Fifty Plus (50+) - Am I to heavy for CF

This is a heck of a time to be asking, but I wonder if being 200# I'm to heavy for CF. I've read some post (not many) saying that if your over 180# you shouldn't be riding carbon fiber. I figured if a bike has carbon stays and forks, what difference it would make and most bikes today have that. Anyway do any of you ride CF or know of anybody that does, that weigh over 200# ?

Depends on the bike, not the stuff it's made from.

Having said that... I ride steel for the versatility and toughness. Ain't no carbon touring bikes...

I should have added that, I bought a Specialized Roubaix Elite, which is all carbon. I have a steel bike as well and I have to say, the ride is so close it's hard to tell the difference.

It depends upon the bike. Just like for any other material, it depends upon what spec they build the bike to.

You could build a CF bike to hold 1000 pounds, no problem. CF is very strong.

I'm pretty sure that Trek specs at least some of their CF bikes to 275-300 pounds.

If a bike had a max rider weight as low as 200, then it should have a warning in its manual.

Now there are some wheels that won't hold true under higher weights. Some racing wheels can have problems as a rider gets up over 150-160. I can't imagine the standard wheels on your Specialized would fall into that category. There are probably extremely lightweight CF racing bikes built to the same specs.

Haven't seen the specs for your bike, but would be surprised if the weight capacity was under 250 pounds.

Roubaix should be ok- Providing you don't go offroad with it. But on top of that Specialised have an exceptionally good warranty so all you have to worry about if it does break is the Hospital bills.

Again, I didn't put my brain into gear before I posted. I was just going over a lot of stuff on Google about CF and I feel I made a good choice. Thanks for the replys guys.

I'm about 250 and have about 3,000 miles on my CF Roubaix. I've had no problems with it and I ride on reasonably good country roads. I ride with several other guys between 200 and 250 that ride CF bikes.

I'm about 250 and have about 3,000 miles on my CF Roubaix. I've had no problems with it and I ride on reasonably good country roads. I ride with several other guys between 200 and 250 that ride CF bikes.

That makes me feel good and glad to hear, thanks. Now to try and lose more weight.

235# with 7,500 miles on my Fuji Team Pro

200 lbs on a 62cm Calfee Tetra since 2001 and, love it more every year. I often consider it a bike made for heavier riders. It just feels and performs great. In the classic spirit of carbon bikes, I believe the material is actually better suited to the heavier rider. The larger steel frames especially seemed more prone to flex while carbon comes in much stiffer overall. With carbon construction one gets excellent efficiency while getting that sublime ride with tire/wheel selection and inflation pressure.

Taking advantage of carbon's relatively low weight, some companies have probably shaved these bikes to less than acceptable constructional weights and, these bikes may be best suited to lightweight riders. However, in the case of Scott, Cervelo and maybe some others it appears that the BB area was suffering premature cracking even with lighter riders. This has reported to been corrected now though. I think it was just a case of not quite finishing the design and testing before launch. These companies are always in a hurry to get their new "lightweight" rocket on the market.

Again, I didn't put my brain into gear before I posted. I was just going over a lot of stuff on Google about CF and I feel I made a good choice. Thanks for the replys guys.

George, would you mind telling us what sites you visited that helped you feel good about your choice. I've over 5000 miles on CF and I'm at 205. My brother, however, is still quite leary.

For the last 7 years, at weights ranging from 225-240, I've been riding a Trek 5200 for a total of about 24,000 miles. Never a problem structurally with the frame. Wheels, cranks, handle bars... now that's a different story.

Pat

165lbs on my 20 year old Specialized steel........no probs yet-- cross your fingers.

George, would you mind telling us what sites you visited that helped you feel good about your choice. I've over 5000 miles on CF and I'm at 205. My brother, however, is still quite leary.

Now your really taxing my brain:D , I think I wrote in, How much weight on a carbon fiber Specialized Roubaix. I got one report on the Tarmac that was pretty good. I'll see if I can find it and copy and paste it for you.

Now your really taxing my brain:D , I think I wrote in, How much weight on a carbon fiber Specialized Roubaix. I got one report on the Tarmac that was pretty good. I'll see if I can find it and copy and paste it for you.

I also used the search in the bike forums, Specialized Roubaix. All kinds of good stuff. I feel 10 pounds lighter already.

I just got back from doing 10 miles and is it cold for down here, 47 degrees and 15mph out of the west.

165lbs on my 20 year old Specialized steel........no probs yet-- cross your fingers.

