Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Attention All Clydesdales, Time to be Heard!

Hello Fellow Cyclists,

I need your Opinions, Thoughts and Concerns when it comes to the bikes you ride. I work for a company that currently has a large customer basis in clyde/athena market. We are planning on producing a specialty bike that can handle a 450 lb rider. I have done plenty of research, much of it thanks to this very forum. Which is why I want to hear what you have to say. :thumb:

Here is a basic outline of the bike:
Thick Wall Tubing CroMoly Frame 18",21",24"
Braze-Ons for Racks, Fenders and Waterbottle Cages
700c Wheels with F36h and R40h Hubs
Puncture Resistant 45c Tires
24 speed Shimano Drivetrain
Disc Brakes F and R
Heavy Duty Steel Seatpost, Stem and Handlebars
Large Gel Saddle
Dual Density Ergonomic Grips


This is your chance to put your opinion out there to directly influence a bike that you might ride in the future. Feel free to put any idea out there. Experiences, Dream Bikes, Features, Annoying Mishaps, Details ETC...

If anyone would prefer to respond in private feel free to message me on this forum's personal message feature.

Thanks In Advance,

Ted

1.) No suspension fork
2.) Deore deraileurs
3.) 35 mm tires
4.) Brooks B17 saddle

Hello, and welcome.
Since this is your first post, I'd like to hear more about where you are coming from before I jump into your project. No offense.

Thanks for the input jethro56. The bike is going to have a rigid steel fork most similar to the Surly Big Dummy with the rack mounts and plenty of clearance for a set of fenders. The deore derailleurs are a definite possibility as are the 35c tires. The brooks saddle is more of a personal choice and at its cost it will likely be a post-purchase upgrade by the cyclist.

Hello Boyd Reynolds, No offense taken. I'm sure my one post status might seem ominous! My main goal is to design a bicycle that will meet the needs of a cyclist weighing between 200 and 450 lbs without breaking the bank or resorting to inferior parts that could fail under the increased stress. This is by no means a plug for my company which is why I used my personal account to post. After reading on this forum for the last few months, I have noticed a few common denominators when it comes to bicycle component failures and successes. One good example is the wheel set, I have seen many posts dealing with wheel set issues and solutions. There is a growing population that wants to ride but have factors that hold them back, I don't want a proper bike to be one of them. To sum it up, I want the opinions of the people who ride their bikes to get healthy and have fun.

Hello Boyd Reynolds, No offense taken. I'm sure my one post status might seem ominous! My main goal is to design a bicycle that will meet the needs of a cyclist weighing between 200 and 450 lbs without breaking the bank or resorting to inferior parts that could fail under the increased stress. This is by no means a plug for my company which is why I used my personal account to post. After reading on this forum for the last few months, I have noticed a few common denominators when it comes to bicycle component failures and successes. One good example is the wheel set, I have seen many posts dealing with wheel set issues and solutions. There is a growing population that wants to ride but have factors that hold them back, I don't want a proper bike to one of them. To sum it up, I want the opinions of the people who ride their bikes to get healthy and have fun.

No, by all means - plug your company. Who are you? - everything. You can answer my direct question so no rules are broken. Being in the business, I would imagine the answers you are seeking here must be blah blah blah. They are for us because it's pretty simple. A frame and wheel set that can handle the weight in geometries to fit tall riders. Pretty simple.

But not Specialized, Trek, Bianchi, Fuji, etc., All of the big boy production companies since the eighties has given a darn about clydes - so who are you? That's certainly the more interesting question. It's also a bit of a coincidence that KHS has just released (hopefully) the first bike that does all of the above and there's a thread going about it? :rolleyes:

Specific comments:
-"Thick Wall"- I don't know what this is, but normal steel bike frames seem to be adequate, so there's not necessarily a reason to go beefier.
36/40 spoke- I got a 36-spoke warranty replacement wheel that lasted about 500 miles. Had a new wheel rebuilt on the same hub, have about 10,000 miles on it. Moral is that the combination of components and build quality is important, not just the spoke count. Also, any wheel built to be entirely adequate for every 450 lb rider will be overkill for 201 lb riders.
45c Tires- My Sojourn came with 35's, check and see what the weight capacity is on the different tires.
24- Speed- My Sojourn uses a triple in front, wide-range (11-34, I think) mountain-bike cassette in back. Those low gears can be very important for unfit people.
Disc brakes- I have never seen any concensus, on Bikeforums or elsewhere, that disc brake were a better choice than rim brakes, or that disc brakes were better for heavier people, etc. They have advantages and disadvantages.
I've never heard of anything good about "gel" stuff from cyclists that actually did much cycling.
Not indicated is basic handlebar configuration- what works for 201 lb rider won't work for 450 lb rider and vice versa (ie, drop bars vs flat bars).
You might consider the idea of making the rear frame wider so you can use tandem components on the bike.

General comment: I'm not aware that bicycle components in general usually have a weight rating. Now, I assume that if you sell a seatpost with no specific weight rating, and an 800-lb person uses it and injures themselves, you have some sort of legal ground to say "Well, a reasonable person would have known you were too heavy for that seatpost so we're not liable." On the other hand, if you use a seatpost with no load rating, advertise the bike for 450 lb capacity, and then that seatpost breaks under a 440 lb rider, they could nail your hide to the wall in court. So that's a question to run by your lawyer prior to working out all the details.

I will play devil's advocate here. I believe Ted is just trying to protect his company's developing product by not divulging too many details about his company. I see no problem with this.

The overall outline of the bike sounds pretty spot on. No doubt that this bike is going to be heavy, but if you are a 400+ lb rider, that is not at all and issue. I'd expect this to weigh somewhere in the 35-40 lb range. I echo the suggestion of a little narrower tire than 45c, but not too much. Maybe a 40c semi-slick like the Kenda Kross would work well. I think you want something with the least rolling resistance possible in a decent width to support a heavier rider.

