Is there a value in having a clydesdale subforum?

[HiYoSilver]

What do you think? Is there a value in having a seperate forum for cyclesdales? Usually defined as men over 240 lbs.

There was a similar question posed some time ago, and response was mixed. At least as I recall. At that time I didn't see a need for a seperate subforum, but perhaps it is time.

Problems for larger riders:

1. most wheelsets [wheels/rims] are not build to carry heavy loads.
2. tire experiences with heavier loads will be different
3. wind resistances are much higher
4. braking puts more strain on components
5. many frames, especially Carbon Fiber, are not made strong enough.

etc.

Simple 2 question poll follows. Please select one response. Explanations welcome in thread.

[HiYoSilver]

Monitor-- please correct spelling in title from "cyclesdale" to clydesdale.

thanks

[FarHorizon]

Poll is MIA. I vote "yes" to a Clydesdale forum. Count me in. I hope not to qualify by Summer, 2006. :D

You could also have a "ultra-Clydesdale" forum for those over 300 and the "UBER-Clydesdale" forum for those over 350! Why not also have a "fading-Clydesdale" forum for those who are seriously losing weight with cycling. The previous suggestions are all tongue-in-cheek (how apropos...)

Your suggestions on extremely reliable gear for abuse above and beyond the average racing rider are also spot-on. I'd like to see discussions on 3x vs. 4x wheel reliability, 14/15 ga. spokes vs. 13/14/15, and what frames are absolute no-nos for heavier riders.

[Seggybop]

A forum like this would also be useful to the non-egglike ~ info on how to construct a more durable bike is always good.

[Walkafire]

@ 225 lbs I would not qualify?.... what about the Height?

at 6'4" and size 48 shoes... I feel like a Clyde for sure at times.

[HiYoSilver]

225 is close enough, add bike and gear and you're over 250. My guess is racers think anything over 180 is clydeville.

[Brad M]

don't we have enough already?

[AndyGrow]

Actually, according to the USA Clydesdale Athlete website, a Clydesdale is usually considered any male athlete over 200#, and any female is considered an Athena if they are over 145#.

I say hell yeah. I'm tired of trying to hunt for stuff that lasts, and I'm tired of Bicycling magazine showing little sticks on their cover that weigh less than my left leg! :D

[KingTermite]

Yes, from a "major" clydesdale (@310 and dropping)

[Nightshade]

Yes, An awful lot of folk's are classed as "Clydesdales"
because we are.......
Older, out of shape, feedup with everything being made for the "stick"
crowd, would like to share with others who simply love to ride a bike
with no care for fashion cycling at all or now are "less" abled to ride
like the wind anymore.

Anything to help & encourage the use of a bike for cadio health is a plus
for all. It doesn't have to be fast only fun and comfortable. To many
folk's try a bike to thinking that they will loose weight... fast. To start
with these folk's should be given praise and plenty of help just riding
for the fun of it. The pounds will take care of themselves over time.

I've been drooling for a long time for a "built to my order" Worksman
because I feel safe on this tank of a bike with my 350+ weight.
Since I'm "less' abled comfort , durablity, and a safe controllable
ride is all I care about now. I just want to be back on two wheels!!

[AndyGrow]

Not all of us are out of shape. I'm 6'4", weigh in at 230#, with 19% body fat.

[woof]

One of the biggest segment of bicycle users does not have a forum-bicycle thieves. These bike enthusiasts probably have many concerns and questions that they would like to share with their fellow stealing enthusiasts. Sample thread: Are road triples worth stealing or should I try compacts?

[FarHorizon]

One of the biggest segment of bicycle users does not have a forum-bicycle thieves. These bike enthusiasts probably have many concerns and questions that they would like to share with their fellow stealing enthusiasts. Sample thread: Are road triples worth stealing or should I try compacts?

So - are clydesdales being compared to bicycle thieves? ;)

[CastIron]

Clydes are generally defined as being over 200lbs (Women >160 are Athena). The triathalon folks have made that rule, BTW. Google Team Clydesdale. That said, we have a special meeting place: the buffet line.

[Nightshade]

Not all of us are out of shape. I'm 6'4", weigh in at 230#, with 19% body fat.

Good. Now help those who are enjoy cycling by using a bit of encourgement. Not everyone can
reach a goal such as you have but still can enjoy cycling. No?????

