Query for potential cyclist

Howdy folks!

I've a friend who recently received a bad "report card" from his doc, and it sufficiently motivated
him to want to get in better shape. He's 33 years old, 5'11" and 320lbs. He wants to bike, and wants
biking to be a part of his process of losing weight and also to be an ongoing factor in his life.
There's a monkey wrench here though.

He's never ridden at bike. EVER.

He's never sat on a bike, never had one as a child. NOTHING, NADA, ZIP.

He wants to learn to ride and to make it a part of his life. He asked me for some guidance in a bike
that will handle him at the higher weights. Initially I directed him to check out trikes, but he
made it very clear that he wants to learn to ride a two wheeler.

Does anyone have any suggestions on a bike that would not only handle his weight for now, but also
have docile enough manners that we can use it to teach him how to ride?

--
"Sea" ya! --Lars S. Mulford "You can find evil anywhere you look. The question is, why are
you looking?"

In article <Mo7ob.45975$1C5.17741@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, mulford@verizon.net says...
> Howdy folks!
>
> I've a friend who recently received a bad "report card" from his doc, and it sufficiently
> motivated him to want to get in better shape. He's 33 years old, 5'11" and 320lbs. He wants to
> bike, and wants biking to be a part of his process of losing weight and also to be an ongoing
> factor in his life. There's a monkey wrench here though.
>
> He's never ridden at bike. EVER.
>
> He's never sat on a bike, never had one as a child. NOTHING, NADA, ZIP.
>
> He wants to learn to ride and to make it a part of his life. He asked me for some guidance in a
> bike that will handle him at the higher weights. Initially I directed him to check out trikes, but
> he made it very clear that he wants to learn to ride a two wheeler.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions on a bike that would not only handle his weight for now, but also
> have docile enough manners that we can use it to teach him how to ride?

If you do a google search of these NG's for the word "clydesdale" (our affectionate word for big
cyclists), there are lots of recommendations of bikes for bigger riders. Mostly they will lean
toward non- suspension mountain bikes and loaded touring bikes with big tires and upgraded (or at
least tensioned) wheels; wheels are the weak spots on a bike for a heavy person.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:23:08 GMT, "Lars S. Mulford" <mulford@verizon.net> from wrote:

>Does anyone have any suggestions on a bike that would not only handle his weight for now, but also
>have docile enough manners that we can use it to teach him how to ride?

Big, heavy, steel -- something like a Flying Pigeon.

--
real e-mail addy: kevansmith23 at yahoo dot com Am I elected yet?

A good entry-level mtn bike with 36 spoke wheels should do the trick.

There are a lot of good articles on teaching someone to ride (including adults) and a search should
get you at least some.

In summary, remove pedals, lower seat so that feet can just touch ground.

Start in soft grassy area with slight downhill - enough to get the bike moving.

Have learner get the idea of balance by lifting feet as rolling down.

Etc. until get to point of putting pedals on.

When comfortable riding, raise seat gradually until at proper position.

Others will have better thoughts, I am sure.

http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns (Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox (Family Web Page)

> He's never sat on a bike, never had one as a child. NOTHING, NADA,
ZIP.<

Most of us learned to ride as children, so we forgot how difficult it can be to learn to ride.

My father, bless his soul, memorialized the bicycle "learning curve" with home movies. He had me
learning on grass which, of course, was difficult to pedal on. Plenty of attempts. Plenty of falls.
Plenty of tears. Over and over for hours. Finally, 15 feet of victory, but the falling was far from
over for several months.

I wonder if a stationary bike at the Y might be a better choice for a while. At least it would give
him some idea about the feel of a bike. Then, maybe after he is in a little better shape, the saddle
soreness is gone, and his balance has improved he will be ready to graduate.

Otherwise, he may become discouraged or worse, actually hurt himself. Since bones are a bit more
brittle at 33 than they are at 5-7 years of age, injury is a real possibility.

Ask the guys that take up softball again about injuries. They are genuinely surprised when they get
hurt doing things they routinely did when they were children, like sliding into home base.

"Lars S. Mulford" <mulford@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Mo7ob.45975$1C5.17741@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Howdy folks!
>
> I've a friend who recently received a bad "report card" from his doc,
and it
> sufficiently motivated him to want to get in better shape. He's 33
years
> old, 5'11" and 320lbs. He wants to bike, and wants biking to be a
part of
> his process of losing weight and also to be an ongoing factor in his
life.
> There's a monkey wrench here though.
>
> He's never ridden at bike. EVER.
>
> He's never sat on a bike, never had one as a child. NOTHING, NADA,
ZIP.
>
> He wants to learn to ride and to make it a part of his life. He asked
me
> for some guidance in a bike that will handle him at the higher
weights.
> Initially I directed him to check out trikes, but he made it very
clear that
> he wants to learn to ride a two wheeler.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions on a bike that would not only handle
his
> weight for now, but also have docile enough manners that we can use it
to
> teach him how to ride?
>
> --
> "Sea" ya! --Lars S. Mulford "You can find evil anywhere you look. The question is, why are you
> looking?"

David Kerber wrote:

[...]

:: If you do a google search of these NG's for the word "clydesdale" (our affectionate word for big
:: cyclists), there are lots of recommendations of bikes for bigger riders. Mostly they will lean
:: toward non- suspension mountain bikes and loaded touring bikes with big tires and upgraded (or at
:: least tensioned) wheels; wheels are the weak spots on a bike for a heavy person.

In terms of weak spots, what should considered "heavy" for different kinds of bikes? I have
a road/touring bike with 700 x 26 c wheel/tires and I weigh 250 lbs. Should I expect a lot
of problems?

Eric Vey wrote:

[....]

:: I wonder if a stationary bike at the Y might be a better choice for a while. At least it would
:: give him some idea about the feel of a bike. Then, maybe after he is in a little better shape,
:: the saddle soreness is gone, and his balance has improved he will be ready to graduate.
::
:: Otherwise, he may become discouraged or worse, actually hurt himself. Since bones are a bit more
:: brittle at 33 than they are at 5-7 years of age, injury is a real possibility.

While I did ride bikes as a kid and was pretty good at it, I quit riding at age 12 and didn't start
again until recently at age 45. Oh, my top weight was 367 lbs. However, well before starting again I
used a stationary bike to improve my health and aerobic conditioning. After having put many many
miles on a stationary, going to a real bike was an absolute pleasure. I know weigh 250 (oh, and I
weight train too) I can't say for sure that one had a direct relationship to the other, but I do
believe that my improved conditioning on the stationary made me better able to handle myself on a
road bike. The stationary is just safer so one is able to really push to improve....on the road, you
have to worry about conditions and who else is there. Combining poor physical condition with road
hazards might -- and I say might -- be detrimental to someone who is new to riding.

The combination of a stationary and bicycle might be a good option. At first, use the stationary as
much as possible and just practice skills on the bicycle. Then, as skills and conditioning improve,
switch over.

If the potential cyclist is interested in getting a stationary cheap, I have a Schwinn Airdyne that
is in very good shape for sale Cushy gel seat, too.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:35:55 -0500, Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:

> David Kerber wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
> :: If you do a google search of these NG's for the word "clydesdale" (our affectionate word for
> :: big cyclists), there are lots of recommendations of bikes for bigger riders. Mostly they will
> :: lean toward non- suspension mountain bikes and loaded touring bikes with big tires and upgraded
> :: (or at least tensioned) wheels; wheels are the weak spots on a bike for a heavy person.
>
> In terms of weak spots, what should considered "heavy" for different kinds of bikes? I have a
> road/touring bike with 700 x 26 c wheel/tires and I weigh 250 lbs. Should I expect a lot of
> problems?
>
>
>

I doubt it, depending on what kind of rims/wheels you have. I weigh 208- 210 now and 244 at the
beginning of the year. I bought a LeMond racing bike

(see: http://www.lemondbikes.com/bikes/bikes_zurich.html)

that has Bontrager race light wheels, which I think are "stupid light." I can take the rear wheel
and freely move it back and forth so that it hits the brakes. This actually happens when I climb out
of the saddle. Even with these light wheels, I haven't had any problems. On my mountain bike, which
I ridden with weights as high as 260 pounds, I have light Mavic wheels. I haven't had any problems
with these wheels, either. However, I also don't jump off anything. I'd probably taco the wheels if
I jumped anything.

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

In article <bnri5o$14qntj$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>, rogerzoul2@hotmail.com says...
> David Kerber wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
> :: If you do a google search of these NG's for the word "clydesdale" (our affectionate word for
> :: big cyclists), there are lots of recommendations of bikes for bigger riders. Mostly they will
> :: lean toward non- suspension mountain bikes and loaded touring bikes with big tires and upgraded
> :: (or at least tensioned) wheels; wheels are the weak spots on a bike for a heavy person.
>
> In terms of weak spots, what should considered "heavy" for different kinds of bikes? I have a
> road/touring bike with 700 x 26 c wheel/tires and I weigh 250 lbs. Should I expect a lot of
> problems?

It would depend on the how the wheels are built (rim type, etc), and I have no personal experience
with it (I'm about 185 and have never been over 200), but from what I've read, if you have
well-tensioned 32- or 36-spoke wheels and don't jump curbs, I wouldn't expect many problems from
this setup. You might want to consider slightly larger tires (30 maybe), but if they have been
working for you for a while, it's probably not worth the effort to change. When I think of 'heavy'
wrt cyclists, I (personally) think 300+. Others with personal experience will be able to give better
guidance, though.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

He could also get a regular bike ( an unsuspended "comfort bike" might be the category to look at )
and an indoor trainer, the simple kind that holds the rear wheel off the floor. Prop up the front
wheel on some boards or something. Then he can get used to the feel of the bike he's going to be
riding while doing his stationary cycling.

My big concern, as other people have said, would be that he'll hurt himself if he tries to do to
much too soon. Still life *is* dangerous. I just hope that the OP or another friend will be there
with him when he's taking his first spin outdoors.

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bnriod$1537ln$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Eric Vey wrote:
>
> [....]
>
> :: I wonder if a stationary bike at the Y might be a better choice for a while. At least it would
> :: give him some idea about the feel of a bike. Then, maybe after he is in a little better shape,
> :: the saddle soreness is gone, and his balance has improved he will be ready to graduate.
> ::
> :: Otherwise, he may become discouraged or worse, actually hurt himself. Since bones are a bit
> :: more brittle at 33 than they are at 5-7 years of age, injury is a real possibility.
>
> While I did ride bikes as a kid and was pretty good at it, I quit riding at age 12 and didn't
> start again until recently at age 45. Oh, my top weight was 367 lbs. However, well before
> starting again I used a stationary bike to improve my health and aerobic conditioning. After
> having put many many miles on a stationary, going to a real bike was an absolute pleasure. I know
> weigh 250 (oh, and I weight train too) I can't say for sure that one had a direct relationship to
> the other, but I do believe that my improved conditioning on the stationary made me better able
> to handle myself on a road bike. The stationary is just safer so one is able to really push to
> improve....on the road, you have to worry about conditions and who else is there. Combining poor
> physical condition with road hazards might -- and I say might -- be detrimental to someone who is
> new to riding.
>
> The combination of a stationary and bicycle might be a good option. At first, use the stationary
> as much as possible and just practice skills on the bicycle. Then, as skills and conditioning
> improve, switch over.
>
> If the potential cyclist is interested in getting a stationary cheap, I have a Schwinn Airdyne
> that is in very good shape for sale Cushy gel seat, too.

--Still life *is* dangerous.--

From your mouth to the insurance company's ear. I suspect that my insurance company will someday put
bicycle riding in the same category as sky diving and exclude coverage for "dangerous activities."
They have already excluded motor boat driving and unicycling along with the usual mountain/rock
climbing. I dunno what else because I don't do those things.

"Kaputnik" <kaputnik.ct@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:91eb79fc.0310301657.5467d8e@posting.google.com...
> He could also get a regular bike ( an unsuspended "comfort bike" might be the category to look at
> ) and an indoor trainer, the simple kind that holds the rear wheel off the floor. Prop up the
> front wheel on some boards or something. Then he can get used to the feel of the bike he's going
> to be riding while doing his stationary cycling.
>
> My big concern, as other people have said, would be that he'll hurt himself if he tries to do to
> much too soon. Still life *is* dangerous. I just hope that the OP or another friend will be there
> with him when he's taking his first spin outdoors.
>
> "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bnriod$1537ln$1@ID-166706.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Eric Vey wrote:
> >
> > [....]
> >
> > :: I wonder if a stationary bike at the Y might be a better choice
for a
> > :: while. At least it would give him some idea about the feel of a
bike.
> > :: Then, maybe after he is in a little better shape, the saddle soreness is gone, and his
> > :: balance has improved he will be ready
to
> > :: graduate.
> > ::
> > :: Otherwise, he may become discouraged or worse, actually hurt
himself.
> > :: Since bones are a bit more brittle at 33 than they are at 5-7
years
> > :: of age, injury is a real possibility.
> >
> > While I did ride bikes as a kid and was pretty good at it, I quit
riding at
> > age 12 and didn't start again until recently at age 45. Oh, my top
weight
> > was 367 lbs. However, well before starting again I used a stationary
bike to
> > improve my health and aerobic conditioning. After having put many
many
> > miles on a stationary, going to a real bike was an absolute
pleasure. I
> > know weigh 250 (oh, and I weight train too) I can't say for sure
that one
> > had a direct relationship to the other, but I do believe that my
improved
> > conditioning on the stationary made me better able to handle myself
on a
> > road bike. The stationary is just safer so one is able to really
push to
> > improve....on the road, you have to worry about conditions and who
else is
> > there. Combining poor physical condition with road hazards might --
and I
> > say might -- be detrimental to someone who is new to riding.
> >
> > The combination of a stationary and bicycle might be a good option.
At
> > first, use the stationary as much as possible and just practice
skills on
> > the bicycle. Then, as skills and conditioning improve, switch over.
> >
> > If the potential cyclist is interested in getting a stationary
cheap, I have
> > a Schwinn Airdyne that is in very good shape for sale Cushy gel
seat,
> > too.

Eric Vey <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
: They have already excluded ... unicycling. I dunno what else because I don't do those things.

you unicycle?

just kidding. what on earth is the rationalization for including unicycling? do you do this on a
highwire or something?
--
david reuteler reuteler@visi.com

> It would depend on the how the wheels are built (rim type, etc), and I have no personal experience
> with it (I'm about 185 and have never been over 200), but from what I've read, if you have
> well-tensioned 32- or 36-spoke wheels and don't jump curbs, I wouldn't expect many problems from
> this setup. You might want to consider slightly larger tires (30 maybe), but if they have been
> working for you for a while, it's probably not worth the effort to change. When I think of 'heavy'
> wrt cyclists, I (personally) think 300+. Others with personal experience will be able to give
> better guidance, though.
>
I completed a UK long distace (130 miles) cycle path ride in two days using a Raleigh Equipe
racing/touring bike with 700c x 24 tyres and carrying 30+ lbs of camping gear. I weighed 310 lbs at
the time. The bike and wheels are still doing OK. I road on a variety of surfaces including
reclaimed railway trackbeds, cindertrack, dedicated cyclepaths, forrestry roads and public roads.
Soem were billiard table smooth, some were heavily rutted.

Vernon Levy Leeds UK

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a0b1af0f40c29f5989744@news.ids.net...

> It would depend on the how the wheels are built (rim type, etc), and I have no personal experience
> with it (I'm about 185 and have never been over 200), but from what I've read, if you have
> well-tensioned 32- or 36-spoke wheels and don't jump curbs, I wouldn't expect many problems from
> this setup. You might want to consider slightly larger tires (30 maybe), but if they have been
> working for you for a while, it's probably not worth the effort to change. When I think of 'heavy'
> wrt cyclists, I (personally) think 300+.

My personal experience is with a 340lbs of person on a tandem.

Well built 36H wheels may well be up to it, but many reasonable bikes have not got that. Can be true
even with wheels built by what you'd hope would be a good bike shop [local hero who won a european
tour - OK thats no reference for wheelbuilding skills].

From the Union of UK Unicyclists IMPORTANT: We would like to remind everyone that unicycling can
be a dangerous activity. You know it. We know it. Neither the organisers nor the local authority
can be held responsible for any injuries or loss sustained at the convention. Please try to stay
out of trouble by using your common sense, as mopping up other people's blood is a whole lot of
not much fun.

http://www.unicycle.org.uk/buc10/timetable.html

"David Reuteler" <reuteler@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3fa1cc23$0$75892$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
> Eric Vey <junk@ericvey.com> wrote:
> : They have already excluded ... unicycling. I dunno what else because I don't do those things.
>
> you unicycle?
>
> just kidding. what on earth is the rationalization for including
unicycling?
> do you do this on a highwire or something?
> --
> david reuteler reuteler@visi.com