Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    The Duuude, man...
    Reputation: ncj01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,536

    Clyd's break stuff more?? Big Bones? I'm not convinced...

    A comment by J.D. in a below post got me thinkin'

    You don't have to be fat to be heavy and when those flyweights start up a big climb and motor away from (even strong) heavy riders, it is obvious who is a clydesdale. Besides, most 200+ pounders share all of the same equipment issues. -J.D.


    I have noticed through many of the threads since this board has been created the latent suggestion that Clyd's break stuff more often due to thier weight. Brother, I'm not sure I beleive it.... Most of the frequent product breakers I see are jr racers that don't know how to ride smoothly--these guys can't finish a 6mile loop without bustin' something.... Most big boys I've seen (started racing Clysdale 6 yrs ago, 14 races/yr) rarely if ever break stuff. Personally speaking, I don't break stuff. The worst mechanical I've had since the mid 1990's was a flat tire. I don't break chains, I don't crack frames, my wheels don't come out of true, etc.etc. I'm a hard ridin' mofo, I tell you that. I win the crap out of most Clyd races, and I typically will switch to beginner in mid-season because there is no glory in winning by 5+ minute margins...and this is in hard rock garden poundin' Arkansas Ozark Mountains... I always ride light weigh XC-specific gear/frames/shocks/etc. I just don't see how people can say its a clyd thing? We can't product the constant wattage our skinny 2% roadie brethren can...so its not laying down the power. The only thing I see if that probably a big guy (speaking on average of course) doesn't have the english on a bike to ride smoothly, IE, we may PLOW through stuff, thereby putting a marginal amount more stress on various parts, but heck, what are you going to break???

    And what's all this with big boned explanation for weight?? I'm sorry, but I don't BELEIVE in big boned...that's a myth brother, face the facts, there is no big boned, unless it's strange genetic mutation. I think that's a term some may be using either as a crutch to jusitfy thier weight, or they are incorrectly refering to the thickest of one of the 3 body types, which I beleive are endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph....with meso (again, i think) being the burly one...doesn't have anything to do with bone mass, or whatever...I mean, heck, what exactly are we talking about here? Being exceptionally TALL? No...are we saying the actual DENSITY of the bone material is greater? Whoa, no way... Sooo, what?? The diamter of the bones are substantially bigger??? You'd look deformed, your facial features would look like that gentle Giant from the recent Tim Burton movie BIG FISH...THAT guy was big boned, and you could tell. But your average heavy cyclist/clyd..no way brother, no way. EVEN if you were big boned, which I think we established you/we are not, what is the rational that these mysterios BIG BONES mean you have to have be overweight? Just how many incrimental pounds of BONE are we talkin' here???? Are we suggesting that having a 5% more dense bone matter means you pack on an extra roll around the midsection? Heck man, better register to vote for Dubbya, becuase you appear to like both fuzzy math and fuzzy logic.

    And, yes for the record, I'm comfortable in a size 40 pair of jeans. Must be those big ass hip bones!! (funny how those don't REALLY start gettin' so big until after marriage and children and a deskjob

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    10
    When someone is refering to being big boned they are talking about their frame size not bone density check out your wrists, and the wrists of a really fine boned person. Yes Somanotyping which is the name I believe for Endomorph etc. does have a bearing on weight. As for being "big boned" I can not get a chest x-ray my 54 inch chest does fit on the screen they do it twice. If I had 3% body fat (which I don't) it still would be the same size on the x-ray.

  3. #3
    JmZ
    JmZ is offline
    Reformed Lurker
    Reputation: JmZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,015

    Another 'light' clyde

    As spoken by another weight weenie too. Was pretty sure I saw your bike(s) at Light-Bikes. I can't say very much though, got mine on there too.

    I used to break a bunch of parts - back when in school, and that was when I was lighter. I now get more saddle time, ride smoother, and build lighter bikes. : )

    I know of guys who weigh 50 pounds less than me who have ridden the same exact frame and have managed to tweak the frame, bend the linkage, and all other sorts of problems that I've never experienced. Might be how smooth or hard I do, or don't, ride or any number of other factors, but it isn't my weight.

    I don't go out of my weigh to get stupidly light parts. I won't buy a 100g saddle for my 200+ pounds, but I won't balk at a lightweight wheel, fork, frame or many other parts.