You mention using steel control components. I would think that and oversized 31.8mm handlebar/stem would be appropriate. I have also seen more bent steel seatposts than aluminum. I also get the impression that you were looking at a 2 piece steel post and I don't like using one of those seat clamps for a heavier rider. I would think a large diameter alloy post with two bolt head would work well. I think a 29.2 mm post would correlate well with a 34.9mm seat tube for the appropriate guage steel for this frame.

My last concern is going to be the price. Even if you are able to economize by using generic (Kalloy) control parts and other budget items, I still see this price easily shooting above $600 for such a bike. You are going to have a hard time selling to a lot of people. The ones who are over 300 lbs may jump right in with one of these bikes knowing it is going to hold up to their weight, but I am also afraid many of the people in that weight range may also be hesitant spending that much money on a bike not knowing if they will be able to stick with it long enough to justify the cost. There are plenty of $400 bikes out there that someone can go buy, ride for a while, and maybe end up spending $150 on a rear wheel with more spokes. There are a lot of people who just don't have $600 to spend all at once. I also think that those who are under 300 lbs may not see the value when there are a lot of bikes out there that can hold up to someone this size reasonably well. I am 227 lbs now, down from 265, and even at my former weight I never thought I was too heavy for all by the lightest of bikes.

My feeling is that had an untapped market for such bikes existed, one of the big brands would have tapped it already. The Specializeds, Treks, and Giants of the work have very large marketing budgets that allow them to conduct such product research.

As an option, 8 speed 35-95 gear inches - no need for more. Big Apple tires. Not necessarily more spokes, but stronger spokes.

I'm a newbie, and I know virtually NOTHING about bicycles.....
save for what I've read on the Internet and questions answered by friends, strangers, and salesmen. The problem with salesmen is that they will INSIST that the bike they're selling is up to the task of supporting folk like me who are heavier than "normal". Had I seen a line of bicycles actually designed those of us who are heavier, my interest would have been piqued. Instead, I concluded that a "touring" road bike was going to be a better gamble for me.

* Big folks for whom you wanna design a bicycle, won't have the flexibility to reach for drop-down bars. But I wanted a bike that looked the part while planning someday to be able to reach my lower bars. Adjustable bars (rather than race oriented) might have been a good pitch to give me when I was looking for a bike.

* Dual brake levers, with one set on the upper handlebar might have prevented me from coasting into the rear wheel of a buddy's bike..... Us larger folk may not be as quick & nimble as we would like to be.

* Because I have been playing with my saddle height, it's angle, etc.... I've found that I've had to tighten things more than the advised torque settings. It would be nice if heavy duty hardware were put into place for those of us who want/NEED to really torque things down.

* As a fat older guy who hasn't been on a bicycle for over 35 years, I didn't want to be bothered with flat tires..... of which I've had two in the first month of ownership. I paid $70 to have my "puncture resistant" innertubes replaced with some super heavy-duty THICK innertubes and high-tech tire liners (not Slime.... it didn't prevent one of my punctures in that first month).

* And how about an insulated top box on the lugguge rack to carry my Subway sammich, Snickers, and a bottle of red.

If anyone would prefer to respond in private feel free to message me on this forum's personal message feature.


If I send a personal message via the forums feature, will you make sure I get a response?:D

One issue I've been having lately is the seatpost. It seems to slide back into the tube pretty easily. I'm not even using a quickrelease on it; just a plain bolt and nut with washers. I've stripped several bolts overtightening it in the past. Perhaps this is an issue you might focus on.


As for the large gel seat... I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Sure people are tricked into thinking that's a good idea, and it may even be ok for cruiser style bikes, but in general you want a more sturdy saddle. That opens another can of worms as well: what kind of handlebars? Cruiser? Flat? Drops?

I think you should probably get a better idea of what sub-category you want to target; People over 200lbs is a pretty diverse group with many differing styles and preferences.

Hello Fellow Cyclists,

I need your Opinions, Thoughts and Concerns when it comes to the bikes you ride. I work for a company that currently has a large customer basis in clyde/athena market. We are planning on producing a specialty bike that can handle a 450 lb rider. I have done plenty of research, much of it thanks to this very forum. Which is why I want to hear what you have to say. :thumb:

Here is a basic outline of the bike:
Thick Wall Tubing CroMoly Frame 18",21",24"
Braze-Ons for Racks, Fenders and Waterbottle Cages
700c Wheels with F36h and R40h Hubs
Puncture Resistant 45c Tires
24 speed Shimano Drivetrain
Disc Brakes F and R
Heavy Duty Steel Seatpost, Stem and Handlebars
Large Gel Saddle
Dual Density Ergonomic Grips


This is your chance to put your opinion out there to directly influence a bike that you might ride in the future. Feel free to put any idea out there. Experiences, Dream Bikes, Features, Annoying Mishaps, Details ETC...

If anyone would prefer to respond in private feel free to message me on this forum's personal message feature.

Thanks In Advance,

Ted
Please, for the love of God, use at least 36h rims and beefy ones at that! My experience has been that most stock rims are total shiite for a clyde! And no need for a saddle that looks like a couch, but something better than what feels like a 2x4 on edge! many clydes have wider sit bones and the standard saddles also stink.

Also I agree with no suspension anything! Deore or better derailleurs, as for rubber please, not some low end made garbage like many stock tires mounted on most bikes. the stock Kendas that came on my Giant Sedona were pure crap. I scrubbed the shoulders off 3 tires in 2 years due to the weak sidewall. Kenda themselves told me the tires were ****, I mean, entry level. Don't skimp on the rubber, it does not cost much more for good tires, nor will it significantly raise the retail price of the bike. And please do not "sock it to" the customer with the price of this bike. I know it is a substantial bike and the price may be more than the normal bike for lightweight folks. You know the bike that is ridden 4 times and sits in the garage....

Consider too please a road bike frame and that which you listed. See, some of us would be a Clyde, even if we were underweight! My ideal weight is somewhere in the 240lb range and I am 5'11"! Yes we are out there, Linebackers want to ride bikes too you know....

