CAT7RDR

At 6'2" 215 lbs I face the fact I am a Clyde because for the most part size is a detriment in the cycling disciplines. I originally got back into road cycling five years ago because my g/f advised me I looked pregnant when I slouched.

That was at 245. Still have another 20 to lose to not be a Clyde.

No, I am not offended. Clydesdales are a regal work horse.

tallbikeman

Having peaked at 282 obese lbs and still sliding lbs out the door on my diet I have no problem with the term Clydesdale. I take a nutrition class through my health care provider. Nutrition in this case is a code word for fat. Most of the class is women and they make no bones about it. They will tell you they are fat as will I if asked. I see plenty of heavier older male road riders wearing the spandex and sometimes it is not as pretty as it could be. So if you are making clothing that melds those fatty areas in such a way as to make it look like muscle I'm going to buy your product. Good luck with your venture.

G.Money

I can't promise we can meld those areas to look like muscle, but quality, comfort and fit are the goals we have in mind. Thank you for taking the time to provide some feedback!

G.Money

Appreciate the feedback!

indyfabz

+1. And personally, I prefer the Percheron over Clydesdale.

Aahzz

I like the term Clydesdale, wouldn't put me off at all.

Fat Lad at the Back, on the other hand, is a big nope from me. Yeah, I'm fat, but I'm also shrinking, and I just don't need that phrasing.

BookFinder 

I've always seen the Clydesdale horse as a muscular, majestic workhorse that exemplified production in an age when handling a team of horses was a standard tool of the trade in rural America. The term per se is not offensive to me.

At 5'6" the BMI index puts my acceptable weight within a range of 115 lbs (bmi 18.6) to 154 lbs (bmi 24.9).

Overweight for me becomes anything between 155 lbs to 185 lbs, at which point I tip into the obese range.

I have been obese, but am not at the moment. Per the charts, I fall in the overweight range. Likewise, I am not yet at the place I want to be in terms of weight.

All that said, weight is one thing, fitness is another. My cycling goals are more about fitness than weight.

Finally, and while the "Clydesdale" moniker is not offensive to me, "fat lad to the back" would grate on my nerves. But so does the guy who has to jump up front of the pack and gloat while subtly "shaming" everyone who can't ride at his level. Height and weight wise he may not be a Clydesdale, but whatever type of horse he qualifies to be, he is the ass-end of it...

At any rate, I typically ride alone, or with my wife, or with a small group of like-minded friends.

If you design and market a quality product, a segment of the market will eventually if not sooner drift your way. Best of luck with the venture.

aplcr0331

Nope, not offended in the least. I don’t use it in conversation and I don’t recall anyone ever calling me one either.

I call myself much worse names all the time.

TheDudeIsHere

I find it utterly entertaining!

As a big guy, 6'1 and my lowest weight is 220 (not eating mayo, dairy, salad dressing for 6 months and climbing 30,000-40,000 ft per month) when I actually think about training for a ride.

I did some big climbing rides and though I will never "out sprint" a 160 pound rider up a 20 mile 5,000 ft climb, on a long sustained climbing ride, 62 miles with 9,000 ft of gain (total 100 miles/10,000 ft gain) I think it is the most awesome feeling in the world when you pass the 160 pound riders 40 miles up the mountain road.

When you have the stamina to carry your big Clyde body up a mountain and actually pass lighter riders in a timed event, it's really entertaining to see the expressions on their face when they see you coming and/or passing.

If I had a jersey that said Clydesdale on it, I would have worn it. I have one now, too bad I didn't then.

I consider it a compliment! If there were more stuff with "Clydesdale" on it, I'd buy it!

ts99

I'm new to cycling, but I've been in the Clydesdale division in many running races over the decades. "Clydesdale" is more flattering than just about anything else they could call heavy people.

RiddleOfSteel

I would consider myself a cyclist before calling myself a Clyde as I am 6'5" and ~210-215 and that seems within the range of 'normal' to me--though there are a number of other people near my height and a full 30-50 lbs less and they aren't much less bulky than I...maybe I am a Clyde after all. Some people got bird bones (that is, hollow), and I got some steel (or lead) in mine. I don't plan on being at my high school weight of 175 lb. As a friend and former co-worker (who would qualify as a Clyde, and have a good laugh at the term--he does ride an old Gary Fisher on occasion) would say about being at a past or 'super healthy' weight, "I look hungry."

As others have said, I think a Clydesdale is a beautiful, strong, regal horse that does proper work. Sure, we all like the fast ones, but the big ones have a special place in my heart, and they're pretty cool. Jaguar E-Type, Ferrari 250 GTO (fastback), sure, I get it. 1969 Imperial (sedan or coupe)? Now we're talking.

The Fat Lad at the Back company is great for what the offer. Their "About Us" page is a fantastic read, and it sets the tone and context for the website. It's very up-front in title, though I think with it being UK-based, it's connotation in this scenario is not the same (read: friendly) as it is in the US. At least that's how it came off to me. And with the acronym as FLAB (among other things), they're going all-in on it. I appreciate that conviction. And as a tall guy who can never find large enough stuff that fits well (too small and too short a torso, or tall enough but too loose), these guys interest me. I may not be the biggest, but I do look like a moose on a bike in photos (with a 25" / 64cm frame!). The Will Ride For Cake jersey is pretty sweet.

aplcr0331

Id certainly not call you a Clyde. Once you get above 74” then these “rules” are different for sure. I’d rather be 6’5” and 215 than to be built like a 7th grade girl-no matter how fast those guys built like that can climb.

Back home in the states I have a “Clyde” I know built like you. He’s a fire fighter and Triathlete. Fast as hell.

One of the reasons I pay for a premium part of Strava is to sort segments by weight or age, helps give positive feedback. Instead of being 337th out of 1,092 I can sort by 225-249lbs and be top 15! There’s been a few segments where I’m top 10 (small victory for sure but I’ll take it) and the number one guy in all these categories is the 6’6” firefighter. To be fair there’s some segments where he’s top 10 overall so he’s fast!

Anyway, Clydesdale is a regal sounding name for us shorter fatties to make us feel better about eating the whole sleeve of Oreos (and dipping them in Butterscotch pudding too) so we feel better. Not tall brick crap-houses like you.

Im joking of course because weight, healthy eating and fitness vex every one of us and it’s unfair to point to someone who might be struggling too, and then decide they’re struggle is not worth it or that ours is worse.

But quick messing up my fat ass segment groups you big jerk!

ts99

That's what I thought, but for all the top "over 250 lb" riders on the segments in my area, when I click on their profiles and see their photos they are guys and girls who cannot be over 140 lbs. I suspect they put their weight in as 120 kg instead of 120 lb. Makes that category completely useless.

aplcr0331

Yeah, I’ve done the same and for the most part at least in my area back in the states I don’t see too many cyclists adding weight. Which is really weird to do, really weird.

Im not looking for precise exact measurements, I’m not working on micro processing tolerances or anything, close enough is good enough. Main point is to see my own self improvement in moving higher up those leader boards. Even better will be when I can move down in weight class!

RiddleOfSteel

Sleeve of Club Crackers or half a box of Nilla Wafers (it's after the bike commute home, I swear!), I hear ya. Your 6'6" friend would leave me in the dust, from the sound of it. I am but an average tall guy/rider--someone like him are the real locomotives and pull like a UP's 4014 no matter what. I can punch here and there, and do like to go all out in a sprint from time to time (a slight three block down hill slope just before the flat 'sprint zone' is my "lead-out train" lol), but am very happy in steady state riding. That and down hill.

Over in C&V, one of the guys has a motto to "Start slow, and taper." Which I get a kick out of. A number of us rode Hurricane Ridge, a road that begins right (to the south) out of Port Angeles. A remarkably constant 5.5% grade over 17+ miles that begins, of course, with a 9-10% section. I took a bike with what I consider to have 'full Seattle gear range for a road bike (53/39 in front and 11-28T 10s in back) and I sat in "the basement" of 39-28 pretty much the entire time. I am not a good climber over any distance labeled 'a short punch.' The sense of accomplishment for anyone riding up that road was constantly evident--the view! Even if you could see the next mile or so ahead of you, and that road up there was...way higher. A half hour rest at the top, and then the best part--a 20 minute descent! Legs are shot, lungs are shot, and you're looking at all the hours spent climbing simply vanish as you fly down the hill at 45 mph, but it's the closest one feels like to a dog in the back of a pickup truck bed. Fantastic.

I like the premium part of Strave you mentioned. Takes what is essentially 'human proportion' into the equation. At the end of the day, no matter our proportion, it's good to see people out there riding.

starkmojo

I am big, of Scots decent and I can pull a ton of beer. I would buy the heck out of some clyde-brand clothing.

Rollfast

It's a CHALLENGE...not an insult but a goal.

Chad991

Never had a problem with clydesdale.....would prefer "diesel "

SethAZ 

I embrace it. I go beyond that, with the informal label (even more informal than clydesdale) of superclyde for someone over 250lbs who rides. I'm currently still a superclyde, but just by a few lbs, and I'm hoping to escape the fraternity of superclydes here in a couple/few more weeks.

I also don't mind being seen in public wearing conventional cycling garb, ie: bib shorts and a jersey. I know I don't look like freaking Chris Froome, but so what?

luismboc

with 208lb I barely qualify. Not a fan of the name at all...they used to have that category in triathlon races...was weird.

cyclist2000

I never heard of the Clydes expression until I saw this form too. I'm not put off by the term Clydesdale, Clydesdales are know to be large and powerful, I like that image.