    Style matters at least as much as weight when it comes to how hard a rider is on their parts.

    JmZ

    Quote Originally Posted by ncj01
    A comment by J.D. in a below post got me thinkin'

    You don't have to be fat to be heavy and when those flyweights start up a big climb and motor away from (even strong) heavy riders, it is obvious who is a clydesdale. Besides, most 200+ pounders share all of the same equipment issues. -J.D.


    I have noticed through many of the threads since this board has been created the latent suggestion that Clyd's break stuff more often due to thier weight. Brother, I'm not sure I beleive it.... Most of the frequent product breakers I see are jr racers that don't know how to ride smoothly--these guys can't finish a 6mile loop without bustin' something.... Most big boys I've seen (started racing Clysdale 6 yrs ago, 14 races/yr) rarely if ever break stuff. Personally speaking, I don't break stuff. The worst mechanical I've had since the mid 1990's was a flat tire. I don't break chains, I don't crack frames, my wheels don't come out of true, etc.etc. I'm a hard ridin' mofo, I tell you that. I win the crap out of most Clyd races, and I typically will switch to beginner in mid-season because there is no glory in winning by 5+ minute margins...and this is in hard rock garden poundin' Arkansas Ozark Mountains... I always ride light weigh XC-specific gear/frames/shocks/etc. I just don't see how people can say its a clyd thing? We can't product the constant wattage our skinny 2% roadie brethren can...so its not laying down the power. The only thing I see if that probably a big guy (speaking on average of course) doesn't have the english on a bike to ride smoothly, IE, we may PLOW through stuff, thereby putting a marginal amount more stress on various parts, but heck, what are you going to break???

    And what's all this with big boned explanation for weight?? I'm sorry, but I don't BELEIVE in big boned...that's a myth brother, face the facts, there is no big boned, unless it's strange genetic mutation. I think that's a term some may be using either as a crutch to jusitfy thier weight, or they are incorrectly refering to the thickest of one of the 3 body types, which I beleive are endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph....with meso (again, i think) being the burly one...doesn't have anything to do with bone mass, or whatever...I mean, heck, what exactly are we talking about here? Being exceptionally TALL? No...are we saying the actual DENSITY of the bone material is greater? Whoa, no way... Sooo, what?? The diamter of the bones are substantially bigger??? You'd look deformed, your facial features would look like that gentle Giant from the recent Tim Burton movie BIG FISH...THAT guy was big boned, and you could tell. But your average heavy cyclist/clyd..no way brother, no way. EVEN if you were big boned, which I think we established you/we are not, what is the rational that these mysterios BIG BONES mean you have to have be overweight? Just how many incrimental pounds of BONE are we talkin' here???? Are we suggesting that having a 5% more dense bone matter means you pack on an extra roll around the midsection? Heck man, better register to vote for Dubbya, becuase you appear to like both fuzzy math and fuzzy logic.

    And, yes for the record, I'm comfortable in a size 40 pair of jeans. Must be those big ass hip bones!! (funny how those don't REALLY start gettin' so big until after marriage and children and a deskjob
    JmZ

    From one flat land to another.

    Advocate as if your ride depends on it...

  4. #4
    The Duuude, man...
    Reputation: ncj01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,536
    Quote Originally Posted by JmZ
    As spoken by another weight weenie too. Was pretty sure I saw your bike(s) at Light-Bikes. I can't say very much though, got mine on there too.

    I used to break a bunch of parts - back when in school, and that was when I was lighter. I now get more saddle time, ride smoother, and build lighter bikes. : )

    I know of guys who weigh 50 pounds less than me who have ridden the same exact frame and have managed to tweak the frame, bend the linkage, and all other sorts of problems that I've never experienced. Might be how smooth or hard I do, or don't, ride or any number of other factors, but it isn't my weight.

    I don't go out of my weigh to get stupidly light parts. I won't buy a 100g saddle for my 200+ pounds, but I won't balk at a lightweight wheel, fork, frame or many other parts.

    Style matters at least as much as weight when it comes to how hard a rider is on their parts.

    JmZ
    Exactly!!!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schtoojp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    402

    Big boned. Yes some of us DO exist...

