[email protected] (Ed Ness) wrote:
> Mr. Colina wrote:
>
> > At your weight, you _want_ a frame over 5 lbs. regardless of how you intend to use it. Because
> > of the many design tradeoffs, material tensile strength is a subtlety secondary to smart, mature
> > design and an adequate amount of whatever material is used.
> >
> How did you come up with a 5 lbs. plus frame weight number?
It's my personal experience. The OP is not just a little heavy for a cyclist, he's kind of tall too.
220 lbs. was my lightest "fighting weight" during my days as a fast cyclist. At that time I found
the only lightweight (4 lbs. or less) frame in my size that was suitably stiff was Cannondale's. I
used Cannondale frames exclusively for many years, but they were subject to some fatigue cracking
which I regard as a side effect of their light weight. I never tried a Klein frame but I assume that
they are the functional equivalent.
The OP might ride a 63cm frame, or a 22" MTB frame. Either of these, when built to weigh much less
than an actual 5 lbs., would be either quite flexible, prone to fatigue or crash damage, or both.
I'm not saying that the OP couldn't _get away with_ a 3 to 4 lb. frame. I'm only saying that if my
experience is any guide, he would be happier with the rigidity and longevity of a 5+ lb. frame.
> Easton makes a wide varity of Scandium tubing. Assuming the builder knows what they are doing, it
> should be no problem to build a suitable frame for a wide range of riders - including 220+ lb'ers.
> Just tell the builder that you want some of the thicker/stiffer tubes. And just a guess here, but
> I should imagine that a suitable frame should come in well under 4 lbs.
A suitably *strong* frame perhaps, but that is not a frame's only measure of suitability. The extra
pound or more can go a long way towards making a frame stable and long-lasting. Ultimately, it's
much cheaper and more effective to shave weight on the less critical components, while maintaining a
strong foundation.
Chalo Colina