Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 81
  1. #1
    Cars Hurt.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    224

    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
    5,438
    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 10:02 AM.
    Cannondale F29 carbon
    Jamis Renegade Elite
    Kona Big Unit SS/full rigid
    Kona Private Jake SSCX (build in progress)

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Adim_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    723
    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
    5,438
    I think clyde should be 225 or heavier. Like Adim's point..6'6" and 203 while over 200 pounds IS pretty skinny.
    Cannondale F29 carbon
    Jamis Renegade Elite
    Kona Big Unit SS/full rigid
    Kona Private Jake SSCX (build in progress)

  6. #6
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    529
    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 05:23 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
    6,519
    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 07:40 AM.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    67
    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
    12,228
    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
    224
    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
    I Strava Hamburgers
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    724
    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

  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
    394
    ^ 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
    I Strava Hamburgers
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    724
    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.

  16. #16
    Cars Hurt.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    224
    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
    I Strava Hamburgers
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    724
    Sandbagging in most local races is sad anyway, pay a $50 entry fee to win $10 socks.
    SO MUCH THIS.

  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
    840
    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
    136
    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
    529
    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
    5,438
    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....
    Cannondale F29 carbon
    Jamis Renegade Elite
    Kona Big Unit SS/full rigid
    Kona Private Jake SSCX (build in progress)

  25. #25
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    529
    These forums would be better if we could say ******.
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Yeti2424's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    317
    Probably should be some sort of a height to weight ratio.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nubster
    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)?
    Actually a person with longer bon length will actually have less power then a shorter person. It's a bit more complicated as there are other factors like muscular strength and tendon to bone location which can affect leverages and power but all other things equal that is the case. This is why you dont usually see tall powerlifters.
    Retribution Fitness: Strength, Power, and Purpose
    General fitness workouts posted daily.

  27. #27
    Lurker
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    151
    200# is Clydesdale, period.

    I'm 6'2" and 230# today (thanks to knee issues & an 8 month pregnant wife), although my fighting weight is 202#. Even in prime shape, I can't hang with guys who are 155#. I will continue to fly my clyde flag until they change the rules.

    All of that said, I think that Clydesdale is a carryover from road racing where it is fairly common to see walking skeletons who are 6'2" and 150 lbs.
    --0--

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    922
    Maybe "light-weight" clydes need to strap on weights to make weight....lol

  29. #29
    bi-winning
    Reputation: rkj__'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    11,121
    If you only weigh 203, you might be under 200 at the end of the 6 hour solo race.
    When under pressure, your level of performance will sink to your level of preparation.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkKnight369
    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.
    I'm 5'7" and rode when I was 212 lbs. (now I'm down to 175 lbs.). Take my word for it, us "sub 6' people" over 200 lbs. can rightfully be considered clydes too.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: raganwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Adim_X
    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.
    Maybe someone should clarify: Does "Clyde" really mean "High body fat?" If so, judging by weight makes no sense whatsoever. Why shouldn't someone 5'5" and 190 pounds be in?

    If "Clyde" really means "Heavy," then you can be heavy and skinny. Heavy and skinny may be faster than heavy and not skinny, but it's probably still slower than light and skinny where racing bicycles is concerned. 6'6" and 200 pounds still has to power 200 pounds up a hill, and that's tough going when racing people who are 5'10" and 165 pounds soaking wet.

    Either way, as long as everybody can agree what it means, everyone can be happy.

    UPDATE: Some years ago, I raced multi-sport. Amazingly, the Clyde requirement was only 185 pounds! Mind you, triathletes can be seriously skinny at any height.

  32. #32
    Cars Hurt.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Yeti2424
    Actually a person with longer bone length will actually have less power then a shorter person. It's a bit more complicated as there are other factors like muscular strength and tendon to bone location which can affect leverages and power but all other things equal that is the case. This is why you dont usually see tall powerlifters.
    I hadn't thought of it like that. If you match the speed and pedal cadence of a short person you would have to push the pedals with the same force since crank length is normally the same. That force in cycling would come from extending your lower leg and with longer limbs you would go through a shorter ranger of motion (I think). I know that I am physically stronger than my 5'10" friends but on a climb if were in the same gear I find myself having a hard time keeping pace and eventually I need to drop a gear. Yeah maybe I'm just weak but the sensation I get is that I don't have the strength to push that combo. (Note to self, dont write rambling replys on mtbr while buzzed.)

    I know plenty of people argue about crank length and I don't want to open that can of worms. A longer crank would seem to make your range of motion more in line with a shorter rider. The real question is if thats an advantage or where the optimum size or ratio is.

