Big & Tall Rider ISO Bike

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Ftlosm, May 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ftlosm

    Ftlosm Guest

    Big & Tall Rider ISO Bike

    I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can recommend
    any particular model or maker that might fit my needs due to size and height? My inseam is 34' and
    most of my extra weight is in the stomach (hence wanting a bike to help reduce that) etc.

    Riding would be on flat smooth surfaces (forest preserve type paths) nothing off road etc, I am
    guessing I will be needing to go to a "REAL" bike shop not a Target or Kmart $79 Huffy special (due
    to my size and height).

    I was looking at a infomercial for a bike called the LAND RIDER and checked out their webpage, seems
    like a decent concept yet I would almost prefer to RIDE one vs order, ride and return if I didn't
    like it (any input on these bikes in general?) www.landrider.com Was looking at their Men's Deluxe
    22" 6'4" and up $399.80

    Just wondered if there were any other big and tall riders out there who could recommend a certain
    brand or frame size for me, the style of bike I was looking at getting would be a cross between a
    cruiser and a mountain bike but I am open, my budget would be $200-$600 price range.

    Thanks

    Bill :) steveperryfan2001 (at) yahoo.com
     
    Tags:


  2. On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:07:36 +0000, FTLOSM wrote:

    > I am guessing I will be needing to go to a "REAL" bike shop not a Target or Kmart $79 Huffy
    > special (due to my size and height).

    Good guess -- but this is true for anyone who really plans to ride the bike.
    >
    > I was looking at a infomercial for a bike called the LAND RIDER and checked out their webpage,
    > seems like a decent concept

    Many things seem better than they are. This is one. Cheap bike, with a very marginal shifting
    gimmick to fix a problem no one has. Modern shifting is literally push-button, not something to
    worry about.

    You can do far better at a real shop.

    yet I would almost prefer to
    > RIDE one vs order, ride and return if I didn't like it (any input on these bikes in general?)
    > www.landrider.com Was looking at their Men's Deluxe 22" 6'4" and up $399.80

    These bikes have gotten terrible reviews. They are a scam. Besides, no 22" frame is big enough for
    you. I ride a 23" frame, and I am 5' 11".

    You will need to get a well-built bike to support your weight. You will need strong wheels and a
    sturdy frame. Mail order is not appropriate. You also need to have the bike the right size, and that
    is not a stand-over-the-bar thing.

    > Just wondered if there were any other big and tall riders out there who could recommend a certain
    > brand or frame size for me, the style of bike I was looking at getting would be a cross between a
    > cruiser and a mountain bike but I am open, my budget would be $200-$600 price range.

    There are bikes that will work for you.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster. --Greg LeMond _`\(,_ | (_)/ (_) |
     
  3. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    "FTLOSM" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can
    > recommend any particular model or maker that might fit my needs due to size and height? My
    > inseam is 34' and most of my extra weight is in the stomach (hence wanting a bike to help reduce
    > that) etc.

    Man, you are in a tough spot unless you are committed enough to spend some serious effort or some
    real money. I'm about your size, a little taller, but I've had a long hard road figuring out what
    will work for
    me. It cost me half a dozen front teeth, among other things.

    Foremost I have learned that it does not pay to mess around with ordinary bikes that ordinary-sized
    salesmen will tell you are plenty strong. Some folks in this very group might tell you the same, but
    they would be wrong.

    There are a few bikes out there that are built strong enough for you, but they won't be available in
    appropriate sizes. And there are a few-- very few-- bikes out there that will be tall enough to
    work, but most will not withstand your weight. I assume that at this stage of the game, you are not
    certain enough about cycling to want to spend a couple thousand clams on a made-to-measure custom
    job. So you are going to have to improvise.

    Look for a 1980s or early '90s vintage mountain bike-- these used to be offered in 24" and 25" frame
    sizes. One of those is what you want. You might only be able to use the frame, but that's the hard
    part to find. Do what you have to to get one. The good news is that it will be relatively cheap, not
    more than $100 for a nice specimen.

    Heavy is good. Stay clear of any lightweight frame no matter the material.

    Ditch the crank and bottom bracket or face the consequences. This is serious business! Ignore any
    advice to the contrary coming from anyone less than 300 lbs! Get a BMX pinch-bolt crank for a
    threaded bottom bracket shell; a good example is the Redline "Dual Slalom" crank any good bike shop
    should be able to get for you. If you're buying other parts to build up your bike, this crank should
    cost not more than about $160. If that number discourages you, save your teeth and find another
    sport, 'cause you're not done yet.

    To go with that crank, get some sturdy BMX pedals like those fitted on bikes for jumping. Cheap,
    maybe $20.