:beer:

I weigh 200 lbs and have ridden my Specialized Roubaix Expert 2500 miles since August of this year. At 200 lbs I'd be more worried about the wheels than the frame. Over the years I've had several other bikes and always had issues with the rear wheels. This new bike has Krysisium Elite wheels and the rear wheel is still running as true as "new". From what I've read is that the eariler carbon frames were more weight limited than today's carbon frames.

I wouldn't try doing a lot of big jumps if I were you. :D

I weigh ~255 lbs and purchased a Specialized Roubaix Pro about two months ago. My LBS didn't mention anything about a weight limit and so far, no problems.

Wish you luck!

George, I have a Specialized Roubaix Pro with about 4500 miles on it in 15 months. I have weighed between 189 and 198. No problem. Keep riding.

John

I should have added that, I bought a Specialized Roubaix Elite, which is all carbon. I have a steel bike as well and I have to say, the ride is so close it's hard to tell the difference.

One of the regular Sunday riders has the same bike and he weighs 200+ at 6' 6". He hasn't had any problems with his bike.

Thanks for all the help everybody, I always check everything out before I ride anyhow, but it's go to know that the Roubaix or any other CF is that good.

You could build a CF bike to hold 1000 pounds, no problem. CF is very strong.


+1. Formula 1 race cars have complete carbon-fiber suspension systems that sustain thousands of pounds of downforce and cornering loads. But as mentioned, it all depends on the wall thickness and geometry of the particular bike.

Your Roubaix is more of a "sport" bike than an all-out racing bike, so I'm sure it is designed with a good margin of safety in the loads that it supports.

I'm just about to fly my family to California on an Airbus. What are our chances?

Thanks for all the help everybody, I always check everything out before I ride anyhow, but it's go to know that the Roubaix or any other CF is that good.

I'd give the props to Specialized. A few years ago they came upwith the idea for a bike that was cheap, quick, and reasonably comfy. That became the Seqouia.

While it sold, they didn't really understand what they had tapped into. One guy did, and laid all his chips on the table to get a handful of Roubaixs made. Specialized had no faith in it, no advertising, nothing. In fact, they told their dealers they'd take them back if they didn't sell.

They sold. In fact, they back ordered, and before long they had to dedicate a whole factory to producing them.

I think that company is on a roll.

This is a heck of a time to be asking, but I wonder if being 200# I'm to heavy for CF. I've read some post (not many) saying that if your over 180# you shouldn't be riding carbon fiber. I figured if a bike has carbon stays and forks, what difference it would make and most bikes today have that. Anyway do any of you ride CF or know of anybody that does, that weigh over 200# ?

No at 200 you should be fine, I checked ahead of time and Trek, Orbea have no weight limit. My Scott has a limit of 95K = 210lbs. If in doubt just e-mail the mfg

Thanks again, it's always nice to find out more about the history of the bike your buying and I'm glad I posted this. I'm happier, than I was when I bought it.

I have a friend that goes 220lbs and he rides an Aluminium bike. He keeps reminding me that his bike is now out of the 5 year warranty that it came with. It is almost as though he is expecting it to break at any time. I checked his frame over this year and although there are a few scratches and a couple of digs into the metal- there are no signs of damage anywhere on the frame at all. 10 years ago- that would not have been possible. The Ally framed bikes were like tanks. Overbuilt- thick gauge tubing and they were prone to breakage. Things have moved on and although there are still a few Luddites about like me that do not fancy riding a "Plastic" frame- they are pretty well made nowadays.

Just look after it and don't go hitting too many trees or parked cars and it will last a lifetime. Just like the Trek OCR CF mountain bikes from about 1995. Compared to todays bikes- they are heavy and don't handle well, but they have lasted.

For the last 7 years, at weights ranging from 225-240, I've been riding a Trek 5200 for a total of about 24,000 miles. Never a problem structurally with the frame. Wheels, cranks, handle bars... now that's a different story.

Pat

Beat me to it. Many CF components have some kind of weight limit. Have never seen a CF frame with a stated weight limit.

We ride a full carbon fiber Zona tandem, 16,000+ miles on the odo. Our combined weight is just under 250 lbs. No issues.

Opt for a unique Calfee Design or wonderful Parlee Cycles frameset and rider weight won't even be an issue.

I ride the Tirreno Razza 2000 from Peformance Bike. It is all CF including the handle bar and other parts. I do occasionally think about the plastic parts while on a downhill, but so far it has been a great bike. The ride is better than the aluminum Allez I was riding. Actually, much better.

Is the better ride worth the worry of trusting plastic? Sometimes I wonder.

Is the better ride worth the worry of trusting plastic? Sometimes I wonder.

You should stop worrying. Long term studies of CF bikes show them to have very high reliability, unless they are crashed. Trek's studies indicate that their CF bikes have better long-term reliability than their steel and aluminum bikes.

You should stop worrying. Long term studies of CF bikes show them to have very high reliability, unless they are crashed. Trek's studies indicate that their CF bikes have better long-term reliability than their steel and aluminum bikes.

Not CF as it did not exist then- but I used to make Fibre Glass boats for the Tyler Boat company. They were at that time- The only manufacturer to get Lloyds A.I certificate. The life of the boats was expected to be around 10 years of use but they are still going 35 years later. These boats were well made and of the right material by experts but it was just a pity the drivers were no good. My job was to repair the boats after accidents in the boat yard where they were based and it is surprising how tough these boats were. I still cannot walk into a Car repair shop though without itching.

Everything fails, if constructed poorly it will fail early. Metal will fail based on fatigue over time and is subject to corrosion. CF does not fatigue, nor is it subject to corrosion but its ability to handle stress is based on the design and stress that it was not designed to handle will cause a failure.

I would prefer a material that is not subject to failure based on fatigue and corrosion which is time based rather than stress based.

but I wonder if being 200# I'm to heavy for CF. I've read some post (not many) saying that if your over 180# you shouldn't be riding carbon fiber.Pretty silly questions.

The weight of a cyclist has very little to do with selecting an appropriate bicycle. Anyone considering purchasing of a modern lightweight, or bicycle should be conscious of their own body's ability to endure as well as utilize the type of performance the bicycle is designed for.

Most 200lb riders have little to gain through equipment weight-savings. And unless they are competing at high levels or have a specific intended use for the bicycle -- particular construction materials and techniques will have little bearing on how any bicycle performs.

Your question indicates you don't need, [U]and won't benefit, from a specific type of bicycle material or construction. When you specify particular usage conditions, such as competitions or ride surfaces and terrain then you can deliberate.

Pretty silly questions.

The weight of a cyclist has very little to do with selecting an appropriate bicycle. Anyone considering purchasing of a modern lightweight, or bicycle should be conscious of their own body's ability to endure as well as utilize the type of performance the bicycle is designed for.

Most 200lb riders have little to gain through equipment weight-savings. And unless they are competing at high levels or have a specific intended use for the bicycle -- particular construction materials and techniques will have little bearing on how any bicycle performs.

Your question indicates you don't need, [U]and won't benefit, from a specific type of bicycle material or construction. When you specify particular usage conditions, such as competitions or ride surfaces and terrain then you can deliberate.

In an ideal world this might be true. My experience in the real world is not the same. People purchase many things that have a higher performance potential than their actual ability to effectively extract all of the potential. Golf clubs, automobiles, motorcycles, digital cameras, and audio equipment come to mind as examples. Hence, what one can "gain" from lightweight equipment must be considered as a highly individualized matter. For some big people, even modest gains in performance make a very big difference in the actual riding experience. Others gain such things as pride of ownership. What one ultimately derives as benefit from one's choice of a bicycle is not a simple matter. As an example, I know a very fit and fast rider who continues to ride a moderately heavy lugged steel frame with downtube shifters, even in competitive situations. He most surely would improve his overall speed with a stiffer and lighter bicycle. However, what he gains or sees as benefit from staying with his beloved lugged steel frame is not soley performance based.

Everything fails, if constructed poorly it will fail early. Metal will fail based on fatigue over time and is subject to corrosion. CF does not fatigue, nor is it subject to corrosion but its ability to handle stress is based on the design and stress that it was not designed to handle will cause a failure.

I would prefer a material that is not subject to failure based on fatigue and corrosion which is time based rather than stress based.

If fatigue is not the word for it, perhaps delamination is. Nothing that is loaded or cyclically stressed stays the same, IMHO.

While steel can fail catastrophically, it will usually bend or crack first. This can't be said for CF or aluminum.

As far as CF doing what is was designed for, there is a certain poster to this forum who often boasts of his ability to "bunny hop" anything if need be, even if at high speed. I saw a guy try bunny hopping on a CF bike, at less than 20 mph, going over speed bumps in a park at a charity ride. His frame separated at the head tube when he came down. It wasn't pretty. Don't know how he ended up but he did some time in ICU last I heard. Just sayin.....