[koine2002]

Yeah, and we can have a graduation party for those who graduate out :D I hope to soon and once again, be out of that category.

[Artkansas]

The forum might be a good idea, but the euphemism is in dubious taste.

[Brian]

Is this for road or MTB clydes?

[KingTermite]

I am more of a road rider.....riding comfort bike now, but looking at getting into a road bike very soon. I find that the road bike forum is sometimes a bit too fast paced and many in there seem to rather laugh at "clydesdale" type questions as they think all bike riders should be 145 pounds +/- 10.

I would love a Clydesdale/Athena forum to talk about problems unique to a bigger rider. And since we aren't in majority, it would likely not be quite as fast paced as the roadie forum.

[KingTermite]

Is this for road or MTB clydes?
I think the idea would be that it would be for Clydes/Athenas - period. Kind of like the over 50 forum is not specific to any particular "style" of riding. Just a place to discuss issues unique to being a bigger rider.

[Brian]

I can move this poll to road or MTB to see if it gets more traffic and more responses. That's why I asked. If the big guys/gals in road and MTB don't frequent the general forums, you're not going to get much exposure for this thread.

[KrisPistofferson]

Why not have one? There is a completely seperate women's forum, and we all know how numerous gender-specific cycling topics are. So if they have their own forum to discuss saddles with holes in them, why not give clydesdales one to talk about rear wheels?

[Brian]

Does anyone think I should move this to road or MTB for a few days, to see if there are more responses? I'm happy to pitch the idea to the administrators, but some feedback from other members would help.

[dirtbikedude]

What do you think? Is there a value in having a seperate forum for cyclesdales? Usually defined as men over 240 lbs...


Unless the category was change recently, Clydes are anyone over 200. I feel no need to having our own sub-forum. Reason, Only real concerns a Clyde would have is if a frame, wheel set would support them and the even bigger question, where can I get cycling clothes that fit?

Here is a bit of a hijack but staying on the subject of Clydesdales. We should consider some one a Clydesdale based on body fat and not weight. Why, because a 6’6” rider at 210 would be more like a lean race horse and a rider who is 5’4” at 190 would look a lot more like a Clydesdale (be it a short Clydesdale ;) ), even if all muscle. It wont happen but so what... gotta go ride now :D

DBD:beer:

[FarHorizon]

...We should consider some one a Clydesdale based on body fat and not weight...

Agreed - but if you're a Clydesdale (or Athena) then YOU know who you are and don't need anyone else's rules to tell you.

[HiYoSilver]

Actually, according to the USA Clydesdale Athlete website, a Clydesdale is usually considered any male athlete over 200#, and any female is considered an Athena if they are over 145#.

I say hell yeah. I'm tired of trying to hunt for stuff that lasts, and I'm tired of Bicycling magazine showing little sticks on their cover that weigh less than my left leg! :D

I stand corrected. I erred on the high side, just wanted to get the discussion going. thanks.

[AndyGrow]

I stand corrected. I erred on the high side, just wanted to get the discussion going. thanks.

I just want to make sure we include ALL our Clydesdale/Athena brothers and sisters! :D

[Maelstrom]

I am a clyde and wouldn't use it to be honest. How would you keep all the different types of riders seperate. I am a mountain biker only. I am sure there are clyde roadies only, etc.

Do the clydes really feel left out or somehow harassed? I know I don't.

[AndyGrow]

Let's not turn it into anything bigger than starting a new forum. If people don't want to use it, then don't. For those of us who would like one, leave us be and let us use it!

[Brad M]

I think we need separate forums for mtb clydesdales, roadie clydesdales, tri clidesdales, commuter clydesdales, SS&FG clydesdales, and don't forget the living carfree clydesdales.

[MAK]

I think that the larger rider has certain size specific issues that a dedicated forum would service without clogging other forums. Case in point...Someone today posted a question on the road forum asking how he could get his weight from 127 lbs. up to 135 lbs.. Spend a day at the Hometown Buffet with me and I'll show him LOL. Seriously, it's obvious that I can't relate to him and he can't relate to me.

[FarHorizon]

Ya know, I don't think this is the FIRST poll to be done on this issue. I seem to recall that this question comes up regularly about every four or five months. The response is ALWAYS just the same - about 15 to 20 percent more people WANT a forum like this than don't.