I feel the time has come for bike manufacturers to consider we are not all Lance Armstrong, nor do we ride the tour. But some of us ride a heck of a lot more than the average guy! I don't need a 19 pound road bike! I need a bike that can handle a REAL sized person and still not suffer in performance. I also do not want to be relegated to a, sit bolt upright, easy geared lifestyle/hybrid bike for fat folks. Some Clydes rifde harder and faster and more often than skinny minnies. And we do Century rides and tours. Why do we have to be stuck on a bike we have to fight, even if it can support the weight. I am sick of riding the bike equivalent of a Yugo at a NASCAR race...

You could also produce said bike in the sub $1,000 range or thereabouts I am sure..... If you are going to do this, do it right and do it so the average Joe can afford the bike and not have to change everything that is not the frame or handlebars. I wish my LeTour had better wheels and pedals! And skip the dry spaghetti spokes! look up the retail of the LeTour Classic, then add 600 more for rims and tires that I don't have a problem with spending, but I don't think I should have to spend that to get a brand new bike to work for me. (Nor should any Clyde or Athena)

So far the saddle, the pedals and the rims are gone off the stock road bike. A story repeated on every new bike I have purchased in the last few years (other than my mountain bikes)

And please keep us informed on this(these) bikes. I'd buy one in a heartbeat!

My only input, because as a somewhat smaller clyde I've been lucky to not have to deal with the "wear and tear" factor issues, is to make the bike strong enough to support larger folks, without making them feel like it's a "fat person's" bike. If that makes sense.

I personally think, and this is just my opinion, that one of the barriers to entry for clydes/athenas is the mental aspect of it. There's a certain amount of embarrassment about being a big person on a bike that often keeps us from riding to save our lives even though that's absolutely what we must do.

The fact of the matter is even though we're larger people, we WANT to be athletes.

Our bikes should help us feel like athletes.

I second the stronger spokes as I had to replace the stock wheel on my Lemond within the first year(it was a brand new bike). Also, locate the shifters someplace easy for a clyde to get to. Not on the bar ends like the Surly LHT or the down tube. A location easy for a non flexible clyde to deal with. Are you putting drops on this bike or a flat handle bar?

What is your warranty going to look like? I have a carbon fiber racing bike. It developed a crack in the seat tube. The company that made it replaced the frame free of charge. Your target market can't always ride bikes from the local store, and is worried about breaking anything they get on, so a warranty might help you appeal to people who are interested in bikes, but concerned about their weight being supported.


Disc brakes- I have never seen any concensus, on Bikeforums or elsewhere, that disc brake were a better choice than rim brakes, or that disc brakes were better for heavier people, etc. They have advantages and disadvantages.

They give much more consistent stopping power/distance in the rain; now it's up to your tires and not your pads and how much water is on your rims. Very easy to adjust, and it can be that an out-of-true wheel doesn't cause problems with them. On the other hand, when you kill a wheel, you can't just walk into any shop and leave with a new one. This has been a pain in my ass for a couple weeks now.

A Big Thanks goes out to everyone who posted in response :). I emailed the moderator for this forum page and asked if he would allow me to receive PMs even though I do not have 50 posts so hopefully anyone who sent me one will get a response (thanks Mr. Beanz).

Sundance89, Depending on how the moderator Tom takes this thread I will release the company information. We certainly are not one of the "big boys" of bikes. This is going to be one bike of four in our market launch.

StephenH, The wall thickness of steel bike frames is the amount of material you have when Outside Tube Diameter and Inside Tube Diameter are subtracted. The thicker the wall the stronger the tube is, given the same outside diameter. The disc brakes are development that I felt would resist heat build up and be less affected by outside factors such as rain, snow and mud. Consistent stopping power. The bike will have flat bars with a slight rise to raise the body into a more comfortable position.

flippin_bikes, I appreciate your knowledge on the tires and control components. In terms of price this bike will be above $600. I know that most people won't need this type of structural stability and would rather save on cost but this bike isn't for most people. It's a fine line between making a very strong bike and over engineering in this case.

RandoneeRider, This bike is designed for larger riders and every component has been chosen to support that cause. No salesman pitch here, just a well developed idea. The bike will have flat bars with a slight rise, trigger shifters and mountain bike style brake levers. All of which will be accessible without significant movement from the ergo grips. The bike will have braze-ons for luggage racks so I don't see any reason why you couldn't add a cooler for a nice picnic or a days worth of riding snacks.

Mithrandir, Thank you for the seat post comment. I am going to work on a design that will hold the seat post firm in the seat tube. The group I am trying to cater to are people who cannot just go to the bike shop and pick a bike in the store. Mostly taller men weighing over 250 lbs.

Profgumby, The wheel set is a major element to this bike. It will be standard on this bike as well as offered for sale by itself. The tires are going to be strong puncture resistant tires with a strong sidewall and width to accommodate the added weight. I agree with the statement about riding a bike out of the box. I plan on riding the first and every sample bike for a century or metric century on a local trail as soon as we get them to test its reliability. As for frame geometry, that is something that is still in the works.

ill.clyde, thank you for your post. I am going to do my best do make a bike that satisfies the inner athlete in every clyde. Don't worry what others say about size and riding. Getting on the bike and riding is the best way to show people that you are an athlete.

BigUgly, The spokes are going to be either double or triple butted 14g spokes laced to a 36h front and 40h rear hub. All of the wheels will be properly tensioned and trued for strength. The handle bar will be a flat bar with a slight rise with trigger shifters located next to the grips.

My main goal is to design a bicycle that will meet the needs of a cyclist weighing between 200 and 450 lbs without breaking the bank or resorting to inferior parts that could fail under the increased stress.

Consider narrowing your focus. My needs and preferences at the 200-250 range are WAY different than they would be at the 400-450 range.

Consider narrowing your focus. My needs and preferences at the 200-250 range are WAY different than they would be at the 400-450 range.

Exactly the point I was trying to make. For now, I'm at 350+, and I prefer flat handlebars because I find leaning over too far to be difficult with a gut in the way. But that gut has been slowly disappearing, and I find myself being able to lean lower and lower, and I'm actually considering getting a more racing-style bike in the near future now that I've become more addicted to speed and can feel the effects of wind on my massive bodice.