I would bet if he was riding a CF mtb his bunny hop may not have caused a problem. The thing with CF is that it is easy for the mfg to provide additional structure at stress points where needed. So building a road bike they are going to beef up the bottom bracket but they don't expect much stress on the tube joints so they will not add more material which allows them to keep the weight low. On a mtb where you expect more stress on the tube joints I expect they add more material to compensate and weight is not as much as an issue for those bikes.

Pretty silly questions.

The weight of a cyclist has very little to do with selecting an appropriate bicycle. Anyone considering purchasing of a modern lightweight, or bicycle should be conscious of their own body's ability to endure as well as utilize the type of performance the bicycle is designed for.

Most 200lb riders have little to gain through equipment weight-savings. And unless they are competing at high levels or have a specific intended use for the bicycle -- particular construction materials and techniques will have little bearing on how any bicycle performs.

Your question indicates you don't need, [U]and won't benefit, from a specific type of bicycle material or construction. When you specify particular usage conditions, such as competitions or ride surfaces and terrain then you can deliberate.

Pretty silly answers.

CF is about more than weight. In fact CF, because of the ways it can be manipulated in building a frame, might be a better choice for a heavy rider. Some CF bikes (like my Buenos Aires) are stronger at certain stress points. Besides, I contend that ANYONE will benefit from a new, better bike. I may not be a CAT 1 (or 2 or 3 or 4 or...you get the idea) but I am sure as heck a much better rider on my BA than I was on my steel hybrid. I go farther, faster and with more smiles per mile, even though I am still on the high side of 200. OP's question indicates that he had some concerns that he wanted answers to. Seemed like good questions to me. Your answer sucked.....IMHO.

As CF frames can also deliver a more comfortable ride than an aluminum bike, there are more reasons to go with CF than performance. CF has much better vibration damping properties than aluminum.

CF has much better vibration damping properties than aluminum.

Yes, but that's not really saying a lot.

It has better vibration damping than steel or titanium too, but I really wasn't looking to go there. Only pointing out that there were reasons, other than shaving ounces, for someone to buy a CF road bike instead of the common aluminum road bikes.

Richard Cranium ... what would be the shortened version of that name ??

It has better vibration damping than steel or titanium too, but I really wasn't looking to go there. Only pointing out that there were reasons, other than shaving ounces, for someone to buy a CF road bike instead of the common aluminum road bikes.

I think you would agree that the differences between aluminum and good steel or titanium are far greater than those between CF and good steel or titanium. Reasons to choose any material instead of aluminum.

It is a great handle.

Hey Richard, FWIW, buying the bike I did, is because I know I will enjoy it. I think when you enjoy something you will use it more. That was good enough for me. I'm not here to try and prove something to myself or anybody else, I'm here to enjoy my senior years anyway I can. Thank you for your input and have a nice Christmas.

I would agree that steel is closer to CF than aluminum is. And it is possible to build a CF bike that is every bit as rigid as aluminum, by using thicker tubes. So it is all variable.

Most people shopping at LBS for bikes will have a choice of aluminum, al/CF, or CF. Not that many steel or ti bikes on LBS floors anymore.

There is also the factor that in many bike lines, if you want better quality components, you'll need to go with a CF bike.

I would agree that steel is closer to CF than aluminum is. And it is possible to build a CF bike that is every bit as rigid as aluminum, by using thicker tubes. So it is all variable.

Most people shopping at LBS for bikes will have a choice of aluminum, al/CF, or CF. Not that many steel or ti bikes on LBS floors anymore.

There is also the factor that in many bike lines, if you want better quality components, you'll need to go with a CF bike.

They are excellent for lightening your ride (mostly via your wallet).

For a point in this thread....it is possible that full CF bikes are stronger than frames that have bonded components incorporated into their construction. There is more room for bad things to occur at the bonded joint then in the material itself.

Hey Richard, FWIW, buying the bike I did, is because I know I will enjoy it. I think when you enjoy something you will use it more. That was good enough for me. I'm not here to try and prove something to myself or anybody else, I'm here to enjoy my senior years anyway I can. Thank you for your input and have a nice Christmas.

I bought my Madone for about the same reasons, George. It was an early retirement gift to myself as I plan to continue biking after retirement. I'll probably need the lightest, lowest geared bike I can find to climb those hills in my 70's:D