    You will need a long seatpost, but it must also be unusually strong. The cheap solution is the
    Poverty Shaft cromoly seatpost that runs $13 from Dan's Competition mail-order. If it is not long
    enough, or if you need an unavailable diameter, I recommend a Thomson seatpost ($60-$80), or else
    turn your own from solid aluminum on the lathe.

    At the outset you'll want to be sitting fairly upright, so get a BMX handlebar and compatible stem.
    Such a handlebar will add 7 or 8 inches in height and allow you to adjust your reach by tilting the
    bar forward or backwards somewhat. It will also be reinforced with a crossbar which is a safety
    feature in your case.

    The items I've already covered are the most important for your physical safety. There are others
    which are more a matter of durability.

    The wheels are your number one durability issue, and there are two different approaches you can take
    to getting what you need. Either get wheels that are set up for tandem use, or get wheels that are
    built for abusive riding (downhill racing or jumping). Either you will have wheels made of
    relatively ordinary components and an unusual number of spokes (48), or you will have wheels with an
    ordinary spoke count (32/36) and extraordinarily strong components. Figure suitable wheels will cost
    $200 at least. Accept no gimmicks here-- no funny spokes, low spoke counts, "lighter yet stronger",
    or carbon fiber anything. More is more; you already know this.

    Use the fattest tires that will fit in your frame. You can't hydroplane a bike, so just get the
    slickest tires you can find for maximum traction and wear life. Knobbies won't help you unless you
    go riding in mud, and at your size I don't recommend that.

    Cantilever brakes or linear-pull brakes ("V-brakes") should be adequate for your purposes. If you
    don't get too picky about having lots of stopping power, you won't bend your forks from braking and
    have to solve that problem. I do recommend the use of quality brake pads (Mathauser, Kool-Stop, or
    Aztec) and brake booster reinforcing arches.

    Feel free to contact me by email for any more information.

    Chalo Colina
     
  4. On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:07:36 GMT, "FTLOSM" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Big & Tall Rider ISO Bike
    >
    >
    >I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can recommend
    >any particular model or maker that might fit my needs due to size and height? My inseam is 34' and
    >most of my extra weight is in the stomach (hence wanting a bike to help reduce that) etc.

    As also big & tall, though slightly less so (if I convert correctly to & from metric, I'm about 6'4
    and 280 lbs or so), on various bikes, the most critical thing is keeping your tires inflated to a
    higher pressure than most can get away with, and rear wheel spoke breakage. If you get a factory
    bike (of any kind, except perhaps the $2000+ handbuilt works of art), make sure you get a good bike
    shop to retension your wheels. Factory built wheels are built with far too little tension,
    especially for bigger people. The second thing, tire pressure: I'd not want to ride any really
    narrow tires, and either way you *need* a *good* pump. Buy one when you buy the bike.

    Oh, and the saddles with the metal springs at the rear might be a bit weak. I broke mine after only
    a year or two, and replaced it with a no-brand model that uses a sort of cast-rubber ball instead of
    metal springs, and haven't broken that one yet. You might also need a fairly wide one, cause if
    you're that tall, your sitbones are gonna be farther apart than the 5-foot-nothing horse jockey
    guy's are.

    >Just wondered if there were any other big and tall riders out there who could recommend a certain
    >brand or frame size for me, the style of bike I was looking at getting would be a cross between a
    >cruiser and a mountain bike but I am open, my budget would be $200-$600 price range.

    I'd try looking at second hand bikes, from a reputable bike shop that has a workshop attached,
    preferably one you can see through the back door, which is nice and greasy and has racks & racks of
    tools and parts on the wall. Tools should be dirty & greasy in preference to brand new and gleaming
    & unused. There's no shame in the "new bikes" section being sparkly and clean, but if the entire
    store is, odds are they're no more a bike shop than Walmart, and they just Sell Stuff.

    Frame size, I usually do well for an old fashioned style of bike with a 61 cm frame, which
    conveniently is pretty available here secondhand. If you need it, a longer saddlepost and handlebar
    stem are fairly cheap. Various other styles of bikes, hybrid/MTB/touring etc. use different frame
    geometry which means that an xx cm frame in one style corresponds to a yy cm frame in the other, and
    different styles are in vogue in the US and Europe, near as I can tell, so it's hard to compare.

    Probably the best thing you can do is find a good Local Bike Store (ask here and/or on .tech with
    your location, maybe someone knows one, or ask around your friends &c), and when you walk in there,
    they will know you're big & tall, unless they're blind, and can hook you up with the correct stuff,
    or at least vaguely correct. Do ride the bike they're trying to sell you around a few blocks to see
    how it fits. Any reputable bike shop will allow this.

