tallbikeman

I am a big fan of purchasing a house. Good luck with your purchase and may it provide the shelter for your family that mine has for me.

b_young

Kona Sutra

Nu2Miele

Hi all.
To me there is but one logical choice that will be suitable for Clydes... Rivendell.

I am not affiliated in any way. I just think that Grant Pedersen's bikes have s big enough variance that almost all riders can be fit on one. If not a Rivendell, as a minimum look for a good steel frame. No aluminum, no carbon fibre. Larger riders will get comfort from a STEEL frame and fork. The frame is the single largest component on a bicycle, and the one that will dominate the "feel" of the ride.

Are there others? Yes. But I'm unsure if they are many better suited to Clydes. Grant's previous designs for Bridgestone are very good too, but stay awaty from Richey Pro Logic bicycles and forks. I know guys who are 170 lbs and stressed the crap out of the forks. Under warranty Bridgestone replaced the fork for him, but he put a good steel fork on it and put the Richey fork in his closet for use on a different bike.

mstateglfr 

so Riv bikes for clydes because they have variance? That isn't unique to Riv...varied frame sizing exists in lots of brands and models.

Comfort can come from frame material, yes. It always comes from geometry and tires though.
Proper frame and fork geometry for the rider and intended use is critical for comfort. And wider tires = comfort...that's pretty simple.


As for the Ritchey pro logic comments...that's just absurd. But pretty typical around here- extrapolate off one example.
We should all now stay away from 25+ year old forks from a brand that sold so few bikes it closed up shop in the US. Most probably haven't even seen a pro logic fork in the wild, but now they know to run the other way at first sight.

Nu2Miele

Hi,

for reference I am currently a "baby' Clyde: 5'9", 195-200 lbs.

True. But look at the Rivendell as an example of a robustly built frame, with somewhat "slack" geometry that is intended for comfort. Remember, this was but an example. There are of course several others. If a rider is large and/or heavy they put additional strain on components and frames and forks as do serious athletic cyclists. Ever seen a rim near failure because a 280 lbs. (fit) rider had to be on the brakes on a long downhill run? I have. In that case the bike was a Specialized Stumpjumper and rims were Specialized "Matrix" hard anodized rims. New rims replaced the Matrix rims.

Here I agree completely. But in the event that a frame failure occurs, almost any good welder can MIG weld steel, thus repairs can be had almost anywhere instead of replacing a bike frame if out of warranty. Aluminum and titanium do require very specific expertise to do the same.

Sorry, this was from first hand knowledge. The rider was 170 lbs. athletic, "near national level" competitor that I rode with several years ago (when he bought a then new bike equipped with a Richey Pro-Logic fork). Over the course of one serious riding season he did have issues with the fork showing signs of fatigue. The bicycle manufacturer (not Richey) took it back from him gladly and provided him with a fork of his choosing.

I've seen plenty of Pro-Logic bikes and forks in the flesh as a friend owned a shop that sold Bridgestone and a few others (Breezer, Norco, Nishiki). There is simply no need to be rude to get your point across. Am I a bicycle designer? NO. Do I respect those that are? Definitely. But to suggest that I've never seen or been exposed to Pro-Logic spec'd bikes and forks is suggesting that I have lied, which I have not done. Personally, I have no issue with Pro-Logic forks, As I have never owned one, but I would not "run away" from any bike that had them. But I would watch the forks for cracking paint , etc. And I don't ride the same way that I did 25 years ago or so.

tallbikeman

Due to the non transparent way in which bicycle manufacturers sell product there is no real way to tell if Ritchey Pro Logic vintage forks were failing at a higher rate or not. This issue of bicycle product performance, durability, and longevity is just now going through litigation finally that may help resolve these questions on how frame/fork/component materials are performing in the every day usage of these products over time. Bicycle blogs are chock full of frame/fork/component failure stories on all types of materials and thus the manufacturing techniques used to make them. But there is no real reputable compilation of these failures because of the way the bicycle business hides this information. Nu2Miele you have it right when you say to inspect any new to you bicycle for the obvious signs of failure. The carbon bicycle manufacturers will tell you to have any used carbon fiber bicycle frame and fork ultrasound inspected for failure before buying. Pretty unlikely that this is done very often. One of the carbon fork manufacturers says that the resin they use should allow a life 2000 hrs before the sun degrades the resin and calls into question the integrity of the fork. This manufacturer recommends throwing away the fork after said 2000hrs of exposure. I've personally had two steel frames fail on the seat post tube and one steel fork bend a leg in my 60 yrs of cycling. I stay away from aluminum because of my size and weight and several friends who are smaller than me but have broken aluminum frames. Both road and mountain. However my wife, who is much smaller than I, has been riding a Trek aluminum hybrid quite successfully for a decade now with no real frame problems. This lack of candor on the part of the bicycle industry is quite dangerous for us consumers trying to safely ride our bicycles. Like you Nu2Miele I err on the side of safety so if I knew of someone who damaged a frame/fork/component in one year of riding without crashes then I would stay away from that product also. I had a bicycle store salesman try to sell me a very light MTB handlebar for racing. The aluminum in said handlebar was the thickness of beer can aluminum. I told the clerk I would break this bar. His reply was this is for racing, use if for one season then cut it up. So this handlebar had lost a huge amount of durability for lightness. As long as someone keeps track of that handlebar's usage we're all good. But if it is not cut up properly then it is a ticking time bomb waiting to fail on the next owner. Maybe you are a believer in the Judicial system protecting us because of lawsuits brought by injured or deceased bicyclists. This may not surprise you but it has been impossible to sue any bicycle manufacturer until very recently. The manufacturers have shielded themselves very successfully from product liability litigation for decades. This seems to be ending now in the USA and Australia. I hope this legal hoodwink system is dismantled and real product information is made available to the public. Buyer Beware.

WizardOfBoz

Regarding aluminum vs other stuff. To get the same fatigue strength for the same geometry, Al frames have to be thicker. This increases their weight to near steel levels, and makes them stiffer. In Al's favor, you can more easily hydroform it and this degree of freedom gives you some ways to counteract the stiffness - to a limit. In general, an Al frame will be stiffer than a steel one.

It would help if folks identifying this preference would state their age - I think my 25 year old tuchus could handle an Al frame better than my, well, much older current tuchus.

If I was attaching a kid via a bike seat, I'd probably go with a steel frame.

ExtremeSquared

Long Haul Truckers used to come in 64cm, and IN THEORY the Disc Truckers do now. I've had both. It's not listed on the website any more though, which is a little scary. Salsa -- the other QBP company -- discontinued their XXL sizes a few years back.

Just checked, and 64cm Disc Truckers are up there.