Assuming the "don'ts" wouldn't participate anyway, that still leaves a consistent MAJORITY who WANT a clydes forum. The moderators have continued to ignore this majority. What's with that???

If we ran a poll on should we have a BMX forum (for example, not to pick on the BMX folks..), the poll would probably run consistently AGAINST the forum! This is because the majority of Bikeforum users aren't BMX riders. It doesn't change the fact that a loyal minority achieve critical mass to make BMX a valuable and usable forum.

This same situation applies to the Clydesdale forum. If you wouldn't use it, your vote shouldn't count! The question at hand is "If we HAD a clydes forum, how many of you would use it?" Since a majority consistently say "Yes," the forum should be born.

Moderators - do your duty!

[Maelstrom]

If we ran a poll on should we have a BMX forum (for example, not to pick on the BMX folks..), the poll would probably run consistently AGAINST the forum! This is because the majority of Bikeforum users aren't BMX riders. It doesn't change the fact that a loyal minority achieve critical mass to make BMX a valuable and usable forum.


Difference is, THAT IS A TYPE OF BIKING. Clydesdale isn't. If we start subdividing this forum based on creed, colour, religion etc...it will just get out of hand.

Also what happens when the rynos feel left out. 200pounds is still a pretty small man. There are a lot of 270's...do we need to split that up to. And yes this will end up being a topic later. Look at the 50plus. They ended up wants a 65+ as well because of the differences between them.

I will move this to the suggestions area if that works for you (I will leave it here until I hear whether or not you want it moved)? Joe checks in there periodically and is the end decision maker on the topic of new sub-forums.

Cheers
Maelstrom

[FarHorizon]

Difference is, THAT IS A TYPE OF BIKING. Clydesdale isn't. If we start subdividing this forum based on creed, colour, religion etc...it will just get out of hand.

I think that that subdivision should occur based on the interest of the users - not only by arbitrary "type of biking" categories.

Also what happens when the rynos feel left out. 200pounds is still a pretty small man. There are a lot of 270's...do we need to split that up to. And yes this will end up being a topic later.

Again - YOU don't need to split it at all (nor to worry about it). Those who want to participate in the clydes forum will do so, those who don't won't. Natural selection!

Look at the 50plus. They ended up wants a 65+ as well because of the differences between them.

I'm a participant regularly on the 50+ forum and have never heard any serious requests for further subdivision. HOWEVER: If there were significant numbers of such requests, if a volunteer moderator could be found, and if there were sufficient participants to make it viable - why not? What is the ultimate purpose of these forums? I say: To serve the needs and interests of those who participate by posting. If specialized forums facilitate that purpose, why not create sub-forums as needed? If any subforum falls below a certain participation level; THEN delete it for cause and say why.

I will move this to the suggestions area if that works for you (I will leave it here until I hear whether or not you want it moved)? Joe checks in there periodically and is the end decision maker on the topic of new sub-forums.

I'd like a little more feedback from others here in the "General" forum before moving this to the suggestion box. If there's a tidal wave of protest against this idea, then let it die. If, on the other hand, there are a sufficient number of clydes who want to try a subforum, then let it be.

[Digital Gee]

I'd like to see a new Clydesdale forum. I'd probably use it. What baffles me is why, if someone doesn't want to participate, they care whether or not there's a forum for those who do. What difference does it make? Blows me away how people who DON'T want something make it harder for those who do.

It's like telling a cable company whether you want a Golf channel or not, except in this case, it has nothing to do with your monthly bill. If you don't like Golf, don't watch! Geesh! :D

[jcm]

I'm with Digital Gee.

What about a specialized forum for Go-Fasts. You know, those hard-cores on machines that cost more than my daughter's wedding and have a wardrobe in one size only - tight.

Who cares - I guess I fit the category of a Clydesdale. If I were a horse I'd wanna be one. Anyway, cars probably would slow down just to see a very large horse wearing an orange vest and baggies on a bike! :lol:

[Platy]

If you're over about 230 and are feeling the urge to cycle again but have been inactive for years, you seriously wonder if a bike will just collapse under you, and you also suspect you'll be hooted and jeered off the road not only by motorists but also by other cyclists.