    Quote Originally Posted by ncj01
    And what's all this with big boned explanation for weight?? I'm sorry, but I don't BELEIVE in big boned...that's a myth brother, face the facts, there is no big boned, unless it's strange genetic mutation. I think that's a term some may be using either as a crutch to jusitfy thier weight, or they are incorrectly refering to the thickest of one of the 3 body types, which I beleive are endomorph, ectomorph, and mesomorph....with meso (again, i think) being the burly one...doesn't have anything to do with bone mass, or whatever...I mean, heck, what exactly are we talking about here? Being exceptionally TALL? No...are we saying the actual DENSITY of the bone material is greater? Whoa, no way... Sooo, what?? The diamter of the bones are substantially bigger??? You'd look deformed, your facial features would look like that gentle Giant from the recent Tim Burton movie BIG FISH...THAT guy was big boned, and you could tell. But your average heavy cyclist/clyd..no way brother, no way. EVEN if you were big boned, which I think we established you/we are not, what is the rational that these mysterios BIG BONES mean you have to have be overweight? Just how many incrimental pounds of BONE are we talkin' here???? Are we suggesting that having a 5% more dense bone matter means you pack on an extra roll around the midsection? Heck man, better register to vote for Dubbya, becuase you appear to like both fuzzy math and fuzzy logic.[/I]
    Ok, I'm no longer a Clyde, but I was for most of the years I was growing up, from about 12-18. A combination of drinking too much milk, too much weight and not scared to excercise a bit all combined to make sure my bones scare the heck outta anyone who see my X-rays and knows what too look for.

    At least that's what 2 doctors have told me.

    Put an X-ray of one of my legs against alomst anyone else, and my bones look like a cow compared to a chicken.

    P.S. One of them doctors also said that if by some freak accident I managed to break a thigh bone, the shock (and the force needed to do such a thing) would probably kill me.

    Yes some of us really do have big bones, and yes it does count for some of the reason why my weight is high compared to how I look. But not everyone can claim the excuse and back it up with proof. You need to be a large sized when yer bones are forming or you don't get big bones. Simple as that.

  6. #6
    tl1
    tl1 is offline
    Bicyclist
    Reputation: tl1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,843
    I don't break much stuff either anymore but the physics seem pretty clear: if you have a smooth 150 lb. rider and a smooth 250 lb. rider the heavier one is going to break more equipment given enough time. The difference will be even more clear between light and heavy beginners who haven't developed any parts-sparing smoothness yet. Stuff like seatrails and rims and wheels will be pounded by heavy beginners who haven't learned to steer around or flow over the rocks yet. I have broken 2 XT cassettes myself pulling my big butt up hills.

  7. #7
    mtbr member yo
    Reputation: Yo_Yo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    26
    You went from clyde to beginner? What's the deal, is there a problem with sandbaggers in your beginner races? Usually the top clydes are faster than the top beginners, and I've done a few in AR too...

  8. #8
    Ride what you want!!
    Reputation: george_da_trog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Yo_Yo
    You went from clyde to beginner? What's the deal, is there a problem with sandbaggers in your beginner races? Usually the top clydes are faster than the top beginners, and I've done a few in AR too...
    I noticed that too.

    Around here the clydes race with the big boys. The last race I was at I entered sport because they started earlier and it was one lap less than SS and clyde (21 vs 28 miles). Clyde racers are strong.

    I remember the first year I raced clyde at the sea otter when it was one big category. The clyde winning times were right up there with sandbagging beginners times and sport times.

    Upgrade to sport if you're winning clyde.


    george
    Trogs: Too Tough for Carbon Fiber

  9. #9
    The Gnarchitect Sketch.
    Reputation: Archdukeferdinand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    752
    Style matters at least as much as weight when it comes to how hard a rider is on their parts.
    Also think that 'style' should include body english AND style of riding. Being mainly an XC-style rider, I don't get into that much mechanical trouble. Huckers, on the other hand, break things. Period. Be they clyde or smurf. I think I agree with the fact that clydes don't exactly mow through parts or put insane amounts of stress on bikes when compared to our less-weighty brethren, save for the damage we do to a drivetrain. We make all drivetrain parts involved endure carrying much more weight than others do, and we've also got those uber-strong thighs that love to bend chainring teeth (or hell, entire rings), break cranksets, strip threads out of things, wrap rear derailleurs in the spokes, and god knows what else. Granted a lot of those situations can be avoided by having a smooth pedaling style and keeping up with maintenance, but I'd venture a guess that, style aside, we clydes break drivetrain components way more often than quarter horses and shetland ponies do.

