Frame Material for a Clydesdale

Hi,

Well, my klein quantum and I got in the all too common auto-bicycle fight, and of course we lost. So
now I am looking for a new ride. I'm 6'7 and 265, and the aluminum was fine except for the road
noise. I lust after carbon fiber but wondered if oclv 120 will hold up under my light weight...
Should I stick with and aluminum Klein or Trek 2300 still, or is there something else out there that
would work. I'm probably working with $2,000 - $2,500 so not too spendy...

Thanks for any advice.

Brian Nelson

"What happened? Am I OK? Is my bike OK? What a day! What happened?, Am I ok..."

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 20:21:20 +0000, Brian Nelson wrote:

> and of course we lost. So now I am looking for a new ride. I'm 6'7 and 265, and the aluminum was
> fine except for the road noise. I lust after carbon fiber but wondered if oclv 120 will hold up
> under my light weight...

Well, it _probably_ would be all right. But... Why chance it? Are you seeking an ultra-light bike
for time trials? If you are a recreational rider, there seems to be little reason to go for the
lightest possible components. How about steel? Or titanium? Mark Hickey's frames would have no
question about whether they are strong enough. Get good, strong wheels and you are in business.

BTW, be sure to get a good fit. Your body is not within the range of the usual
three-sizes-for-everyone dealer.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | More people object to wearing fur than leather because it is _`\(,_ | safer to harrass rich
white women than motorcycle gangs. (_)/ (_) |

i too am the large economy size and have ridden all type of frames, AL, CF, steel and Ti.
Currently on Ti and like it quite well. I agree with the excellent wheels and 25-28 size tires and
ride on......

"Brian Nelson" <lowellnelson@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:5ajqb.1554$S06.70431@news.uswest.net...
> Hi,
>
> Well, my klein quantum and I got in the all too common auto-bicycle fight, and of course we lost.
> So now I am looking for a new ride. I'm 6'7 and 265, and the aluminum was fine except for the road
> noise. I lust after carbon fiber but wondered if oclv 120 will hold up under my light
weight...
> Should I stick with and aluminum Klein or Trek 2300 still, or is there something else out there
> that would work. I'm probably working with $2,000 - $2,500 so not too spendy...
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Brian Nelson
>
> "What happened? Am I OK? Is my bike OK? What a day! What happened?, Am I ok..."

"Brian Nelson" <lowellnelson@qwest.net> wrote:

> So now I am looking for a new ride. I'm 6'7 and 265, and the aluminum was fine except for the road
> noise. I lust after carbon fiber but wondered if oclv 120 will hold up under my light weight...
> Should I stick with and aluminum Klein or Trek 2300 still, or is there something else out there
> that would work. I'm probably working with $2,000 - $2,500 so not too spendy...

The specific material is not of paramount importance, but at your size you need to be sure you're
getting enough of it.

I am 6'8" and 360ish, and I've been an avid rider for the past 140 pounds. The main lesson I have
learned equipment-wise is that I am improvising with stuff that was not designed for me. Some
manufacturers will say that they use frame-size-specific tubing, etc., but that's just not the same
thing. Some of this stuff can be made to work fine, but you have to be careful and you have to be
discriminating.

I doubt that any recent carbon frame would be likely to break under your riding loads, but likewise
I doubt any recent non-custom carbon frame will give you appropriate fit and stiffness.

A good strength-to-weight ratio works in your favor when it's combined with equal or higher weight
than a lesser part. Otherwise it's usually a wash or else a disadvantage. This is an important
principle to keep in mind when looking at, carbon, scandium-aluminum, or magnesium frames. Many such
frames are made to have a weight advantage, but will exact a toll in function or durability for a
guy your size.

You will benefit greatly from wider tires than contemporary racing frames will accept. This, and the
screwed-up weight distribution caused by fitting a tall guy on a bike with a short rear end, suggest
to me that a touring bike frame may give you a fit and ride quality comparable to what racer boys
get on racing bikes, but a racing frame will not.

I have a pretty new "jumbo" (25in) Cannondale touring frame that I believe would make an excellent
sport bike, though I have set it up as a roadster. It springs around a bit more than my circa 1990
Cannondale tourer, and it's noticeably lighter. But it still has 18 inch chainstays, a huge asset
for a tall rider. It also features a road-bike-steep 73 degree head angle, which makes it feel
lighter at the bars than my other touring-framed bikes, and allows a racy fork to provide the
correct amount of steering trail.

Aluminum frames are IMO the easiest to make appropriately stiff for a heavy rider wihout making them
heavy. To me, the level of stiffness makes a big difference both in feel and in controllability. Not
that a little more weight is necessarily a bad thing-- as a percentage of body weight, you and I are
riding pretty gossamer machines any way we go.

If you don't want to use a touring frame for whatever reason, I'd suggest getting a custom frame so
you can get a proportioned fit and sufficient tire clearance in a sport frame. Mark Hickey can
summon up a custom Ti Habanero at a reasonable price, and there are many handmade custom steel
frames for $1000 and under, but a custom carbon frame will blow your budget.

Chalo Colina