Is road bike weight limit determined by frame or rim and tires?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Is road bike weight limit determined by frame or rim and tires?
As the title. Did vintage road bikes have a weight limit back in the day? If so, does the weight limit apply to the frame or rim/tire combination? Either one, where would you find such a spec? @ my 230lbs. just curious. Also in reference to tires, I've heard tire size 20A tossed around.. Is 20A a tire size or something else?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Jose (Willow Glen) Ca
Posts: 9,847
Bikes: Kirk Custom JK Special, '84 Team Miyata,(dura ace old school) 80?? SR Semi-Pro 600 Arabesque
Mentioned: 106 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2338 Post(s)
Liked 2,827 Times
in
1,543 Posts
All of fhe above can make a contribute
Pretty simple 32 spoke wheels will handle 230 lbs. I have been as high as 280 (225 now) and never had a problem with a good quality lugged steel frame and 32 spoke wheels
Pretty simple 32 spoke wheels will handle 230 lbs. I have been as high as 280 (225 now) and never had a problem with a good quality lugged steel frame and 32 spoke wheels
__________________
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
Life is too short not to ride the best bike you have, as much as you can
(looking for Torpado Super light frame/fork or for Raleigh International frame fork 58cm)
#3
Palmer
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 8,627
Bikes: Mike Melton custom, Alex Moulton AM, Dahon Curl
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1670 Post(s)
Liked 1,825 Times
in
1,062 Posts
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,376
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2485 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
Somewhere out there, someone has preserved a mid-1980's spec sheet from Columbus that specified the weight limits for their various tube sets (steel, of course). The only one I remember is their SL set, with a weight limit equivalent to about 180 lbs. I believe there was a size limit, too, with a recommendation that larger frames (58 cm and up?) be built with SP tubes rather than SL.
Seems low now, but almost of the people buying racing frames in those days were fit racers, probably averaging somewhat under 160 lbs. Even tall American racers tended to be slender enough to stay under the SL weight limit.
Seems low now, but almost of the people buying racing frames in those days were fit racers, probably averaging somewhat under 160 lbs. Even tall American racers tended to be slender enough to stay under the SL weight limit.
#5
aged to perfection
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: PacNW
Posts: 1,817
Bikes: Dinucci Allez 2.0, Richard Sachs, Alex Singer, Serotta, Masi GC, Raleigh Pro Mk.1, Hetchins, etc
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 839 Post(s)
Liked 1,258 Times
in
663 Posts
I would say that rider skill and style has a lot to do with the weight limit for a particular bike or wheelset
are you skilled at dodging potholes ? Do you unweight over bumps ?
if the tubing says "limit 240 lb" and you weigh 239 does that mean it's OK ?
things to consider.
/markp
are you skilled at dodging potholes ? Do you unweight over bumps ?
if the tubing says "limit 240 lb" and you weigh 239 does that mean it's OK ?
things to consider.
/markp
Likes For mpetry912:
#6
Junior Member
I would say that rider skill and style has a lot to do with the weight limit for a particular bike or wheelset
are you skilled at dodging potholes ? Do you unweight over bumps ?
if the tubing says "limit 240 lb" and you weigh 239 does that mean it's OK ?
things to consider.
/markp
are you skilled at dodging potholes ? Do you unweight over bumps ?
if the tubing says "limit 240 lb" and you weigh 239 does that mean it's OK ?
things to consider.
/markp
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Elevation 666m Edmonton Canada
Posts: 2,483
Bikes: 2013 Custom SA5w / Rohloff Tourster
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1237 Post(s)
Liked 322 Times
in
249 Posts
The heavier the bike, the more it will carry. LOL Any SS or IGH can carry 350 lbs likely. They carry a passenger in Holland.
There was a size EA3 that is 590 mm. 1/4" more than a 650B/ 584. I switched one bike between these.
My custom tour bike with Rohloff14 laughs at 290 lbs.
There was a size EA3 that is 590 mm. 1/4" more than a 650B/ 584. I switched one bike between these.
My custom tour bike with Rohloff14 laughs at 290 lbs.
#8
Senior Member
#9
SE Wis
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,516
Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2747 Post(s)
Liked 3,401 Times
in
2,058 Posts
By Lawyers
Likes For dedhed:
#10
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,366
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Liked 4,220 Times
in
2,367 Posts
Especially considering that Trek, for example, says this for every mountain bike model they make
Carbon or aluminum, doesn’t matter. Somethin’ smells fishy here.
This bike has a maximum total weight limit (combined weight of bicycle, rider, and cargo) of 300 pounds (136 kg).
