max load rating for road bikes?



On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> > > Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > No doubt.

>
> > > > FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.

>
> > > Huh.   Yah, you've said that before.  I find your below assertion
> > > rather squishy.

>
> > As I said, it was only a short test. So I suppose it could have been
> > the wheels, the salesman's deodorant, or any of an infinite other
> > number of factors that skewed my opinion.

>
> > > > I'd steer away from carbon fiber.

>
> > > Why?  What would you steer him toward?  I think there are many
> > > appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > steel, or titanium.  As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > > on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > titanium.

>
> > Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> > worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> > super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> > end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> > both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?

>
> > That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> > suggest avoiding CF  is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> > cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> > justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> > is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.

>
> > Joseph

>
> Actually I was really tempted by Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 at LBS.
> It was on sale for $1500 and it was soooo light! But my common sense
> kept saying "look at these rims - now look at your gut - now look at
> these rims". Salesman told me that it is designed to withstand 300lbs
> static load - not sure if that means it will fold at 325 or a 300lbs
> person can take it on the road...


No reason not to get a bike if you want one, even if it may not be the
most sensible choice. Just because you like the bike is more than a
good enough reason. If they are looking to move the bike, they should
be able to do something about swapping some more robust wheels.

If having kit you like will get you out on the bike more, have at it!

Joseph
 
On Feb 18, 4:56 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote, in
part:
> I am not sure the model, but I do know a 210lb (95KG) guy
> who rode a ti litespeed for a couple years without problems.


I bet it wasn't a Ghisallo.

> would not think the Ghisallo would live all that long under my abuse,
> but that's different than folding on the first ride.


Yah, ummmm..... hyperbole. Did you really take that seriously? I
should have said "inappropriate and not long term durable under the
OP's weight".

My profound apologies for misrepresenting my opinion to you.

D'ohBoy
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5dcda385-ecec-495e-afa0-a2e7b5f23606@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Feb, 23:42, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 3:44 pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.
> > >> Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > >> either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

> >
> > >>> FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.
> > >> Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
> > >> rather squishy.

> >
> > >>> I'd steer away from carbon fiber.
> > >> Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
> > >> appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > >> steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > >> on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > >> titanium.

> >
> > >> D'ohBoy

> >
> > > Is there anyone making ti frames that would fail first ride on someone
> > > in this category? I know there's a lot more to the frame than the
> > > material, but I would be surprised to find someone is making complete
> > > garbage ti frames, the material is just too expensive.

> >
> > Would you feel comfortable putting a 100 kg guy on a 790 gram Ghisallo
> > frame?
> >
> > Lou

>
> I would be. Send me one. ;-)
>



Transfer a couple of thousand euro and I send you one. What size?

Lou
 
On Feb 19, 8:50 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:56 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote, in
> part:
>
> > I am not sure the model, but I do know a 210lb (95KG) guy
> > who rode a ti litespeed for a couple years without problems.

>
> I bet it wasn't a Ghisallo.
>
> > would not think the Ghisallo would live all that long under my abuse,
> > but that's different than folding on the first ride.

>
> Yah, ummmm..... hyperbole. Did you really take that seriously? I
> should have said "inappropriate and not long term durable under the
> OP's weight".


I didn't take it literally; I interpreted it as hyperbole and
responded in kind. My question isn't really about whether it would
fold on the first ride, but more if it would fail as easily as you
suggest. I would think it would take the kind of abuse I put my bikes
through, the aforementioned offroading, curbs, skate parks, etc. to
cause failure in short order.


> My profound apologies for misrepresenting my opinion to you.


Please, accept my apologies for misrepresenting myself to you.


> D'ohBoy


Dan
 
On Feb 19, 2:54 pm, "Lou Holtman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5dcda385-ecec-495e-afa0-a2e7b5f23606@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 18 Feb, 23:42, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 3:44 pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > > >>> Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.
> > > >> Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > >> either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > > >>> FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.
> > > >> Huh.   Yah, you've said that before.  I find your below assertion
> > > >> rather squishy.

>
> > > >>> I'd steer away from carbon fiber.
> > > >> Why?  What would you steer him toward?  I think there are many
> > > >> appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > >> steel, or titanium.  As well as frames that would fold underneathhim
> > > >> on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > >> titanium.

>
> > > >> D'ohBoy

>
> > > > Is there anyone making ti frames that would fail first ride on someone
> > > > in this category?  I know there's a lot more to the frame than the
> > > > material, but I would be surprised to find someone is making complete
> > > > garbage ti frames, the material is just too expensive.

>
> > > Would you feel comfortable putting a 100 kg guy on a 790 gram Ghisallo
> > > frame?

>
> > > Lou

>
> > I would be. Send me one. ;-)

>
> Transfer a couple of thousand euro and I send you one. What size?
>
> Lou


You take checks?

Joseph
 
On Feb 19, 7:04 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> > > > Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > > either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > > No doubt.

>
> > > > > FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.

>
> > > > Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
> > > > rather squishy.

>
> > > As I said, it was only a short test. So I suppose it could have been
> > > the wheels, the salesman's deodorant, or any of an infinite other
> > > number of factors that skewed my opinion.

