dpjeffries

Looking to get back into cycling after a 10+ year hiatus. Pushing 250lbs at this point and need to get back in the game. Currently looking at a few options in terms of frames. One frame I am eyeballing is a Time Edge Racer carbon frame. Always had a thing for Time frames and this one is a good deal. A little unsure if carbon is the right choice for me though, but I love Time bikes in general. On the other hand I also really like classic Italian steel frames as well. Also eyeballing a few SLX frames (one from Olmo and one Torelli ect). I will be a casual fitness rider, no racing and I am not a grinder either if that matters. Any advise on the matter would be appreciated.

Yendor72

Have you ridden either bike? You'll hear it a few more times here, fit. Fit is everything. I personally would avoid a race geometry frame as I would not be comfortable on it. If you haven't ridden in a while you may find that the race bike geometry is too aggressive and you may not like it as much. Either way, riding the frames now is the only way to know what you want out of a bike.

Tim_Iowa

@Yendor72 has some good points. Fit/geometry is very important, and can be drastically different on various styles of bikes.

General differences:
Racing bikes are designed for a racing posture: drop bars far below the saddle height.
Endurance road bikes are a bit more relaxed: drop bars slightly below saddle height. Sport-touring bikes from the 70s/80s are a rough equivalent.
Gravel/anyroad/all-rounder bikes are even more relaxed, with drop bars at or even above saddle height.
Touring bikes usually have geometry between endurance and gravel bikes, and they're usually specificed with stouter frames to hold extra weight.

It can be difficult and/or costly to adapt a frame to a different riding posture. Modern road bikes have short, threadless stems that can't be raised very much without using riser stems and/or steerer extenders.
And such adaptation can really throw off the handling of a bike. It's best to get the type of bike that fits your riding style.


Regarding frame material:
Carbon is great. So are steel, aluminum, titanium, bamboo, wood, whatever.
Each material has its strengths and weaknesses.

Unfortunately for us clydes, most carbon frames (until recently) have been designed for racing, where carbon's light weight is important. These frames are usually designed with an upper weight limit in mind, often around 200-220 pounds or less, because racers are usually light people.
Therefore, most used carbon bikes you'll find will be unsuitable for you because of their extra-light construction and aggressive geometry.

If you want carbon, there are many very good endurance and all-rounder bikes sold by several companies that start less than $2k. Those frames have less-aggressive geometry and are usually designed with a higher weight limit in mind, because they're designed for recreational riders like you.


As a fellow middle-aged (39 yo) clyde (#250), I'm not comfortable on racing frames with drop bars significantly lower than the saddle.
My first "back-to-cycling" machine 5 years ago was a used aluminum Trek road bike. It was crazy stiff with skinny tires and low drop bars. It was very uncomfortable to ride, and it didn't encourage me to ride it more often.
Since then, I've picked up a couple steel framed bikes with better geometry, and they're much better for recreational riding.
I got a carbon cyclocross bike a couple years ago. It's very fun to ride; it's fast and handles well. But it's still a lot stiffer than my steel bikes; I can stay seated on rough roads on my steel bike, but I have to stand up on the carbon bike or it beats me up.

Your best bet is to get something more comfortable, yet still reasonably fast. The comfort and speed will encourage you to ride it more often and get into shape more quickly. If you end up with a "racer's" physique, then start looking at race bikes.

dpjeffries

good insight. I was concerned some about race geometry of the Time frame. My last bike years ago was a mid 1990 Colnago Dream aluminium which was quite nice. Not sure about the geometry of that particular frame - It was the Team Mapai edition and I did not have any issues. But at this time I think that Tim is likely correct in that Steel is a better choice until i'm back at fighting weight.

Tim_Iowa

Or carbon or aluminum with more relaxed geometry. Those should provide a more comfortable, relaxed riding position.
They may be stiffer than a similar steel bike, but you'd have to ride them to find out. There are some carbon and aluminum frames today that claim to be pretty compliant.

Steel frames usually are compliant naturally, unless they're overbuilt.

pdlamb

Iowa Tim makes some good points. Here's one more interpretation for you:


Race geometry means you need plenty of room between your legs and your stomach when you bend over. The more relaxed the bike geometry, the more room for a paunch.


I'm a fan of touring bikes both because of the relaxed geometry and because they're built for a load. Some people ride with a load, I AM a load.

Yendor72

Don't be afraid to visit your local bike shop and get some advice and take a few bikes for a spin. I will also say that I ride an endurance bike myself. An uncomfortable fit may have you looking at your bike in the garage versus riding it. We all know here that you don't get fit looking at the bike.

Welcome! This is a fantastic group of riders here. We're all passionate about doing what makes us happy and helping each other out.

Jarrett2

I'm 268 lbs and after owning and riding carbon, titanium and aluminum bikes, I've found I enjoy riding steel bikes personally.

Any of them would likely work fine at 250 lbs. especially if you feel that your weight will drop once you start riding.

JohnJ80

Material isn't going to matter at all. I have both a stainless steel custom bike and a carbon bike. The stainless bike fits better (more up right position) and weighs the same at the carbon bike. You can build any ride quality into a frame made out of any material - they just won't be be indentical frames.

If you have any gut at all, you will find a racing frame to be uncomfortable unless you pick up the stem a fair bit.

I'd go to a high quality LBS and start having them work with you. My bet is you'd be a lot happier with an endurance framed bike than a racing bike. Since you're looking at frames (presuming you want to build your bike), you can get pretty much any geometry you want from a custom frame house like Gunnar/Waterford for pretty reasonable money. Gunnar will do custom geometry for a $300 adder if memory serves.

J.

salreus

I personally like to ride on steel because it flexes which makes it a more comfortable ride. But as so many have said it's comfort and proper fit. Doesn't matter how much it cost or what it's made out of if you won't ride it.

JohnJ80

Steel has nothing to do with it. For example, I have a steel bike that is so incredibly stiff that it drives me nuts. I also have a steel bike that has great vertical compliance but is really stiff in the bottom bracket. My son has an old Italian racing frame that is super flexy. The point is that the tube selection and frame design matters a ton. A steel frame can be noodly flexible or it can be incredibly stiff or anywere in between depending on design and tubing selection. It's not the material.

J.

InTheRain

I have a steel touring bike (I've modified it to an ebike) and carbon endurance frame. They both ride very nice. The steel frame is a smoother ride - it may be the frame material, but I'm sure much of it is also the longer wheel base. The carbon endurance frame has a more relaxed position than a racing frame, but it's still more aggressive than the touring frame. I'm 245 lbs - I'm not concerned with the durability of either frame material due to my weight.

Get the bike that feels best and that you're excited to ride. Don't put too much thought into the frame material. Cannondale makes some amazing frames from aluminum in their CAAD line of bikes - they are race geometry, but fit on any bike can be modified a bit by playing with the length of the stem, angle of the stem, spacers to raise the bar height if needed, and mounting the seat on the seat post in a forward or back position. However, I'd start with a frame that has the best fit right up front rather than try to make too many adjustments for fit with stems and saddle position.

As far as weight is concerned... consider that in your selection of wheels. I broke a spoke on my ultegra wheels that came with my cannondale synapse from 2008. 20 spoke rear / 16 spoke front - probably not ideal for a person my weight... I knew that up front at the time of purchase. I took the wheel in for repair, shop told me that a spoke (bladed) would have to be special ordered and the wheel needed to be trued... about $70 - I was also told it might take quite a lot to bring the hubs back to a good condition - an additional cost. At that point, I decided to spring for a new wheel set, 32 spoke / shimano 105 hubs / alex r475 rims. While I'm satisfied with what I got out of a low spoke count wheelset, I'm sure that stronger wheels would give me more miles and I'd put forth more effort in maintenance.

manapua_man

I'm pretty 'dense' at ~5'9"/225lbs, and I've never had any issues with light carbon frames, but I've busted spokes on cheap machine built wheels a few times.

jsigone

I think you will have more issues with SLX classic tubes than carbon mono or carbon lugs frames from TIME.

If you want steel, maybe SL or SP(X) might be a better option.

Even decade old carbon lugged TIME bike are still very pretty lines. The wheels/spokes/tires/road quality will be the weak links

My steel version w/ columbus SL tubing is kind of whippy when out of the saddle on climbs and accelerations, ride real smooth otherwise. Personally I prefer Carbon and have better frame geometry to pick from.

ClydeTim

As a Clyde, I disliked the steel bike I had. To flimsy, noodle like on climbs. I don't remember the exact steel, maybe Tange cromo (?) back in the late 90's. It was cool for cruising around town but if one wanted to put the pedals down, it was like a noodle.

I'm sure that had to do with grade and design though as I have also had a noodle like aluminum frame.

I do have a buddy, about 200 pounds that snapped his DeRosa frame back in early 2000's. He only put about 4,000 miles on it.

It could have been the lugs, design, I don't know but I would not be happy with this in a $3000 bike at the time ( 15 years ago!)

It was Columbus tubing. Posters don't believe me when I tell them his steel DeRosa frame broke so I made sure to get a picture of it back then. At the time, there were plenty of steel advocates that swore steel never broke. I had evidence.


EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING CAN BREAK!!!!!

Cyclist0108

I broke my 1987 Bianchi SL frame in 1989 when I weighted 175 lbs. It cracked at the braze-on for the front derailleur. (They eventually replaced it with an SLX frame that has stood the test of time and weight-gain.)

DMC707

I have a modern carbon Cannondale Synapse, which is their "endurance geometry" -- its still pretty darn racy. Power transfer is also very good.

I was too fat for it even, when i first bought the bike , --

I built up a Columbus tubed mid 90's Italian race machine with a long quilled stem and it was much more comfortable.

Now that i am down a bit in weight, riding the Cannondale is no problem and it is a great machine, -- but i have also built a couple more vintage bikes (late 80's to mid 90's Italian racing machines)

The geometry of the older Italian bikes is hard to beat for comfort for me, so much so that even with the 17 lb Cannondale waiting to be ridden, many times i prefer taking out some of the older iron.
Granted, mid 90's with integrated shifting isnt really that old fashioned, but the bikes are comfy. Im thinking your Olmo and Torelli choices would likely feel similar
The carbon modern bike feels a bit racier and feels faster in areas, but back to back rides and a lot of record keeping has shown me that it isnt any faster-- but its still a neat bike to make the rounds on

At 250 lbs, you could surely make one of the old school rigs work for you easilly, and likely there are plenty of modern carbon offerings with geometry that would work

I would look at the specs of the Time closely though, particularly head tube height, stack height and top tube length if you can get those specs. Most of Time's machinery is geared towards racing at the highest levels of the sport and may be a bit unforgiving ---

--- but if the price is right and you like it, maybe purchase it with an eye towards building it up when you get closer to goal weight or something

ClydeTim

Agree about checking the specs on the Time. Had a buddy who had to have one back in 07. $8000 nice bike but 6 months later he hatrd it. Too stiff and too much of a race machine for him being a century rider. A year later he offered it to me for half the original price. No thanks and I don't have that kind of money anywsy.

wvridgerider

I am now riding a Gunnar crosshairs and really like it.
I have had a Trek Pilot full carbon liked it but got rid of it the frame was smallish. Bought an older Bianchi and really liked the ride broke that frame at the BB lug.
Had a Surly Crosscheck and it wasnt great but good and a good value.
I havent been under 250 in the past 10 years.
Fit is everything.
Enjoy getting back into it.

wvridgerider

Oh yea, my buddy has a Trek Damone. He rides the same size as I do and with the same pedals. We switched bikes on a ride one time and my Gunnar had just as a nice ride. The weight wasnt noticed by me.
I like steel

GregU

I can't agree more with this advice. Get a bike that is comfortable. When I got back into cycling I was riding my 1985 Bianchi (I'm 5'11" and it was a 57cm with an extra long seat post); and then an aluminum aero TT bike (I was doing triathlons). Neither was fun to ride, and I didn't ride much.

I finally sold the TT bike and got a used Specialized Roubaix. Not the lightest bike; not the fastest; not the best looking; but it is comfortable and riding is fun again. I even like going up hills and I'm threatening to get back under 200 lbs.

JohnJ80

Yep. Right on. Note that comfort is driven primarily by design/fit and component selection and far less by material.

A couple of notes - it's pretty easy to make any bike a lot more comfortable by looking at tire/wheel, seatpost and handlebar selection. You do want stiffness in a frame (especially in the BB) and while some of that can be mitigated by designed in vertical compliance, it's still going to be a stiff frame. You can mitigate much of that by proper tires (not too narrow) and getting the inflation pressure right, but also by selecting a good seat post that provides decent dampening of vibration transmitted up through the frame. Ritchey makes some excellent carbon seat posts (flexlogic) as does Specialized (Cobbl Gobbler) that can really smooth out a ride and contribute to vertical compliance. Handlebars have the an impact as well and it's worth it to try some different ones to see what works for you. Basically, if you address the tires and major points where you contact the bike (saddle/seat post, handlebars) you can really impact ride quality.

J.

oddjob2

Titanium is nice too.

adrien

I don't hang out here all that much anymore, but this one has a lot going on and I figured I'd add some perspective.

Ride quality's correlation with frame material is very, very tenuous at best. Most flexible bike I ever rode was Ti. Stiffest bike I ever wanted to keep was Ti. You read that right. Same guy, and both ridden within a few months of each other.

Steel can rust, especially if you're lazy and don't take care of it. And "steel" isn't the same stuff we rode in the 80s. Modern steel (Columbus, Deda, etc.) is amazing stuff. And yes, it can also be noodly. And it weighs a little more, though no more than my daily weight fluctuation. And I've been 212-217 for, oh, 6 years now.

Carbon frames are really carbon / epoxy, and are all over the place. Some big-box companies invest millions into making them compliant, so a carbon bike can ride like a really nice steel bike (like a roubaix). At which point I personally would recommend...a steel bike. They can also be engineered to be super stiff, and not compliant at all. Or Goldilocks just-right and deeply loving of being thrashed. Carbon is also subject to damage from incidental things, like a small ding that can render it unridable. It happens to metal bikes, but with carbon it warrants more attention. Carbon doesn't't have the spring to it metal bikes do, and this can make them feel a little muted, or dull to some (myself included).

Ti doesn't rust, but otherwise is like steel in that it is lively like steel, and has a spring to it, which, if you're like me, is something you want in a bike. But Ti is expensive, and hard to work with, so there are limited choices.

None of the above has anything to do with either fit or geometry. Fit is crucial -- it has to fit you right. Geometry is tied to fit, but impacts how well the bike changes direction, responds to the forces of acceleration and braking, and the like. A bike with a slightly slack geometry will excel at gravel riding (and be predictable), and a road race bike will feel taught and lively all the time.

For the OP -- i'd suggest modern steel for now, with a slightly looser geometry (not a comment on fit). Make sure it fits. Make sure you have room to grow on it in your fitness. And when you get there, go for something tighter geometry-wise.

JohnJ80

Yep. Agree. You can get a stiff bike or a flexy bike in any material. The advantage to steel is that it is easier material with which to work and there are a lot of builders around that make great custom bikes out of steel for little more than the cost of stock bike.

Rule of thumb: about a third of the weight is in the wheels, a third in the frame and a third in the components. A steel frame will be about a pound (give or take) more than a carbon frame. So that means you'll have a 16lb bike instead of a 15lb bike. And a lot of those components besides the frame are going to have a whole lot to do with ride quality - seat post, seat,handlebars (i.e. your contact points with the bike), tires, wheels.

J.