Thoughts on "Minimum Weight"

There are a number of sports that I've been following somewhat closely. Obviously, bike racing is one. More and more, I've been paying attention to car racing. Governing bodies in both sports have imposed minimum weight restrictions, and after giving it much thought, I've decided that this is stupid.

Bikes used to be made out of steel and aluminum, and using too little steel or aluminum makes a bike susceptible to failure. Epic failure. Or so the logic goes. In an era of carbon fiber, though, with molding rather than welding and exotic space-age materials, this isn't a problem. Bikes can be featherweights without suddenly exploding.

To meet minimum weight requirements, pros have to outfit their bikes with unnecessarily heavy components, like stems and saddles. Or they cheat - I remember reading a story from the 2004 Tour, where bikes were filled with ice during weigh-in, then raced after the ice had melted.

So what the hell is the point of imposing a minimum weight? It's certainly can't be safety. Heavier pedals do not a sturdier bicycle make, nor beefy bars a tank.

Remember the "Legalize My Cannondale" Protest?

The UCI should eliminate the minimum weight law. Manufacturers may play a game of weight-based brinksmanship, fighting to see who's products can be lightest, but nobody wants to be associated with failure, so this might be self-regulating.

Or, if the UCI wants to ensure safety, they can test the durability of racers' frames in a lab. Empirically. With some relevance to the real world.

Moving on.

Formula One is infamous for being a parade. After the first 10 minutes, there is no passing, just cars driving one-by-one around a track at very fast speeds. Officials are always trying to figure out how to make the racing better, which generally means facilitating passing.


One way to pass is to "out-brake" the other driver, to wait a little longer than he does before slowing into a corner. It takes a lot of nerve, and also confidence in your car's handling. A lighter car (and a better engine) will let a car accelerate out of the corner faster, and being light also lets a driver brake later.

So, Formula One dictates a minimum weight. For safety, just like the bicycles. The thing is, though, the chassis are now made out of carbon fiber, and they too can be both ridiculously light and acceptably sturdy.

To meet the minimum weight, constructors will put ballast in the car. Mounting pieces of lead to a carbon chassis will not make it any safer. If anything, it allows the mechanics to improve the balance of the car, so that it handles better through the corners.

Imagine a race with no minimum weight. Sure, the cars get lighter, but that means sacrificing ballast, which hurts handling. Drivers can brake later, but they have to scrub more speed to be able to maintain grip through the corner. Other cars may be set up with ballast, which is heavier but allows tighter turning.

Two setups, two sets of pros and cons, and two lines through all but the fastest corners.

Maybe this "mechanical grip" effect would be overshadowed by the influence of downforce via "aero grip", but that's questionable, especially with the new F1 rules for 2009 that reduces the size of the cars' wings.

The take home message is this: Rules that promote safety are just fine in my book. Nobody's life should be put at risk just to entertain me. However, rules that claim to promote safety while only actually wasting ink are irksome. Rules for the sake of rules don't do anyone any good.