>
> > > > > I'd steer away from carbon fiber.

>
> > > > Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
> > > > appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > > steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > > > on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > > titanium.

>
> > > Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> > > worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> > > super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> > > end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> > > both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?

>
> > > That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> > > suggest avoiding CF is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> > > cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> > > justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> > > is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.

>
> > > Joseph

>
> > Actually I was really tempted by Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 at LBS.
> > It was on sale for $1500 and it was soooo light! But my common sense
> > kept saying "look at these rims - now look at your gut - now look at
> > these rims". Salesman told me that it is designed to withstand 300lbs
> > static load - not sure if that means it will fold at 325 or a 300lbs
> > person can take it on the road...

>
> No reason not to get a bike if you want one, even if it may not be the
> most sensible choice. Just because you like the bike is more than a
> good enough reason. If they are looking to move the bike, they should
> be able to do something about swapping some more robust wheels.
>
> If having kit you like will get you out on the bike more, have at it!
>
> Joseph


Motivation is not much of a problem - I ride everyday if weather
cooperates (living in Austin TX makes it easy). And my previous
experience with buying a bike was that you should not play it safe -
this sport is an addiction and you always want to get beeter so you
should buy bikes that will support your progress a year or two down
the road. Modulo your spending power.
Do you know where I can find some reasonable advice regarding
gearing - what chainring/cassette combinations are preferred for
different application? I ma be MTB biased but I try to concentrate
on finding bike with triple chainring - not sure it is reasonable
to impose such constraint on my search.

JT
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:54 pm, "Lou Holtman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5dcda385-ecec-495e-afa0-a2e7b5f23606@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Feb, 23:42, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 18, 3:44 pm, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.
>>>>>> Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
>>>>>> either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.
>>>>>>> FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.
>>>>>> Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
>>>>>> rather squishy.
>>>>>>> I'd steer away from carbon fiber.
>>>>>> Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
>>>>>> appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
>>>>>> steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
>>>>>> on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
>>>>>> titanium.
>>>>>> D'ohBoy
>>>>> Is there anyone making ti frames that would fail first ride on someone
>>>>> in this category? I know there's a lot more to the frame than the
>>>>> material, but I would be surprised to find someone is making complete
>>>>> garbage ti frames, the material is just too expensive.
>>>> Would you feel comfortable putting a 100 kg guy on a 790 gram Ghisallo
>>>> frame?
>>>> Lou
>>> I would be. Send me one. ;-)

>> Transfer a couple of thousand euro and I send you one. What size?
>>
>> Lou

>
> You take checks?
>
> Joseph



Sorry can't do that. Only cash in advance (4000 euro). I throw in a free
water bottle ;-)

Lou
 
On 19 Feb, 16:32, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 7:04 am, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> > > > > Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > > > either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > > > No doubt.

>
> > > > > > FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.

>
> > > > > Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
> > > > > rather squishy.

>
> > > > As I said, it was only a short test. So I suppose it could have been
> > > > the wheels, the salesman's deodorant, or any of an infinite other
> > > > number of factors that skewed my opinion.

>
> > > > > > I'd steer away from carbon fiber.

>
> > > > > Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
> > > > > appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > > > steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > > > > on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > > > titanium.

>
> > > > Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> > > > worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> > > > super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> > > > end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> > > > both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?

>
> > > > That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> > > > suggest avoiding CF is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> > > > cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> > > > justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> > > > is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.

>
> > > > Joseph

>
> > > Actually I was really tempted by Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 at LBS.
> > > It was on sale for $1500 and it was soooo light! But my common sense
> > > kept saying "look at these rims - now look at your gut - now look at
> > > these rims". Salesman told me that it is designed to withstand 300lbs
> > > static load - not sure if that means it will fold at 325 or a 300lbs
> > > person can take it on the road...

>
> > No reason not to get a bike if you want one, even if it may not be the
> > most sensible choice. Just because you like the bike is more than a
> > good enough reason. If they are looking to move the bike, they should
> > be able to do something about swapping some more robust wheels.

>
> > If having kit you like will get you out on the bike more, have at it!

>
> > Joseph

>
> Motivation is not much of a problem - I ride everyday if weather
> cooperates (living in Austin TX makes it easy). And my previous
> experience with buying a bike was that you should not play it safe -
> this sport is an addiction and you always want to get beeter so you
> should buy bikes that will support your progress a year or two down
> the road. Modulo your spending power.
> Do you know where I can find some reasonable advice regarding
> gearing - what chainring/cassette combinations are preferred for
> different application? I ma be MTB biased but I try to concentrate
> on finding bike with triple chainring - not sure it is reasonable
> to impose such constraint on my search.
>
> JT


There is something to be said for getting a bike to grow into, but I'
d personally get a bike that was up to the task with a plan of getting
a very nice bike down the road as a reward. That is more or less what
I've done. I have a nice new bike waiting for 210lbs!

