Evil D

I've been riding my entire life, since I was old enough to balance on a bicycle. However, I grew up riding BMX, not road bikes. I put in about 17 hard years riding, where riding was not only my transportation but also my primary hobby, love, etc. I rode everything from flatland to dirt jumping, and I've always been a big guy. I've been 6 foot tall and at least 200lbs since 10th grade. Today I weigh 223lbs and I've never really put any thought into being different than other riders, except for on those high end carbon racing parts that some of the BMX companies made back in the day, but back then we would break frames doing jumps and such and so parts like that never made sense to me anyway.

How much does weight really matter on road bikes? I don't mean as far as performance goes, I mean on your typical road bike, are they really making them so that they'll break if you're 230lbs? When we go riding on the paved trails around here (there is one that's 75 miles long and follows a river...very scenic, very popular with road bike guys) I see people of all sizes riding modern road bikes, some of them running the wheels that only have like 8 steel spokes. I always just figured that being a bigger guy meant I had to be more careful about running over potholes and curbs and such because I'd jack up my rims. To be honest, the first time I saw this sub forum, I was pretty insulted and felt segregated, but I can see how topics geared towards setting a bike up for bigger people makes sense. Still, it just really surprised me I guess, because I just never put that much thought into the weight of a rider. Being a big guy never stopped me from jumping as far or as high as the skinny guys at the trails, or having the endurance to ride as long or as fast.

10 Wheels

Most of our problems come with broken spokes.

Use wheels with 32/36 spokes and have fun with your road bike.

1nterceptor

I'm 200 lbs. and usually have the following add-ons:
helmet w/ flashlight strapped on, spare tube + pump
+ tools in my rear jersey pocket, also wallet and cell
phone(older Nokia N8 probalby 1 lb. by itself). So my
ready to ride weight is probably 215 lbs. I'm riding a
a carbon fiber roadbike that weighs 18 lbs. Wheels
are 20/24 spokes. Other than an initial truing after a
few weeks of ownership, no problems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-rQN...6zPoymgKaIoDLA

PhotoJoe 

Hey Evil,

Welcome the forum. Yes, some find it odd that there is a C/A sub-forum. However, there are weight-challenge topics discussed here that would be eaten alive in the Road forum. This forum is friendly, supportive and, while differing views can be discussed, it will be done in a respectful tone. The great thing is you're not limited to ONLY the C/A. Post where you feel most comfortable, even if it's everywhere. If you want to take the time to read the stories, there are some posts outlining the journey of some who started at 500+ and are down to their "fighting" shape. It's quite encouraging.

cyccommute 

I agree with 10 Wheels that most of the problems for large riders come from broken spokes. But I think a lot of those problems are due to choosing the wrong wheel components. A far worse problem is the way that people ride.

The way the most wheel components are chosen are the buyer thinks about the strength of the rim and the hub. They pick out just any old spoke that happens to be on the shelf. The strength of the hub and the rim have little to do with the strength of the wheel. The spokes do all of the heavy lifting. If heavy riders were to use spokes with a 2.3mm head instead of the normal 2.0mm head, they would have a far stronger wheel, no matter how many spokes the wheel has.

The other problem is that most people ride bikes like the thing under their butt is a seat. It is not. We call it a saddle because you don't sit on it but it supports you. If you are riding properly, your body should hover over the saddle with a fairly light contact. You shouldn't be sitting on the saddle like a sack of potatoes. Light weight riders can get away with sitting on the saddle like it's a Barcalounger but heavy riders can't. Each impact that a rider who is sitting heavily in a saddle gets translated into the bike's wheels and frame. The more weight that a bike has to carry, the more detrimental that impact is to all of the components. If you ride light on the bike, i.e. hover over the saddle, you can ride some incredibly light weight wheels and frames without problem. You seem to already know this from learning how to jump and let your body take the impact rather than the bike.

IAMAMRA

Plus, we have many people on here(myself included), who have started at much higher weights(near 440 for me). So the things we may have questions on are going to be much different than you would find in other subforums.

CommuteCommando

Those ultra low spoke count wheels are more gimmick than weight saving. They are harder to true, and require a heavier rim. On the other end of the spectrum are the "chopper bike" crowd, who sometimes like ridiculously high spoke count wheels for the "bling" factor. 10 Wheels has the best advice for all around riding.

