Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 81
  1. #1
    Cars Hurt.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    222

    Do clydes consider tall clydes sandbaggers?

    Locally we have a 12 and 6 hour race coming up. Most of my friends are faster so I thought of doing the solo 6 hour in the Clydesdale category. Only requirement is that your over 200 pounds; not sure if that's naked or with gear. One of my friends said I shouldn't race it because while I am 203 pounds I'm 6'6". I guess the only opinion that matters is other big guys so to the riders under 6' do you dislike tall guys riding in the category?

    If I were a faster climber I would definitely race in the normal classes but I climb for crap and the course is an 8 mile loop with 2000 feet of climbing.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,418
    Personally I think the clyde class requirement should be heavier than 200 pounds...as far as height...I don't really see the issue with that. Perhaps a taller rider has a little more leverage on the pedals (more power/faster)?
    Last edited by Nubster; 05-19-2011 at 09:02 AM.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Adim_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    660
    I guess the question here is... What defines a Clyde? Is it purely weight? At 6'6" and 203 lbs, I would perceive you as pretty damn skinny from my 6'2" 275lb perpective.

    Will you feel guilty if you win or place well?

  4. #4
    rollin
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    221
    I think 200 plus is clyde status....do we need to subdivide?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,418
    I think clyde should be 225 or heavier. Like Adim's point..6'6" and 203 while over 200 pounds IS pretty skinny.

  6. #6
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    515
    I'm 6'3" 215 and didn't know I was a clyde until I registered for my first mtb race last year. In most sports I'm almost perfect size, but here I'm just a fat jockey.lol
    Ok, so I have a little belly and some love handles. Does that mean I should race someone that's 5'3" 215 or 6'3" 315. I'm confused as well, so I race cat 2, and get my @$$ kicked.
    Last edited by curtboroff; 05-20-2011 at 04:23 AM.
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

  7. #7
    is buachail foighneach me
    Reputation: sean salach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,819
    I think a tall and or muscular clyde fits the image of a clydesdale horse better than a 'husky' rider. I do think that if there's going to be a class set aside for a weight division, it should probably be a bmi measurement of some sort to stay true to the original intention of the clydesdale category. I'm usually just over 200, but would never enter the clyde division as I don't feel my weight is a handicap. I'm fairly slender, just tall. If you're slower than your friends because you don't ride as much, ride in a different ability category. Looking for an easy win is sandbagging. Though you might be surprised at how fast some 'clydes' can be.

    Last edited by sean salach; 05-19-2011 at 06:40 AM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    65
    I'm 6'7" and weight runs 245-260 depending on activity level and how many oreos I slam down my throat. I don't feel a 200# guy is a true clyde if he is over 6' tall. I've been down to just below 215# and could road ride with guys in their 170's all day long. I was "skinny" for me anyway.
    Yeah, if you are over 6' and less than 225, I would call you a bagger.

  9. #9
    rollin
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    221
    I like the way sean thinks, this puts me truly in the "clyde" section and not the husky one

  10. #10
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,772
    Quote Originally Posted by Lets Try Science
    I thought of doing the solo 6 hour in the Clydesdale category. Only requirement is that your over 200 pounds;
    If that is the rule, you certainly fit the description. Do you think you will win the class because you are tall and not fat?

    "it IS possible that you are faster or slower than anybody else who is having at least as much if not more or less fun"

  11. #11
    Cars Hurt.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    222
    I would place if only 3 people registered. :-) My fiend got mid pack at sea otter in clydes and he is faster than I am. I also dont train for endurance so 6 hours is a lot of riding to me. The BMI idea is interesting. Was the original intention of the clyde class for big guys or just for fat guys. On this loop my cat 2 friends can do 40 min loops, cat D friends do it in 54. Im always 60-65.

  12. #12
    Back of the pack doping.
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    654
    Slippery slope these "should be" arguments.

    200lbs = Clyde, skinny or not. As a 285lb racer last year, didn't bother me at all to see 200lb Clyders go ripping by me. At 250lbs, still doesn't. But now they have to work harder to do it.

