Re: Why is the tdf getting shorter?

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

No, UC is hold backing technology. In order to reduce weight this
requires technical innovation.

On Jul 8, 8:02 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 07:36:40 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > UCI should not be holding back technology.
>
> They're not, they're setting the rules for professional road racing, which
> is part of their job. You're free to ride whatever you like, including
> bikes lighter or more efficient than they permit.
>
> > Therefore they should be testing bikes and components.
>
> Do you have a set of safety tests that everyone will politely agree on,
> if the minimum weight is scrapped? Ha ha.

[Michael Warner]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:58:23 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:

> No, UC is hold backing technology.

Last I checked, the UCI's charter does not include bicycle R&D
or marketing.

People who want stupid-light are very proud when they get below
the UCI weight limit, and they certainly don't feel limited by the
UCI rule. Bike shops around here will happily sell them complete
bikes below the limit, too.

My reaction to these purchases is to avoid descending too closely
behind them :-)

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.

On Jul 8, 8:32 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:58:23 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > No, UC is hold backing technology.
>
> Last I checked, the UCI's charter does not include bicycle R&D
> or marketing.
>
> People who want stupid-light are very proud when they get below
> the UCI weight limit, and they certainly don't feel limited by the
> UCI rule. Bike shops around here will happily sell them complete
> bikes below the limit, too.
>
> My reaction to these purchases is to avoid descending too closely
> behind them :-)

[Michael Warner]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:

> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.

It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests which
their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
than that of their rivals.

And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, "hizark21@yahoo.com"
<hizark21@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
>This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.

Please put down your pipe and think about it.

There are hundreds of UCI races going on around the world. BIcycle
parts can be filed out, drilled out or made to a variety of specs.
What you are suggetion would require a system of shipments and
controls to labs and have huge potential for cheating since stuff
could be changed after the lab approves it.

Weight stuff is simple. What you suggest is complicated.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[hizark21@yahoo.com]

es this why a uniform testing standards and methods have been
established similar the Snell helmet test.

On Jul 8, 10:47 pm, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
> > This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests which
> their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> than that of their rivals.
>
> And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
> to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
> introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
> failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
>> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests
> which
> their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> than that of their rivals.

The UCI already has a standardized impact test for wheels, designed to
eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the possibility of a wheel shattering
into various pieces that might cause injury to riders involved in an
accident.

It also wouldn't be too difficult to adapt the various CPSC tests for frame
worthiness during an impact, as well as a test that either exists already or
is proposed for forks.

Major bike companies already have the means to test their product to make
sure it passes these standards. Smaller companies do not, so they're the
ones most-likely to lose out under an expanded-testing scenario.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Michael Warner" <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:sguhpk4c1537.1qhq36y6pd037.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizark21@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
>> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests
> which
> their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> than that of their rivals.
>
> And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
> to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
> introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
> failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

[Wayne]

On Jul 9, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The UCI already has a standardized impact test for wheels, designed to
> eliminate, or at least greatly reduce, the possibility of a wheel shattering
> into various pieces that might cause injury to riders involved in an
> accident.
>
> It also wouldn't be too difficult to adapt the various CPSC tests for frame
> worthiness during an impact, as well as a test that either exists already or
> is proposed for forks.
>
> Major bike companies already have the means to test their product to make
> sure it passes these standards. Smaller companies do not, so they're the
> ones most-likely to lose out under an expanded-testing scenario.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "Michael Warner" <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:sguhpk4c1537.1qhq36y6pd037.dlg@40tude.net...
>
> > On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:37:16 -0000, hizar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> The UCI can always have a independent lab such as UL do the testing.
> >> This would eliminate "stupid lite" products as you put it.
>
> > It's not a question of who would perform the tests, but what the tests
> > would be. In the short term, every team and mfr would lobby for tests
> > which
> > their stuff could still pass while being quickly trimmed to a lower weight
> > than that of their rivals.
>
> > And once the tests /were/ established, every mfr would devote their R&D
> > to passing the tests while trimming more and more weight, despite
> > introducing other weaknesses which would inevitably be exposed by
> > failure on the road, not in the testing lab.

I find the desire for UCI testing vs general performance requirements
and interesting one. One chooses a authority to test products to
insure a minimum level of quality. The other would make stringent
performance requirements and attempt to turn the marketing value of
sponsoring winners into improving bicycle durability.

I vote for the second of the two. If A rider was required to you not
only the same type bike, but the same bike the entire race, then
durability and ease of repair would be rewarded. These are attributes
we can use. Team support could always repair even rebuild the bike
and possibly neutral support bikes could be allowed for temporary use
so that crashes didn't disqualify large numbers of riders.

Never happen though because the golden rule says that bike
manufacturers have the final word. The UCI has stated that if enough
manufacturers requested it they would "revisit" the min weight rule.

Wayne

[Davey Crockett]

The Tour was sure shorter in 1946

Stage 1 Monaco - Digne, 185km Aldo Baito
Stage 2 Digne - Briançon, 219km René Vietto
Stage 3 Briançon - Aix-les-Bains, 263km Jean Robic
Stage 4 Aix-les-Bains - Dijon, 294km Adolfo Leoni
Stage 5 Dijon - Paris, 355km Adolfo Leoni

GC
1st: Apo Lazaridès, 1316km in 44h 31' 42" (29.554km/h)
2nd: René Vietto, @37' 59"
3rd: Jean Robic, @40' 25"
4th: Lucien Teisseire, @49' 58"
5th: Emile Rol, @52' 07"
6th: Aldo Baito, @54' 35"
7th: Pierre Brambilla, @57' 28"
8th: Diego Marabelli, @1h 00' 11"
9th: Salvatore Crippa, @1h 10' 59"
10th: Auguste Mallet, @1h 23' 53"

Actually it was "La Course du Tour de France" or sometimes
Monaco-Paris, but it was nevertheless the First Tour organized by
L'Equipe with only 5 stages and took place about a couple of weeks
after a similar Ronde de France

1946 - Ronde de France Stage Winner
Stage 1 Bordeaux - Pau, 221km Ezio Bertocchi
Stage 2 Pau - Toulouse, 300km Giulio Breschi
Stage 3 Toulouse - Montpellier, 249km Raymond Louviot
Stage 4 Montpellier - Gap, 274km Giulio Breschi
Stage 5 Gap - Grenoble, 277km Apo Lazaridès

GC
1st: Giulio Breschi, 1321km in 45h 32' 09" (32.026km/h)
2nd: Ezio Bertocchi, @4' 08"
3rd: Edouard Fachleitner, @11' 24"
4th: Pierre Cogan, @14' 14"
5th: Apo Lazaridès, @26' 50"
6th: Giuseppe Tacca, @30' 48"
7th: Augusto Introzzi, @44' 13"
8th: Pierre Brambilla, @58' 42"
9th: Maurice De Muer, @1h 02' 29"
10th: Petrus Van Verre, @1h 10' 13"

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
-Leo Tolstoy

[Michael Warner]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:40:34 -0700, Wayne wrote:

> I vote for the second of the two. If A rider was required to you not
> only the same type bike, but the same bike the entire race, then
> durability and ease of repair would be rewarded.

How about installing bumps which would stress the bikes and weed out
the overly flimsy ones? They'd have to be spring-loaded to pop up just in
front of the riders so that they wouldn't have time to cheat by hopping
over them, of course.