Trek releases all-new aerodynamic Émonda

Useless anecdote: Long ago I remember watching a Formula 1 thing where they were talking about enforcing cars' minimum weight and how that translated into safety etc. Someone said the 'perfect' F1 car would completely disintegrate as it crossed the finish line because thats the bare minimum you need, and anything longer equals added weight and therefore reduced performance. (all else not considered of course)

The theory is corect - as we approach zero weight the risk of failure increases. I just don't think 7.5kg is the line where you cross into "only use for 1 season" territory. Modern methods of void reduction, cnc controlled lay ups, cfd stress modelling etc have driven that weight down.

 

Either way nobody will ever know the actual number is so the discussion is a bit moot.

 

I have a 7.25kg Giant arriving soon - I weigh 81kg and love to sprint for anything that has a number, picture or village name on it so I will be a pretty good test case for your theory. I add something to my will about letting you know if you were right :-)

nah never said 7.5kg was the point of inflection, just that its a point where frame failues are already more apparent. I reckon the safety limit is probably around 500gr for the frame and 250gr for the fork., so around 300gr lighter than current lightest bikes on the market

Guys building super light bikes are skimming the factor of safety on the components; mainly wheels, seat post stems and bars. Those are components I would rather not have fail on me while I'm descending Chappies in the Argust.

That 2021 TCR sure is nice. They trimming the excess fat out of the climbing bikes. What impresses me is that they do that while still maintaining tolerances in manufacturing...

@Chris_

It was Colin Chapman who said that a F1 car should fall apart at the finishline and Adrian Newey who reiterated it as his philosophy before the FIA mandated the new rules. I think he said this in a interview after he joined the Williams F1 team from the Leyton House March team at the end of 1989

 

You are not correct on several issues.

 

It was not done to achieve any kind of spend parity.

 

With financial pressure now, it may become an issue.

 

Where is the source that 7.5kg bikes are cracking? I don't see it or hear of it in the bunch.

 

A 5kg bike needn't be all that expensive. I can easily drop more than a kg off my 6.8kg race bike with less than R20k spend and the total will still be well under R100k

 

 

From the UCI horse's mouth:

 

 

 

It's an observation based on anecdotal evidence from Insurers, bike repairers and team mechanics.

All bikes can crack or break. The point I'm making is that even at that relatively conservative weight bike frames are still are risk of failing. pushing that weight further down just increases that risk.

It does have an impact on cost too because manufacturers will have to scrap more frames before it heads to the paint shop. High scraping rate at the factory = more material losses and higher overhead that needs to be clawed back elsewhere. Currently many imperfect frames leave the factory because although the frames are full of voids, wrinkles and other imperfections they can still be considered safe for use. So even though interview with the UCI bloke you posted doesn't refer to these matters, the manufacturers engineers do consider these factors. If they engage in a war to the lowest weight bike they run the risk of killing someone before . The interview talks about 6.8Kg being safe for manoeuvrability; what goes into the bikes ability to manoeuvre?

Frame stiffness

wheel stiffness

handlebar and stem stiffness

So too make a bike stiff enough whilst using as little fabric as possible they must use the highest modulus fibres (high cost) which are also the most brittle (prone to failure when loaded off axis - easy to do).

More engineering time is required to ensure a safety target is met (higher deign cost)

More stringent production QA is required (higher cost)

So although the aim of the UCI may have been just manoeuvrability, the unintended (or intended) consequence is that we have reliable bikes that don't kill us. Remove the regulation and the manufacturers will probably get to a happy medium point (possibly <6.8kg) anyway but will it improve the spectacle? 

PS: Does anyone remember why QR Disc brake forks have the dropouts facing forward? 

Hint : James Annan

 

A 5kg bike needn't be all that expensive. I can easily drop more than a kg off my 6.8kg race bike with less than R20k spend and the total will still be well under R100k

 

I would love to see your bike and it's details and what you would do to shave another kg off.

weightweenies is full of that stuff - love it!

I would like to see the UCI expert produce some qualitive parameters for how they measure manoeuvrability.

This Emonda frame weighs 700 grams - a lot less than the frames and forks of 2000. So if you kitted the Emonda with light everything (AX Lightness and THM), it would be uncontrollable if it went below 6.8kg? But fine again with a thick saddle, aluminium cranks and a powermeter? ????

Was there not a thread on here of a tuned Cannondale aiming for 5kgs - we can ask that OP for input.

I would like to see the UCI expert produce some qualitive parameters for how they measure manoeuvrability.

 

This Emonda frame weighs 700 grams - a lot less than the frames and forks of 2000. So if you kitted the Emonda with light everything (AX Lightness and THM), it would be uncontrollable if it went below 6.8kg? But fine again with a thick saddle, aluminium cranks and a powermeter?

 

 

Was there not a thread on here of a tuned Cannondale aiming for 5kgs - we can ask that OP for input.

Its not a magic number of below 6,8 and everything goes to a ball of crap.

The biggest and heaviest single component is the frame. If that gets to light there's the risk that the frames become unsafe. It can probably be revised but why? a lower limit will just push the price of bikes upward and make it more unattainable

Its not a magic number of below 6,8 and everything goes to a ball of crap.

The biggest and heaviest single component is the frame. If that gets to light there's the risk that the frames become unsafe. It can probably be revised but why? a lower limit will just push the price of bikes upward and make it more unattainable

It is an interesting question.

If we go lower then teams like Ineos will "marginally outgain" the poorer teams with lightweight tech.

If we don't go lower we potentially miss out on the innovation of the above marginal gains (although I'm sure companies like Schmolke are pretty close to the limit of innovation already!).

If it were up to me I'd keep the 6.8kg limit. I enjoy the power, heart rate data etc and camera the footage - and prefer that the teams have more or less equal equipment. 

Imo the 6.8kg has little merrit if mass is added afterwards as non structural parts.

In reality, I think they will be racing lighter bikes at Elon Musk's colony on Mars before the UCI pulls their finger out of their.... ears.

Trek mentioned in the press call that they were not doing a rim brake version because they simply were not selling enough rim brake bikes to justify building them.

Isn't that what they were trying to achieve?

The bike industry has been pushing us this way for a few years

Ligther isnt always faster, testing we have done with a heavier overall bike has been faster in some cases on the climbs due to aero dynamics. Same with tyres and tubes, the lighter the tube and tyre combo doesn't always result in a better rolling resistance. 

This article is saying that aero is better than light

Long Live Weight Weenies! 

Aero Weenies doesnt have the same ring to it

https://road.cc/content/feature/why-riders-you-need-get-more-aero-213876

I paid R50k for a R7.2kg (no pedals and cages) Ultegra Di2 Disc brake bike - New!

It’s called last year’s bike that need to go and make space for this year’s bike.

Interesting that 15s up Alp du Huez. Could a rim brake have been quicker, maybe? But would love the timing of the round trip - Up and Down. And throw in a sprinkle of rain and time again.