I have similar problem with the bike. for big guyz

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > Shimano Saint cranks are probably the easiest, most intercompatible
> > option for you if you want to use triple chainrings.
>
> Regarding the cranks, any thoughts on Shimano's cheap-and-chunky Hone
> option? They are the less-expensive freeride group option (Deore to the
> Saint's XT), but I assume that as usual for the cheap groups, they add
> weight rather than lose strength.

I forgot about Hone cranks, never having seen any in person. They'd
probably work just about as well as Saint.

Component weight really isn't an issue here, since the OP would have
to go to extremes to have his bike approach 10% of his body weight.
That's a pretty light bike for most of us.

> Not that this is pertinent to my needs,

C'mon, you know you want a really, really stout and heavy bike! Think
of it as the Ford Excursion of the cycling world.

Chalo

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chalo <[email protected]> writes:

> C'mon, you know you want a really, really stout and heavy bike! Think
> of it as the Ford Excursion of the cycling world.

I'd happily let you ride my aged Norco Bigfoot. Just
please try not to break the rear axle, okay? I'm already
on my third. And I'm just a 150 lb meat pie. My bike isn't
so much a Ford Excursion as it is an International-Harvester
TravelAll.

To you, it might be a Subaru Brat.

My old Sugino crankset is immortal; you can't kill it.
Unless you resort to dynamite or something. Maybe.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[catzz66]

Jorg Lueke wrote:
> On Jun 10, 12:16 pm, catzz66 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Michael Warner wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:31:27 GMT, Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>>>>>but im going to look for a bicycle no
>>>>>matter what.
>>
>>>>You tell 'em. Don't listen to the naysayers.
>>
>>>It's not naysaying to point out that someone that heavy (and presumably
>>>unfit) is quite likely to injure himself or have a heart attack if he hops
>>>on a bike right away.
>>
>>Likewise, a piece of exercise equipment like a stationery recumbent can
>>be used 12 months out of the year and can still be used after he loses
>>the weight.
>
>
> Can't you use any bike 12 months out of the year if you are manly
> enough?
>

Absolutely. That's the spirit you need. =]

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> >
> > > Shimano Saint cranks are probably the easiest, most intercompatible
> > > option for you if you want to use triple chainrings.
> >
> > Regarding the cranks, any thoughts on Shimano's cheap-and-chunky Hone
> > option? They are the less-expensive freeride group option (Deore to the
> > Saint's XT), but I assume that as usual for the cheap groups, they add
> > weight rather than lose strength.
>
> I forgot about Hone cranks, never having seen any in person. They'd
> probably work just about as well as Saint.
>
> Component weight really isn't an issue here, since the OP would have
> to go to extremes to have his bike approach 10% of his body weight.
> That's a pretty light bike for most of us.

But of course. I thought component cost might start mattering, though .

> > Not that this is pertinent to my needs,
>
> C'mon, you know you want a really, really stout and heavy bike! Think
> of it as the Ford Excursion of the cycling world.
>
> Chalo

Y'see, the thing is that while I'm not as light as I once was, I'm still
somewhere shy of half your body weight. For me, indifferent 32-spoke
wheels on a run-of-the-mill Nashbar X frame and whatever closeout
Truvativ Rouleur carbon external-bearing cranks I can find are bombproof
components. That's my cyclocross bike.

Compared to my race bike, it feels like it is utterly indifferent to
rolling off curbs, which is also the basic benefit of a Ford Excursion
.

The MTB is made of steel,

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > >
> > > Not that this is pertinent to my needs,
> >
> > C'mon, you know you want a really, really stout and heavy bike! Think
> > of it as the Ford Excursion of the cycling world.
>
> Y'see, the thing is that while I'm not as light as I once was, I'm still
> somewhere shy of half your body weight. For me, indifferent 32-spoke
> wheels on a run-of-the-mill Nashbar X frame and whatever closeout
> Truvativ Rouleur carbon external-bearing cranks I can find are bombproof
> components.

You're only taking it as far as, say, a Subaru Outback.

The reason I likened it to an Excursion is that the people who ride in
those don't weigh a full ton, like the vehicle is rated for. Since I
most often see those behemoths being piloted by solitary blonde women
of not more than 130 lbs., I'd say the payload rating is about 16X the
median payload (unless they have their makeup kits in there).

So if you ride a Chalo-spec bike, and if you figure out a way to
generate plentiful noxious exhaust gases (try an Ethiopian vegetarian
sampler), then you can be the Excursion driver of the bike world.

> That's my cyclocross bike.
>
> Compared to my race bike, it feels like it is utterly indifferent to
> rolling off curbs, which is also the basic benefit of a Ford Excursion

I think you'd be amused by my 29er with 700x60 slicks. Indifferent to
rolling _onto_ curbs. Big, fun.

Chalo

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Not that this is pertinent to my needs,
> > >
> > > C'mon, you know you want a really, really stout and heavy bike! Think
> > > of it as the Ford Excursion of the cycling world.
> >
> > Y'see, the thing is that while I'm not as light as I once was, I'm still
> > somewhere shy of half your body weight. For me, indifferent 32-spoke
> > wheels on a run-of-the-mill Nashbar X frame and whatever closeout
> > Truvativ Rouleur carbon external-bearing cranks I can find are bombproof
> > components.
>
> You're only taking it as far as, say, a Subaru Outback.
>
> The reason I likened it to an Excursion is that the people who ride in
> those don't weigh a full ton, like the vehicle is rated for. Since I
> most often see those behemoths being piloted by solitary blonde women
> of not more than 130 lbs., I'd say the payload rating is about 16X the
> median payload (unless they have their makeup kits in there).



> So if you ride a Chalo-spec bike, and if you figure out a way to
> generate plentiful noxious exhaust gases (try an Ethiopian vegetarian
> sampler), then you can be the Excursion driver of the bike world.
>
> > That's my cyclocross bike.
> >
> > Compared to my race bike, it feels like it is utterly indifferent to
> > rolling off curbs, which is also the basic benefit of a Ford Excursion
>
> I think you'd be amused by my 29er with 700x60 slicks. Indifferent to
> rolling _onto_ curbs. Big, fun.

60? What next, a 29er version of the Pugsley? 700Cx100 tires anyone?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

 

[Chalo]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > >
> > > That's my cyclocross bike.
> > >
> > > Compared to my race bike, it feels like it is utterly indifferent to
> > > rolling off curbs, which is also the basic benefit of a Ford Excursion
> >
> > I think you'd be amused by my 29er with 700x60 slicks. Indifferent to
> > rolling _onto_ curbs. Big, fun.
>
> 60? What next, a 29er version of the Pugsley? 700Cx100 tires anyone?

Sign me up.

700x60 is the so-called 29 x 2.35" Schwalbe Big Apple. Awesome
tire.

Chalo

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > Chalo wrote:
> > >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's my cyclocross bike.
> > > >
> > > > Compared to my race bike, it feels like it is utterly indifferent to
> > > > rolling off curbs, which is also the basic benefit of a Ford Excursion
> > >
> > > I think you'd be amused by my 29er with 700x60 slicks. Indifferent to
> > > rolling _onto_ curbs. Big, fun.
> >
> > 60? What next, a 29er version of the Pugsley? 700Cx100 tires anyone?
>
> Sign me up.

It occurs to me that the Pugsley uses disc brakes (Sheldon suggests that
despite the canti posts, discs are virtually mandatory), and that with
tires on, road wheels end up close to the same outer diameter as typical
MTB tires.

I wonder what the biggest 29er tire you could get in a Pugsley frame
would be? Probably limited by outer diameter rather than side clearance,
but an interesting question.

> 700x60 is the so-called 29 x 2.35" Schwalbe Big Apple. Awesome
> tire.

Ironically, I run 32s on my CX, rather on the narrow side.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos