"Nick Burns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:The weight minimum should mean that we won't see the pros leaving stuff
off.
Quoted message said:If we start seeing bikes on the market that are well under the weight minimum, then we should see
the pros leaving their STI levers on for mountain stages. Wouldn't you rather have an STI lever
and a computer instead of lead ballast?
Not necessarily. In F1, cars are routinely designed and built to deliberately be as far below the
FIA weight limit as possible, whilst still passing all safety regulations. This way, the teams can
put back on the necessary weight, to meet the minimum, where they see fit to do so.
In the case of a bike, I'd want my ballast as low as possible, probably all under the
bottom bracket.
All of this makes me think that the UCI is going to have to re-think their weight limit. It's is
quite apparent that bikes can now be made well under the limit. If the intent is to keep safe bikes
under our heroes, they will need some other regulations, such as the frame be capable of holding a
predetermined static weight whilst mounted in a work stand or something like that.
My last two bikes have been in the 17 - 17.5 pound range. I remember when bikes that weighed this
much were spindly, for show only, examples of an engineering challenge - not to be ridden routinely.