A weight weenie's nightmare

What is that he's got attached to the top tube?

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

looks like he has little weights added to the bike while its on the scale, so that they can estimate
about how much weight to add to the bike so that it will be legal.

"Chris Zacho "The Wheelman"" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What is that he's got attached to the top tube?

May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills! Chris

Chris'Z Corner "The Website for the Common Bicyclist": geocities.comczcornerOpen ↗

Harris' may have said:

Here's a look at what Gilberto Simoni had to do to make his Cannondale legal for the TdF!

cyclingnews.comtour03Open ↗

Imagine his chagrin if the bike was re-weighed at the end of the day and had worn a whole two or
three grams off the tires and such...and came in under weight as a result.

---
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.

Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

"Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's a look at what Gilberto Simoni had to do to make his Cannondale

legal

Quoted message said:

for the TdF!

cyclingnews.comtour03Open ↗

Art Harris

And that didn't help him in the stage to Morzine yesterday....

Lou

That's funny

ari' may have said:

looks like he has little weights added to the bike while its on the scale, so that they can
estimate about how much weight to add to the bike so that it will be legal.

Not just added while on the scale. The next photo shows the bike leaning on a trailer, with the
weights just visible on the upper tube. Those are fairly low mass gram weights from a balance scale
set, and they're either stuck on with double-stick tape or some kind of glue. Apparently, he rode
with them on lthe bike like that. (I'd have tucked them into the seat post, myself, but maybe he
wanted to be obvious about the fact that the whole bike was *that close* to exactly
6.8kg)

---
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.

Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ari' may have said:

looks like he has little weights added to the bike while its on the

scale,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

so that they can estimate about how much weight to add to the bike so

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it will be legal.

Not just added while on the scale. The next photo shows the bike leaning on a trailer, with the
weights just visible on the upper tube. Those are fairly low mass gram weights from a balance
scale set, and they're either stuck on with double-stick tape or some kind of glue. Apparently, he
rode with them on lthe bike like that. (I'd have tucked them into the seat post, myself, but maybe
he wanted to be obvious about the fact that the whole bike was *that close* to exactly
6.8kg)

Seems a little weird that he would choose to ride with hard little pointy appendages on his top tube
considering what woulkd happen if his crotch fell on them. I would have just gone with a heavier
component, stems range from 100g to 250g usually, seatposts range from 120g to 300g. Whatever floats
his boat though. I hope the UCI rules don't state that the official weight has to be made up by
little weights taped to the top tube. If they really want to discourage underweight bikes, they
should force the rider to carry the gram weights as a suppository.

Quoted message said:

---
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.

Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

In <[email hidden]>, "Lou Holtman" <[email hidden]> opined:

Quoted message said:

The only thing unusual I noticed was the he wore a white Seaco shirt because the red one was
to warm.

That's not the only reason...

velonews.com4495.0.htmlOpen ↗

--
Dave Salovesh [email hidden]

Harris wrote

Quoted message said:

Here's a look at what Gilberto Simoni had to do to make his Cannondale legal for the TdF!

cyclingnews.comtour03Open ↗

Art Harris

I saw Frankie Andreu discuss the bike on OLN's TdF coverage. He said the bike weighed 6.6 kg (less
than 15 lbs!), under the UCI's minimum weight of 6.7 kg. The team put a heavier seatpost and bottle
cages on the bike to bring up the weight. The weights on the top tube were just for show (I got the
impression they weren't even real weights) and were removed for the stage.

(Michael) said:

Harris wrote

Quoted message said:

Here's a look at what Gilberto Simoni had to do to make his Cannondale legal for the TdF!

cyclingnews.comtour03Open ↗

I saw Frankie Andreu discuss the bike on OLN's TdF coverage. He said the bike weighed 6.6 kg (less
than 15 lbs!), under the UCI's minimum weight of 6.7 kg. The team put a heavier seatpost and bottle
cages on the bike to bring up the weight. The weights on the top tube were just for show (I got the
impression they weren't even real weights) and were removed for the stage.

I wonder if the riders aren't really all secretly glad about the weight limit. Otherwise, they'd be
competing against other riders willing to risk riding "stupidlite" bikes up AND DOWN the mountains.
With the 6.7kg imposed limit, you can put together a bike you KNOW will hold up going warp speed
down some of those nasty French mountain roads.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles habcycles.comhabcycles.comOpen ↗ Home of the $695 ti frame

Mark Hickey said:

(Michael) said:

I saw Frankie Andreu discuss the bike on OLN's TdF coverage. He said the bike weighed 6.6 kg
(less than 15 lbs!), under the UCI's minimum weight of 6.7 kg. The team put a heavier seatpost
and bottle cages on the bike to bring up the weight. The weights on the top tube were just for
show (I got the impression they weren't even real weights) and were removed for the stage.

I wonder if the riders aren't really all secretly glad about the weight limit. Otherwise, they'd
be competing against other riders willing to risk riding "stupidlite" bikes up AND DOWN the
mountains. With the 6.7kg imposed limit, you can put together a bike you KNOW will hold up going
warp speed down some of those nasty French mountain roads.

I race small sailboats on occasion, so this issue is familiar to me. It is standard practice in
dinghy racing classes to have a minimum weight rule for the boat. If there were no minimum weight,
people with more financial resources would show up with stupidlite, less-long-lasting boats (if you
use a thinner hull, the laminate breaks down and becomes flexible and uncompetitive sooner). Similar
reasoning applies in cycling, as Mark says.

