|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
wrote in message
... The new commuter wheels are Shimano XT hubs to Mavic rims, 36 hole with double butted spokes assembled with blue Loctite. 2" slick city tires with Kevlar are holding up well after 4000 miles. I believe the Loctite was the key as both the new and rebuilt old wheels have now remained true and sound. I don't think Locktite is necessary, and (from recent experience) it is a PITA when it comes time to replace a worn rim. Locktite makes wheel truing difficult, without necessarily also making it unlikely. Sufficiently tightened spokes won't unscrew, even on the left rear, which is the only potential trouble spot. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
I have had excellent luck with my Gary Fisher Tarpon. (non suspension)
Personally I feel that unless you get a "REAL" suspension, all you are going to do on the "lightweight" suspension is bottom em out. Stick with steel, non suspension.... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
"Frank Eparvier" wrote in message ... Thanks to all who responded, especially you other "big guys" with your personal experiences. I've investigated some of the custom frame makers in the area (Zinn, for one), but am not certain my first barely-serious foray into cycling is worth the amount of money he wants, maybe sometime in the future ... Look at it in another way: if you can make yourself spend more than you think reasonable, you will fool your body into exercising to justify the expense, and your heart and lifespan will benefit more than your wallet suffers. SteveC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
"Chalo" wrote in message
om... (Rick Warner) wrote: I do not think these bike have been around long enough for anyone to make any conclusion on failure rate, but I suspect it will be low like other lugged steel frames. They might be made of stronger steel than that in the lugged bikes I have bent-- one would hope, anyway. All else equal, they will still fail earlier than frames made with bigger diameters. I suspect that the failure rate for traditional lugged steel frames in 68cm, when ridden by 300+lb riders, could not accurately be called "low". Any kind of normal frame construction is going to have a higher than normal failure rate in such circumstances. The folks at Rivendell don't do any worse a job than most manufacturers at constructing tall bikes for big riders, they just make taller bikes than most. And they don't build them appropriately stiff or strong. This was my impression also. I have ridden a number of 68 cm steel frames with standard tubing diameter, and find them to flex significantly, even at my (relatively) low weight (235). Torsional flex becomes an issue with large frames, large diameter tubes make a big difference. My Cannondale (like Chalo's) has a huge downtube for torsional stiffness. I have spoken with a few other riders my height and approximate weight with conventional steel lugged frames in large sizes, they all noticed significant frame flex. When I spoke with (perhaps the best known East Coast) frame builder about a custom frame for me, he admitted that, while he could build me a frame big enough, he wasn't sure I'd be happy with it. Other large (lugged steel) frame makers have resorted to unusual designs, like a double toptube or a diagonal tube to stiffen the frame. On the issue of lugged frames and strength, as well-known poster to this group (Jobst Brandt), who's also a tall cyclist (and mechanical engineer and bicycle expert), has pointed out that lugged frames have a design weakness in that the boundary between the lug and the tube forms a natural stress riser. This claim was accurate in my case, as I had a lugged frame fail with a headtube fracture right along the downtube lug (the known point of maximum stress). Carefully designed lugs can minimize this problem, but most people buy lugs for the retro-look, not for functionality. Jobst points out fork crown lugs that have been particularly badly designed in the past (and failed predictably). Another dimensional issue for tall riders/frames is wheelbase and chainstay length. Chainstays these days are fashionably short. There is no advantage to short chainstays, and for stability, large frames should have proportionally longer wheelbases. I was disappointed to see that even frame makers specializing in tall frames, like Leonard Zinn, stick with minimal chainstays/wheelbase. This is plain wrong. Touring frames are the only ones I know of these days that extend wheelbase even a little beyond the minimum. Heavier riders also need wider tires, and too many frames today won't take anything over a 25 mm. You don't make pants for a tall person just by lengthening the cuffs, nor do you make tall bike frames by lengthening some of the tubes. 10-20 years ago, large frames were in fashion, nobody had their saddles more than a few inches above the toptube. I knew people under 6' tall who owned 68 cm frames. I think the Riv frames are more of a retro thing than a tall person thing. If your saddle and bars are right down on the frame, you're not going to put the same kind of torsional stress on it. In other words, a very tall frame may be stiff/strong enough for a less-than-very-tall person. I think the best stock geometry a tall person can get now is a touring frame, and fat-tubed aluminum is a better material for large frames ridden by large riders. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
"Chalo" wrote in message