  10. #10
    Village Idiot
    Reputation: Laffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    567

    Comparision

    My wife all 105lbs got a Sugar 3+GS in 02 and has not gone through many parts at all. We changed her chain cassette and chain when she got a lighter wheel set. I on the other hand have had several cassette/chain replacements. I'm in awe of how well her bike has held up component wise when compared to what I do in a season to my drive train.
    Are you wearing protection?
    This message is hidden because gmaki is on your ignore list.

  11. #11
    Tracking up the place
    Reputation: Haroow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    629

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead!

    I am in agreement both ways. I have broken an xt cassette, and bent seat rails in the past, but at the same token I can attest that they were my mistakes, never downshift when its too late, and never ride rock gardens with your arse on the seat. Guarantee to bend rails. (went to ti rails for safety margin...3 yrs on the same seat now).

    However I will attest that wear and tear on the same frame, same rider, but differnet weight will make the fatigue time different...stress and time baby look at your mom...

    I also think that riding style and abilty play large roles.. Huckers who weigh 150 <> 230 ... major difference on bike stress. Have downhill freind 170-180 who was so smooth that it made you sick to watch, he rode for SC used cameleon for slalom, superlight for xc and downhill,.. til the bullit came to him ..

    Xc's junkie in same category.. I have different freind who is 150lb smoothest rider I have ever seen never break a part..rarley ever wrecks but so fast and smooth it is truly amazing to watch, and seen guys , same weight, blow tires, tubes, der hangers, replacing frames cracked at BB.. All great riders and fast but my buddie wow, and the other guys suffers poor line taking...believing the bike can take the hit...

    is it the owner or is it the breed of dog?. I am big guy but I ride smooth, i try to ride like my buddie finding the fastest , smoothest line when available..If i need the to take the rock garden to save my soul or keep from nailing a freind, then I go hopping and lightening the rig and taking the stress of the bike and taking it in the legs and arms with the sus.. I have noticed now in my latter years i tend to true fewer rims fewer times...I like tacos but he ones you eat Well I gave my 2 cents worth, any one got 98 in change...

  12. #12
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    6,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Schtoojp
    Put an X-ray of one of my legs against alomst anyone else, and my bones look like a cow compared to a chicken.
    No need for an X-ray. I hardly can find a watch to fit around my wrist - and I am NOT fat, by any definitions. I do bench press twice my weight plus some though. I am not tall either. Thick bones and meat. Think bones are not a myth.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Schtoojp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    402

    But I'm outta proportion!

    Quote Originally Posted by Axe
    No need for an X-ray. I hardly can find a watch to fit around my wrist - and I am NOT fat, by any definitions. I do bench press twice my weight plus some though. I am not tall either. Thick bones and meat. Think bones are not a myth.
    I wear a watch on it's smallest size. I have spindly girl arms. Even after working as an electrician for 8 years, they never swelled up very much. Then again, I only really rode bikes while I was growing up, only need arms for steering and braking, not powering the tub of lard my legs had to move.

    Really strange, chest and arms are like one of them spindly, wiry guys who looks like a chicken, but has strength from somewhere. Lower half looks like the hulk... on roids. I'm not that big now, but I still have to opt for 'relaxed fit' jeans for them to be a comfortable fit.

    It's not all bad, I live in Japan, and I can still *just* buy off the shelf. If I were a few inches taller, I'd be in trouble I think. A friend of mine here, he has to get tailored stuff. English guy and he's too small for standard Japanese sizings.

