The £15 myth (1631.16 KGS for the Kyrgystani autist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMsgzD-JFQs
Also some of you may recognize the last rider interviewed.
>£15
>1631.16 KGS
>>922326
Yes, and?
Just what the fuck are you trying to tell us exactly OP? Stop talking like a damn retard.
>>923183
Professional bikes are more than 1631.16 KGS
>>923185
More than one and a half ton?
mine is around 19-20 lbs or 8-9kg... not too bad for an aluminum entry level bike. I figured it would be heavier.
>>923190
This. What the FUCK did you calculate there? Don't tell me you actually thought that 15 pounds being the same as 1.6 tons (that's how much a car weighs) sounded even remotely realistic to you.
The UCI weight limit is 6.8kgs and as the video proves most pro bikes hover somewhere around that, of course some are going to be a bit heavier because 300 grams don't really matter that much, not even to a pro.
This is not something new, anyone who follows pro cycling even in the slightest knows that their gear is very good but nowhere near as magical and mysterious as people make it out to be. They pretty much ride the same stuff you can buy at any store, that's the whole point of sponsoring. If they rode exotic shit consumers can't buy nobody would be making money off le tour.
Most pros care less about what they're riding or what it weighs than all those freds out there. They're athletes, they know that in the end their abilities as a rider are much more important. They are there because they want to win races, not geek out over grams and parts.
>>923197
>The UCI weight limit is 6.8kgs and as the video proves most pro bikes hover somewhere around that, of course some are going to be a bit heavier because 300 grams don't really matter that much, not even to a pro.
>300
Can you even count?
>This is not something new, anyone who follows pro cycling even in the slightest knows that their gear is very good but nowhere near as magical and mysterious as people make it out to be.
Except there's a constant myth that mechanics put lead weights on pro bikes
> They pretty much ride the same stuff you can buy at any store, that's the whole point of sponsoring.
It's because there's a UCI rule stipulating that.
>Most pros care less about what they're riding or what it weighs than all those freds out there. They're athletes, they know that in the end their abilities as a rider are much more important. They are there because they want to win races, not geek out over grams and parts.
And that's why none of them are Eddy
>>923190
£15 is 1631.16 KGS
>>923203
No, it's not. Are you fucking dense? Why do you keep repeating retarded shit?
http://www.theunitconverter.com/pounds-to-kilograms-conversion/15-pounds-to-kilograms.html
>>923202
>Can you even count?
Yes. Some pros bikes are 300 grams or more over the minimum weight limit. What's the problem?
>Except there's a constant myth that mechanics put lead weights on pro bikes
They have in some instances but most can work it out combining the right parts.
>It's because there's a UCI rule stipulating that.
Yes, which, besides safety, is there because it's in the sponsors interest. There's another UCI rule that states teams can only use parts that are available on the free market. That's the goddamn business model of the race.
>And that's why none of them are Eddy
There have been others that didn't care much what they're riding and still accomplished amazing feats. Sports shouldn't be about the material, it's not an engineering competition.
>>923203
>mfw I just now got it
>>923209
>Yes. Some pros bikes are 300 grams or more over the minimum weight limit. What's the problem?
Some pros are a kilo over. Only a handful were under 7.1. Clearly you can't count.
>They have in some instances but most can work it out combining the right parts.
But people still parrot that all pro bikes have lead weights and the UCI 6.8 rule is useless.
>Yes, which, besides safety, is there because it's in the sponsors interest. There's another UCI rule that states teams can only use parts that are available on the free market.
You are a fucking idiot. Do you think if you repeat something someone said, but with a holier than thou attitude it makes you right?
>There have been others that didn't care much what they're riding and still accomplished amazing feats.
But they're not Eddy.
So, what's the actual point of this thread? Sure it's mildly interesting to see what some of the bikes actually weigh, but is that it? It's not even that surprising, I would've guessed that most of the bikes are within a few hundred grams of the limit.
>>923215
> It's not even that surprising, I would've guessed that most of the bikes are within a few hundred grams of the limit.
And most of them were not within just a few hundred grams of the limit. Why can't any of you count?
>>923222
Because you literally can't count.
>>923215
I figured this was going to turn into a cock comparing contest.. guess I was wrong when captain autismo decided to show up and worry about hat people consider a few hundred grams or not.
>>923219
A quick scroll through the video show like 4 out of 7 bikes being within 3-400g and one or two being 600g more. Yes just over half a kilo might not technically be a few hundred grams (I'm not going to bother looking up the definition) but the point is that most of the bikes are pretty close to the limit, a negligible amount heavier. The secondary point is that this isn't a surprise at all, the bikes obviously aren't going to weigh like 10kg (I would probably be quite hard to make a carbon framed bike that heavy) and it's pointless getting super close to the limit and also risky as the guy mentions at the end.
>>923226
>I figured this was going to turn into a cock comparing contest
So, we brag about who has the lightest bike? That's me out then, I don't even have a road bike and two of my bikes like 3-3.5 times over the UCI limit. If anyone wants to have a heaviest contest I'm game.
>>923227
>1 pound over is pretty close
>implying this thread doesn't exist just to blow off the SI autist
>>923230
A pound isn't heavy at all, that's less than 7% over the limit. That's the sort of weight that could be easily dropped, even accidentally just by changing a few components.
>>923235
Who are you joking?
>>923235
>i accidentally upgraded from 105 to dura ace and lost a pound whoops
>>923213
Pro bikes do have weights in them there was a velonews article talking about it recently, it's a common practice.
Did you know that Eddy drilled his parts to make them lighter?
Do you know what youre talking about before you call people fucking idots on the internet?
>>923250
>Pro bikes do have weights in them there was a velonews article talking about it recently, it's a common practice.
Except it's not that common. It happens, but not often.
>Did you know that Eddy drilled his parts to make them lighter?
That's the point. Eddy was anal about equipment. Do you think agreeing with someone while acting as if you're disagreeing makes you right?
>Do you know what youre talking about before you call people fucking idots on the internet?
Yes.