As for gearing, that varies by location of course so the LBS should be
helpful there. No reason not to have a tripple exept vanity. I have
doubles ;-). When I was 260 I did fine without a tripple. I just
avoided steep hills. Going that slow wasn't fun, and I didn't need
steep to get a workout.

I'm not a big fan of pre-built factory bikes, so if it were me, I'd
get a cheap all aluminum frame (Fetish Cycles or Leader) from eBay
($80), a fork from Nashbar, and build up (or have the LBS buuild up)
with Shimano 105. Wheels built with 36 spokes on Velocity Aerohead/OC
rims which have off-center holes to make the spoke tension more even
which helps for heavy loads. Use black spokes maybe to make it a
little more stylish. And Michelin ProRace 25 tires which are more like
27 by my measurement. The all aluminun frames have plenty of clearance
for them. Those wide tires will make a big difference if you are over
230.

For a factory bike you would need to swap the wheels and tires most
likely, the seat probably, and who knows what else. Why not start from
scratch?

And then daydream about your perfect "reward" bike while out burning
fat!

Joseph
 
On Feb 19, 1:04 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 16:32, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 7:04 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> > > > > > Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > > > > either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > > > > No doubt.

>
> > > > > > > FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.

>
> > > > > > Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
> > > > > > rather squishy.

>
> > > > > As I said, it was only a short test. So I suppose it could have been
> > > > > the wheels, the salesman's deodorant, or any of an infinite other
> > > > > number of factors that skewed my opinion.

>
> > > > > > > I'd steer away from carbon fiber.

>
> > > > > > Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
> > > > > > appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > > > > steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > > > > > on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > > > > titanium.

>
> > > > > Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> > > > > worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> > > > > super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> > > > > end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> > > > > both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?

>
> > > > > That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> > > > > suggest avoiding CF is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> > > > > cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> > > > > justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> > > > > is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.

>
> > > > > Joseph

>
> > > > Actually I was really tempted by Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 at LBS.
> > > > It was on sale for $1500 and it was soooo light! But my common sense
> > > > kept saying "look at these rims - now look at your gut - now look at
> > > > these rims". Salesman told me that it is designed to withstand 300lbs
> > > > static load - not sure if that means it will fold at 325 or a 300lbs
> > > > person can take it on the road...

>
> > > No reason not to get a bike if you want one, even if it may not be the
> > > most sensible choice. Just because you like the bike is more than a
> > > good enough reason. If they are looking to move the bike, they should
> > > be able to do something about swapping some more robust wheels.

>
> > > If having kit you like will get you out on the bike more, have at it!

>
> > > Joseph

>
> > Motivation is not much of a problem - I ride everyday if weather
> > cooperates (living in Austin TX makes it easy). And my previous
> > experience with buying a bike was that you should not play it safe -
> > this sport is an addiction and you always want to get beeter so you
> > should buy bikes that will support your progress a year or two down
> > the road. Modulo your spending power.
> > Do you know where I can find some reasonable advice regarding
> > gearing - what chainring/cassette combinations are preferred for
> > different application? I ma be MTB biased but I try to concentrate
> > on finding bike with triple chainring - not sure it is reasonable
> > to impose such constraint on my search.

>
> > JT

>
> There is something to be said for getting a bike to grow into, but I'
> d personally get a bike that was up to the task with a plan of getting
> a very nice bike down the road as a reward. That is more or less what
> I've done. I have a nice new bike waiting for 210lbs!
>
> As for gearing, that varies by location of course so the LBS should be
> helpful there. No reason not to have a tripple exept vanity. I have
> doubles ;-). When I was 260 I did fine without a tripple. I just
> avoided steep hills. Going that slow wasn't fun, and I didn't need
> steep to get a workout.
>
> I'm not a big fan of pre-built factory bikes, so if it were me, I'd
> get a cheap all aluminum frame (Fetish Cycles or Leader) from eBay
> ($80), a fork from Nashbar, and build up (or have the LBS buuild up)
> with Shimano 105. Wheels built with 36 spokes on Velocity Aerohead/OC
> rims which have off-center holes to make the spoke tension more even
> which helps for heavy loads. Use black spokes maybe to make it a
> little more stylish. And Michelin ProRace 25 tires which are more like
> 27 by my measurement. The all aluminun frames have plenty of clearance
> for them. Those wide tires will make a big difference if you are over
> 230.
>
> For a factory bike you would need to swap the wheels and tires most
> likely, the seat probably, and who knows what else. Why not start from
> scratch?
>
> And then daydream about your perfect "reward" bike while out burning
> fat!
>
> Joseph



I would steer away from the Aeroheads, OC or not, for someone of the
OP's weight. I have a buddy who weighs in the mid-200's who thrashes
his 36 spoke Aeroheads (OC rear) on a regular basis JRA. Also,
longtime wheelbuilders such as Peter Chisholm (Qui Si Parla
Campagnolo) have mentioned in the past that the Aeroheads are not
suitable for a heavier rider, no matter how many spokes.

Velocity Fusion, Mavic CXP33, etc... would be much more appropriate.

D'ohBoy
 
On Feb 19, 1:04 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Feb, 16:32, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 7:04 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> > > > > > Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > > > > either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > > > > No doubt.

