Your negative enthusiasm is avoidable ad admissible at best.
my ftp is at 268w tested 2 days ago
the $5400 for the Pro 0 Disc is as much as i want to spend so 16.7lbs is what i have to work with 
As others have said, the effect of weight is overrated by most and IMHO disc brakes are well worth it. Just look at the new models: of all the new frames that have been released, how many even have a rim brake version? (BMC’s rim brake bikes, for example, are based on the previous-gen frame.)
1 Like
A 60Kg rider on a 15.5lbs bike riding at 10mph up a 10% climb=331.78W.
A 60Kg rider on a 16.7lbs bike riding at 10mph up a 10% climb=334.33.
3 Likes
In addition, given the industry is going disc, I think resale of disc bikes will yield more money. Not a big deal to me but, perhaps you or others reading. 2.5W is noise. I think at 60Kg and new to racing there are other dilemmas to worry about.
1 Like
Same overall point - unless you might lose the TdF due to a couple of watts of aero drag, get disc brakes.
The only reason I think to get a new bike with rim brakes these days is for backward compatibility - I.e. if you have a bunch of old rim brake wheels that you want to reuse.
2 Likes
It’s really a pity that the UCI is blocking a lot of progress in bike development. All the limitations on tube shapes, frame geometry and the like are really making it quite difficult to think outside of the box. Even the 6.8 kg weight limit seems to have an effect on bike frame design, where manufacturers no longer chase weight, because at the pro level there is zero advantage to do so.
2 Likes
At 60kg your w/kg is 4.46
At 60.5kg your w/kg would be 4.43
Just to put an extra 0.5kg into perspective.
1 Like
cyclingtips and velonews had some interesting podcasts somewhat recently on weight vs aerodynamics. they’re a good listen if you care to but the main takeaway was that weight only really matters at the moment of inertia. the split second when you accelerate the bike from a stand still or make a move on a hill climb the weight has some impact on how that push off feels. 1 second after that and beyond it all comes back to overcoming aerodynamic drag. I figure that 1.5 lbs less would be a draw if you’re a rather on/off rider hanging back then making big accelerations up steep grades to throw off opponents at which point you might actually feel that weight. maybe. but the rest of the time, like getting to the climbs or coming down the other side of said climbs, the weight means very little and braking power and reliability might be the bigger draw.
1 Like
Well…the UCI isnt ‘blocking’ anything.
A serious question…why do bike manufacturers make bikes based on pro requirements? I have never understood this. They can make a bike however they please, but they CHOOSE to cater to professionals subject to engineering restrictions. Never has made sense to me.
Why wouldnt a company make and market a bike that is unquestionably faster, lighter, cheaper, but has a little disclaimer that “If you happen to achieve 6watt/kg, and are signed by Team Ineos to ride the Tour de France, you may have to leave this bike at home and ride one of your team bikes. Which will be provided free of charge.”
3 Likes
@anon67840561 cost.
With top shelf frames under 2lbs how light do you want them to get? I’m sure frames and components can get a touch lighter but, reliability is a selling point more than weight imo. Not to mention liability…
2 Likes
well, a lot of people race.
And a lot of races only allow UCI legal bikes.
1 Like
Isn’t that obvious? Bike manufacturers sponsor teams so that they show off their wares. A lot of development is done with the input from pro riders. And it’d make no sense to ask the pros to test ride bikes they wouldn’t race afterwards. So customers only get to have bikes that are sanctioned by the relevant organization. Why don’t I write UCI? Look at tri bikes. There are tons of tri bikes that do not have a double-diamond frame and many of them look nothing like a regular bike. We could start a serious argument whether or not the Cervelo P5X even has a down tube and a top tube or whether the question even makes any sense at all (we could agree that it does not have seat stays and certainly has chain stays). The reason is obvious: triathletes and their governing bodies are way less uptight about “what a bike is” than the UCI. Coming back to the topic at hand, the UCI is also the reason why disc brakes came so late even though they had been standard equipment on mountain bikes for over a decade. Now that aero is playing an ever larger role, I’d love if some manufacturers tried crazier geometries and tube shapes. Or to integrate hydration systems and a bento box or so like they do for tri bikes.
Plus, and I realize this applies only to very, very few customers, if you want to participate in UCI sanctioned races yourself, you are bound by UCI rules. I have participated in a few races, and they checked my bike and kit before each start (they hand weighed mine). They also checked that the juniors were riding the properly allowed ratios (i. e. a 14-tooth cog was the smallest that was allowed). So I would not spend money on a bike that does not comply with UCI rules.
I was just trying to say disk brakes and mirror some of the other posts in a humorous way. Jeez…chill out!
1 Like
Yea true - weight is the one that may not be easily improvable just by removing restrictions. But J would argue that aero and cost are easy gets.
I understand the UCI event thing. I could be mistaken…but it seems like nationals are about the only UCI sanctioned events for amateurs? I could be wrong.
Edit: actually I think I am lol. If I remember correctly…I think Jingle Cross is UCI sanctioned. Regardless…it’s a pretty small pool of riders, even if we expand pros to include all who ride UCI events. I find it hard to believe that a bike company could not easily finding a niche by producing a cheaper bike that is unquestionably better performing.
1 Like
Ah… I get it (your comment and FisherCFC’s). In Fishers defense, the bike industry marketing is pure BS. 10% stiffer…3% more compliant…6 seconds faster in a 40K TT…not to mention the way they make xxx variants of 2 triangles welded together and put into xxx categories; if I was new to this I’d be confused AF too. Sprinkle in all our N=1 BS about how 1 lbs made all the difference and you have the perfect storm for people who don’t know what’s important wondering if they are missing out.
3 Likes
Not to mention the cost of all this marketing is getting pure stupid.
1 Like
Weight is easily improvable. If you have the cash, you can buy a 6.0 kg Canyon bike with disc brakes or a 5.8-6.0 kg 3T Strada (the weight is from their website, I reckon it depends on frame size.) I’m sure weight weenies could easily achieve less.
I understand the purpose of a weight limit: at a certain point you make trade-offs with robustness and longevity. But the 6.8 kg weight limit seems completely outdated at this point. If you look at motor sports, many race series make it an explicit goal that they test future technologies that are meant to go into road cars. With the UCI this is backwards: we are forced to use what pros use.
I have only raced in Japan, but if you want to participate in officially JCBF-sanctioned races, UCI rules apply. Of course there are some non-sanctioned races, too.
1 Like
It’s funny how people get so emotional about this.
In my view disc brakes are better but they weren’t worth the extra £500 or so to me when I was in the market for my new bike.
My next bike may well be disc but braking just isn’t something I feel the need to improve.
Aesthetically I actually prefer the look of discs, especially how they allow for more internal cables - just not a priority for me personally.
It does seem that the transition to disc on road bikes was driven by a push by manufacturers rather than just a “pull” from consumers - which is why people get frustrated in my view.
Essentially get what you think will cater for your needs and don’t get bullied into discs if you don’t want them.
1 Like