Oh..... and one other thing.

I stand a mere 5' 1" and weigh 236 lb's (255 a couple months ago before buying the bike), and built like a little troll/linebacker/fireplug/fat boy......

I am not alone in standing a mere five feet..... in fact there are more women than men who are not tall enough for readily available 'quality' bicycles.

I might suggest:
If your company can't afford to offer very small ADULT bikes for the likes of my five-foot-one, at least consider a Small size line of bikes with a lower/angled "Euro" or "Unisex" top bar. I'm on an XS, and I come NOWHERE NEAR being able to stand (safely) over my top bar.

I hope to lose quite a bit of weight by the time you will have come out with your bike. But priced in the neighborhood of $600 with half decent componants and disc brakes (heavy folks need good brakes), I may be in the market for a comfortable 'round-town bike......

They give much more consistent stopping power/distance in the rain; now it's up to your tires and not your pads and how much water is on your rims. Very easy to adjust, and it can be that an out-of-true wheel doesn't cause problems with them. On the other hand, when you kill a wheel, you can't just walk into any shop and leave with a new one. This has been a pain in my ass for a couple weeks now.

AND, with Clydes, broken spokes or other issues, causing out-of-true wheels can sadly be an issue. So having great brakes (like BB7s) that work regardless of how true the rim is will be a bonus~!

Kickstand or option
Fenders or option
Option for Big Apple tires (fit) 26X2.00 as an option? (stronger wheels?)
Rear rack or option
At least TWO water bottle holders or option
Multiple handle-bar options - perhaps two different models based on the same bike?
Perhaps Disc brake on one model?

Consider narrowing your focus. My needs and preferences at the 200-250 range are WAY different than they would be at the 400-450 range.


Dittos to this! I'm currently 240 and you'd never see me on a bike like that. Standard fame, components and quality 32 spoke wheels work great for me. Your model seem overkill in my weight range. You might be spot on for the upper weight ranges though.

24" is a bit small for a top end..that's...61cm? I'd suggest at least going up to 64cm or so.

You know, as long as you're making the bike indestructible, you might as well make sure it works well with heavy cargo hauling accessories. Make sure the standard pedals are alloy. You'll likely have market carryover from the Utility crowd who also expect to put a bajillion tons of load on their bikes, and likely want to stick longtails and things on the thing.

Hello Fellow Cyclists,

I need your Opinions, Thoughts and Concerns ...snip...

Here is a basic outline of the bike:
Thick Wall Tubing CroMoly Frame 18",21",24"
Braze-Ons for Racks, Fenders and Waterbottle Cages
700c Wheels with F36h and R40h Hubs
Puncture Resistant 45c Tires
24 speed Shimano Drivetrain
Disc Brakes F and R
Heavy Duty Steel Seatpost, Stem and Handlebars
Large Gel Saddle
Dual Density Ergonomic Grips


This is your chance to put your opinion out there to directly influence a bike that you might ride in the future. ...snip...

So basically you're building the old Kona Hoss with a steel frame, rigid fork and 29er tires? Well you asked for my opinion and I will candidly deliver.

Geometrically speaking, the diamond frame is extremely strong. Much stronger than any reasonable person could put it through in your target weight range. Where steel frames tend to fail is the welds. Thus, adding thick wall tubing adds no benefit to the bike as standard diameters are more than strong enough. Where you would benefit is investing time and money into the quality control on the welds. Thick tubes will only add to the weight of the bike. Heavy bikes take more effort to move, you want your bike to be as strong and light as you can to encourage riders to ride. If it’s a tank, it won’t be pleasant to ride and quickly be eliminated as a potential purchase during the test ride.

I like your idea for Braze-Ons. Don’t forget the third set on the bottom of the down tube. It’s a really handy place to mount a frame pump.

Good idea with the wheels.

I’m not certain I like the idea with the 45c tires. Here is why: The wider a tire is in general, the lower PSI is can be inflated to. With super tubby tires, you’re probably looking in the 60 psi range, max. Much higher than that and you’ll blow the tire off the rim. With clydes, high PSI tires are fairly important as we are at a much greater risk of pinch flats. A pinch flat is when a sharp corner is ridden over (think the edge of a pothole) and the tire decompresses. The rim then makes contact with the tire casing pinching the tube. When the tube is pinched like that, it gets cut. I’d suggest instead a 700x32 rated around 100psi.

24 speed? Why are you going with old 8 speed tech? Go for a nine speed (which is also old tech but plenty durable). Parts are easier to find in stores, maybe an 11-32 cassette with a long cage Deore LX.

Disc Breaks…Could take them or leave them. Offer a model with and without.

Heavy Duty seat post, probably a good idea. Stem and handlebars…not necessary. The rider’s weight shouldn’t be fully supported by their hands when they ride. All a steel stem and bar will do is add unnecessary weight while offering no benefit whatsoever in return.

Large gel saddle…skip it. Saddles are such a personal choice anyways. A narrow saddle will be more comfortable over the long haul anyways. It’s a flat bar bike, so add nice bar ends to it. They don’t have to be heavy duty steel, either.

Based on what I’ve read of your posts and your design criteria…you and whomever came up with this design don’t ride very much. You got good intentions, but a few critical flaws I pointed out above. What you’ve designed is the quintessential “fat-man” bike. Who is going to want to ride it when all they really have to do is pick out a regular production bike and swap in a new wheelset? All the other components are ok. Outside of spokes and wheels, clydes really don’t break anything any more frequently than the rest of the rides. Besides, Worksman Industrial Cycles have beat you to the punch. http://worksmancycles.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/indbikes.html

I wouldn’t invest much money into this venture.

I am pleasantly surprised about the amount of feedback I am getting from this forum. Nice Work! :thumb: On to the questions:

chipcom, I agree, the bike is still in the design stage and the first working model is 7-8 months away so I have time to refine my work.

Mithrandir/Homeyba, I am designing the bike for people who are primarily in the upper region of that range [250-450 lbs]. Most people in the lower section of that range can use a off the shelf bike with an upgraded wheel set. We are going to offer that wheel set as a separate purchase for people who are happy with the bike they already own but just want stronger rolling gear.

RandoneeRider, Unfortunately, as you mentioned, we cannot afford to offer XS sizes in this bike. We are coming out with a comfort bike with a lowered top tube for an easier step through.

Peter_C, I plan on having all of what you had mentioned avialable for sale with the bike. In addition the bike will have all of the proper braze-ons for such upgrades.

EGUNWT, The 24" top end is a working model as of now. At 6'3" I do understand the difficulty in finding bikes that fit bigger people.

JusticeZero, In addition to the braze-ons and endless combinations of rack options the heavy cargo hauling is a real possibility due to the strength of the frame and wheel set.

bautieri, I like your thinking about the quality control on the welding. Although it is the area around the weld that tends to fail even with proper welding due to the heating and subsequent uncontrolled cooling that detempers the metal. Based on what I have read on the forum I am going to pursue a 32 to 35c tire with a higher psi rating. As for the 8 vs 9 speed debate that comes down to what price point we want to meet. Both are readily available and offer similar technology so its pretty much a wash. Disc brakes are a part of that bike that I feel will be advantageous over standard rim brakes. The wheel set will be available if you want to upgrade your current setup. The link you posted is a nice example for a utility bike but is in a different niche market. I enjoyed your post up until the end when you made a bit of a stab at me, the designer of the bike and an avid cyclist. Nonetheless I appreciate your honesty in my request of the forums opinions.

I'll third that.

At 348 lb my needs were more than met with a hybrid bike. I considered 10 miles to be the outside of what I would ride. Speed meant little to me.

Now I'm consistently riding distances in excess of 20 miles and the hybrid is holding me back. I'm in the mid 280s the last time I checked.

With my height at 6'6" it is a tough search to try and find a road bike that isn't too small or too fragile for a reasonable price.

There are bikes for the seriously obese. There are no bikes for the semi-fit Clyde.

I'll third that.

At 348 lb my needs were more than met with a hybrid bike. I considered 10 miles to be the outside of what I would ride. Speed meant little to me.

Now I'm consistently riding distances in excess of 20 miles and the hybrid is holding me back. I'm in the mid 280s the last time I checked.

With my height at 6'6" it is a tough search to try and find a road bike that isn't too small or too fragile for a reasonable price.

There are bikes for the seriously obese. There are no bikes for the semi-fit Clyde.

Kerrvillian - you are speaking to what I just went through, from a riders weight standpoint. I ended up with a steel frame road bike. I got the Schwinn LeTour Classic as a Zinn or Waterford were just too far out of my price point. I also am sinking about 1/2 the cost of the bike into the weakest link, the wheels and tires. I'd still like to see this company address the semi fit clyde and offer a bike with a sturdy 32 hole rim with beefy spokes.

To another point mentioned earlier - the heavy frame with the thick walled tubing would not scare me away with the bike proposed. It would on a road bike. I have a 1974 Schwinn Continental and that bugger is bomb proof! I wish the tires could hold their rated pressure but the stock rims won't allow much more than 65psi before the tire wants to blow off the rim. But I expect that, just as I expect the bike to not be as responsive as my new roadie. This is why I searched for a new road bike that I could ride and didn't cost as much as a custom. Customs are great and I still want one, but funds go elsewhere right now.

Maybe thinner walled chromoly and a lugged frame? Or just a bit lighter tubing if you go the road bike route? I agree the welds are a concern and they need to be done right, but in this day and age that is probably not an issue.

I have no issue with the bike as proposed, nor the niche you are addressing. Just read the Clyde forum thread titles. How many are looking for durable gear? How many bigger people are not riding as they fear a bike wont hold them? I lost 40 or 50 pounds before I felt that I could ride again. I wish there was a Clyde specific bike when I started losing weight! You gotta start somewhere!

BTW, assuming this bike company has a full line of bikes already, hopefully steel and Aluminum etc... why not offer an option that allows for 700x28/32 rims with 32 hole and strong spokes? I'd rather order a bike from the dealer and add the better rims and tires up front than do it aftermarket style and then be stuck with extra rims or take a bath trying to sell them outright. I don't care how big a company is, there is no excuse for not having this as an option or having one level of your road bike equipped like this from the start.

psyloki - you said you don't ride, and that's cool with me. But take it from one who does, simply adding a beefy rim set to an existing bike, maybe a thicker seat post and a few little tweaks will ALSO boost your sales to fit clydes that are sick of buying, then gutting a bike. I would rather pay 10% - 15% more for a bike with these options than another 50 - 60% as I have had to do with 2 bikes now. And let me put my hat into the ring by saying if you do this with a road bike, I'd gladly field test one for you for a few years and report it's performance...as I really will put the bike through it's paces.. :)

My preferences would be:

Compact style frame, as I find the parallel to the earth top bar restrictive. I have a Specialized Sequoia and like the elevated headset.

I don't know what you are looking for in terms of handlebars, but I find the adjustable headset to be an advantage. The typical clyde, will want to ride in a more upright position, and a flat bar with multiple positions, or road bars are more forgiving.

I do like the multiple brake lever postions.

Gears should be triple on the front, gravity is an important consideration for a clyde.

The needs really are split into two segments, clyde and uber-clyde.

Comments about the wheels and tire width, I agree with them.

There are no off-the-shelf bikes for the semi-fit Clyde.

fixed that for ya ;)

the best bikes are those that you build (or have built) to your own personal specs...we're all unique with unique needs and preferences.

One issue I've been having lately is the seatpost. It seems to slide back into the tube pretty easily. I'm not even using a quickrelease on it; just a plain bolt and nut with washers. I've stripped several bolts overtightening it in the past. Perhaps this is an issue you might focus on.