>
> > > > > > > FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.

>
> > > > > > Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
> > > > > > rather squishy.

>
> > > > > As I said, it was only a short test. So I suppose it could have been
> > > > > the wheels, the salesman's deodorant, or any of an infinite other
> > > > > number of factors that skewed my opinion.

>
> > > > > > > I'd steer away from carbon fiber.

>
> > > > > > Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
> > > > > > appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > > > > steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > > > > > on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > > > > titanium.

>
> > > > > Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> > > > > worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> > > > > super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> > > > > end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> > > > > both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?

>
> > > > > That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> > > > > suggest avoiding CF is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> > > > > cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> > > > > justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> > > > > is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.

>
> > > > > Joseph

>
> > > > Actually I was really tempted by Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 at LBS.
> > > > It was on sale for $1500 and it was soooo light! But my common sense
> > > > kept saying "look at these rims - now look at your gut - now look at
> > > > these rims". Salesman told me that it is designed to withstand 300lbs
> > > > static load - not sure if that means it will fold at 325 or a 300lbs
> > > > person can take it on the road...

>
> > > No reason not to get a bike if you want one, even if it may not be the
> > > most sensible choice. Just because you like the bike is more than a
> > > good enough reason. If they are looking to move the bike, they should
> > > be able to do something about swapping some more robust wheels.

>
> > > If having kit you like will get you out on the bike more, have at it!

>
> > > Joseph

>
> > Motivation is not much of a problem - I ride everyday if weather
> > cooperates (living in Austin TX makes it easy). And my previous
> > experience with buying a bike was that you should not play it safe -
> > this sport is an addiction and you always want to get beeter so you
> > should buy bikes that will support your progress a year or two down
> > the road. Modulo your spending power.
> > Do you know where I can find some reasonable advice regarding
> > gearing - what chainring/cassette combinations are preferred for
> > different application? I ma be MTB biased but I try to concentrate
> > on finding bike with triple chainring - not sure it is reasonable
> > to impose such constraint on my search.

>
> > JT

>
> There is something to be said for getting a bike to grow into, but I'
> d personally get a bike that was up to the task with a plan of getting
> a very nice bike down the road as a reward. That is more or less what
> I've done. I have a nice new bike waiting for 210lbs!
>
> As for gearing, that varies by location of course so the LBS should be
> helpful there. No reason not to have a tripple exept vanity. I have
> doubles ;-). When I was 260 I did fine without a tripple. I just
> avoided steep hills. Going that slow wasn't fun, and I didn't need
> steep to get a workout.
>
> I'm not a big fan of pre-built factory bikes, so if it were me, I'd
> get a cheap all aluminum frame (Fetish Cycles or Leader) from eBay
> ($80), a fork from Nashbar, and build up (or have the LBS buuild up)
> with Shimano 105. Wheels built with 36 spokes on Velocity Aerohead/OC
> rims which have off-center holes to make the spoke tension more even
> which helps for heavy loads. Use black spokes maybe to make it a
> little more stylish. And Michelin ProRace 25 tires which are more like
> 27 by my measurement. The all aluminun frames have plenty of clearance
> for them. Those wide tires will make a big difference if you are over
> 230.
>
> For a factory bike you would need to swap the wheels and tires most
> likely, the seat probably, and who knows what else. Why not start from
> scratch?
>
> And then daydream about your perfect "reward" bike while out burning
> fat!
>
> Joseph


Building a bike is certainly intriguing option. Thanh you for that
suggestion. I am not sure if at present I have enough knowhow about
components to do it on the budget - I would probably end up buying
better than necessary parts. What would be you estimate estimate of
what final cost of such project should be? Are there ant books or
websites to offer some guidance?

JT

PS. :avoiding steep hills" can be hard - Austin is on the edge of
Hill Country.
 
On 19 Feb, 21:22, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 1:04 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 19 Feb, 16:32, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Feb 19, 7:04 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 19, 12:18 pm, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > On Feb 19, 2:42 am, "[email protected]"

>
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > > > [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> > > > > > > Oops. Yes, Backstedt is who I meant, although I would suggest that
> > > > > > > either he or Thor will abuse a frame more than the OP will.

>
> > > > > > No doubt.

>
> > > > > > > > FWIW I found the Fuji carbon bikes rather squishy.

>
> > > > > > > Huh. Yah, you've said that before. I find your below assertion
> > > > > > > rather squishy.

>
> > > > > > As I said, it was only a short test. So I suppose it could have been
> > > > > > the wheels, the salesman's deodorant, or any of an infinite other
> > > > > > number of factors that skewed my opinion.

>
> > > > > > > > I'd steer away from carbon fiber.

>
> > > > > > > Why? What would you steer him toward? I think there are many
> > > > > > > appropriate frames for the OP's size in carbon as well as aluminum,
> > > > > > > steel, or titanium. As well as frames that would fold underneath him
> > > > > > > on his first ride manufactured of carbon or aluminum, or steel, or
> > > > > > > titanium.

>
> > > > > > Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> > > > > > worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> > > > > > super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> > > > > > end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> > > > > > both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?

>
> > > > > > That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> > > > > > suggest avoiding CF is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> > > > > > cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> > > > > > justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> > > > > > is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.

>
> > > > > > Joseph

>
> > > > > Actually I was really tempted by Cannondale Synapse Carbon 2 at LBS.
> > > > > It was on sale for $1500 and it was soooo light! But my common sense
> > > > > kept saying "look at these rims - now look at your gut - now look at
> > > > > these rims". Salesman told me that it is designed to withstand 300lbs
> > > > > static load - not sure if that means it will fold at 325 or a 300lbs
> > > > > person can take it on the road...

>
> > > > No reason not to get a bike if you want one, even if it may not be the
> > > > most sensible choice. Just because you like the bike is more than a
> > > > good enough reason. If they are looking to move the bike, they should
> > > > be able to do something about swapping some more robust wheels.

>
> > > > If having kit you like will get you out on the bike more, have at it!

>
> > > > Joseph

>
> > > Motivation is not much of a problem - I ride everyday if weather
> > > cooperates (living in Austin TX makes it easy). And my previous
> > > experience with buying a bike was that you should not play it safe -
> > > this sport is an addiction and you always want to get beeter so you
> > > should buy bikes that will support your progress a year or two down
> > > the road. Modulo your spending power.
> > > Do you know where I can find some reasonable advice regarding
> > > gearing - what chainring/cassette combinations are preferred for
> > > different application? I ma be MTB biased but I try to concentrate
> > > on finding bike with triple chainring - not sure it is reasonable
> > > to impose such constraint on my search.

>
> > > JT

>
> > There is something to be said for getting a bike to grow into, but I'
> > d personally get a bike that was up to the task with a plan of getting
> > a very nice bike down the road as a reward. That is more or less what
> > I've done. I have a nice new bike waiting for 210lbs!

>
> > As for gearing, that varies by location of course so the LBS should be
> > helpful there. No reason not to have a tripple exept vanity. I have
> > doubles ;-). When I was 260 I did fine without a tripple. I just
> > avoided steep hills. Going that slow wasn't fun, and I didn't need
> > steep to get a workout.

>
> > I'm not a big fan of pre-built factory bikes, so if it were me, I'd
> > get a cheap all aluminum frame (Fetish Cycles or Leader) from eBay
> > ($80), a fork from Nashbar, and build up (or have the LBS buuild up)
> > with Shimano 105. Wheels built with 36 spokes on Velocity Aerohead/OC
> > rims which have off-center holes to make the spoke tension more even
> > which helps for heavy loads. Use black spokes maybe to make it a
> > little more stylish. And Michelin ProRace 25 tires which are more like
> > 27 by my measurement. The all aluminun frames have plenty of clearance
> > for them. Those wide tires will make a big difference if you are over
> > 230.

>
> > For a factory bike you would need to swap the wheels and tires most
> > likely, the seat probably, and who knows what else. Why not start from
> > scratch?

>
> > And then daydream about your perfect "reward" bike while out burning
> > fat!

>
> > Joseph

>
> Building a bike is certainly intriguing option. Thanh you for that
> suggestion. I am not sure if at present I have enough knowhow about
> components to do it on the budget - I would probably end up buying
> better than necessary parts. What would be you estimate estimate of
> what final cost of such project should be? Are there ant books or
> websites to offer some guidance?
>
> JT
>
> PS. :avoiding steep hills" can be hard - Austin is on the edge of
> Hill Country.


If you stick to a complete group like Shimano Tiagra (quite nice these
days) or 105 (very nice, overkill?) you'll be fine. And things like
stem, seatpost, etc can just be cheapest name-brand metal (not carbon)
and that should work fine too.

I guess a bike could be about $8-900 built up like that. That's all
the parts. Labor is extra. If you don't want the LBS to do it, I'm
sure somebody in a local club likes building bikes and will do it for
free/cheap if you don't want to.

Compare to a bike like a Trek 1.5 which I suppose is pretty typical of
a $1000 bike, and you'd have better brakes, better wheels (by far),
better crank, much better shift/brake levers, and more suitable seat
and bars (since you get to chose based on what feels good for your
butt and hands). In general a much better bike.

As for hills, avoid steep and long then! A tripple will give a nice
bail out gear, but I just don't want to go that slow.

I haven't had any problems with my Aerohead/OC rims, so I still stick
by that recommendation, but there are many other good choices too.

Joseph
 
On Feb 19, 3:42 am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 21:44, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > Thor is only about 180lbs (80kg). Magnus Backsted is about 200lbs.