    Jasper
     
  5. larrie89

    larrie89 New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  6. On Thu, 29 May 2003 17:50:48 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >These bikes have gotten terrible reviews. They are a scam. Besides, no 22" frame is big enough for
    >you. I ride a 23" frame, and I am 5' 11".
    >
    >

    David, The rest of your advice is spot on, but you ride a 23" @ 5'11"? What brand?

    I'm 6'1" and ride a 22" Jamis MTB bike as a commuter, a 20.5" Giant off-road, a 59cm Litespeed road
    bike, and a 58 cm Trek road bike.

    What size road bike do you ride?

    Barry
     
  7. Ftlosm

    Ftlosm Guest

    I am the one who started this thread (interested in finding a bike for a 6'7' 375lb guy), was
    reading around online at various websites and reviews on bikes that interested me and the Trek
    Navigator 400 looked like a candidate???

    http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2003/citybike/navigator400.jsp

    The XXL frame size on this bike is 21' however it's a totally different style bike (sit more upright
    than leaning forward), my inseam is 32'-34' (more like a 33') depending on the brand of pants I buy,
    I plan to go to the local bike shop and just see what they say and have in general but the style I
    am looking for is a more upright riding position like a comfort bike etc, so the navigator 400
    looked pretty interesting...

    Any comments on this bike? I don't plan to go offroad or anything crazy, just around the forest
    preserve paths locally, all smooth trails and nothing fast (I will be riding with my wife and little
    girl) etc etc.

    I wrote an email to Trek about that model asking if there is a weight limit for the frame etc but
    haven't got a response yet, thanks so much for all the feedback I have been getting here it's nice
    to get some input from folks who KNOW bikes...

    Bill :)
     
  8. On Fri, 30 May 2003 10:43:25 +0000, B a r r y B u r k e J r. wrote:

    > On Thu, 29 May 2003 17:50:48 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>These bikes have gotten terrible reviews. They are a scam. Besides, no 22" frame is big enough for
    >>you. I ride a 23" frame, and I am 5' 11".
    >>
    >>
    >
    > David, The rest of your advice is spot on, but you ride a 23" @ 5'11"? What brand?
    >
    > I'm 6'1" and ride a 22" Jamis MTB bike as a commuter, a 20.5" Giant off-road, a 59cm Litespeed
    > road bike, and a 58 cm Trek road bike.
    >
    > What size road bike do you ride?

    Oops -- I did a rough calculation from memory. I ride a 56cm road bike (Habanero), which as my
    calculator just told me is a 22", not 23". You ride a 23" road bike. I believe my old road bike was
    a bit larger, which is probably where that came from.

    Of course, height is not sufficient to determine seat-tube length; I guess my legs are
    proportionally longer than some people my height. There is also fashion in terms of bike size; these
    days people tend to get smaller frame sizes than in the past, and raise the seat up higher.

    Of course, compact frames and mountain bikes are a totally different game, but all in all it would
    be a very oddly-proportioned 6'4" man who fit a 22" frame of any design. Since I have 5" or so of
    seat post showing, you'd have to assume someone 6'4" would have nearly 10" of post exposed

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | This is my religion. There is no need for temples; no need for _`\(,_ | complicated
    philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our (_)/ (_) | temple. The philosophy is kindness.
    --The Dalai Lama
     
  9. On Fri, 30 May 2003 13:35:38 +0000, FTLOSM wrote:

    > I am the one who started this thread (interested in finding a bike for a 6'7' 375lb guy), was
    > reading around online at various websites and reviews on bikes that interested me and the Trek
    > Navigator 400 looked like a candidate???

    You really need to listen to Chalo (Bluto). He not only knows a thing or two about bikes, but he is
    in your size class. He is highly critical of the advice us smaller guys give about this topic, and
    with reason. We do not have the experience.

    Another group with the kind of experience you need to seek out are those riding tandems. A tandem
    team of averge-size people is about your weight, and no one would ride a tandem with wheels like
    this bike you point out has.

    Three critical areas of concern are (probably in order) 1) strength of the wheels, 2) strength of
    the frame, and 3) the fork. A suspension fork on a $300 hybrid will not be adequate for you. I
    (guessing here) would assume that unless you can find a tandem-specific suspension fork that will
    fit the bike you want, you would be better off with a rigid steel fork. A cheap aluminum frame that
    would not be stressed near its yield point with a 200 pound rider will be past it with you,
    especially on a rough road or trail. Again, steel would have some extra capacity.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality. -- _`\(,_ | Michael Crichton
    (_)/ (_) |
     
  10. Archer

    Archer Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...

