collapse


Capt_Cavman

  • Road Captain
  • Country: jp
  • Posts: 2209
  • Liked: 1284
Rider Weight vs Frame Material
« on: February 26, 2014, 16:31 »
OK, I sent my bathroom scales away for re-calibrating only to be told they're perfectly accurate and I really do weigh 100 Kg, 220 Lbs or 15 St 10. It's not that I struggle to fit through doorways or anything, the weight is stretched out over 190 cm or 6 Ft 3.

However, the more research I do into my next purchase, a winter commuter, the more I notice the issue of whether heavier riders would be better off with Alloy over Carbon, or even Steel over both. Titanium's out of my price range so out of consideration.

So what do you think? Just marketing or have carbon frames got a lifespan that is severely shortened by having big lumps clattering around on them?
  • ReplyReply

  • just some guy

    • Fourth Generation humanoid bot
    • Hall of Fame'r
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 37799
    • Liked: 11441
    • Awards: 2020 Tour de France CQ Game winner2017 Spring Classics CQ game winnerBest Avatar of 2016JSG News Filter Award 2014Poster of 2014Thread of the Year 2013Most Helpful Member 2013Art of Brevity 2012Most helpful member 2012Best member of staff 2012
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #1 on: February 26, 2014, 16:35 »
    I find it odd weekend warrior's worry about weight, heavy would be better, harder training etc. Not saying you Capt. Just thought of it when I read your posts

    re Carbon it depends on the quality of the carbon tbh.

    A good steel stead works a charm , plus better on a trainer if you want to use one
  • ReplyReply
  • Of course, if this turns out someday to be the industry standard integrated handlebar-computer-braking solution then I'll eat my kevlar-reinforced aerodynamic hat.

    Larri Nov 12, 2014

    Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #2 on: February 26, 2014, 16:44 »
    I find it odd weekend warrior's worry about weight, heavy would be better, harder training etc. Not saying you Capt. Just thought of it when I read your posts

    re Carbon it depends on the quality of the carbon tbh.

    A good steel stead works a charm , plus better on a trainer if you want to use one
    Cheers JSG. It's a fair point about worrying about the weight. But...

    I have a budget and I want the best I can get for the money. I am not in training for anything, I just need to cover the 12 miles to and from work 5 days a week, 40 something weeks a year, as quickly and easily as I can in all conditions.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9597
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #3 on: February 26, 2014, 16:53 »
    Just marketing or have carbon frames got a lifespan that is severely shortened by having big lumps clattering around on them?

    I don't think anyone fit enough to be righteously interested in a carbon ride is going to be heavy enough to be a conspirator in the shortening of the frame's lifespan.

    It's like JSG says: if the frame is crap quality then sure you might expect premature failure due to a stinker impact or, on a long enough timeline, years of wear and tear.

    I would concentrate instead on what sort of ride you want and how nasty your commute is likely to be on your new beast.

    I had that alloy CX bike, if you recall, and even with the relaxed geometry for balance and clearance, with factory no-name wheels it was a right old boneshaker once you got the knobblers off and the road tyres on it. My commute was short and I appreciated being able to bunnyhop the kerbs though.

    I also remember regularly seeing a Boardman carbon machine in the bike park downstairs in my office building. Boy did the owner treat that bike badly. Filthy, poorly maintained, clip on tri-bars, a ruddy Fred bell. It sort of offended me, actually. So don't do that, will ya? :)
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycling is a Europe thing only and I only watch from Omloop on cause I am cool and sh*t
    RIP Craig1985 / Craig Walsh
    RIP KeithJamesMc / Keith McMahon / Larry Sarni

    L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9597
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #4 on: February 26, 2014, 16:56 »
    Uh, I forgot to say in closing ...

    Wheelset, wheelset, wheelset

    ... is where it's really at for you, I think.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #5 on: February 27, 2014, 11:33 »
    Uh, I forgot to say in closing ...

    Wheelset, wheelset, wheelset

    ... is where it's really at for you, I think.
    I think you're right unfortunately. Wheels are something that I know next to nothing about; I'm pretty sure that round is good, after that I'm beginning to stray into the unknown.