>
> Because IMO carbon fiber is unecceasarily delicate and usually not
> worth the added expense. The advantage of CF is being able to make
> super-light and stiff frames, but this usually only happens at the top
> end of the price scale. Less expensive frames don't seem to manage
> both light weight and stiffness, so what is the point?
>
> That is of course a broad generalization, and my main reason to
> suggest avoiding CF  is to get a LOT more bike for the money in most
> cases. There is a premium for CF bikes that IMO is only really
> justified in the high price range, and the high price range in itself
> is hardly justified in terms of performance alone.
>
> Joseph


Just as a counter-example, I've had great experience with my 10 year
old Trek OCLV 5500.
I'm about 200-210 pounds these days. I raced on it (that is to say,
participated in races) at about 195 pounds. I raced this bike on dirt
roads and in the Pennsylvania mountains. It's been hit by a car once.
I ride it on my commute, with a 15 pound backpack, sometimes in the
rain. It's had no special care. It's scratched. The rear brake cable
stops rotted off from corrosion, at which point they were replaced by
cable tires. It still gets ridden a lot - for my 50 mile round trip
commute, and for exercise on the steepest hills I can find.

This frame is, I think, still available under Trek's "Pilot" moniker.
There's a lot to be said for a decently made, not-too-light, carbon
fiber frame's durability.

And, I've never dented it, unlike my previous steel and aluminum
frames. In fact, I remember whacking a carbon fiber frame tube
obtained from a mechaninc friend with a hammer, just to see what would
happen. While the carbon may have been damaged, it didn't show it. A
light steel or auminum tube would have been squashed.

BP
 
D'ohBoy wrote:
> Woland99 wrote:
>> Well definitely I am over 200 pounds now and by quite a WIDE
>> margin. I used to ski so I have strong leg muscles so I can
>> do some hills now even with all that extra weight. Altho fact
>> is you cannot fool you knees. And even if I go down to my
>> college/rock climbing weight (which will take a a year or so)
>> I will still be close to 200 - about 185-190.
>> So in the meantime I thought about cyclocross bike - maybe
>> sth hybrid like Bianchi Axis?

>
> There is a world-class sprinter, Thor Hushovd, who weighs about the
> same as you and he races superlight carbon road bikes. I prolly have
> weighed as much as you by a bit in the past (now stay within +/- 10
> lbs of 200) and I have ridden many different bikes of different
> materials, some pretty lightweight. Like others said, stay away from
> stoopidlight.[...]


How many miles does professional actually put on a bicycle before the
team replaces it? A component that is fine for 500 hours of use may well
be unsafe if used for 10,000 hours.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
 
On Feb 18, 7:00 am, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know that roadie suppose to be skinny but not everybody is.
> Or at least not yet. I am shopping for a road bike (have MTB) now
> and I cannot find any info on what would be reasonable "max load".
> I consider getting cyclocross bike as a step toward road bike but
> perhaps somebody here knows - what would be max rider weight
> that eg. Masi Gran Corsa can carry?


OK - thanks again for all the replies - I learn something new each
time
I read this ng. I decided to go for steel frame, 27spd type of bike.
More of a touring bike - built to go distance rather then for speed.
Simple reason is that it will be better (reliability, comfort) bike
to
get in shape and then when/if I decide to get bona-fide racing
machine
I will always be able to use it as commuting or touring bike. Whereas
if I buy substandard racing bike now I will have to cope with
potential
wheel/frame failures and then after getting next bike I will not be
able
to adapt it for commuting.

So next I will test-ride following:
Novara Randonee
Trek 520
Surly Long Haul Trucker
anything else I should add to this list?

JT
 
Woland99 wrote:
> OK - thanks again for all the replies - I learn something new each
> time I read this ng. I decided to go for steel frame, 27spd type of bike.
> More of a touring bike - built to go distance rather then for speed.
> Simple reason is that it will be better (reliability, comfort) bike to
> get in shape and then when/if I decide to get bona-fide racing
> machine I will always be able to use it as commuting or touring bike. Whereas
> if I buy substandard racing bike now I will have to cope with
> potential wheel/frame failures and then after getting next bike I will not be
> able to adapt it for commuting.
>
> So next I will test-ride following:
> Novara Randonee
> Trek 520
> Surly Long Haul Trucker
> anything else I should add to this list?


Those sound like reasonable choices. Make sure the shop tensions and
stress relieves the wheels before you take delivery.

Everytime I hear from someone looking for a decent quality, durable,
and affordable bike I bemoan the demise of the 1980s style "sport
touring" bikes. Those were real road bikes with clearance for
reasonable width tires, rugged Cr-Mo steel frames, and inexpensive
downtube shifters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyata

Art Harris
 
Woland99 wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:00 am, Woland99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I know that roadie suppose to be skinny but not everybody is.
>> Or at least not yet. I am shopping for a road bike (have MTB) now
>> and I cannot find any info on what would be reasonable "max load".
>> I consider getting cyclocross bike as a step toward road bike but
>> perhaps somebody here knows - what would be max rider weight
>> that eg. Masi Gran Corsa can carry?

>
> OK - thanks again for all the replies - I learn something new each
> time
> I read this ng. I decided to go for steel frame, 27spd type of bike.
> More of a touring bike - built to go distance rather then for speed.
> Simple reason is that it will be better (reliability, comfort) bike
> to
> get in shape and then when/if I decide to get bona-fide racing
> machine
> I will always be able to use it as commuting or touring bike. Whereas
> if I buy substandard racing bike now I will have to cope with
> potential
> wheel/frame failures and then after getting next bike I will not be
> able
> to adapt it for commuting.
>
> So next I will test-ride following:
> Novara Randonee
> Trek 520
> Surly Long Haul Trucker
> anything else I should add to this list?
>
> JT


I'm probably one of the biggest fans of touring bikes, especially for
large riders. There's no getting away from the fact that they're
designed to take heavier loads. Another reality is that they usually
have clearances (brakes, frame) to take a larger range of tire sizes --
an important feature for big riders.