om... (Rick Warner) wrote: I do not think these bike have been around long enough for anyone to make any conclusion on failure rate, but I suspect it will be low like other lugged steel frames. They might be made of stronger steel than that in the lugged bikes I have bent-- one would hope, anyway. All else equal, they will still fail earlier than frames made with bigger diameters. I suspect that the failure rate for traditional lugged steel frames in 68cm, when ridden by 300+lb riders, could not accurately be called "low". Any kind of normal frame construction is going to have a higher than normal failure rate in such circumstances. The folks at Rivendell don't do any worse a job than most manufacturers at constructing tall bikes for big riders, they just make taller bikes than most. And they don't build them appropriately stiff or strong. This was my impression also. I have ridden a number of 68 cm steel frames with standard tubing diameter, and find them to flex significantly, even at my (relatively) low weight (235). Torsional flex becomes an issue with large frames, large diameter tubes make a big difference. My Cannondale (like Chalo's) has a huge downtube for torsional stiffness. I have spoken with a few other riders my height and approximate weight with conventional steel lugged frames in large sizes, they all noticed significant frame flex. When I spoke with (perhaps the best known East Coast) frame builder about a custom frame for me, he admitted that, while he could build me a frame big enough, he wasn't sure I'd be happy with it. Other large (lugged steel) frame makers have resorted to unusual designs, like a double toptube or a diagonal tube to stiffen the frame. On the issue of lugged frames and strength, as well-known poster to this group (Jobst Brandt), who's also a tall cyclist (and mechanical engineer and bicycle expert), has pointed out that lugged frames have a design weakness in that the boundary between the lug and the tube forms a natural stress riser. This claim was accurate in my case, as I had a lugged frame fail with a headtube fracture right along the downtube lug (the known point of maximum stress). Carefully designed lugs can minimize this problem, but most people buy lugs for the retro-look, not for functionality. Jobst points out fork crown lugs that have been particularly badly designed in the past (and failed predictably). Another dimensional issue for tall riders/frames is wheelbase and chainstay length. Chainstays these days are fashionably short. There is no advantage to short chainstays, and for stability, large frames should have proportionally longer wheelbases. I was disappointed to see that even frame makers specializing in tall frames, like Leonard Zinn, stick with minimal chainstays/wheelbase. This is plain wrong. Touring frames are the only ones I know of these days that extend wheelbase even a little beyond the minimum. Heavier riders also need wider tires, and too many frames today won't take anything over a 25 mm. You don't make pants for a tall person just by lengthening the cuffs, nor do you make tall bike frames by lengthening some of the tubes. 10-20 years ago, large frames were in fashion, nobody had their saddles more than a few inches above the toptube. I knew people under 6' tall who owned 68 cm frames. I think the Riv frames are more of a retro thing than a tall person thing. If your saddle and bars are right down on the frame, you're not going to put the same kind of torsional stress on it. In other words, a very tall frame may be stiff/strong enough for a less-than-very-tall person. I think the best stock geometry a tall person can get now is a touring frame, and fat-tubed aluminum is a better material for large frames ridden by large riders. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
Hi - Thought that I would weigh in on the Rivendell Redwood. I'm a tall
guy, but I guess that I don't qualify as big (about 230). I picked up a 65cm Redwood about a month ago and have put about 300 miles on it. So far, I really like the way that it handles and it does not feel flexy at all to me. I've taken it up to some pretty high speeds (so far 45 mph is my max) and it felt really stable. Overall, I am very happy with the ride and fit of this bike. If you've got specific questions about it, I'd be happy to answer them. Lorenzo -- -------------------------- Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
I'm 6' 7", 210 pounds, and own a 68 cm Rivendell Redwood.
I can confirm that the Redwood frame flexes a little bit, but I don't experience this as a bad thing (if it stays within certain boundaries, of course). It is slightly noticable when accelerating, while standing on the pedals and swinging the frame sideways and back. The backside of the bike is then bent in the opposite direction from the frontside of the bike (the handlebars are pulled to the left, while the right pedal is pushed down and vice-versa). I noticed the flex because the rim would touch the brake pads intermittently (the rim was about .5 mm from the pad). I adjusted the distance between the brake pads and now I don't notice a thing. The thick tubing, I assume (and hope), will make sure that the frame doesn't lose it's original shape. Of course, excessive flex is a bad thing. But that's not what I experience (with my weight, that is). There are also a lot of advantages to the flexibility of steel---durability, for instance. My 2 cents, Nyarlaho -- -------------------------- Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Bike for big AND tall person
I'm 6' 7", 210 pounds, and own a 68 cm Rivendell Redwood.
I can confirm that the Redwood frame flexes a little bit, but I don't experience this as a bad thing (if it stays within certain boundaries, of course). It is slightly noticable when accelerating, while standing on the pedals and swinging the frame sideways and back. The backside of the bike is then bent in the opposite direction from the frontside of the bike (the handlebars are pulled to the left, while the right pedal is pushed down and vice-versa). I noticed the flex because the rim would touch the brake pads intermittently (the rim was about .5 mm from the pad). I adjusted the distance between the brake pads and now I don't notice a thing. The thick tubing, I assume (and hope), will make sure that the frame doesn't lose it's original shape. Of course, excessive flex is a bad thing. But that's not what I experience (with my weight, that is). There are also a lot of advantages to the flexibility of steel---durability, for instance. My 2 cents, Nyarlaho -- -------------------------- Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bike frame size....how big for you? | ac29593 | General | 10 | July 16th 03 04:47 AM |