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
#11
Must be symmetrical
I think weight limits and the norms and standards necessary to have meaningful and comparable numbers is a fairly recent thing. I don't know how "vintage" you are talking about, but I seriously doubt that even if there was a weight limit given for a road bike from the 70s, that it would "mean" much. Without some certainty about how that number was arrived at, they don't mean much. Just the difference between a stationary and dynamic loading alone is critical.
#12
Junior Member
I wan't commenting on the weight on the bike per se, just the impact on your arse. However, to address your comment, lifting one's arse converts your body weight from deadweight to sprung weight which is way easier on the bike. The weight on the bike doesn't change, but how the bike is allowed to move under that weight makes all the difference.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 939
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 539 Post(s)
Liked 466 Times
in
259 Posts
I wan't commenting on the weight on the bike per se, just the impact on your arse. However, to address your comment, lifting one's arse converts your body weight from deadweight to sprung weight which is way easier on the bike. The weight on the bike doesn't change, but how the bike is allowed to move under that weight makes all the difference.
#14
Senior Member
Fortunately, my bike has a frangible link that breaks before the weight exceeds the machine's maximum load; me! Well before I get to a load that will break the bike, the load will break me, and I'll be lying there like an inverted turtle waiting desperately for help to get rightsideup again.
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 366 Post(s)
Liked 273 Times
in
175 Posts
I have no clue about the answer to the original question. However, the premise of the question seems a little bit odd. I think that the frame/rims/tires should all support approximately the same weight. If one of those supports more weight than the others, then that component is overbuilt for the application.
#16
Junior Member
Every item on a bike that is loaded has it's own limits. My current mountain bike's frame is quite strong, probably wouldn't have any issues with a 200LB+ rider, but the wheels on the bike have a much lower weight limit. On the other end I had a road bike with really strong wheels but the frame was very light/flexible. My current road bike has a stiff frame and strong wheels but very light/flexible bars/stem so that is the weakest point
In the vintage era some items like SL tubing had semi official weight limits, but generally speaking there wasn't single big database of weight limits. Shops and riders with experience would often be holders of that knowledge just from what they had experience with worked with, broken. Most of my experience with that shop/rider knowledge had three levels: safe weight, it's light and flexy weight, and you will brake it weight. Depending on how you were riding you would make sacrifices in the weight. For touring you don't have room for failure, but for racing the weight advantage might be a risk you are willing to take (the reason you see all the vintage era drillium bikes for example)
In the vintage era some items like SL tubing had semi official weight limits, but generally speaking there wasn't single big database of weight limits. Shops and riders with experience would often be holders of that knowledge just from what they had experience with worked with, broken. Most of my experience with that shop/rider knowledge had three levels: safe weight, it's light and flexy weight, and you will brake it weight. Depending on how you were riding you would make sacrifices in the weight. For touring you don't have room for failure, but for racing the weight advantage might be a risk you are willing to take (the reason you see all the vintage era drillium bikes for example)
#17
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
I would say both, particularly if you're talking about high performance "racing" stuff.
"You can have Strong, Light, or Cheap; Pick two" as the saying goes, but there's a point where minimizing weight will compromise absolute strength, regardless of cost.
Based on anecdotal evidence from here, and the cycling community at large; I'd say that entry level to mid range bikes tend to have lower quality wheels, and less optimized frames (overbuilt) so you see more wheel failures.
A higher end, high performance bike generally gets stronger, stiffer wheels, but that usually goes together with a lighter, more weight -optimized frame with less "reserve capacity" than a more budget bike. Couple that with the more strenuous use that the rider of such a bike is more likely to engage in and you're more likely to encounter frame damage, ironically, than an inexpensive bike (though pretty rare)
"You can have Strong, Light, or Cheap; Pick two" as the saying goes, but there's a point where minimizing weight will compromise absolute strength, regardless of cost.
Based on anecdotal evidence from here, and the cycling community at large; I'd say that entry level to mid range bikes tend to have lower quality wheels, and less optimized frames (overbuilt) so you see more wheel failures.
A higher end, high performance bike generally gets stronger, stiffer wheels, but that usually goes together with a lighter, more weight -optimized frame with less "reserve capacity" than a more budget bike. Couple that with the more strenuous use that the rider of such a bike is more likely to engage in and you're more likely to encounter frame damage, ironically, than an inexpensive bike (though pretty rare)
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 5,376
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2485 Post(s)
Liked 2,956 Times
in
1,679 Posts
That's equivalent to "You can have cake, pie, or ice cream; pick two!" The choice is usually presented as "Strong, light, cheap; pick two."
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 571
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 366 Post(s)
Liked 273 Times
in
175 Posts
Based on anecdotal evidence from here, and the cycling community at large; I'd say that entry level to mid range bikes tend to have lower quality wheels, and less optimized frames (overbuilt) so you see more wheel failures.
A higher end, high performance bike generally gets stronger, stiffer wheels, but that usually goes together with a lighter, more weight -optimized frame with less "reserve capacity" than a more budget bike. Couple that with the more strenuous use that the rider of such a bike is more likely to engage in and you're more likely to encounter frame damage, ironically, than an inexpensive bike (though pretty rare)
A higher end, high performance bike generally gets stronger, stiffer wheels, but that usually goes together with a lighter, more weight -optimized frame with less "reserve capacity" than a more budget bike. Couple that with the more strenuous use that the rider of such a bike is more likely to engage in and you're more likely to encounter frame damage, ironically, than an inexpensive bike (though pretty rare)
#20
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,980
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10436 Post(s)
Liked 11,912 Times
in
6,100 Posts
#21
Senior Member
#22
Senior Member
I would say both, particularly if you're talking about high performance "racing" stuff.
"You can have Strong, Light, or Cheap; Pick two" as the saying goes, but there's a point where minimizing weight will compromise absolute strength, regardless of cost.
Based on anecdotal evidence from here, and the cycling community at large; I'd say that entry level to mid range bikes tend to have lower quality wheels, and less optimized frames (overbuilt) so you see more wheel failures.
A higher end, high performance bike generally gets stronger, stiffer wheels, but that usually goes together with a lighter, more weight -optimized frame with less "reserve capacity" than a more budget bike. Couple that with the more strenuous use that the rider of such a bike is more likely to engage in and you're more likely to encounter frame damage, ironically, than an inexpensive bike (though pretty rare)
"You can have Strong, Light, or Cheap; Pick two" as the saying goes, but there's a point where minimizing weight will compromise absolute strength, regardless of cost.
Based on anecdotal evidence from here, and the cycling community at large; I'd say that entry level to mid range bikes tend to have lower quality wheels, and less optimized frames (overbuilt) so you see more wheel failures.
A higher end, high performance bike generally gets stronger, stiffer wheels, but that usually goes together with a lighter, more weight -optimized frame with less "reserve capacity" than a more budget bike. Couple that with the more strenuous use that the rider of such a bike is more likely to engage in and you're more likely to encounter frame damage, ironically, than an inexpensive bike (though pretty rare)
Likes For Alan K:
#23
Klaatu..Verata..Necktie?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 17,980
Bikes: Litespeed Ultimate, Ultegra; Canyon Endurace, 105; Battaglin MAX, Chorus; Bianchi 928 Veloce; Ritchey Road Logic, Dura Ace; Cannondale R500 RX100; Schwinn Circuit, Sante; Lotus Supreme, Dura Ace
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10436 Post(s)
Liked 11,912 Times
in
6,100 Posts
It's gentler than the expansion joints I'm hopping!
__________________
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
"Don't take life so serious-it ain't nohow permanent."
"Everybody's gotta be somewhere." - Eccles
#24
Dirty Heathen
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MC-778, 6250 fsw
Posts: 2,182
Bikes: 1997 Cannondale, 1976 Bridgestone, 1998 SoftRide, 1989 Klein, 1989 Black Lightning #0033
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 889 Post(s)
Liked 906 Times
in
534 Posts
In practice though, with regards to the OP, it’s usually the wheels that are the weakest link; especially for less expensive bikes and heavier or less mechanically sympathetic riders.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 16,880
Bikes: 1980 Masi, 1984 Mondonico, 1984 Trek 610, 1980 Woodrup Giro, 2005 Mondonico Futura Leggera ELOS, 1967 PX10E, 1971 Peugeot UO-8
Mentioned: 49 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1858 Post(s)
Liked 664 Times
in
506 Posts
Somewhere out there, someone has preserved a mid-1980's spec sheet from Columbus that specified the weight limits for their various tube sets (steel, of course). The only one I remember is their SL set, with a weight limit equivalent to about 180 lbs. I believe there was a size limit, too, with a recommendation that larger frames (58 cm and up?) be built with SP tubes rather than SL.
Seems low now, but almost of the people buying racing frames in those days were fit racers, probably averaging somewhat under 160 lbs. Even tall American racers tended to be slender enough to stay under the SL weight limit.
Seems low now, but almost of the people buying racing frames in those days were fit racers, probably averaging somewhat under 160 lbs. Even tall American racers tended to be slender enough to stay under the SL weight limit.