    Seriously, trollfaceing lighter riders up hills and down is way more enjoyable for me then standing on a podium. Not going out of my way to block or be a generic ass because this is NOT the way you should ride... but I'm going to try to chase you down on a hill, and I'm going to try to chase you down on the other side of it too. If I can't, no worries, I'm faster for have trying. If I DO.. and I see that look of "How the hell is this guy doing what he is?" ... the extra effort I'm putting into it is suddenly very worth it.

    Podium standing lasts for 10 seconds. Beating unassuming people up hills as a "burly" rider... that leaves scars that last for days
    My EBB so loud
    I'm mashing...

  13. #13
    N+1
    Reputation: MichiganClydesdale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    704

    change the formula

    We have used a little different format for Clydes, that kind of levels the playing field. You must weigh more than 3x your height in inches, to be a clyde. So someone 5'6 (66 inches) needs to weigh in at 198 or more to be a clyde. Someone 6'5 (77 inches) needs to be 231lbs or more to qualify. A bit more complicated, but it works.

    So under our formula, no, you're not a clyde even though you're over 200.
    GET Bret Weir, I said.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: saxen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    390
    ^ i actually like that idea-

    im 215 at 6ft- not fat by any means- just build big- big shoulders, large legs not much fat- i never though i was a clyde

  15. #15
    Back of the pack doping.
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    654
    Actually, if there was a race wide formula for it, I'd agree it was a much better system. I just don't think setting arbitrary weight categories would be the way to solve the issue. So +1 for MichiganClydesdale's formula here too.
    My EBB so loud
    I'm mashing...

  16. #16
    Cars Hurt.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    222
    The 3x your height is a neat idea. No matter how the categories are split up someone is going to be left out and someone will have somewhat of an advantage. The problem with clyde seems that its based on weight and not physical fitness or skill and will naturally capture a wide range of body types. Using the 3x example someone my height would need to be 234 to qualify. If you were 220 it would be really discouraging trying to compete with the 140 pound guys on the climbs. It may also end up being a very small race class as not too many guys that size want to race. There is also the idea that your separating a 220 pound person from the group for weighting 14 pounds too little which forces them to compete against people who weight 80 pounds less than them. Realistically I think I will ride clyde as long as my weight and fitness dictate. If my time would put me mid pack in intermediate then I would switch.

    Sandbagging in most local races is sad anyway, pay a $50 entry fee to win $10 socks.

  17. #17
    likes to ride bikes
    Reputation: TunicaTrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    The best category for fat clydes is Cat 3. The best category for fit clydes is Cat 2.

  18. #18
    Back of the pack doping.
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    654
    Sandbagging in most local races is sad anyway, pay a $50 entry fee to win $10 socks.
    SO MUCH THIS.
    My EBB so loud
    I'm mashing...

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Big Tuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by MichiganClydesdale
    We have used a little different format for Clydes, that kind of levels the playing field. You must weigh more than 3x your height in inches, to be a clyde. So someone 5'6 (66 inches) needs to weigh in at 198 or more to be a clyde. Someone 6'5 (77 inches) needs to be 231lbs or more to qualify. A bit more complicated, but it works.

    So under our formula, no, you're not a clyde even though you're over 200.
    Brilliant
    Clydesdale: 315lbs (July 2010) now down 35 lbs on my journey from obese to triathlete...

    http://iambigtuna.blogspot.com/

  20. #20
    likes to ride bikes
    Reputation: TunicaTrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    This forum would be a lot more useful with less fat people and more tall slim people.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    585
    Tall thin dude needs to get over his fear of shorter wider dudes.

    If you fit the criteria and you want to ride clyde, do it. The short tubby dudes will get over it!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    95
    Personally, I was shocked to hear 200lbs is the clyde cut off. When I was 200lbs I looked anorexic. Of course, I am 6'8". I guess I always personally viewed the clyde class as tall and big dudes. It just seems weird to me to consider sub 6' people clydes.

  23. #23
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    515
    Maby use a kiddie pool and measure displacement. Move enough water and your a Clyde.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzWv36eTdHY
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Nubster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by TunicaTrails
    This forum would be a lot more useful with less fat people and more tall slim people.
    I often feel these forums would be a lot more useful with less ******bags too...but it's not likely going to happen so....

  25. #25
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    515
    These forums would be better if we could say ******.
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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