Of course, it is also standard practice to build all boats a few kg light and bring them up to
weight with lead corrector weights. That way, if you change the rigging in a way that increases the
overall weight (or if the laminate absorbs some water over the years), you can compensate by
removing lead. The end result is that so everyone's boat weighs the same when racing. A very
egalitarian idea.

I can see this happening in cycling; all bikes slightly light, and brought right up to weight with
correctors under the bottom bracket.

Of course, in some sailing classes, the governing bodies are too slow to lower the minimum weight
rule, so those boats are MUCH heavier than current technology would allow them to be with more
reasonable limits (in some cases 2 to 3 times).

I can also see this happening in cycling, given how conservative the UCI seems to be on some issues.

Stergios

Stergios Papadakis may have said:

Of course, in some sailing classes, the governing bodies are too slow to lower the minimum weight
rule, so those boats are MUCH heavier than current technology would allow them to be with more
reasonable limits (in some cases 2 to 3 times).

I can also see this happening in cycling, given how conservative the UCI seems to be on
some issues.

Some of that may be the urge to avoid the dominance of money that afflicts much of car racing, where
a large number of skilled potential competitors can't build a competitive entry simply because the
people who can afford to shell out for bleeding-edge equipment will always do so if they are
permitted to use it. By being conservative, the sanctioning body increases the chance that
technology that's 5 years out of date, and probably a lot more affordable than the Latest And
Greatest, can remain competitive. If 5.9Kg bikes were allowed today, for example, make no mistake
that *someone* would figure out how to build one that was sturdy enough....but outside of TdF-level
powers, would 90% of the teams be able to afford them, if they cost 10 times as much as current
typical bikes? I think not.

---
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.

Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Stergios Papadakis <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I race small sailboats on occasion, so this issue is familiar to me. It is standard practice in
dinghy racing classes to have a minimum weight rule for the boat. If there were no minimum weight,
people with more financial resources would show up with stupidlite, less-long-lasting boats (if
you use a thinner hull, the laminate breaks down and becomes flexible and uncompetitive sooner).

505's?

Werehatrack said:

Some of that may be the urge to avoid the dominance of money that afflicts much of car racing,
where a large number of skilled potential competitors can't build a competitive entry simply
because the people who can afford to shell out for bleeding-edge equipment will always do so if
they are permitted to use it. By being conservative, the sanctioning body increases the chance
that technology that's 5 years out of date, and probably a lot more affordable than the Latest And
Greatest, can remain competitive. If 5.9Kg bikes were allowed today, for example, make no mistake
that *someone* would figure out how to build one that was sturdy enough....but outside of
TdF-level powers, would 90% of the teams be able to afford them, if they cost 10 times as much as
current typical bikes? I think not.

I agree, but sometimes it can go too far. 6.8 to 5.9 kg is not a huge change. The bike weight limit
isn't obviously too high, although it seems that is what Cannondale would like you to think. If the
weight limit were 12 kg, it would be obviously too high.

But, just because the weight limit isn't obviously too high, doesn't mean it isn't too high. How
much of a team's budget goes to bikes right now? I'll bet it is a small fraction, and that a lot
more goes to salaries, race expenses, travel expenses, etc. If the weight limit were 5.9 kg, how
much more would bikes cost? What fraction of a team budget is that?

Stergios

Mike Latondresse said:

Stergios Papadakis <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I race small sailboats on occasion, so this issue is familiar to me. It is standard practice in
dinghy racing classes to have a minimum weight rule for the boat. If there were no minimum
weight, people with more financial resources would show up with stupidlite, less-long-lasting
boats (if you use a thinner hull, the laminate breaks down and becomes flexible and
uncompetitive sooner).

505's?

yes. have we met? Stergios USA 7199

Stergios Papadakis may have said:

If the weight limit were 5.9 kg, how much more would bikes cost? What fraction of a team budget
is that?

Big team like USPS with a deep-pockets supporter? A small fraction. Small team with a shallow
budget, sharing cheap accomodations and pinching pfennigs to keep from having to ride the bikes home
instead of the train? Could be a lot. Does racing *suffer* because the weight requirement continues?
I doubt it. Among other things, it ensures that if the common rider *wants* to have a bike just like
the one Lance Armstrong rides, there's a reasonable chance that he can get
it. This, as they say, is part of the key to building enthusiasm for the sport. The wannabes whose
dreams will never be more than that still want to feel like they can ride the same wheels that
a champion uses. Enthusiasm feeds, in part, on those connections...and once in a while, the
young enthusiast becomes the next Armstrong.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.

Stergios Papadakis <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Mike Latondresse said:

Stergios Papadakis <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I race small sailboats on occasion, so this issue is familiar to me. It is standard practice in
dinghy racing classes to have a minimum weight rule for the boat. If there were no minimum
weight, people with more financial resources would show up with stupidlite, less-long-lasting
boats (if you use a thinner hull, the laminate breaks down and becomes flexible and
uncompetitive sooner).

505's?

yes. have we met? Stergios USA 7199

Perhaps, sailed them for 15 years and was in the North Americans 4 times but gave them up 3 years
ago...getting too old for 50s.