I think a "Heavy & Large Rider" forum would be useful even if it isn't very active, just from the standpoint of providing positive practical information at a critical time to a special class of potential new riders. Most people in that category wouldn't know what Clydesdale & Athena refers to, so I'd argue against using euphemisms in the forum name.

[DnvrFox]

Look at the 50plus. They ended up wants a 65+ as well because of the differences between them.

Come on Mael!

I've been on the 50+ Forum since it started - I have never seen a request or any desire for a 65+ forum.

Now, where did that come from?

[DnvrFox]

Yes, An awful lot of folk's are classed as "Clydesdales"
because we are.......
Older, out of shape, feedup with everything being made for the "stick"
crowd, would like to share with others who simply love to ride a bike
with no care for fashion cycling at all or now are "less" abled to ride
like the wind anymore.

Anything to help & encourage the use of a bike for cadio health is a plus
for all. It doesn't have to be fast only fun and comfortable. To many
folk's try a bike to thinking that they will loose weight... fast. To start
with these folk's should be given praise and plenty of help just riding
for the fun of it. The pounds will take care of themselves over time.

I've been drooling for a long time for a "built to my order" Worksman
because I feel safe on this tank of a bike with my 350+ weight.
Since I'm "less' abled comfort , durablity, and a safe controllable
ride is all I care about now. I just want to be back on two wheels!!

A Clydesdale does not have to be fat or out of shape or out of fashion or any of the other things listed.

A Clydesdale is BIG. It may be fat, but it more likely is muscle and simply being BIG - this fat thing seems to be a common misconception about Clydesdales.

Please see the Cydesdale Spinerval - filled mostly with personal trainers, triathletes and the like. Their muscles would blow most of us away. They are not FAT (except for a couple).

Perhaps we need another separate forum for those who are FAT?

[manual_overide]

i propose a few new forums:

the Fatty McFatty Fat Fat Forum for human spheres and those of us with BF% above 45. Talk will be about saddles that don't give prostate exams every time they are sat on and the merits of the "solid disk of aluminum" rear wheel.

the Hans und Franz's Macho Wacho Forum for discussing about how these girly-man bikes won't fit under our bulging hulk of muscles


In all seriousness, I think a clydesdale forum could be useful.

[DnvrFox]

Difference is, THAT IS A TYPE OF BIKING. Clydesdale isn't. If we start subdividing this forum based on creed, colour, religion etc...it will just get out of hand.


Maelstrom

Maelstrom - here is listing of the forums. Guess you are out of luck, because more than 50% are NOT a "TYPE OF BIKING."

I have marked those that relate to a "TYPE OF BIKING" in red. That leaves a lot that are not.

Should we get rid of those that are not in order to match your desires?

=========================================================

Introductions (3 Viewing)

Ride Partners (2 Viewing)

Advocacy & Safety (37 Viewing)

Alt Bike Culture (2 Viewing)

Bicycle Mechanics (88 Viewing)

BMX (15 Viewing)

Commuting (57 Viewing)

Classic & Vintage (31 Viewing)

Cyclocross (11 Viewing)

Fifty Plus (50+) (10 Viewing)

Folding Bikes (10 Viewing)

Living Car Free (7 Viewing)

Framebuilders (1 Viewing)

Mountain Biking (86 Viewing)

Recumbent (15 Viewing)

Recreational & Family (7 Viewing)

Road Cycling (211 Viewing)

Singlespeed & Fixed Gear (130 Viewing)

Tandem Cycling (17 Viewing)

Touring (33 Viewing)

Track Cycling (7 Viewing)

Training & Nutrition (41 Viewing)

Triathlon (4 Viewing)

Winter Cycling (25 Viewing)

General Cycling Discussion (63 Viewing)

Foo (18 Viewing)

Books, Movies, Music & Entertainment (12 Viewing)

Jokes & Humor (5 Viewing)

Politics & Religion (8 Viewing)

News & Announcements (2 Viewing)

Forum Suggestions & User Assistance (2 Viewing)

[stapfam]

I am a mountain biker, A tandem rider and over 50, These are the forums I look at, and rarely any others. The mountain biking has too many youngsters, for my liking, and does not really please me, although I do relate some of my experience to questions on the forum. The Tandem section is mainly Road or recreational riders with machinery and Bikes that are different to mine. The 50+ forum suits me.