    ...

    > Oops -- I did a rough calculation from memory. I ride a 56cm road bike (Habanero), which as my
    > calculator just told me is a 22", not 23". You ride a 23" road bike. I believe my old road bike
    > was a bit larger, which is probably where that came from.
    >
    > Of course, height is not sufficient to determine seat-tube length; I guess my legs are
    > proportionally longer than some people my height. There is also fashion in terms of bike size;
    > these days people tend to get smaller frame sizes than in the past, and raise the seat up higher.
    >
    > Of course, compact frames and mountain bikes are a totally different game, but all in all it would
    > be a very oddly-proportioned 6'4" man who fit a 22" frame of any design. Since I have 5" or so of
    > seat post showing, you'd have to assume someone 6'4" would have nearly 10" of post exposed

    I would have guesses about 7 - 8" showing: less than half of the height difference in the legs, and
    more than half in the upper body.

    --
    David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
    it's morning".

    Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.
     
  11. On Fri, 30 May 2003 12:00:22 -0400, "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Three critical areas of concern are (probably in order) 1) strength of the wheels, 2) strength of
    >the frame, and 3) the fork. A suspension fork on a $300 hybrid will not be adequate for you. I
    >(guessing here) would assume that unless you can find a tandem-specific suspension fork that will
    >fit the bike you want, you would be better off with a rigid steel fork. A cheap aluminum frame that
    >would not be stressed near its yield point with a 200 pound rider will be past it with you,
    >especially on a rough road or trail. Again, steel would have some extra capacity.

    Like I said upthread, I'm not quite as heavy as Bill, but at least 3/4 of the way there, and I've
    never had any issues riding steel un-fancy (as in no suspension) frames (in some cases for 5 years
    of light to moderate commuting before they got stolen. Damn this country.). Obviously, this does not
    mean someone heavier than me will not have any either, but it seems an indicator that oldfashioned
    steel frames are pretty strong.

    You have to be a bit careful standing up on pedals because you develop a huge amount of force when
    you do, in some cases a bit more than the drivetrain can handle without skipping, and definitely
    enough that wear will be an issue, both on the drivetrain, and rather more dangerously on the
    cranks, pedals, and bottom bracket.

    I *have* had problems with spoke breakage, saddle spring breakage (even that only after a few years,
    and not a catastrophic failure), and tire pressure. Spoke breakage with a properly tensioned
    36h/622/#15 wheel has been favorable, though, so.. Well, it would probably still be an issue, but in
    cost versus convenience versus repair costs, I still think a standard 36h wheel (don't go for 32h..)
    with a new spoke or two every so often will edge out 40 or 48h tandem wheels. That also depends on
    the length of rides though -- if you still have to ride far (as in more than a mile or two) when the
    spoke plings, you better have the skillz to put a repair spoke in trailside, rather than waiting for
    returning to the bike store. This is a good skill for anyone to pick up, but it's more critical for
    heavy loads on relatively light wheels. 26 inch wheels would be inherently stronger, but they are
    generally speaking much smaller, thus requiring long saddleposts and stems, which can bend or break,
    which is bad. When I took out the 6 inch chromed steel saddlepost from my old bike, I discovered it
    was slightly bent, despite only having like 3.5 inches exposed.

    Bill, if you were in the Netherlands, I'd tell you to go down to the nearest big city, visit the
    bike storage associated with the main train station, and ask if they have secondhand bikes or if
    they know who does, and spend $180 or less on a 61 cm (common, especially in older bikes -- 24 to
    24.5 inch) frame Gazelle or Batavus bike: heavy steel frames, 35x622 or so wheels, sturmey archer
    drum brakes & 3 geared hub, luggage rack on rear that you can carry a person on (perhaps not one
    like yourself though, and you might (well, almost certainly would) overload the wheel), fenders to
    keep surface water mostly from splashing onto you. Very practical bikes.

    The non-derailler nature of those things helps with drivetrain wear (in the sense that I can't
    remember *ever* encountering one that even needed a new chain (except for ones ridden without the
    usual fully enclosed chaincases), let alone a new sprocket or chainwheel), Sturmey Archer gear hubs
    are damn near indestructible, no matter how much you load them, ditto for the brakes (though I used
    to wear out brake cables (inner) at the rate of one every few months, to try and stop the mass that
    is me at a reasonable rate). You most likely wouldn't find one of those brands at your local
    secondhand shop, but you might find an old Raleigh of similar specs. It should also be insanely
    cheap compared to any (especially new) decent quality serious bike with lots of gears &c.

    If you find that you like riding a lot, and want a more serious bike with more gears, and a better
    size and fit, that one could remain a backup bike for if the new one breaks down for whatever
    reason. Just make sure you always remember that it wasn't made for that kind of weight, and be
    gentle with it. Don't try the zero to 30 in 10 seconds, or any significantly unsmooth surfaces at
    significant speeds, and with what Bluto says about the bottom bracket, you might want to avoid
    standing on the pedals at all.

    I do know of one bike, though, that is actually designed for people like you and me, right from the
    get-go. The german-made Schauff Sumo. http://www.schauff.de/schauff2002.de/index.php?language=e&act-
    ion=fahrrad&typ=XXL%2FXXS&id=185&jahr=2003 or http://makeashorterlink.com/?O23E121C4 . It is
    designed for people up to 200 kilos, which is 440 pounds. It even comes in up to a 70 centimeter
    frame size. Uses tandem designed gear in certain critical places. The bad news? It's 2000 euros
    recommended retail, or at current exchange rates about 2350 dollars, plus possibly importation costs
    and what not.

    P.S.: When I'm saying a sturdy old 3speed might do, for the money, I'm assuming very sedate riding,
    especially for this group. This includes but is not limited to not standing on the pedals, not
    accelerating too vigourously, and not going terribly fast (20, 25 kph -- 14-18 mph or so max).
    That all will reduce wear on significant parts, as well as dangers inherent in losing a part
    while riding. From what Bluto writes, it looks like he's approaching it from the other side --
    if you want to do all the radical stuff that bikes are only barely designed for at normal
    weight riders, you will need some serious gear to do it safely.

    I would especially appreciate a reply from Bluto on these points.

    Jasper "Wow, that's a lot of text" Janssen
     
  12. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    "FTLOSM" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I am the one who started this thread (interested in finding a bike for a 6'7' 375lb guy), was
    > reading around online at various websites and reviews on bikes that interested me and the Trek
    > Navigator 400 looked like a candidate???
    >
    > http://www.trekbikes.com/bikes/2003/citybike/navigator400.jsp
    >
    > Any comments on this bike? I don't plan to go offroad or anything crazy, just around the forest
    > preserve paths locally, all smooth trails and nothing fast (I will be riding with my wife and
    > little girl) etc etc.

    The suspension components will be a problem. You will bottom them out routinely, making them
    effective "anti-comfort" features. A bike with a rigid fork and post would be better. Avoid any
    suspension fork that doesn't have "air assist" (so that you can pump it up as stiff as necessary).

    The rear wheel will fail quickly unless it just doesn't see much use. Not a huge deal; you just have
    it rebuilt when it fails.

    Adjustable handlebar stems like this bike has are not for you either, sorry to say. They are not as
    strong as a solid stem, and they trade off between height and extension. You need both height and
    extension, hence my recommendation of a BMX bar. One could be fitted to the bike you suggest, but it
    would require replacing the stem too.

    The crank is of a type which will cause you grief if you pedal out of the saddle over a long enough
    period of time. You could make a pact with yourself to keep your butt planted on the saddle at all
    times, or you could replace the crank. That raises the effective price somewhat.

    In the same price category you could get a bike like the Kona Scab
    http://www.konaworld.com/2k3/2k3_scab.cfm , or the discontinued Trek Bruiser One, which would be
    plenty strong but just doesn't come in an appropriate tall size. But you would be better off
    sticking a BMX bar and custom-made seatpost on a bike like that, though, than trying to get by with
    a bike that will fail to cope with the strain.

    I still think the best idea would be to bag a bike like this:
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3610417757 Then swap the crank for something
    safe, and replace the wheels with stronger ones when they crap out.

    Chalo Colina
     
  13. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Like I said upthread, I'm not quite as heavy as Bill, but at least 3/4 of the way there, and I've
    > never had any issues riding steel un-fancy (as in no suspension) frames (in some cases for 5 years
    > of light to moderate commuting before they got stolen. Damn this country.). Obviously, this does
    > not mean someone heavier than me will not have any either, but it seems an indicator that
    > oldfashioned steel frames are pretty strong.

    Sometimes very strong. Even with weak-looking small tube diameters, older frames often contain
    plenty of steel to support any single rider. I have an old '70s Schwinn touring frame which I have
    converted into a chopper. It has given me many reliable miles under my 165kg even with a long
    seatpost (250mm exposed) and the added strain of a 64cm fork!

    > You have to be a bit careful standing up on pedals because you develop a huge amount of force
    > when you do, in some cases a bit more than the drivetrain can handle without skipping, and
    > definitely enough that wear will be an issue, both on the drivetrain, and rather more dangerously
    > on the cranks, pedals, and bottom bracket.