    I wish I knew more about sports science. The best proof seems to be race results. The guys topping podiums are 5'6"-5'10" and ~150 pounds.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: speed metal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    345
    Was the Clyde mountain bike class started for fat guys that don't train much? Was the Clyde class started for guy that train regular but are a bigger build than most other racers? Just because somebody eat like a garbage disposal and ride 1 time a week. Don't hate on the guys that is 6' 4", 210 pounds, eats healthy and rides 3-4 times a week.
    Maybe there should be a "I don't train or eat right" class at the MTB races. This post is directed to "MTB racers" not recreational riders. If you like cheeseburgers and such and can only ride Saturdays after your kids soccer game that's great. You are doing a fun and exciting activity.
    Now if you're a Clyde racer and you complain about skinny Clydes you need to take your training more seriously.
    Once again this post is just directed to racers not all Clydes.
    Comas aren't as fun as riding your bike, so wear a Helmet.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: raganwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by speed metal
    Was the Clyde mountain bike class started for fat guys that don't train much?.
    Unless you're an MD, I'm simply not going to give a lot of "weight" to ranting about Clydes being lazy guys who eat too many cheeseburgers. Actual research has shown that there is no one simple explanation for body composition that applies to everyone and no one simple magic "solution" to changing body composition that fits everyone.

    The discussion here is about what is or isn't a Clyde. How or why they're a Clyde is another discussion.

  35. #35
    local trails rider
    Reputation: perttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    12,228
    Actually, this discussion started from Lets Try Science's question:
    "This race defines a Clyde as 'over 200 pounds'. I am over 200 pounds but am not fat. Is it OK for me to race in the Clyde class?"

    "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"

  36. #36
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    529
    My family raised clydesdales(horses not people) when I was growing up. Never in my life have I seen a short fat one, clydesdales are large muscular animals that can out work most any other horse breed. Maby it's just a bad title for the class.

    I'm 6'3"/215 and ride cat 2 or 3, because looking at the clyde lineup at most races, I'd feel like a sandbagger. When in a real comparison of humans to horses, I'd be the clyde, not the 5'6"/220 "racer".
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Fix the Spade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,663
    Just race in Clyde this time. If you blitz everybody, don't race in Clyde the next time.

  38. #38
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    529
    Truth be told, it's a 5'2"/100lb lady rider kickin my @$$ that motivates me. Race or ride, it's the faster and better riders that I learn from. So getting last in cat 2 or middle of the pack in 3 is fine with me. I only race a couple times a year, but I ride 5 times a week.
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    27
    6'6", 203 - I'm 6'6" as well and would guess that you are pretty fit and as such do not belong in the clyde class. It's really your call, race what ever class you think is right and see what happens. You should get a pretty good idea where you belong from the experience.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Falta
    6'6", 203 - I'm 6'6" as well and would guess that you are pretty fit and as such do not belong in the clyde class. It's really your call, race what ever class you think is right and see what happens. You should get a pretty good idea where you belong from the experience.
    So Falta's implication here is that only unfit people "belong" in the clyde class?

    B.S.

    I'm 6'7" and fairly thinly built, but not a bird. I'm a good athlete usually, if I'm training (not always the case). Back in the day I was a rower at the national championships level (silver was best I ever managed). So I was good, but not Olympic class. When I was at my peak I was right around 205lb, with very little body fat. Now I fluctuate around 215.

    Cycling success is hugely dependent on power-to-weight ratio. This number was a critical value for Armstrong when he was training. He knew based on his P/wt if he was ready or not for the Tour.

    I have a very good friend who is 6'6.5". Almost as tall as I. He *IS* built like a bird. The heaviest he ever got, after 6months of lifting heavy weights and focusing on weight gain, he weighed in at just under 180lb. I know for a fact that I have a better *raw* (not weight normalized) VO2max than he does (L/min of oxygen, maximum consumption). He kicks my ass up hills though. Don't discount the weight factor. No matter how fit you are, or how much power you produce, being heavier is always going to hurt you.

    KC

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    27
    Well, I guess that is what I'm implying. I may very well be wrong about this but I just never wanted a handicap because I'm tall.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    61
    You have a benefit for being tall in many things, but biking isn't one of them. Arguably the best tall endurance athletes are rowers, since rowing requires height and a big VO2max. (since you're floating, weight doesn't hurt you much). So the best VO2max values for big guys can probably be found among Olympic rowers. Rarely do you ever find a successful tall rower with a relative VO2max over roughly 65ml/min/kg. For a 6'7" 230lb rower, this translates into about 6.8L/min. That's a huge amount of power. To give you a comparison, Lance's VO2max was around 5.7L/min. But at around ~150lb, his relative VO2max (accounting for his weight) would be 84ml/min/kg - way higher than the rower's 65ml/min/kg. So Lance can beat the Olympic rower easily when weight is a factor, even though the Olympic rower can produce 20% more power. He weighs more than 50% more than Lance.