That's a good list above, I'd add Cannondale to it. I have 5 bikes built
around touring frames, although I've never bought a pre-built touring
bike per se. My favorites are my 2 Cannondales, mostly because they are
relatively light and stiff. Stiffness is a nice feature in large frame
sizes as it reduces the tendency to shimmy. That said, any material is
fine if the tubes are beefy enough for the load. It can be a problem
finding and test riding touring style bikes since it's a pretty small
niche. Cross bikes may be more available and seem to be pretty equivalent.

I'd agree that building a bike up may not be a wise course for a
beginner, it's hard to work out component choices/compatibilities, and
it's usually not as economical as buying a complete bike. As for the
choice between a triple and double, that's pretty locale/rider
sensitive. I would point out that having a triple and not needing it is
way preferable to trying to retrofit it later. I have a triple on my
primary road bike. I rarely use the granny, but when I need it (on long
hilly rides/tours when my legs are shot & I'm facing a long climb) I'm
glad to have it and don't consider it a burden the rest of the time.

Learning to true wheels is probably the best skill for a (heavy)
beginner to learn. Under large loads it is a bit of a balancing act to
get spoke tension tight enough to keep wheels true. It's handier to
learn to check & correct this on your own than to constantly be
returning to the shop, it's easy enough. Read Sheldon Brown's article on
stress relieving wheels and make sure your bike shop does this for your
new purchase, or do it yourself after buying. I've always done this
myself with only a spoke wrench, I don't think a tensiometer or truing
stand are necessary, but opinions vary.
 
Tom Sherman wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
>> Woland99 wrote:
>>> Well definitely I am over 200 pounds now and by quite a WIDE
>>> margin. I used to ski so I have strong leg muscles so I can
>>> do some hills now even with all that extra weight. Altho fact
>>> is you cannot fool you knees. And even if I go down to my
>>> college/rock climbing weight (which will take a a year or so)
>>> I will still be close to 200 - about 185-190.
>>> So in the meantime I thought about cyclocross bike - maybe
>>> sth hybrid like Bianchi Axis?

>>
>> There is a world-class sprinter, Thor Hushovd, who weighs about the
>> same as you and he races superlight carbon road bikes. I prolly have
>> weighed as much as you by a bit in the past (now stay within +/- 10
>> lbs of 200) and I have ridden many different bikes of different
>> materials, some pretty lightweight. Like others said, stay away from
>> stoopidlight.[...]

>
> How many miles does professional actually put on a bicycle before the
> team replaces it? A component that is fine for 500 hours of use may well
> be unsafe if used for 10,000 hours.
>



Do you have a road frame that is used 10000 hours? I manage to cycle
10-15 hours per week. 10000 hours is 660-1000 weeks. My season is from
March till October; that's 35 weeks. So we are talking about 19 to 28
years. Who needs a frame that last that long? When I look around I think
that the average lifespan of a road frame is 5-10 years.

Lou
 
On Feb 20, 11:52 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > D'ohBoy wrote:
> >> Woland99 wrote:
> >>> Well definitely I am over 200 pounds now and by quite a WIDE
> >>> margin. I used to ski so I have strong leg muscles so I can
> >>> do some hills now even with all that extra weight. Altho fact
> >>> is you cannot fool you knees. And even if I go down to my
> >>> college/rock climbing weight (which will take a a year or so)
> >>> I will still be close to 200 - about 185-190.
> >>> So in the meantime I thought about cyclocross bike - maybe
> >>> sth hybrid like Bianchi Axis?

>
> >> There is a world-class sprinter, Thor Hushovd, who weighs about the
> >> same as you and he races superlight carbon road bikes.  I prolly have
> >> weighed as much as you by a bit in the past (now stay within +/- 10
> >> lbs of 200) and I have ridden many different bikes of different
> >> materials, some pretty lightweight.  Like others said, stay away from
> >> stoopidlight.[...]

>
> > How many miles does professional actually put on a bicycle before the
> > team replaces it? A component that is fine for 500 hours of use may well
> > be unsafe if used for 10,000 hours.

>
> Do you have a road frame that is used 10000 hours? I manage to cycle
> 10-15 hours per week. 10000 hours is 660-1000 weeks. My season is from
> March till October; that's 35 weeks. So we are talking about 19 to 28
> years. Who needs a frame that last that long? When I look around I think
> that the average lifespan of a road frame is 5-10 years.


