4 ms·

Maybe that's just mostly due to the UCI regulations? No point to develop a fully fitted 5kg bike if it has to be 7kg anyways I suppose

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
Unless you can hide away a 2kg battery/motor combo. (Just joking really as they do scan for hidden motors nowadays)
bluGill 2y ago
If you have a 5kg bike you can put the extra 2kgwhere you want it. this can make a difference in a race.
jdietrich 2y ago
Most competition bikes weigh significantly more than the 6.8kg limit, because weight just doesn't matter very much. A lot of state-of-the-art road and track bikes weigh around 8kg. On the flat, weight only affects you during accelerations - at a steady speed, it has no significant impact on performance. Aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance are constantly sapping away power, so features that reduce these losses are nearly always worthwhile even if they increase weight. Even on a moderately hilly road stage, aero trumps weight by a considerable margin; on the track, weight is almost entirely irrelevant, particularly in longer events. A lot of riders like the feel of a lightweight bike, a lot of them believe that light bikes are faster, but that's only true on exceptionally steep stages or hill climbs.
- cenamus 2y ago
  So it only matters on basically every classic non time trial race?
  - matsemann 2y ago
    With the speeds the pro's climb these mountains, aero is still a big deal. For you and me slogging along it's almost all weight that matters. But not for the pros.
    - david-gpu 2y ago
      Keep in mind that arodynamic drag is not a function of ground speed, but airspeed. If you ride slowly in a relatively windy place, your airspeed can easily be twice of your ground speed. That said, given how many of us are overweight, worrying about a couple of kilos on the bike is funny talk anyway.
  - Tostino 2y ago
    Did you ignore the part where GP was talking about the tradeoffs made, and how aero improvements are almost always worth the extra weight? It's about optimizing the whole system, not just one part of it.
loeg 2y ago
If it mattered, though, every track bike would be exactly 6.8 kg -- and they aren't.
eftpotrm 2y ago
I remember hearing Callum Skinner talk about the British track team preparing for the Olympics, and how the biggest problem they had was strength - I remember the number 2400 for their best track sprinters, I forget if that was in watts or newtons but either way it's a massive force and they were snapping frames. The discipline of cycling that's the most weight-motivated is hill climbing. Track cycling really doesn't have that as an issue, and definitely does have a materials strength issue, so I'm not shocked they're not building to a weight limit.
- loeg 2y ago
  2400W is plausible for a world class track sprinter.

ndsipa_pomu 2y ago

Unless you can hide away a 2kg battery/motor combo. (Just joking really as they do scan for hidden motors nowadays)

bluGill 2y ago

If you have a 5kg bike you can put the extra 2kgwhere you want it. this can make a difference in a race.

jdietrich 2y ago

Most competition bikes weigh significantly more than the 6.8kg limit, because weight just doesn't matter very much. A lot of state-of-the-art road and track bikes weigh around 8kg. On the flat, weight only affects you during accelerations - at a steady speed, it has no significant impact on performance. Aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance are constantly sapping away power, so features that reduce these losses are nearly always worthwhile even if they increase weight. Even on a moderately hilly road stage, aero trumps weight by a considerable margin; on the track, weight is almost entirely irrelevant, particularly in longer events. A lot of riders like the feel of a lightweight bike, a lot of them believe that light bikes are faster, but that's only true on exceptionally steep stages or hill climbs.

cenamus 2y ago
So it only matters on basically every classic non time trial race?
- matsemann 2y ago
  With the speeds the pro's climb these mountains, aero is still a big deal. For you and me slogging along it's almost all weight that matters. But not for the pros.
  - david-gpu 2y ago
    Keep in mind that arodynamic drag is not a function of ground speed, but airspeed. If you ride slowly in a relatively windy place, your airspeed can easily be twice of your ground speed. That said, given how many of us are overweight, worrying about a couple of kilos on the bike is funny talk anyway.
- Tostino 2y ago
  Did you ignore the part where GP was talking about the tradeoffs made, and how aero improvements are almost always worth the extra weight? It's about optimizing the whole system, not just one part of it.

loeg 2y ago

If it mattered, though, every track bike would be exactly 6.8 kg -- and they aren't.

eftpotrm 2y ago

I remember hearing Callum Skinner talk about the British track team preparing for the Olympics, and how the biggest problem they had was strength - I remember the number 2400 for their best track sprinters, I forget if that was in watts or newtons but either way it's a massive force and they were snapping frames. The discipline of cycling that's the most weight-motivated is hill climbing. Track cycling really doesn't have that as an issue, and definitely does have a materials strength issue, so I'm not shocked they're not building to a weight limit.

loeg 2y ago
2400W is plausible for a world class track sprinter.