  • ReplyReply

  • Gotland

    • Domestique
    • Country: se
    • Posts: 539
    • Liked: 406
    • Awards: New Member of the Year 2013
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #6 on: February 27, 2014, 12:33 »
    I think you're right unfortunately. Wheels are something that I know next to nothing about; I'm pretty sure that round is good, after that I'm beginning to stray into the unknown.
    The general rule for wheels are the lighter the better. However, for us that's more Magnus Bäckstedt rather than Jose Rujano in bodyshape. I would suggest that you go for more spokes and rather than some tightly wired aero stuff. If a spoke breaks on a traditional wheel with many spokes, it's not a big deal you can easily ride to your LBS and they can sort it out for you. Whereas, you can end up in loads of trouble, possible with a modern wheel. Picture a breakdown in the middle of nowhere in foul weather with a wheel that has lost its shape. 

    This happened to me on a training ride with my brand new mid range bike.  A spoke broke on my rear wheel. I didn't realized why my bike felt so funny until I got home and noticed the missing spoke.  With the help from my LBS, they build my a new rear wheel with more and thicker spokes that suited my body weight better.

    Edit: Walking 20 km with cleats is not the way you want to spend an afternoon either :)
  • ReplyReply
  • "Emma is Queen of consistency" Peloton Watch

    42x16ss

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 681
    • Liked: 377
    • Awards: Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #7 on: March 03, 2014, 06:04 »
    Uh, I forgot to say in closing ...

    Wheelset, wheelset, wheelset

    ... is where it's really at for you, I think.

    This is something too many riders and shops neglect. All too often you'll see someone in the 90kg+ range riding on the cool, low spoke count wheels their flashy carbon bike came with, wondering why they go out of true, lose tension and break spokes.

    What type of bike are you looking at for commuting? A hybrid, road, mountain or CX bike? The options for someone your weight will vary depending on how you want to ride.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #8 on: March 03, 2014, 10:37 »
    This is something too many riders and shops neglect. All too often you'll see someone in the 90kg+ range riding on the cool, low spoke count wheels their flashy carbon bike came with, wondering why they go out of true, lose tension and break spokes.

    What type of bike are you looking at for commuting? A hybrid, road, mountain or CX bike? The options for someone your weight will vary depending on how you want to ride.
    Road/CX. I want something that's quick and manoeuverable but robust, and can take knobbly/ice tyres in winter - it will need to handle crap salted roads in crap conditions 5 days a week and will get occasional rather than regular TLC. 36T/46T would probably be fine with an 11T cassette but I'm a bit reluctant to risk it. A lot of the bikes I've been looking at recently have disc brakes which adds a whole new level of complexity. Up to 1K, I'd prefer Shimano (Tiagra/105) due to familiarity.

    http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXKAFF2TIA/planet-x-kaffenback-2-shimano-tiagra-road-bike is a steel road possibility
    http://www.evanscycles.com/products/fuji/sportif-11-compact-2014-road-bike-ec053263#features Alloy
    http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/CBPXXLS105/planet-x-xls-shimano-105-cyclocross-bike carbon CX


    I forgot to add, that my commute is pretty flat, no hills.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 22:33 by Capt_Cavman »

    42x16ss

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 681
    • Liked: 377
    • Awards: Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #9 on: March 04, 2014, 06:09 »
    My choice would be the Carbon 105. The difference between these two bikes would be quite large, the 2kg weight penalty is fairly substantial and the 105 running gear much better. The 46/36 chainrings are better for mud and gravel too.  Don't worry about the gear size, 46x11 is basically the same as 50x12, so unless you're racing it's a non issue.

    I see both of the Planet X bikes have the same Shimano Wheels, they look like a fairly entry level disc wheelset. What are the roads in your area like? If they are decent then they should last you fine with proper maintenance.

    If you are going to be riding a lot on gravel, paths, dirt roads etc then I'd consider getting a set built to suit, as these are 28 spoke, 2x. For regular commuting they should hold fine though. If you are going to push your bike hard, or even race some CX then I'd look at a set with 32 spokes, 3x. With a solid set of wheels this looks like quite a good value bike.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #10 on: March 04, 2014, 22:14 »
    Trouble is, on further investigation I can't afford the Carbon CX. We have a cycle to work scheme that means the cost of the bike is taken from gross rather than nett pay. I presume that there is an administrative cost for this that comes out of the retailers' margin. So PX charge 10% above listed price to buy the bike through the cycle to work scheme. This puts the Carbon CX at £1111 as opposed to £999 and the Steel Tiagra at £880 vs £799.
  • ReplyReply

  • 42x16ss

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 681
    • Liked: 377
    • Awards: Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #11 on: March 10, 2014, 03:41 »
    The steel Tiagra would be fine. If you decide that you really like the bike and want to improve it in the future without digging too deep I'd look at a good carbon fork. That would drop a couple of 100 grams and change how the bike handles and rides.

    Otherwise that should be a very solid bike for commuting, touring and training on the gravel.
  • ReplyReply

  • Gotland

    • Domestique
    • Country: se
    • Posts: 539
    • Liked: 406
    • Awards: New Member of the Year 2013
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #12 on: March 10, 2014, 09:27 »
    I would add the following. Do you really need disc brakes?  If you can find a similar spec but without disc brakes it could be a little bit cheaper. Ordinary/cantilever brakes are less maintenance, bascially it's a wire that squeezes the break pads against the rim. Whereas disc brakes are a much more complex construction. On a commuter bike I would like keep it as simple as possible.

    Although I'm a roadie but for commuting purposes. My question is if you have looked into a mountainbike and see what bang you can get for the buck?
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #13 on: March 10, 2014, 20:43 »
    I would add the following. Do you really need disc brakes?  If you can find a similar spec but without disc brakes it could be a little bit cheaper. Ordinary/cantilever brakes are less maintenance, bascially it's a wire that squeezes the break pads against the rim. Whereas disc brakes are a much more complex construction. On a commuter bike I would like keep it as simple as possible.

    Although I'm a roadie but for commuting purposes. My question is if you have looked into a mountainbike and see what bang you can get for the buck?
    Disc brakes? No, I'm not sold either way. The 105s on my road bike are low maintenance and require one adjustment per set of pads. (Probably bicycle maintenance heresy and really I should adjust them every time I brake). It just seems that in the UK for 2014, most bikes with wider rims have disc brakes as standard. 2013 you had a choice, 2012 cantilever brakes were standard. There are probably a few 2013s about still but as individual bikes rather than whole lines.

    As for the MTB, that's the direction I've come from. I've got my weekend warrior road bike on which I like the position, the gears, the weight; and I want to get close to that feel while being robust enough to cope with British winters: salted roads, incessant rain, potholes, occasional ice and snow.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9597
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #14 on: March 10, 2014, 20:49 »
    As for the MTB, that's the direction I've come from. I've got my weekend warrior road bike on which I like the position, the gears, the weight; and I want to get close to that feel while being robust enough to cope with British winters: salted roads, incessant rain, potholes, occasional ice and snow.

    And all this after we had 18 degrees sunshine today. :) Are you buying yet? Time to take the plunge now that the ice has melted! :D
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #15 on: March 10, 2014, 20:58 »
    And all this after we had 18 degrees sunshine today. :) Are you buying yet? Time to take the plunge now that the ice has melted! :D
    I've got to wait until the end of the month. I want to buy through the cycle to work scheme (should save me 25% in the long run and spread the payments over a year). But because of the administrative burden the scheme places on my work's finance dept, they only have two brief purchasing windows per year and they are annoyingly vague about when they'll be. It went from "In the New Year" to "March" to "Towards the end of March"
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #16 on: March 11, 2014, 13:04 »
    So now we have what I am unanimously going to consider a consensus.

    The bike will be steel and have...

    Racing geometry.
    Fittings for mudguards
    wheels with plenty of spokes
    capacity for knobbly tyres
    carbon fork
    brakes
    105 if possible, otherwise Tiagra
    46/11 or 50/12 minimum.
    A price new of under £1000 ($1663, €1200)

    Any ideas?
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: March 12, 2014, 21:26 by Capt_Cavman »

    42x16ss

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 681
    • Liked: 377
    • Awards: Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #17 on: March 12, 2014, 05:09 »
    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/cinelli-experience-105-mix-2013/

    Looks good, not sure what the tyre clearance is like but should take at least 25mms. It's a Cinelli so should be nice and racy. Use your change to get some better wheels.