  14. #14
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,850

    i didn't used to believe in big boned

    yeah, i always knew i had a larger-than-average frame for my size, but i didn't go for the big boned thing until i got 'diagnosed' with it myself.

    when i wrecked my shoulders, i got the full battery of tests (x-ray, mri, and then specialty tests) and what the orthropods - uh, orthopedic surgeons - could not believe was that while the soft tissue damage was extreme, the bones and cartiledge were still in perfect shape. i mean perfect. so with my permission they checked it out (the specialties), and my bone density is unusually high. then they tested my dad, and found the same thing. and then my mom, and the same thing turned up. somehow, by an admitted freak of natural circumstances, i have incredibly dense bones.

    a 'since then' example; i crashed my bike ... bent handlebars, bent brake lever, broken fork brace - and my hand was on the front end of that impact. but nothing broke in my hand. tendons messed up, yes, and swollen like an inflated glove, but nothing broke.

    however ... does this effect my overall weight by very much? apparently not ... i can't give you percentages of skeletal weight, or anything like that. but, in the words of the orthropods, big bones don't make as much of a difference to my weight as does ben & jerry's, or fried foods.

    and by the way, it turns out 'big bones' aren't really a good thing to have. the specialists told me that in fact, bones heal quite well relative to serious soft tissue injuries ... so often it's better to break than severely sprain, or twist, or tear things. damn.

  15. #15
    gentle like
    Reputation: kept man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    14,850

    oh - p.s.

    i don't break all that much stuff myself. but i do tend to 'float' rather than mash, as someone here already phrased it, and i don't ride fast enough to run into a lot of mistakes in terms of bashing things, or botching landings, etc.

    though my snowboard equipment has worn pretty fast. maybe i'll start a new thread ...

  16. #16
    R.I.P. DogFriend
    Reputation: jeffj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,820
    I do believe that there are people with bigger or denser bones than others but they are likely the exception rather than the rule. Kept Man's experience with doctors that were surprised at his bones falls in line with that line of thinking.

    I think it was Eddie Murphy that used to do a bit about being “big boned’. He basically said “It ain’t the big bones that weigh so much, it’s that big meat that’s wrapped around those big bones. . . . .”

    I always chuckle and think of that whenever someone tries to explain their weight with the “big bone” theory.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    46

    I do break more stuff.

    All,

    I am an agressive 275 pounder, yep two hundred and seventy-five pounds. I ride Shimano drivetrain components and have never bent/broken a crank or any gears. I seem to have problems with Rear hubs. Even when I was lighter, 220 or so, I still went through hubs. When I say hubs, I mean the freehub mechanism. I finally bought a Hope Bulb recomended by people on MTBR after breaking about 10 others in two years. I took out the Hope in six months, but they fixed it under warranty and I haven't had any trouble since. I must say though that I am much more careful about how and when I apply power.

    I Don't have a problem when I shift, I have a problem when I crank over 1 to 2 foot obsitcles going up a hill. Not the kind that would even hit my crank, just the kind that would stop you suddenly and force you to apply more pressure. Yes, if I were in much better shape I would do more unwaiting or english, but when I am climbing for a long time, I don't have the energy.

    I also used to like to keep it in a higher gear to not pedal out through rock gardens or obstacles, but now I know that too kills my freehub. Let me tell you, when you are in the woods and your freehub locks, you can pedal out, but that is all you can do is pedal - it sucks. Made me a better rider though.

    I also had to curb my aggresion when riding. I used to try to get a steep climb even when the going got a little messy, or through a very technical section, but now I know that if I get in to trouble, get off or it will be a very expensive ride.

    I have also broken a frame, seat post, several chains (really my fault) and two handle bars (painful). Believe it or not, I have been told that I have a very smooth style, perhaps that is how I can get into so much trouble.

    In any event, I ride with 4 other guys on a regular basis and they are all between 150 and 200 pounds. If I keep up with them, my heart goes crazy and I break components. I break many, many more than they do, well atleast handle bars and freehubs anyway.

    The problem I find when buying stuff is that better means lighter not stronger for many things. You would think the steel stuff would be stronger, not from what I have seen, this means cheaper, poorer design hence weeker. Finally I can start buying Freeride and Downhill stuff that holds up better, but this has only been more recently.

    Ken.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: litespeedchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by ncj01
    A comment by J.D. in a below post got me thinkin'
    [I]
    I win the crap out of most Clyd races, and I typically will switch to beginner

    SANDBAGGER


    I'm sorry, but I don't BELEIVE in big boned

    Are you crazy? Of COURSE, some people have bigger bones. Look around you.


    big ass hip bones!! (funny how those don't REALLY start gettin' so big until after marriage and children
    OH, Sorry, if I'd realized you were a woman, I'd have been nicer to you.

Similar Threads

  1. break stuff
    By thebronze in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-23-2004, 01:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •