Bicycling

3054 readers

1 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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

wolfeh@lemmy.world

The UCI rule changes for 2026 you need to know about (www.bikeradar.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to c/bicycling@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

Do you have some sources on that? Yes, I know that you can build a bike out of carbon, but I really do fear that building a really safe bike in under 6,8kg is somehow impossible. Current DuraAce weighs 2332g. That gives you 4,5kg for the rest of the bike, wheels, handlebars, saddle and so on. That is possible - the lightest commercial available bicycle weighs just 4,4kg, but that makes serious compromises. You're sacrificing the safety margin for weight reduction and that is totally nothing you want to support

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Is the simple fact that many smaller riders already add ballast to their bikes in order to get up to the minimum weight (one example) not sufficient evidence of that? Why would they ride on a supposedly unsafe bike if it doesn't even give them an actual weight benefit?