I am not a Clydesdale but if the interest is there, Give it a go. Point is that even on the 50+ we have heavier weight riders that ask our opinions or for our advice. Only thing is, Don't ask me at 145 lbs advice on what type of bike to get or how to lose weight. Let those with that sort of experience give advice on their own back.

Then on the 50+ forum, I can remenber one person mooting a point for an older forum, but it did not get a reaction.

[GrannyGear]

Nothing snobbish or exclusionary about people with similar interests or needs wanting to team up into a like community. The 50Plussers have grown close, share experiences, and mutually enhance their enjoyment of riding in a way unique to them. (BTW, I'm an amost daily poster there and I have seen NO interest in subdividing. Tolerance, acceptance and encouragement are what we do best.) Clydes/Athenas may feel a lot better about posting if they have an audience that understands their perspective without false assumptions, patronizing, or OCP indifference.

*** I agree that not all Clydes are hippos....there are many tyrannosaurs mixed in.

*** ;) Next time some young go-fasts flow by me or drop me without a backwards glance, I'll be sure to shout "Hey wait, I belong with you, slow down." They won't, nor should they.

[Maelstrom]

Then on the 50+ forum, I can remenber one person mooting a point for an older forum, but it did not get a reaction.

Ya me too, I don't think it was dnvr. It was a lengthy thread too. But then again my memory might be slipping.

Good point dnvr there are lots of forums not about specifics of biking. But most apply to it indirectly in some way excluding foo and the casual forums.

Like I said I would move it and let Joe hash it out. I dont like the idea as I think it opens up a large can of worms. But hey in the end its joes call, no one elses :)

[DnvrFox]

I plead guilty!

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=132713&highlight=65%2B

But, it was meant totally tongue-in-cheek, as a careful reading will show.

65+ Forum/Thread??

Hope that got your attention!

We have had a 50+ forum for a couple of years now.

Is there a need for a 65+ forum or thread?

Are the needs of folks 65+ different enough from the needs of those 50+ to warrant separate postings?

I notice that recently almost all folks newly posting are close to 50, but they generally consider themselves to be quite old, "handling" themselves with words including "old" in some part of the handle, or making statements like "older" in their introductory statements. Yet, they seem like youngsters to me.

Perhaps we should start a thread for 65+ and see if anyone posts to it?

Waiting with curiosity for brick bats and cat calls.


It was because of all the folks who seem to think they are near death at 50, and call themselves "old."

I was just trying to make a point.

[Guest]

We happen to have a Clydesdale thread, and the thread itself is pretty sporadic and lackluster with participation. I'm with Mael on subdividing out forums- we'll need a clydsdale subforum for every type of cycling, and at that point, it really is getting to be like splitting hairs. I guess I could see it happening if that other clydesdale thread was just busting out and overflowing, but it's rare when we see movement in there- it's a pretty constipated thread, if you ask me. ;)

Koffee

[FarHorizon]

We happen to have a Clydesdale thread..

There's quite a difference between a thread and a forum. I used to post my questions in the Road forum and get overwhelmed with attitudes because I either didn't know as much or have the same priorities as the other posters. What prompted me to pony up some $$ and become a BikeForums member was the forums that better suited my interests.

The 50+ forum alone is worth my membership money on BikeForums. How do you know that there aren't lots of other clydes like me out there that would be members too if they had "their" forum? We DON'T need (or ask for) a "clyde subforum" on every type of riding. Just as the 50+ group has enough in common to form a separate community, so too will the clydes, IMHO.

What does it cost to set up a clyde forum? Now ask what are the potential benefits (both to the users and to BikeForums in possible new memberships)? I see lots of plus with little minus. If it doesn't work after a month, take it down - the experiment failed.

Forums will either self-select or fail. You don't have to define criteria for the clydes - they know who they are (and aren't). I don't understand the negativity toward new ideas here.

[geeklpc1985]

I have lost a lot of weight, but with gear, books, computers stuff the weights still up there.

Super Geek

[Portis]

How about a greyhound forum? Ya, know...for those of us that are under weight. I am 6' 2" and 150 lbs. I got issues as well. I even have issues on the bike. :D

[FarHorizon]

...Like I said I would move it and let Joe hash it out...in the end its joes call...

OK, Maelstrom - move the thread and let's see what joe says.

Merry Christmas (whatever the outcome :) )