    I have avoided drivetrain problems by using big rings with big sprockets e.g. 47t/14-38 or 44t/13-32
    rather than the "compact" sizes that have come into use.

    I cannot overemphasize how inadequate I feel the square taper crank is for heavy riders. I have
    broken two of them and I feel fortunate that it was only two. If for whatever reason I felt comelled
    to use a square taper crank again, I would certainly use the nutted type as its taper contains a
    much larger cross-sectional area.

    Tubular spindle cranks like Bullseye and ISIS are much more confidence-inspiring, and 19-22mm solid
    splined spindles like Profile, Primo, or Redline seem comparatively unbreakable.

    > I *have* had problems with spoke breakage, saddle spring breakage (even that only after a few
    > years, and not a catastrophic failure), and tire pressure. Spoke breakage with a properly
    > tensioned 36h/622/#15 wheel has been favorable, though, so.. Well, it would probably still be an
    > issue, but in cost versus convenience versus repair costs, I still think a standard 36h wheel
    > (don't go for 32h..) with a new spoke or two every so often will edge out 40 or 48h tandem wheels.

    I suppose a 36 spoke 700c wheel could be built to support a 400lb rider, but it would take an
    uncommonly strong rim for that size-- perhaps the Sun Rhyno Lite would suffice. That rim is
    unsuitable for many 700c tires though, due to its width.

    For a heavy rider I believe 26" wheels are the best option, and the choice of strong rims in that
    size makes reliable 36 spoke wheels a possibility. For my part, I have a wheelset built on 700g Sun
    Mammoth rims that has proven reliable with 32 spokes in the front and 36 in the rear. The rear
    features a gearhub though, and is of dishless construction.

    > 26 inch wheels would be inherently stronger, but they are generally speaking much smaller, thus
    > requiring long saddleposts and stems, which can bend or break, which is bad.

    A 559-60 tire is the same outside diameter as a 622-28. The diametral wheel clearance built into a
    mountain bike is about the same as that of a road bike. The chief difference is that MTBs are
    designed for more standover clearance and therefore require a longer seatpost.

    I have been making special seatposts for longer than I have been making any other bike parts.

    > Bill, if you were in the Netherlands, I'd tell you to go down to the nearest big city (...) and
    > spend $180 or less on a 61 cm (common, especially in older bikes -- 24 to 24.5 inch) frame Gazelle
    > or Batavus bike

    Good idea. I got my sister a Gazelle bike which was so heavily built that I would have had no
    hesitation to ride it myself. Dishless wheels, wide and heavy steel rims, 38mm tires, effective drum
    brakes-- all good for a big rider.

    > Just make sure you always remember that it wasn't made for that kind of weight, and be gentle with
    > it. Don't try the zero to 30 in 10 seconds, or any significantly unsmooth surfaces at significant
    > speeds, and with what Bluto says about the bottom bracket, you might want to avoid standing on the
    > pedals at all.

    This is the heart of the issue. If the OP chooses to ride like a sedate little granny, he may be
    able to get trouble-free service from any sort of bike. But to do so is in effect betting against
    oneself; it's starting with the assumption that one will not become so interested as to want to ride
    long and hard!

    Chalo Colina
     
  14. On 30 May 2003 19:27:10 -0700, [email protected] (Bluto) wrote:
    >Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I have avoided drivetrain problems by using big rings with big sprockets e.g. 47t/14-38 or
    >44t/13-32 rather than the "compact" sizes that have come into use.
    >
    >I cannot overemphasize how inadequate I feel the square taper crank is for heavy riders. I have
    >broken two of them and I feel fortunate that it was only two. If for whatever reason I felt
    >comelled to use a

    Did you break the cranks around the square hole, or the bottom bracket axle? Most cranks seem fairly
    strong at that point, but BB axles seem relatively flimsy, even though they're generally made out of
    strong stainless steel. Especially with the bolt usually only going in partway, and the axle in most
    pictures I've seen shearing off at that point.

    >Tubular spindle cranks like Bullseye and ISIS are much more

    ISIS isn't always good, a google turned up this: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fsabb.html . I do like
    the idea, though. Open Standards can't be anything but good.

    >confidence-inspiring, and 19-22mm solid splined spindles like Profile, Primo, or Redline seem
    >comparatively unbreakable.

    I can't easily find pictures of all of those, but some of them (the last three, particularly) seem
    to have a chainring attachment consisting of only one bolt, which is presumably some kind of BMX
    thing? For comfortable road riding, I'd like to have at least a double and preferably a triple, I'm
    not sure if that's possible with those. But how about the newer Shimano splined BB/cranks and
    similar? (though those apparently have their own set of problems)
    >
    >I suppose a 36 spoke 700c wheel could be built to support a 400lb rider, but it would take an
    >uncommonly strong rim for that size-- perhaps the Sun Rhyno Lite would suffice. That rim is
    >unsuitable for many 700c tires though, due to its width.

    700c is a 622 mm wheel, right? 700 what is that, anyway? 700 mm outside diameter including tire?

    >> 26 inch wheels would be inherently stronger, but they are generally speaking much smaller, thus
    >> requiring long saddleposts and stems, which can bend or break, which is bad.
    >
    >A 559-60 tire is the same outside diameter as a 622-28. The diametral wheel clearance built into a
    >mountain bike is about the same as that of a road bike. The chief difference is that MTBs are
    >designed for more standover clearance and therefore require a longer seatpost.

    Ah, OK. I see. I was thinking of completely different 26" wheels..

    >Good idea. I got my sister a Gazelle bike which was so heavily built that I would have had no
    >hesitation to ride it myself. Dishless wheels, wide and heavy steel rims, 38mm tires, effective
    >drum brakes-- all good for a big rider.

    Yup. And they're as common as dirt around here, them and other similar manufacturers. I believe we
    have a little more bikes here than citizens (17 million versus 16, or so), and the vast majority of
    them are of that design. I just bought a new one, Gazelle, built '85, slightly rusty from being
    outside in the rain a lot, €142.50. Now considering whether I shouldn't have gotten a cottered
    one, instead of a square-taper cotterless.

    >> Just make sure you always remember that it wasn't made for that kind of weight, and be gentle
    >> with it. Don't try the zero to 30 in 10 seconds, or any significantly unsmooth surfaces at
    >> significant speeds, and with what Bluto says about the bottom bracket, you might want to avoid
    >> standing on the pedals at all.
    >
    >This is the heart of the issue. If the OP chooses to ride like a sedate little granny, he may be
    >able to get trouble-free service from any sort of bike. But to do so is in effect betting against
    >oneself; it's starting with the assumption that one will not become so interested as to want to
    >ride long and hard!

    Well, that's one way of looking at it. Personally, especially when I'm not sure yet whether I'm
    going to enjoy an activity enough to want top-notch gear (and the dremel isn't going to languish in
    the cellar, or whatever..), I try to buy a cheap clone or secondhand one first. If I use it enough
    to wear it out, I know I need to buy a good one. Also means that beginner mistakes go on the
    cheapie, rather than the expensive one.

    For bicycles, the principles need to be adapted a bit, because of obvious safety issues, but I don't
    think it's a good idea to tell the guy he needs to spend a thousand bucks before he can even think
    about riding. Besides, he mentions he wants to ride Sunday afternoons with his kid.. that's not
    gonna be terribly arduous riding in any case.

    Jasper
     
  15. On 30 May 2003 15:14:27 -0700, [email protected] (Bluto) wrote:

    >I still think the best idea would be to bag a bike like this:
    >http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3610417757 Then swap the crank for something
    >safe, and replace the wheels with stronger ones when they crap out.

    Ooh. That is a nice big bike. Now where do I find one of those on this side of the Atlantic..

    Jasper (Shipping probably 2-300 bucks, aka not worth it.)
     
  16. Karen M.

    Karen M. Guest

    Bill wrote:

    > I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can
    > recommend any particular model or maker that might fit my needs due to size and height? My
    > inseam is 34' and most of my extra weight is in the stomach (hence wanting a bike to help reduce
    > that) etc....

    There's a guy in Fremont OH about your size. Name's Dave. It should be easy to find him via the
    online presence of the local shop or club. And what's the name of that former RAAM racer who's
    now in the custom frame biz? Leonard Nitz? Might be a NG of his customers where they sell old
    frames/bikes. (We've got one for Counter/Viewpoint tandems, anyway.) Also try alt.support.tall,
    my "little" brother's favorite NG. HTH --Karen M.
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>, Karen M.
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Bill wrote:
    >
    >> I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can
    >> recommend any particular model or maker that might fit my needs due to size and height? My inseam
    >> is 34' and most of my extra weight is in the stomach (hence wanting a bike to help reduce that)
    >> etc....
    >
    > There's a guy in Fremont OH about your size. Name's Dave. It should be easy to find him via the
    > online presence of the local shop or club. And what's the name of that former RAAM racer who's
    > now in the custom frame biz? Leonard Nitz?

    I think you're thinking of http://www.zinncycles.com/

    I think the original poster was imagining something less expensive than a Zinn.
     
