The funniest shit is that the minimum rear cog regulation while dumb as fuck, was only paused because it hurts SRAM's bottom line. The minimum bar width is terrible for smaller riders, but it's fine because no corporation is hurt
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2026
25 points (100.0% liked)
Bicycling
3052 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
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.
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
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?
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.
Hmm, could be. But I'd say the same factors (changes in what materials are available—this time at commercial prices rather than simply physically available—and the difference in weights for different sizes) apply.
I don't need to know anything the UCI thinks is good for cycling
I've posted this here rather than in !procycling@lemmy.world because of the relevance of the article's opening paragraph:
the UCI’s rule changes will affect you because they influence bike brands’ design decisions for mass-market bikes