As for the large gel seat... I'm not so sure that's a good idea. Sure people are tricked into thinking that's a good idea, and it may even be ok for cruiser style bikes, but in general you want a more sturdy saddle. That opens another can of worms as well: what kind of handlebars? Cruiser? Flat? Drops?

I think you should probably get a better idea of what sub-category you want to target; People over 200lbs is a pretty diverse group with many differing styles and preferences.

Try and find a seatpost binder that is just big enough to fit over post.

Put it on the post, adjust the saddle, and then tighten the new post binder.

Works for me.

im a clyds (213) and enjoy riding all the time. dont own a car so bikes r my trans....curently own....NOT ENOUGH! 3 schwiinns, 3 huffys, a FS ladies, a mongoose mtb(converted for st use) and trying to get a 78 collegente 10 spd (all og).

As a 225 pound disabled Athena, I have to say two things: Offer a female frame. I refuse to order a diamond frame. Here in the Netherlands, it's now common to see men on women's frames and there are even special low step thru frames. When you get into the SuperClyde sizes, or you're dealing with disability, kicking that leg over can be difficult.

Secondly, racks and the ability to carry an additional 50 pounds of groceries is a must for me. I live a carless lifestyle now and use the bike sometimes five, six times a day for short 5 km trips to the grocery, to work, to friends house, the park... what ever. There must be ample clearance for panniers and no heal strike.

My fav. bike is a Pre-Grant Peterson Bridgestone mixte with a very heavy steel frame, MTB flat bars. The lugs are beefy and she's going no where. I have no fears of beating her up. I curb jump her with groceries. There are very few bikes out there I would feel safe to do that on.

Hello Clydes and Athenas,

I feel lucky that there is a community so ready to share their stories and opinions. Keep up the good work!:D

Kerrvillian, I liked the way you described your cycling situation. The last quote "no bikes for the semi fit clyde" was a good fit for your needs in terms of a bike.

Profgumby, The heavy duty wheel set 36hf/40hr will be available for sure and I like the idea of a second wheel set similar to what you described. Then you could make one purchase and easily upgrade your '74 Schwinn Continental. I am not sure where you got the notion that I don't ride. Maybe from another poster??? I am sure you would put plenty of miles on this bike. We are probably still several months from a demo.

ChargerDawg, the lower step-through on the bike is an important consideration that will be incorporated on this bike. In terms of handle bars, we are going to offer a flat bar handlebar with ergonomic dual density grips. As a post purchase modification the buyer can upgrade to road bars/bar ends/cruiser bars or what ever suits their needs. As this thread continues I see the uber-clyde and clyde split more definitively.

chipcom, there are few things more fulfilling than building a machine where every part was hand picked for a reason.

late, I use a over post binder myself on my mountain bike. I have been very satisfied with it.

trx1, Once the bike bug bites its hard to have just one!

Rona, We are also making a step through bike with a low top tube. More of a cruiser style with a internal geared shimano hub and chain guard.

Rona, We are also making a step through bike with a low top tube. More of a cruiser style with a internal geared shimano hub and chain guard.


http://www.designhaus.nl/fietsen/scandanavian-green/ This style is extremely popular here in NL for men and women. Large Schwalbe fat franks, built for heavy use. http://www.fietsy.nl/220/moederfietsen-26-inch.php These are even more awesome and can hold a woman and three kids with groceries (no joke), long wheelbase and very easy step thru. These just don't exist in America yet but they should.

bautieri, I like your thinking about the quality control on the welding. Although it is the area around the weld that tends to fail even with proper welding due to the heating and subsequent uncontrolled cooling that detempers the metal. Based on what I have read on the forum I am going to pursue a 32 to 35c tire with a higher psi rating. As for the 8 vs 9 speed debate that comes down to what price point we want to meet. Both are readily available and offer similar technology so its pretty much a wash. Disc brakes are a part of that bike that I feel will be advantageous over standard rim brakes. The wheel set will be available if you want to upgrade your current setup. The link you posted is a nice example for a utility bike but is in a different niche market. I enjoyed your post up until the end when you made a bit of a stab at me, the designer of the bike and an avid cyclist. Nonetheless I appreciate your honesty in my request of the forums opinions.

8 vs 9, Price wise they are similar. Being that 8 speed is older, it will go out of (or into reduced production) sooner. You're better off going with newer tech so you don't limit the life the shelf life of your model.

You are right that the area closest to a weld is the weakest point, but you can reduce this by welding at a lower temperature (reduced voltage on a MIG unit). Will you be hand building these frames or will it be a mass production unit?

For my jab, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. You'll get over it, it's the internet. You indirectly asked me to critique your century capable uber-clyde bike design, for someone who claims to be an avid cyclist...I don't see the original design as being well thought out. Do you fall into the category of rider that you are building this bike for? Do you have first hand experience with any of the problems you are trying to resolve? What price point are you shooting for? Ultimately, my best advice for you is not to build a bike that you wouldn't ride yourself. Roll a few thousand miles on your prototypes in their stock form to get a good idea where improvements can be made. Take your design and build a bike based on it. If you ask 20 different people what they want, you'll get 20 different responses. Too many chef's spoil the soup.

I would swear I read that you said you didn't ride, only designed..then I see you are going to test the bikes yourself so I must have misread....

And I'm glad you are considering a second wheelset. I do not know what company you are with, but I am assuming it is a company with quality bikes already, not a big box bike manufacturer. Anyway, most bike shop bikes are plenty strong except the rims. If my new LeTour ( or a specialized or a Trek road bike etc ) had the option to get the stock bike, with the 36 hole, beefy/quality rims that is the route I would have gone.

Offering to sell the wheelset as an aftermarket upgrade for current clyde-rides sounds good, but I don't see any detail about these wheels. What size might they be? 700C? 26"? How confident are you that your target market here has disc brakes - or are you thinking to offer multiple size/brake options?

Frame - you don't need thick steel. Just slightly larger diameter tubes and heavily butted primarily on all tubes near the BB, and up near the head tube area and somewhat butted always near welds. This will reduce weight from being an anvil, to something a bit easier to hoist up into a bike hook that won't rip the hook out of the stud it's screwed into. And the bigger diameter will increase rigidity. The main triangle is not going to be your problem. A big rider is going to kill a frame primarily in two places - right chainstay, and near the seat post binder. The third place, for a clumsy big rider is going to be buckling from a head-on crash at the down tube where it joins the head tube.

The chainstay is problematic because too thick and it reduces tire clearance and affects chain-line. So you need to ovalize. But ovalized chainstays don't stop side flex at the bridge stay where I've broken two steel frames. So you'll need to make the chainstays and seat stays more beefy, maybe double the wall thickness than normal. (Remember Columbus SL/SP frames for heavier riders? - SP was thicker walled tubing for exactly this purpose).

For the seat post binder, use a double width collar clamp or two clamps. This means the frame needs to have a seat tube that extends above the top tube by about 4cm. But don't extend it much beyond that, as this may allow too much unsupported section so that a heavy rider with a long seat post will torque off the top and bend the tubing above the top tube. And two clamps is better than a single braze-on or welded on collar. Those break often as heavy riders or tall riders over extend with the mother of all long seat posts, and must constantly tighten the seat post binder bolt. A break off is inevitable. So removable clamps (2 of them) will reduce the load on each clamp and provide redundancy. A standard Cr-Mo seat post with standard clamp is fine. I have no issues with them. The issue is more in the saddle creaking. A heavy rider easily deforms the plastic molding of the saddle frame and where it rubs on the saddle rails, it creaks. A Brooks saddle is nice and sturdy, but for a heavy rider, you have either have the perfect pelvic bone structure for Brooks saddles, or be a masochist to break it in, even though it's "already broken in." I'd go shopping to find a saddle that has cr-mo rails and self-lubricating shell molding that won't creak and sufficient gel padding with anatomic cut-outs.

On the head tube area, I've ridden light and heavy forks. The most durable one in my set of bikes? A Tange Prestige over-sized superlight fork with unicrown. It's also just a 1 inch steerer. It's survived numerous rides up and down roads, trails, etc. 20 years - still going strong. New forks these days are using 1 1/8th inch tubing for the steerer, so they're even stronger. The issue I have isn't with the fork. But with the headset durability. We need to have a needle-bearing headset, and the head tube needs to be at least 10 inches minimum length between cups/races to reduce side sheer load due to torque by the fork on the headset. That torque exerts a massive side load that destroys bearings, and is magnified with short head tubes. If needed, slope the top tube up a little toward the head tube so you can use a longer head tube. This will also raise the height where the stem starts so you can put some drop bars at a higher position so folks with big gut, fat around the chest, and stubby arms will be able to lean over comfortably. And luckily, the standard these days is threadless, which is a far simple and easier system that will stay set for a lot longer. But just remember the needle bearings as opposed to ball bearings. It may add $5 wholesale to the manufacture of a bike.

Keep effective top tube around the same length + a few cm, as the effective seat tube length C-T distance (assuming seat tube were horizontal starting from head tube). This will allow big-gut riders to stretch out a little and breath more easily. And of course, forged vertical dropouts on the frame rear should be standard, so a strong/heavy rider stomping on the pedals can't dislodge the rear wheel out of the dropouts even if the QR isn't tightened to spec. In addition, look at BB height of other bikes, like a Cyclo-cross bike. And then add another 5mm to BB height. Why? because for bigger riders and heavier riders, the biometrics of slower cadence suggests a longer crank length (e.g. 175 mm) is better at lower RPM.

Design the bike with clearance for 2.1 inch/ISO 55mm tires if you can. Front fork isn't a problem. But getting enough chainstay clearance for BB/Crankset is going to be a challenge. I recommend going with a 13x34 mega-range rear 8spd 135mm cassette freehub. This will minimize dishing, and make for a stronger wheel and help reduce axle bending. I don't recommend 9/10/11 speed. Yes, it's newer technology and likely to remain in the market longer. But sometimes, those technologies provide nothing substantial and only increase failure rates. And more cogs in the back require more expensive and weaker chains that flex too much, and shifting precisely requires more expensive and more precise indexing. That increases costs.

And a two chainring front crank works too, e.g. a compact 46x36 front crank set. I don't ever really use my small ring in the front except for very, very long uphills. And even then, that's because I ride a 28F x 24rear cog as the lowest on my MTB. If you ran at 34F x 34R, that's even lower than what I run and is a 1:1 ratio. If you can't maintain cadence of 60/minute, it means you are traveling less than 2m/sec and slower than that and you're likely to not be able to hold a straight line and fall over. The chains are too expensive to constantly replace and weaker too. If you can design the frame right rear dropout area with a stay and derailleur hanger that protrude nothing in towards the cassette, then it becomes possible for the top cog to be as little as 3mm from the drop out and still allow for chain clearance. This allows you to omit a single keyed axle washer on the cassette side of the axle and move it to the non-drive side - which further reduces dish and makes for a stronger wheel.

I'd provide a choice of handlebars and brakes. For riders who want a commuter/tourer with more hand positions, I would use a shorter stem, 90mm with 130 deg rise, and drop bars. Don't skimp here. Get real 46cm or 48 cm wide drops for big people, heat treated aluminum in a decent wall thickness - don't use "competition" bars that are ultra-light. Offer options of bar-end shifters with aero brake levers, or STI brake/shift levers (aka brifters) and cantilever brakes with light spring action (e.g. Tektro Oryx). Also offer a low-cost flat bar with 8spd grip shift option. Use a cr-mo stem 120mm with 110 deg rise with 3 finger, short pull, high torque levers with short offset from the handlebar. What I mean about short offset from the handle bar is the gap from handlebar to lever. For most average folks doing trail riding, if you aren't heavy, braking just means squeezing the brakes a little and slowing down. But for heavy folks coming down 3 miles straight, like on a mountain trail, we're braking hard all the way down. Either use a disc brake or if we use linear pulls, we need the brake lever close enough to the bar to reach, and the spring resistance must be light so we can keep our hands on the brakes all the way down. We may be heavier, but our hands are just normal size with fatter fingers. We need closer grips so we can ride them for a long time on long down hill stretches.

For cranks and BB, most parts work. To improve durability, some research might be desirable into higher capacity BB ball cages, or using loose balls or cartridge bearing BB. I am far more concerned about pedal axles, as I recently broke one while accelerating at a left turn arrow. Luckily, the pickup driver behind me braked and I was not turned into road kill. My pedals? A super exclusive Suntour XC Pro Compe prototypes. 23 years old set of pedals. The Cr-Mo axle sheered right off at the first cartridge bearing. But why? Well, age, fatigue, and the fact that the unsupported cantilever section from crank to first bearing was almost 8cm outboard. Cheaper pedals, I discovered, have a 2 -3 cm gap between crank arm and first bearing. That shorter section means less than half the potential stress and far less fatigue. I'm more confident with some Wellgo or MKS MTB cage pedals that support toe clips and have wide cages with bearings close and far from the crank arm. As for clipless systems - I don't use them. Too weak. I push and pull when pedaling and on the pull portion of the stroke, I've unclipped out of the pedals. I've tightened the clips but that invites the problem of coming to a stop and not being able to get out and falling over.

Finally, there's the wheels, hubs and spokes. I ride some 26 inch (ISO 559) Sun CR18 36H dark anodized rims that used to be sold under a Nashbar label like 20 years ago. they're laced to some old vintage Specialized sealed bearing hubs (same as sansin/sunshine/suntour cyclone - by same maker) I'm still riding those same wheels. Why? Because I spoked them with some Wheelsmith double butted 2.0/1.7/2.0 spokes, then put some 1.9 inch fat slicks on them and ride at under 60 psi. The ride is ultra smooth. It takes bumps just great. Fat rubber means a LOT of protection for the rim. No need for 40 spoke rims. A semi-box profile, double wall, rim with reinforced center ridge will work. Even cheap single wall rims work like the Alex X202s w/36H/14g stainless spokes. I rode a set for a couple of weeks to work with 1.5 inch city tires at 75psi. They were great and remained true. At my size, if the wheel wasn't strong, it'd go out of true after the first ride. What size wheels to choose? I'd say go with 26 inch (ISO 559). There are more choices for tires in this range these days, and will save weight on spokes. But I also ride 700c (ISO 622). The larger wheels have a bit lower rolling resistance, but the potential to fold rims is higher, unless going to a wider and/or aero profile rim. But there are solutions there too. For example Mach1 EXE 700c wheels can be purchased for less than $30F/$40R online retail. The indicates even lower cost wholesale. They do have a roughly 25mm outer width and so aren't the most narrow of rims. But they can be beefy for a 700c hybrid. I haven't had issues with regular bearing hubs. They just require a bit more precision in adjustment at the factory or during first assembly. But they work fine.

We could go on about where to put cable routing braze-ons, and the need for under seat tube cross-over derailleur cable guides, and rear rack and fender screw holes and water bottle bosses. Suffice it to say that I would also consider serviceability as part of your considerations. So many frames are just so whacked with curved top tubes, or funky or incomplete frame members. This makes it impossible to clamp the back in a repair stand. So shops need to carry a gazillion different stands or waste time removing seat packs, LED seat post lights, and other things to have something round and straight to clamp the bike. A simple top tube with brake cable housing guides on top center or between 11am and 1pm is the way to go.

My main goal is to design a bicycle that will meet the needs of a cyclist weighing between 200 and 450 lbs without breaking the bank or resorting to inferior parts that could fail under the increased stress.

I don't make the rules here but for what it's worth I don't care if people plug their company as long as it's relevant.

The needs of a 200lb rider are so different to the needs of a 450lb rider I think you're going to struggle trying to satisfy both. I weigh about 250 (down from a peak of about 290). When I bought my bike (Specialized Rockhopper) I was pushing the weight limit as listed in the book. I figured I'd be OK since I wasn't going to be doing anything silly on it for a while (I hadn't ridden in 20-odd years and was chronically unfit), and also since the "rider plus baggage" weight was still more than my weight (even if not by much). Add 150lb to the equation and things don't work so well any more, and you're well outside of the "only just over" territory.

One thing I would suggest is to make a range of bikes if you can, even if you are catering primarily for larger riders. That way you don't end up with a bike that everybody knows is the "heavy rider bike" and that puts riders in a place where they might as well carry an "I'm fat" banner. When I started riding I knew I was fat, I knew I was desperately unfit, I knew that just about anyone else on two wheels was faster than I was (and was reminded of that last fact depressingly regularly, as in virtually every single time I encountered another cyclist), the last thing I'd have wanted was to be riding a bike that just announced all of that to the world.

So I guess the point of all that is to make a bike that people will want to ride, and make it so that it will support a rider as heavy as you want to go. If you want to get 200lb riders on board you'll have to make it good because there's a lot of other options out there. For 400+ riders there seem to be fewer options. If it's a sensible proposition to have a comparably designed bike but swap out specific components as the weight rating goes up that could work, so the 400lb bike would look much the same as the 200lb bike but have a heavier frame, more spokes, stronger seatpost etc.

In terms of price this bike will be above $600. I know that most people won't need this type of structural stability and would rather save on cost but this bike isn't for most people. It's a fine line between making a very strong bike and over engineering in this case.

My concern is that you will try to oversell a cookie-cutter product to people who have little knowledge of what they are getting. As a business, that is definitely your perogative...but most clydes can walk into a LBS and get set up with a good quality bike that is more than adequate for their needs. Spending a few extra dollars will take care of the rest of the creature comforts that they need. I just bought a Marin Bolinas Ridge 29er for $600, changed out the seat, pedals, and put an adjustable stem on it. At 6'6" and hovering around 345lbs, I am confident that this bike will take most anything I will throw at it. I could have bought a comparable hybrid for half the price and been just as satisfied.

The rule of thumb is to buy the best bike you can afford and ride it 'til you can't ride it no more...then fix it and ride it some more.