    To sum up, you can be in the top 1% cardio-vascularly as a tall guy, but the weight that (usually) comes with being tall will mean you can never compete with the top 1% of normally sized people, when gravity is a factor.

    That's why rowing is a great sport for big folk, because your weight hardly affects your speed at all, and the height is a huge advantage.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    27
    That's very interesting information, do you think that would also apply to stand-up-paddle racing?
    My response was really in regard to the OP who I believed was not an elite level racer but perhaps a beginner and based on my personal experience. When I entered my first cross country race my goal was not to finish last, lol. I was about 210 and never considered myself a clyde, more of a greyhound from my basketball days so I entered my age group beginner class. I won the race and by the time the 5-race series was over I dropped to 190 and won every race and the series. I easily beat the beginners and caught and passed a lot of sport class racers the started ahead of us every race. That's why I believe a tall lean 6'6" guy at about 200 is not really a clyde.

  44. #44
    Old Punk
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    529
    Tall and muscular is a Clyde, not short and round. Clydesdale should by no means be any type of "beginner" class. It's for large riders who train and love to race. Riders who are over weight, or are beginning proper training and nutrition should be racing beginner, thats what its for.
    '09 Specialized Rockhopper expert 29
    Born 26" trials
    '07 Specialized Allez

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    131
    As a tall, thin Clyde, it sounds like to me that shorter clydes are finding excuses for having their asses handed to them at the races. Being taller has many disadvantages especially in mountain biking. We have clearance issues that most riders never think about. We have issues with crank/pedal clearance. I have clipped my helmet on low branches that my fellow riders get past easily. I have leaned into turns and brushed my shoulder and/or elbow against tree trunks which other riders skimmed by. All the above examples makes holding the best line much more difficult. I'm not even going to get into how much more difficult and how much more strength it takes flick the bike and your body around when your weight is spread over more distance (simple physics).

    I say race were the rules allow and you feel comfortable. If someone gets pissy, you just have to remember its their problem not yours.
    Stuffing our faces at an ever smaller table.

  46. #46
    I Strava Hamburgers
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    724
    Thread Summary:



    Amirite?

  47. #47
    likes to ride bikes
    Reputation: TunicaTrails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    Not true. Many top-level cyclists, including all of the top-ranked american XC racers, are over 6 feet tall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lets Try Science
    I wish I knew more about sports science. The best proof seems to be race results. The guys topping podiums are 5'6"-5'10" and ~150 pounds.

  48. #48
    Klydesdale
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by roxnroots View Post
    I'm 5'7" and rode when I was 212 lbs. (now I'm down to 175 lbs.). Take my word for it, us "sub 6' people" over 200 lbs. can rightfully be considered clydes too.

    I dunno... I would consider all the guys I've seen at the start line in Clydesdale class who are around 5' 7" and over 200 lbs to be just fat ol' regular horses, not Clydesdales.

  49. #49
    I Strava Hamburgers
    Reputation: 14Stone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    724
    When I line up, and see someone who's 5'7 and over 200lbs, I consider them competition. They've done more by stepping up to that line, then most of the population have done that day, and they've thrown another body at me to deal with on the course.

    I either beat them, or I don't. But the fact they showed for a race is enough to earn my respect, and should be enough to earn yours.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by 14Stone View Post
    When I line up, and see someone who's 5'7 and over 200lbs, I consider them competition. They've done more by stepping up to that line, then most of the population have done that day, and they've thrown another body at me to deal with on the course.

    I either beat them, or I don't. But the fact they showed for a race is enough to earn my respect, and should be enough to earn yours.


    The nickname "clydesdale" is just that: a nickname. Most other sports with weight classes have terms like "heavyweight" "flyweight" etc. To be a clydesdale in most bike race events you need to be over 200lb. End of story. BMI, BF%, height, ... nothing matters but your weight. If you are over 200 you get to race Clyde if you want to.

    If you think that the guy who's 6'2" and weighs 200.5 lb is sandbagging it. How do you think he'd feel if he lost a pound and ended up racing the guy who's 6'2" and weighs 155 lb?

    What about the guy who's 6'2" weighs 200.5 lb, but used to be CAT2, and should be 175 and is just way overweight, and is trying to get back in shape, and racing motivates him? Is he sandbagging?

    What about the guy who's 6'2" weighs 230lb, but has 6% body fat and breaks cranks he's so powerful. He kills everyone uphill because he's a monster, but is slow downhill because he has poor DH skills. Is he sandbagging?

    Shut up and ride.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •