this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
26 points (96.4% liked)
Bicycling
3449 readers
53 users here now
A community for those who enjoy bicycling for any reason— utility, recreation, sport, or whatever!
Post your questions, experiences, knowledge, pictures, news, links, and (civil) rants.
Rules (to be added on an as-needed basis)
- Comments and posts should be respectful and productive.
- No ads or commercial spam, including linking to your own monetized content.
- Linked content should be as unburdened by ads and trackers as possible.
Welcome!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah the minimum handlebar width is just ludicrous. It should be a minimum of equal to the rider's shoulder width, or some formula based on shoulder width.
The article made me realise that the long-standing minimum bike weight has the same problem. 6.8 kg might be a reasonable minimum weight (or even an overly-generous one) for a 190 cm tall rider, but it probably severely limits someone who's 150 cm. And that's aside from the fact that material science has moved on and bikes can be perfectly safe at much lighter weights than they could a quarter of a century ago when the limit was imposed.
Isn't the weight limit also about the price and competitiveness - to avoid F1 like scenario when top teams can throw a ton of money into?
Apparently F1 introduced a cost cap, so that rich teams can't just throw money at it.
Could be, I'm not following it for quite some years, like 15 or so. Though cost cap is something one can workaround, while for weight one can't not.