Why The UCI Weight Limit Is Unfair | GCN Tech Show 323

If the bike weight limit was increased to, say 1000kg, then the rider weight differential would be less significant. In all fairness.

Please keep Jon Cannings or more frequent appearances

Really happy to see Jon back on the channel. I learned so much about maintenance from him. Great times.

getting rid of the weight limit would be a “uhhhh, this-might not-have-been—-a-good-idea after all. :-/ “, because of the following reason:

having a “minimum weight”—limit makes 1 way ALL bikes have-to-be as equal [to each other] as possible and [therefore consequently] makes it be less about “which bike is the most-aerodynamic and/or the lightest” and [more / more-about] “which rider is the-one that has the-most-SKILL / the most STRENGTH-in-their-legs / the most ENDURANCE”. remember that bicycle-races are a ENDURANCE-type sport: “which-one can LAST the LONGEST, and get there, in the QUICKEST amount of TIME[, WITHOUT getting Tired]. ?”.

Bring back Jon permanently!

I think the weight limit is fine. I believe the method of the UCI is to make the bikes an equal level so that the rider is the variable that decides wins and losses, for the most part

John definitely needs to be a regular feature ✊🏾✊🏾

Definitely the rule needs to change. The frame weight of a 58cm bike isn't the same as a 49cm. So basically as the rule stands. Someone with a small frame size would have to add weights to be legal. Not fair at all. The UCI weight should cross reference with frame size but only if it's for their height. So a bike fit would be needed. If a rider chooses to use a smaller frame not designed for their height they would have to add weights so there would be no cheating in trying to get a smaller frame size not designed for their height just to save weight.

The discussion on weight is misleading - why should have tall riders have a weight penalty? Much more important than weight is aerodynamics - and here, tall riders are already obliged to work much harder. IMHO, the weight limit is one of the few UCI rules which make sense - we should not end up in a formula one world, where only teams with a big budget can be competitive!

Yeah, but small riders have a lot lower drag, so the weight is far outweighed.

Nah, UCI weight is fair. It also keeps the sport a lot closer to normal people that wont have to spend thousands and more thousands to have a similar bike to the one their idol uses in their races. It`s great to keep the cost of the sport lower, and focus on the athlete and not the equipment.

300g per year for the next 3 years. No massive change and it allows manufacturers to focus on making bikes at this weight point.

6.8kgs is good, anything lighter may be dangerous.

Brilliant to see John back his passion is infectious. 😊

So how do you decide which is fair then? Heavier rider put much more power , so we should offer them time
bonus then. Everything is only relatively speaking in the discussion about fairness.

JetBlack make a smart trainer that is fully self powering.

The difference between F1 and UCI pro racing is that Formula 1 is a strict and restrictive set of regulations (a formula) that all cars must adhere to in order to race. The goal of Formula racing is that it essentially equalizes the cars so that the driver's talent is a big factor in racing. The reality is, that F1 teams try to innovate as much as they can within the strict rules and not all cars are created equally even though they all adhere to the same template of rules. The UCI doesn't enforce a formula of rules, but does restrict bikes in terms of "unfair advantage, mechanical assistance, and safety." If the UCI were to adopt the Formula format, all bike frames would basically look nearly identical from a distance of 10 feet. All tires would be the same. There would be very little variation and the innovation created by the teams within the formula would be heavily monitored and possibly banned.

$4 Aero Socks from China/Aliexpress usually have 2 inner Silicon bands and NEVER fall even when it’s super hot and your legs are sweaty. Unlike many expensive high end aero socks that don’t have 2 silicon bands and fall… pity

isnt this "new trainer" in the hot&spicy tech section not exactly like the tacx neo 2t that has a virtual flywheel, can run without external power and generate tons of resistance when plugged in?

Why not give weaker riders a motor while your at it, would you want this type of equity in your ball sports?, so why cycling? Life isn't "fair" and never will be, stop whining and deal with it!

Anyway, pro bikes weight 7.5Kg... so whats the point?

That rule inhibits innovation, and needs reworking but it should not be tied to rider weight.

Jon,, what a legend!!!

Ironically, the smaller riders are generally better climbers. Lowering their bicycle weight would just make them faster on the climbs.

You guys have the ltwoo groupset and never reviewd or show it ridden and said a videos coming... Where is the vid???

Loved seeing Jon back - what a legend.

But none of the pro bikes are near the limit right? And if they were they should just go deeper on the rear wheel right?

The Mac Daddy returns. Like meeting an old girlfriend who's since found a new love. Of biscuits.

MORE CANNINGS YES

I love seeing Jon back on the Tech Show!

The unfairness against a small rider has been evident from the day the UCI introduced 6.8kg about 20 years ago. It's hardly news, even in newbie world is it?

You could circumvent the eating disorder problem if you where to go off the height of a rider/weight of the frame. I would think that that would be more fair towards smaller riders. However on the GCN show they showed an interesting graph of frame weight/speed and it seems that in the last decade frame weight has gone up but racing speed as well. So lowering bike weight is probably only effective if you have a purely uphill ride.

nice to have jon back, and all of the car nerdery - he mentioned 'R53' and when you mention chassis codes, that is proper nerdery. love it.

I miss jon, especially on classic/retro roadbike contents

Why not a stress test of each component and than assamble UCI has complete controle and the weight can be reduced .
If introduced i want 10%

Perhaps, but much taller riders are disadvantaged by the limits on frame geometry so... And everyone keeps telling us that weight doesn't matter.

Come on now, Jon deserves some stint back into the GCN Tech channel - not necessarily the weekly Tech show but probably some old school tech shenanigans!

The UCI weight limit, as it exists today, was a reasonable safety measure for STEEL framesets with 90s components. IMO, it was outdated shortly after its introduction because lighter materials (aluminum and carbon fiber) made their way into the bicycle industry.

It's been possible to build a robust 'Tour' bike under 6.8kg for a couple of decades now. However, the UCI hasn't recognized these advancements because they haven't lowered the limit to reflect it. The weight limit should exist but be lowered to 6kg or even 5.5kg.

If the UCI did that, we would see lighter framesets for smaller riders, lighter mid-tier bikes, and fewer tangents by the cycling industry that address problems that don't exist to sell bikes. Disc brakes, I'm looking at you.

GCN: perennial chase group ?

As far as changing the professional weights on the bikes I say no but it doesn't really matter because of so many bike changes they have in a race now UCI has no idea the weights of all the bikes it's ridiculous especially now with motors. Professional bike should be weighed before and after the race and the Rider has nothing to do with the weight of the bike

Clydesdale (220lb) weight in triathlon is also very oblivious towards shorter athletes.

It should be a function of athlete height, perhaps any BMI over 25 (overweight) would be a more fair measure to compete as a Clydesdale (or Athena).

This doesn't make sense why is every climber small and light they already have a advantage.

This doesn't make sense why is every climber small and light they already have a advantage.

I’d rather see a cost limit added to the rules. Imagine limiting bikes to a total cost of $5000.

Love seeing John back ❤

XD I wasn't a big rider but anyone who complains about the 6.8kg weight limit is a fvcking WEAKLING.

IN FACT IF YOUR BIKE IS WITHIN 10KG, IT'S LIGHT ENOUGH

How have I only just seen this!!!

Well too bad for them, it's on them being light, they could staand to gain some weight to "offset" the percentage of the bike.
Also how is that unfair? Heavier bikers already have to fight stronger aerodynamic drag, higher resistance on climbs. This is so ridiculous.

Should the weight limit be changed for pro bikes? 🪶