Vbpoppy18

I am sure this has been asked before, but I am working on losing weight. I am currently sitting at 400lbs down from 425. I am 5’10” tall. I am looking for a mountain bike that can support my weight. I plan on riding on paved bike paths and roads until I get down to a safer weight. Then I want to start riding easy trails. Thank you all in advance.

tyrion

Maybe a Surly Troll.

https://surlybikes.com/bikes/troll

shelbyfv

Rider weight limit for the Troll is 300#. However, your 400# is probably out of spec for anything other than a Worksman. Whatever you get you'll be rolling the dice. Look for high spoke count wheels (like on the Troll) and be prepared to replace stuff as it breaks.

serotta

When I was heavy I was afraid to try a normal bike because it wasn't built for that much weight. I rode a tandem, just took the pedals off the rear and got in great shape riding it for over a year. In fact, I still ride it occasionally by myself.

RubeRad

Troll is probably a good choice, or if $1750 seems too steep to get started, a Worksman is another great recommendation, you can get in for well under half of that. https://www.worksmancycles.com/big-bikes.html

Or, just take a look at what is on your local Craigslist for a used hardtail (rigid frame, suspended fork) mountain bike for just a couple hundred bucks. Limited investment, less to worry about. Your biggest concern would be wheels/spokes, so you could buy a cheap bike and ride it until spokes start popping, then replace the wheels or bike -- or proactively replace the wheels first. Pre-built 36-spoke wheels shouldn't be too hard to find or expensive, 40- or 44- might need a custom build.

Pretty much any mountain bike should do. You don't really have to worry about sudden, catastrophic failure, it would almost certainly start with individual spokes popping.

Russ Roth

I'd skip most anything with a carbon fork, but really I'd look to a disc hybrid bike which can be a fairly quick and comfortable ride. 38 or 40c tires which is what they come with are plenty comfortable for most people. Disc since one of the first upgrades if it doesn't have it is hydraulic for the better stopping power and a better set of wheels.
Great example at around 660.00
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/b...colorCode=grey
The threaded fork on this model is a bit of an oddity and not sure why they did it but strength wise the frames and fork on these should be nothing to worry about. the Verve 2 is nice that it comes hydraulic, there's a good number of spokes and it has stock 45c tires. These tires will carry you don't any rail trail, paved surface or bike path while the bike as a whole will be more fun to ride around then a MTB. Newer bikes like this have wheels that hold up better long term then the basic wheels that come on cheaper bikes as they are double wall.
I'd skip over lower end for several reasons, the lower end of this model uses a 7sp freewheel. Don't know why any brand uses this technology when it was outdated 30 years ago and cassettes should have trickled down to be cheaper but brands still like to use this crap. Skip it, the hubs are weaker and with your weight you will bend or snap it; I snapped one climbing a hill and the quick release skewer didn't give ruining the frame, I really hate this system. With disc wheels now a days you're typically getting double wall rims which means the rims are reinforced while still being light (look up example pics online) but cheaper might be single wall rims, not only do they flex more but they're weaker and won't hold up as well. Finally hydraulic disc brakes are much better at stopping. The cheapest hydraulic brakes I've ever dealt with stopped as well as the best cable brakes of any form I've dealt with and you'll want the better stopping power. Ultimately you'll want/need better wheels but a hybrid like this will get you out riding more as it can be more enjoyable.

RubeRad

+1 the screw-in freewheel system is weak at that screw-joint, the cassette/freehub system has a metal axle all the way through and is stronger. Basically if you have 8+ cogs in the back, it's a freehub. If it's 7 or less, it's a freewheel. There are exceptions, but they are rare enough you shouldn't have to worry about it.

Here's a good comparison: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/free-k7.html "Most decent-quality bikes made since the late 1980s have used this greatly improved design." (i.e. cassettes), which is true, but it is still very common to find cheap-as-possible bikes from *Mart that have 7sp freewheels.

a_d_a_m

This would be my advice, too.

Bonzo Banana

I would definitely prioritise steel frame and forks not because they are necessarily the strongest (although often they are) but because they should give you a warning of failure which is important when overloading a frame. I would also prioritise 26" wheels with a high spoke number and double wall or overbuilt rims on the wheels. Nothing necessarily that expensive the standard wheels on many mountain bikes fit that criteria.

Another option is a downhill mountain bike, these can be very over-bullt and strong.

I bought a cheap downhill bike here in the UK for £40 a few years ago. A Saracen X-ile (Exile). The frame is heavy and overbuilt and would have no issues carrying heavy riders on the road. This sort of thing;



The heaviest I've ever rode a bike was 26 stone which I think is about 360 pounds but cycling meant I lost weight rapidly, I was commuting to work on it. In only a couple of months I was down to sub 22 stone. I lost something like 7kg in the first week, maybe 5kg the next and then maybe 3kg approx every week. It was a long commute and I was doing a very physical job at the time. That bike was a cheap high tensile steel mountain bike like this with a very heavy frame;



Just imagine it with higher quality double wall rear wheel with freehub rather than the freewheel system on the standard model. I can't remember much else that was changed. One of the bearings cracked in the front hub fairly quickly and I had to re-true the original rear wheel with freewheel a few times before it was changed. I think that was it. It's still in the shed.

One thing to bear in mind is bike shops typically here give a lot of bad advice with regard heavier riders. If I'd listened to some of the advice I was given I would have bought a lightweight road bike with a carbon fibre fork with a very flexy aluminium frame with wheels with a low count of spokes. Basically I was given the same sales pitch as a normal weight rider with no consideration for my weight and what the bike was rated for. Make decisions that maximise your safety. Reward yourself when you have lost the weight with a lightweight road bike, something to aim for.

RubeRad

It's true that a downhill bike would be extra sturdy, but it's also true that they would have limited, high-speed gearing. If you're just tooling around flat roads it's probably ok, but if you have to go up any kind of hill, especially as a heavier rider, it's really tough if there's no climbing gears

degan

I have seen some really cool conversions where people have taken out the rear seat/seatpost and replaced it with a seatpost that somehow connects up to a really long rack and cargo space. I have a tandem frame I'm saving for that exact purpose. Kind of like an Xtracycle.

Bonzo Banana

You were right with your first point, it had a truvativ compact double crankset and a 11-32T 8 speed cassette so was actually low geared and very easy up hills pretty much but lack of high speed gearing meant a bit slow on flat ground.

I think maybe the largest chainring was 36T and smallest 22T. So 36T x 11T for highest gearing and 22x32T for easiest hill climbing gear. Also the smaller 26" wheels help a bit with low gearing.

Some of the cheap freewheel mountain bikes only have 42T as their largest chainring and the freewheel's smallest cog is 14T so not much different. In fact I think 42Tx14T is slower than 36Tx11T but haven't done the numbers. I would guess 46Tx14T would be
similar. So the higher gearing isn't great but still very competitive with budget mountain bikes with freewheels especially as such bikes would also have 26" wheels.

Leisesturm

I'm not really sure that this has been asked before. You have gotten some nice encouragement and that's cool but ... seriously ... whatever you have done to get from 425 to 400 ... keep doing that till you get to 300 and then start shopping for a bike. I've only seen one post that really got it that the bike isn't the thing you need to worry about, it's things like the seatpost, spokes, the saddle itself. Diamond frames are insanely strong. Most of them won't have a problem with 400lbs. It's all the other components that didn't sign on for that that need to be taken into consideration. Unsaid in any post in this thread is how comfortable will you be on a conventional bike? Unsaid is the real possibility of a fall. Easier to just send some positive vibes out and head to a different thread. Besides, in most of this country the weather is getting worse, not better. This is no time to be thinking about getting a bike. There aren't any to get anyway. Have you actually tried to buy one recently? I have. It's all been sold. Everything. Gone. Just some Cargo Bikes and Adult Tricycles left. So, keep up the great work with the diet and consider a stationary bike, maybe a rowing machine. Perhaps an Elliptical Trainer. Something you can do indoors when the rain is falling sideways. If you are still inclined next year, then, go for it. I just don't think dropping four figures on a new bike right now would be the best plan. FWIW.