I'd like my frames to last that long. Longer, in fact. My hardtail
mountain bike, which I thrash relentlessly, is 13 years old and going
strong. My road bike is 40ish, hard to put an exact date on it. That
frame is still perfectly servicable and one of my favorites as well,
though it is a dumpster conversion.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 20, 11:52 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>>> Woland99 wrote:
>>>>> Well definitely I am over 200 pounds now and by quite a WIDE
>>>>> margin. I used to ski so I have strong leg muscles so I can
>>>>> do some hills now even with all that extra weight. Altho fact
>>>>> is you cannot fool you knees. And even if I go down to my
>>>>> college/rock climbing weight (which will take a a year or so)
>>>>> I will still be close to 200 - about 185-190.
>>>>> So in the meantime I thought about cyclocross bike - maybe
>>>>> sth hybrid like Bianchi Axis?
>>>> There is a world-class sprinter, Thor Hushovd, who weighs about the
>>>> same as you and he races superlight carbon road bikes. I prolly have
>>>> weighed as much as you by a bit in the past (now stay within +/- 10
>>>> lbs of 200) and I have ridden many different bikes of different
>>>> materials, some pretty lightweight. Like others said, stay away from
>>>> stoopidlight.[...]
>>> How many miles does professional actually put on a bicycle before the
>>> team replaces it? A component that is fine for 500 hours of use may well
>>> be unsafe if used for 10,000 hours.

>> Do you have a road frame that is used 10000 hours? I manage to cycle
>> 10-15 hours per week. 10000 hours is 660-1000 weeks. My season is from
>> March till October; that's 35 weeks. So we are talking about 19 to 28
>> years. Who needs a frame that last that long? When I look around I think
>> that the average lifespan of a road frame is 5-10 years.

>
> I'd like my frames to last that long. Longer, in fact. My hardtail
> mountain bike, which I thrash relentlessly, is 13 years old and going
> strong. My road bike is 40ish, hard to put an exact date on it. That
> frame is still perfectly servicable and one of my favorites as well,
> though it is a dumpster conversion.


Why?
You put 10-15 hours for 3/4 of the year on those bikes for those 13 and
40 years?

Lou
 
On Feb 20, 2:01 pm, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 11:52 am, Lou Holtman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>> D'ohBoy wrote:
> >>>> Woland99 wrote:
> >>>>> Well definitely I am over 200 pounds now and by quite a WIDE
> >>>>> margin. I used to ski so I have strong leg muscles so I can
> >>>>> do some hills now even with all that extra weight. Altho fact
> >>>>> is you cannot fool you knees. And even if I go down to my
> >>>>> college/rock climbing weight (which will take a a year or so)
> >>>>> I will still be close to 200 - about 185-190.
> >>>>> So in the meantime I thought about cyclocross bike - maybe
> >>>>> sth hybrid like Bianchi Axis?
> >>>> There is a world-class sprinter, Thor Hushovd, who weighs about the
> >>>> same as you and he races superlight carbon road bikes. I prolly have
> >>>> weighed as much as you by a bit in the past (now stay within +/- 10
> >>>> lbs of 200) and I have ridden many different bikes of different
> >>>> materials, some pretty lightweight. Like others said, stay away from
> >>>> stoopidlight.[...]
> >>> How many miles does professional actually put on a bicycle before the
> >>> team replaces it? A component that is fine for 500 hours of use may well
> >>> be unsafe if used for 10,000 hours.
> >> Do you have a road frame that is used 10000 hours? I manage to cycle
> >> 10-15 hours per week. 10000 hours is 660-1000 weeks. My season is from
> >> March till October; that's 35 weeks. So we are talking about 19 to 28
> >> years. Who needs a frame that last that long? When I look around I think
> >> that the average lifespan of a road frame is 5-10 years.

>
> > I'd like my frames to last that long. Longer, in fact. My hardtail
> > mountain bike, which I thrash relentlessly, is 13 years old and going
> > strong. My road bike is 40ish, hard to put an exact date on it. That
> > frame is still perfectly servicable and one of my favorites as well,
> > though it is a dumpster conversion.

>
> Why?
> You put 10-15 hours for 3/4 of the year on those bikes for those 13 and
> 40 years?
>
> Lou- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I'd say I put 15 or so hours per week on the road bike from the start
of March into the beginning of November, and then probably 5 hours per
week November through February. I've been doing that with this
particular bike for a couple years, and would like to continue this
same tradition on this same frame for at least another 50 years.
There's also no telling how many hours were put on it in the thirty
some odd years it was around before I got it, but appearance suggests
this is a very well ridden frame.

The mountain bike sees less use, perhaps 10-15 hours per week in the
on season and nothing at all on the off season - I've got a ~12 year
old beater full suspension bike for winter MTBing. It's been seeing
this use in my care for 9 or so years, and was ridden just as much if
not more before I got it from a friend who raced it. Since I just
found an alternative "race home route" that's primarily offroad, I
expect those hours to spike heavily this summer (with a corresponding
drop on the road bike miles).

I LOVE this bike. I hope it outlives me. Last summer I custom
ordered a fork for this bike that cost as much as many 1-1/8th If I
break this frame, when I'm done crying, I'll probably send what's left
of it to someone who can make me another with exactly the same
geometry in ti (so it can be repaired if need be).