I did Weight Watchers online for a while, and I liked the forum they had called GOAD. (Guys on a Diet) It had a sub forum on cycling. I now do my own weight loss program, so no longer go there (It requires paid membership), so I come here. Not only is the forum better, structurally, I know that some of the people who were, and still are, on WW GOAD, hang out here too.

IAMAMRA

Just to let you know, the forums on WW are actually free to use, even without a membership.

10 Wheels

Good Luck on the 20/24. Never broke a spoke on 36S wheels.

Broke them on 24,28,32's

genejockey 

Having a 18 lb, a 21 lb, and a 23 lb bike, I can tell you there is a discernable difference, especially when climbing. Yeah, weight makes a difference, and spoke count makes a difference in aerodynamics as well. The nature of road cycling - on the road, not the MUP - is such that the weight of the bike will often becoe a factor in performance. This is especially true in racing, even at the Cat 5 level. So, bikes are engineered to be as light as possible, but inevitably as you make them lighter, you compromise their ability to hold up heavier riders. Not only that, but bicycle frames are not ideally rigid. They need to flex a bit so that they don't feel like riding a jackhammer. So, the bike that provides a comfy ride and sufficient stiffness for a 140 lb rider will be a noodle under a 230 pounder. Conversely, a bike like my Battaglin, with oversized, ovalized Columbus MAX tubing, which is beautifully stiff and comfortable for me at >210 would rattle a 140 pounder to bits.

WRT thinking about the weight of the rider, it makes a HUGE difference in performance. For example, one of my coworkers is a skinny guy, he's lucky if he's 150 soaking wet. He got into road biking this year, and was tapping me for info on local rides. I told him about one hill everyone here rides as a benchmark. The first time he did it, it took him 26:30. It took me YEARS of riding and many miles under my belt to get to that speed. Why? Because I'm hauling an additional 70 lbs up that hill. Strap 3 big bags of cat litter to your body and go for a ride. Tell me how little difference the weight makes!

Evil D

Oh I totally get everything you're saying. I took a brief interest in BMX racing, so I understand all too well how weight equates to performance. I'm also into drag racing, and weight applies the same way there too. I was really just thinking out loud with this thread, I guess I just never had it put out in front of me like this and I took it a bit personal when it's really just the reality of different sized riders. Also I guess I've never really had one of those ultra light bikes where my weight would break things. All of the road bikes I've ever owned...while reasonably light...were all more along the lines of a touring bike as opposed to a super light racer. Plus growing up riding BMX, everything was built to withstand the abuse of jumping and such, so naturally they held up to my size most of the time, and when something did break we usually just blamed that on whatever trick we were doing, or something like casing a curb or landing hill, etc. I always had a closet love for road bikes and I owned a few when I was younger and in my prime, but again they were all 36 spoke wheeled touring bikes. One thing that was always obvious with my size though, was that along with that usually came a very significant power advantage compared to my smaller/skinnier friends. We used to do hill climb sprints and the extra power off the line almost always got me the hole shot.

billh

what a coincidence, I was just thinking about jumping and "getting air" on this upcoming cx race held on a motocross course. I was thinking "nah, I'm too heavy to jump" . . . but now you've taken away that excuse, maybe I will give it a whirl. Jump keep your weight back and pull up on the bars? how hard could it be? famous last words, since I have done at least one spectacular endo trying to jump. you don't want to let the front wheel hit first . . . nope, that doesn't work.

Erwin8r

i commute on 20/24 at 240 lbs... On a carbon bike. It's as commute commando states. Proper wheel build, and as light as possible on the saddle, especially over bumps/tracks, etc. Will a properly-built 36s wheel be stronger? Without a doubt. But I'd rather finesse than sledge hammer it.

mrodgers

Absolutely! As I've told the short story before in this forum section, I went riding with a coworker on the trail he rides (slight uphill the whole way back and gravel as compared to my trail near my home which is nearly completely flat and paved.) He was half heartedly bragging when he got to the end and I still had half a mile to go. "Must suck to be 40" he texted me as he is just a mere pup at 38. When I got back, I told him to keep it up. Next time we ride, I'll be strapping one of the propane tanks onto his back because that is about the weight difference, then we'll see about the "must suck to be 40" comment.

genejockey 

The power advantage, yeah. There's an online power calculator somebody made for local climbs, where you input your weight, the time you took and the climb you did. I calculated the power output my coworker needed to do his 26:30 time, and what i needed to do the 28:08 I did this weekend.