    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ridley-x-bow-1317a-special-edition-2013/

    I like this, doesn't have fender mounts but you can get a seatpost mounted fender that you can easily take off in the dry, looks like very good value.

    http://www.wiggle.com.au/charge-plug-3-2014/

    Looks sweet, down sides are Sora and the fork :( Otherwise looks nice, can upgrade.

    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/vitus-bikes-energie-alloy-cyclo-x-bike-2014/rp-prod107017

    This is probably what you are after though

    If none of these do it for you, maybe look around for a Colnago World Cup  :cool
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9597
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #18 on: March 12, 2014, 15:52 »
    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ridley-x-bow-1317a-special-edition-2013/

    I like this, doesn't have fender mounts but you can get a seatpost mounted fender that you can easily take off in the dry, looks like very good value.

    This is exactly the bike I was talking about above. I used to own one of these until October last year.

    Solid bike but very uncomfortable ride. Due in part probably to the alu frame but mostly because of the naffola wheels which were boneshakers and I managed to throw the rear one way out of true on my very first offroad ride (broad, gravelled forest trails).

    That said, you're only really supposed to do an hour at a time on it, right? :D

    Good buy if you factor in a different wheelset. ;)
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #19 on: March 12, 2014, 21:33 »
    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/cinelli-experience-105-mix-2013/

    Looks good, not sure what the tyre clearance is like but should take at least 25mms. It's a Cinelli so should be nice and racy. Use your change to get some better wheels.

    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/ridley-x-bow-1317a-special-edition-2013/

    I like this, doesn't have fender mounts but you can get a seatpost mounted fender that you can easily take off in the dry, looks like very good value.

    http://www.wiggle.com.au/charge-plug-3-2014/

    Looks sweet, down sides are Sora and the fork :( Otherwise looks nice, can upgrade.

    http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/vitus-bikes-energie-alloy-cyclo-x-bike-2014/rp-prod107017

    This is probably what you are after though

    If none of these do it for you, maybe look around for a Colnago World Cup  :cool
    The Charge plug comes closest but the Planet X Kaffenbach still wins so far. The Charge Plug 4 would come into play but is over budget.
  • ReplyReply

  • 42x16ss

    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 681
    • Liked: 377
    • Awards: Velorooms Tour de France BINGO champion 2014
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #20 on: March 13, 2014, 03:23 »
    This is exactly the bike I was talking about above. I used to own one of these until October last year.

    Solid bike but very uncomfortable ride. Due in part probably to the alu frame but mostly because of the naffola wheels which were boneshakers and I managed to throw the rear one way out of true on my very first offroad ride (broad, gravelled forest trails).

    That said, you're only really supposed to do an hour at a time on it, right? :D

    Good buy if you factor in a different wheelset. ;)

    What was the spoke count? For comfort you also want more spokes, the tension will be slightly lower making the ride that bit more comfy overall.
  • ReplyReply

  • L'arri

    • Is on Dr Search's Green and Grey Diet
    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: be
    • Posts: 9597
    • Liked: 6786
    • Dopeology.org @DopeologyDotOrg @L_arriviste
      • Dopeology.org
    • Awards: Post of the year 2015Best Opening Post 2012
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #21 on: March 13, 2014, 07:25 »
    What was the spoke count? For comfort you also want more spokes, the tension will be slightly lower making the ride that bit more comfy overall.

    Can't remember now. Plenty of them though. :) It was a decent entry-level CX bike though. I also had to have the brakes replaced for some TRPs because the springs died not once but twice (what are the chances?), something which was quietly acknowledged as a recent issue.
  • ReplyReply

  • Capt_Cavman

    • Road Captain
    • Country: jp
    • Posts: 2209
    • Liked: 1284
    Re: Rider Weight vs Frame Material
    « Reply #22 on: April 02, 2014, 22:14 »
    And all this after we had 18 degrees sunshine today. :) Are you buying yet? Time to take the plunge now that the ice has melted! :D
    I have now started the long tedious process of getting this bike via the cycle to work scheme. And spookily, on the very same day the spindle in my old hybrid's BB finally snapped completely having been making some pretty pained noises for a while now.

    Apparently the reason for the disc brakes is to do with problems in using calipers on wheels with big tyres and mudguards. It's easier to guarantee clearance if you aren't trying to brake around the tyre.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    Recent Topics



    Top
    Back to top