  18. Ftlosm

    Ftlosm Guest

    Yeah those do look awesome but I was hoping to stay within a budget of aprox $500 give or take a few
    extra if needed,

    Thanks again for all the replies I have been reading them all,

    Bill :) "Paul Southworth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:445Ca.35562$A%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Karen M.
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >Bill wrote:
    > >
    > >> I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can
    > >> recommend any particular model or maker that
    might fit
    > >> my needs due to size and height? My inseam is 34' and most of my extra weight is in the stomach
    > >> (hence wanting a bike to help reduce that)
    etc....
    > >
    > > There's a guy in Fremont OH about your size. Name's Dave. It should be easy to find him via
    > > the online presence of the local shop or club. And what's the name of that former RAAM racer
    > > who's now in the custom frame biz? Leonard Nitz?
    >
    > I think you're thinking of http://www.zinncycles.com/
    >
    > I think the original poster was imagining something less expensive than a Zinn.
     
  19. Effi

    Effi Guest

    go to ebay.com put in item # 2176444383 28" wheels (canadian or english?) are bigger than
    american wheels

    maybe you can find a bike with 28" wheels

    "FTLOSM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Big & Tall Rider ISO Bike
    >
    >
    > I am looking at getting a bike but I am big and tall 6'7' 375 lbs & curious if anyone can
    > recommend any particular model or maker that might
    fit
    > my needs due to size and height? My inseam is 34' and most of my extra weight is in the stomach
    > (hence wanting a bike to help reduce that) etc.
    >
    > Riding would be on flat smooth surfaces (forest preserve type paths)
    nothing
    > off road etc, I am guessing I will be needing to go to a "REAL" bike shop not a Target or Kmart
    > $79 Huffy special (due to my size and height).
    >
    > I was looking at a infomercial for a bike called the LAND RIDER and
    checked
    > out their webpage, seems like a decent concept yet I would almost prefer
    to
    > RIDE one vs order, ride and return if I didn't like it (any input on these bikes in general?)
    > www.landrider.com Was looking at their Men's Deluxe 22" 6'4" and up $399.80
    >
    >
    >
    > Just wondered if there were any other big and tall riders out there who could recommend a certain
    > brand or frame size for me, the style of bike I was looking at getting would be a cross between a
    > cruiser and a mountain bike but I am open, my budget would be $200-$600 price range.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Bill :) steveperryfan2001 (at) yahoo.com
     
  20. Bluto

    Bluto Guest

    Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Did you break the cranks around the square hole, or the bottom bracket axle? Most cranks seem
    > fairly strong at that point, but BB axles seem relatively flimsy, even though they're generally
    > made out of strong stainless steel. Especially with the bolt usually only going in partway, and
    > the axle in most pictures I've seen shearing off at that point.

    I broke two spindles under pedaling loads only, with the fracture emanating from the root end of the
    taper flats. Both the spindles in question were drilled for 8mm crank bolts, and the cross-sectional
    area at the break was disturbingly small.

    > ISIS isn't always good, a google turned up this: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/fsabb.html . I do
    > like the idea, though. Open Standards can't be anything but good.

    FSA have revised their design, with a pressed-on ring providing the positive stop feature. In my
    experience with ISIS cranks, the only problem I encountered was loosening of the left crank. I no
    longer use ISIS cranks, though I don't have any problems with them in principle.

    > I can't easily find pictures of all of those [Profile, Primo, Redline cranks] but some of them
    > (the last three, particularly) seem to have a chainring attachment consisting of only one bolt,
    > which is presumably some kind of BMX thing? For comfortable road riding, I'd like to have at least
    > a double and preferably a triple, I'm not sure if that's possible with those.

    BMX cranks are heir to the one-piece-crank method of chainring attachment, meaning that the
    "chainwheel" or spider is sandwiched at the spindle and driven by a single pin or bolt located about
    32mm off center.

    Double or triple spiders can be obtained which use this method of attachment:
    http://shop.airbomb.com/site/intro.cfm?PageID=37&SKU=CR7013

    > 700c is a 622 mm wheel, right?

    Yes. It's the French term now in general use in the USA.

    > 700 what is that, anyway? 700 mm outside diameter including tire?

    The "c" size at one time implied the original ~40mm wide tire which would give the wheel a 700mm
    diameter. The 622mm rim diameter has prevailed and now fits a large variety of tires from 18mm to
    60mm wide.

    > I don't think it's a good idea to tell the guy he needs to spend a thousand bucks before he can
    > even think about riding. Besides, he mentions he wants to ride Sunday afternoons with his kid..
    > that's not gonna be terribly arduous riding in any case.

    True. But neither will it effect the weight loss the OP stated was his goal. I think the guy can get
    set up for less than $300 if he starts with an appropriate secondhand bike.

    Chalo Colina
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...