His: 210W. Mine: 270W.

It was also obvious the one time we rode together. Sure, he could run away from me on any uphill, but on the flats he'd tuck in behind me, especially into a headwind.

LabRat2k3

Don't let yourself get offended so easily man, nobody is making us come to this section, you are welcome to post anywhere you please. The reason we are here is by choice, it is nice to talk to people who are facing the same struggles with weight, diet, equipment, and so forth. We encourage each other to keep up the fight. You will find there are people who have used this forum to get themselves below the Clyde line but still hang out here because they like it here, not because of a "no fatties allowed " sign on the other forums.

Homeyba

Yes, weight matters. How much depends on the individual. People who cruise around and aren't necessarily performance oriented probably aren't going to care too much, people who are out their racing or just want to beat their buddies to the top of the climb are more likely to care. Yes, there are some Clydes who race and are pretty stinking fast. Weight matters to them.

As far as frames go, you're not likely to break one even at 230. It happens but not as often as you'd think. Wheels are the issue, as has been gone over already. I'll just throw in my two cents, 20/24 spoke wheels will hold up just fine at 230-250 as long as the proper precautions are taken. Almost all my wheels are 20/24 spokes and I ride a lot (between 6k-10k a year). I can count on one hand the number of wheel failures I've had in the last 20 years. One of those was a 36 spoke wheel (that almost left me stranded in Europe). From my experience, quality of the build trumps spoke count. Having said all that, 32 spoke wheels are the most reasonable for cost/benefit.

donalson

I've posted this before but still find it neat... it's speaking specifically of the difference bike weight and rider weight makes...


as covered... for the most part wheels is where clyds have to watch when it comes to road riding... also tire size comes into play, the more a rider weighs the more pressure a tire is going to need for a given size tire, more pressure = less supple (example a 700x20 tire under a 250lb rider @ 15% drop will put the tire needing almost 200psi, move the tire to a 32c tire and pressure drops to 88psi... but I don't know of any modern racing bikes that will take that size tire.

move from the road to off road and things change a lot, drivetrain, shocks, wheelsets, frames etc all have to be considered (i'm sure it's very similar to BMX in that aspect though)

Beachgrad05

Yoda like thread title is.

bigfred 

Forget not, originally a racing/competition category, Clyde and Athena is.

chaadster

Me, too, although I'm at 224lbs now. I've been riding 20/24 Bontrager Race and Mavic Ksyrium wheels for years at weights up to the 240lb range. No problems.

I think your point gets to what the OP is struggling to understand, and what is the explanation for why I don't hang out or contribute here in C/A much: a lot of us just don't share the weight loss obsession, broken parts, and derivative paranoia that seem to dominate perspectives in the forum.

A lot of that is explained by technique, as you rightly point out. I bet a lot of riders come to the sport as a way to lose weight, and don't have the cycling background and experience required to ride 'right n' light', by which I mean, they just don't know those little things like when to unweight the saddle, when to apply power, how to shift their weight, how to pick clean lines, and stuff like that. Those of us coming from BMX and/ MTB backgrounds are especially adept at this, and are comfy bunny hopping obstacles, dropping off curbs, and the like. The results, anyway, are that some folks are hard on parts not simply because they're heavy, but because they lack the right techniques.

Fitness is another distinguishing difference amongst C/As. Some of us are big but strong, while many others are just big, and lacking the fitness and strength to get up out of the saddle or maybe loft your bike over a pothole, will result in more force being delivered to parts and damaged components.

So yeah, I get what the OP is feeling, and share Edwin8rs experience: a clyde is not a clyde is not a clyde. There's no defining cycling experience for C/A's, only shared numbers on the weight scale!

chaadster

Damn good point!

It used to be, back when I raced NORBA MTB races, that clyde's were racers, just bigger than most racers, and faster than most riders!

Here, being a clyde seems equated with being fat, slow, and unskilled.

donalson

lol many years ago someone posted a great Meme (before memes where memes ;-) it had a picture of "what most clydes think they look like" showing a clydesdale (Horse) with super ripped muscles similar to the pics you would see of a body builder (obviously super photoshoped) and then a "what we really look like" showing some again photoshoped horse that is just a tub of goo...

Erwin8r

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't... Sometimes I'm the ripped Clydesdale, and other times I feel like the goo... Lol!