mavic cosmic wheels these would be heavier than than the usual bonteranger ones. That could explain the lighter bike in the mountians.

brent_dube

What position is the most efficient?
I wish they didn't have rules against it... since I would like to see a rider going as fast as possible, as long as it is all on their own power (and doesnt compromise safety like aerobars in the peleton). Like in auto racing... each team is trying to make their vehicle as fast as possible... in cycling there should be more freedom of bike design. If the most efficient cycling position is something crazy like lying on your back, using your arms to turn a crank, then I would like to see it.

Ajay213

Well in auto racing they still have to follow a basic set of rules and each team tries to go as fast as possible while staying within those rules. Right now there's enough technology out there that a auto manufacture could build a race car that would easily exceed the limits of the human behind the wheel.

The same is happening in cycling, UCI banned non-double triangle bikes for TT events (like the Trek airfoil - I believe that's what it's called), we're also seeing some teams like USPS that spend enormous amounts of time in the wind tunnel trying to find an advantage. This year it's a fancier helmet, a couple of years ago it was the suits (1-piece suits where the material costs some $1-3k a yard), etc. I bet there's still a lot of time to be had out of the current rules.

Andrew

Rossgo

i agree riders should be able to ride what they like as long as it is on there own power. i think it was stupid banning positions like the boardman superman the UCI needs to move with the times and realise there is new technonogy that can make the sport better.

fore

cannondale's new whatever-the-hell-its-called weighs 6.7kg. the UCI weight limit is 6.8. obviously, a lighter bike should be faster, yes? i mean, if team Saeco wears "legalize my cannondale" all over their jerseys, and adds weights along the top tube to bring it up to spec, they must have a point, right? light bikes = better. faster. etc.

then why the hell did simoni finish 10 minutes down on saturday? the official word is that he forgot to eat. that's cool, i'll give him that one. then what's his excuse for sunday's stage where he finished 12 minutes down?

if anyone thinks that tenth of a kilo really would have made a difference, they're smoking something they shouldn't be, not to mention how much of a sucker they are for marketing hype.

get your facts right. chris boardman, while an excellent rider, did NOT create the superman position.

tell me how new technology will make bicycle racing better.

i'll take two of the most exciting aspects of road racing, and i'll use them as examples as to why i think new technology doesn't necessarily mean improved racing.

first, since it's fresh in everyone's memory, mountain stages. it's a hell of a thing to see attacks coming left and right, the struggle on everyone's faces, the crowds cheering everyone on. it's a beautiful thing.

as i already said, a lighter bike doesnt mean better results. after two days in the mountains simoni is 20 minutes out of the lead.

aerodynamics? sure, if you're going downhill. going up the speeds are so slow that it's not a very big factor.

another area of road racing that's quite thrilling is the finishing sprints.

for sprinting one would generally want a stiffer bike. something that'll lay down the power. i cant back this claim up, but i highly doubt those super exotic light weight bikes will be stiff enough to not flex under the power of someone like Petacchi or Zabel.

back to aerodynamics.. i think that's hardly of concern when you're out of the saddle with your whole body basically exposed to the air.

with all that said, i'm hardly trying to advocate that everyone in the professional peloton ride on a 35lb beast of a bicycle, but come on. for once try to ignore the hype that bike manufactures are shoving down your throats.

the FIA (motorsport governing body, allowed a lot of room for tech "improvements" in Formula 1 racing, and the end result was that it just got terribly BORING. the races weren't won anymore by whoever was the best driver, but whoever spent the most money on r&d. they're starting to put new rules into place to limit what can be done and the quality of racing has picked up quite a bit.

i applaud the UCI for being so stubborn.

Rossgo

i did not say he created it he only made it famous get you facts right mate.

ChipRGW

I thought Graeme Obree made it famous by getting it banned??

TimB

I think the weight on grounds of safety is a valid one.
An F1 one must weigh 600Kg with it's driver.
Some teams can build a tub that will pass the mandatory crash test but still come in underweight, but they spend a hell of a lot of money to acheive this.

Now for Bike frames, spending that kind of money will bankrupt many teams and take the competition element out of it. It will become a asport completely overshadowed by the technology behind it.

Personally I think that 6.8 Kgs is still a ridiculously low limit and I would have voted instead for a weight limit around 7.5 kg (which is an expensive limit ti achieve anyway).

Yes technology is needed butnot when it means that the consumer, Who has to pay $ or € for their bikes can realistically afford the costs of competeing to spiral out of control.

When Done UCi and please increase that weight limit by 500gr at least.
£1000 for a set of wheels is just plain stupid. Somethings wrong.