# Is 200lbs the TRUE MEASURE of a Clyd?



## ncj01 (Jan 13, 2004)

Thought I'd bring this to a new thread...someone was complainin' about so much talk of people wanting to loose weight, and that we should be proud of our obesity. Does this guy want to stay fat? Fat is Fantastic, is that what he means?

This leads me to ask this: who are real clysdesdales? How do you compare a 205 pound guy with 3% body fat who is muscled up, or a 6'5" tall guy with 3% bodyfat who is built like Rolland Green, but is 205 due to being tall...how can you race against those guys when you're 5"11, and weight 285?

Soooo, what is a true clysdesdale? Do we need Cyd and Clyd Elite classifications? Super-Clyd?

Here's the rest of my post from below:

_In terms of who is an is not a real clydesdale, that may be another thread. When I used to race clyd all the time, I would often be acused of being a sandbagger, becuase I was only about 215...I eventually went on to race straight Beginner, and eventually Sport, even though over 200 lbs with a bit of a tummy. At the same time, we would occasionally have some 6'5" dude with 2% body fat come in there and ride clysdale becuase he weighed 202 or something. To me, THAT is no clysdale...ha.ha.ha...then there's my old time favorite: short chubby guys who don't weight 200, but think they should ride C-dale due to just bein' big dudes....this is probably a whole other thread that should be created...._


----------



## Jax Rider (Jan 13, 2004)

*My 2 cents,*

Labeling a person is something we can not seem to get away from. You know you are bigger and heavier than the average rider. The average rider is also kind enough to point this fact out constantly. The frame and parts failure above the average is also a good reminder of what we already know. Being a clydesdale is not just beeing over weight, just look at the horse they are comparing us to. Big, burly but not considered fat. Strong big boned people don"t have to be fat or ripped just above average in size or weight. As far as the 200 pound starting point, it has to start somewhere.


----------



## damion (Jun 27, 2003)

*I think it starts at 180lb.*

That is the "No Ti spindle" limit, so it may be a good starting point. For racing, Clydesdales start at 200lb.


----------



## kept man (Jan 13, 2004)

*i think's it's a decent arbitrary number ...*

but like any arbitrary number, there are always going to be tall and muscley uber-folk and then shorter, heavier super clydes, or whatever next-large-yet-cool animal we choose. a siberian tiger, or something. maybe that's not bigger. but cooler, i think.

another category might help, but even then the number isn't going to be perfect. i used to ride with a 6'4" guy who weighed 250 - and played pass rush end. now he weighs 285, plays pro ball in canada, but i'd bet he can still ride pretty fast. if he still does.

speaking as a 215 clyde who isn't uber-muscley but still isn't all that big in any sense of the word - so little folk are unpleasantly surprised at my "heaviness," whilst 'actually' big folk snort at me - i think 200 is as good an arbitrary number as any.

pachyderm. pachyderms are bigger and still cool. or godzilla.


----------



## HellCat (Mar 11, 2004)

to me being a clyde depends on build more than weight i am a big guy by nature i was born 10# 9ounces and like 20 inches long and today i stand at 6foot 6 and a very large frame.


----------



## DrGlen51 (Mar 4, 2004)

*200lbs or more works for me.*

The first time I heard of Clydes was as a racing catagory and that makes a lot of sense because in bike racing once you start getting around 200lbs you don't have a chance against the little guys. If your 5'7" and over 200lbs obviously you don't have racing build and most likely your packing some extra lbs that aren't muscle, so what, your a Clyde. So if you want to race seriously than you need to lose weight, but by the same token if you are serious you will lose weight because you will have to work so hard it will burn it off, then you can race in the lighter weight classes.

In an ideal world there would be weight classes for bike racing, just like boxing. Do you think a boxer should have a heavy weight class for short fat guys that can't compete in the normal heavy weight class? So the Clyde Classification makes good sense.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*I've got chub*

I'm in at a smidge under 200 at 5'10". All my buds kill me on the climbs. I feel I have a good muscle base, but a substantial weight penalty. I think that puts me in the handicapped definition of Clyde.

OTOH, I ride wtih guys like King George da Trog who is in at around 225 or so (guessing) but that mofo is tall, like around 6'5". Of course, he wipes the trail up with my doughy arse, cause he's all muscle. He would fall in the catagory of 'arse kicking clyde'.


----------



## dsully575 (Feb 23, 2004)

*To Clyde or Not To CLyde*

I agree with my fellow Clyde brethren--It has to start somewhere, why not 200lbs? I think if you are a "Clyde", you will usually be at a dis-advantage anyway. I am 5'10", 235lbs, but have a large frame. Yes I could stand to lose some more(was at 260lbs in 9/03), but I have been down to 190lbs in the past and everyone told me I looked unhealthy. I was also sick a lot. Now my dad is is 6'1" and 215lbs. He is in great shape but also has a large frame. He generally kicks my butt on most trails--but he is still considered a Clyde.

Now my point is(yes I do have one) is that as a Clyde, we are generally at a dis-advantage: we have a riding buddy who is about 5'6" and 150lbs. Now I know my dad and I are "stronger" than he is, but with the basic nature of biking, we are at a huge dis-advantage to the little guy. He has less weight to pedal around, so he cleans us on all the hills and could ride for days without getting tired, basically because he has a lot less weight to lug around. He is not really in what I would consider "great shape" but by being smaller and lighter, has a much easier time with this type of activity.

Just my $.02


----------



## JmZ (Jan 10, 2004)

*If you wanted to get all technical and stuff...*

Then probably the best way to do it might be a BMI index thingy. Would let 'smaller clydes' into the mix too, and remove the 7 foot monsters too. 

I don't know how much it matters, I'm a clyde, or a near clyde - have not been on a scale in months, and still think that weight is only PART of quickly parts will fail. Style, speed, weight, and how often you crash all play into it. I know some 140 pound skinny little guys who have toasted multiple dually frames while I was still happily riding the same type of frame for a few years.

JmZ



ncj01 said:


> Thought I'd bring this to a new thread...someone was complainin' about so much talk of people wanting to loose weight, and that we should be proud of our obesity. Does this guy want to stay fat? Fat is Fantastic, is that what he means?
> 
> This leads me to ask this: who are real clysdesdales? How do you compare a 205 pound guy with 3% body fat who is muscled up, or a 6'5" tall guy with 3% bodyfat who is built like Rolland Green, but is 205 due to being tall...how can you race against those guys when you're 5"11, and weight 285?
> 
> ...


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Yeah, I hear ya*

... and I'll add that I can seriously hammer the flats and downs, and kick much ass (as long as the trail is relitively smooth), but as soon as you get me on a hill, I have to seriously gear down and start cranking, and that is where everybody whizzes past me. I get lots of use out of my 22*34 granny gear. In fact, I wore out my XT granny in the first 200 miles I had the cranks. Switching from an alu grany to CroMo Steel helped.

Anywho, I figure that it is because I got muscle power, but it all gets robbed by lifting my pachyderm arse up the hill.


----------



## george_da_trog (Jul 1, 2003)

pimpbot said:


> OTOH, I ride wtih guys like King George da Trog who is in at around 225 or so (guessing) but that mofo is tall, like around 6'5". Of course, he wipes the trail up with my doughy arse, cause he's all muscle. He would fall in the catagory of 'arse kicking clyde'.


Hey!!! 215 let's get that straight. 

I've seen pictures of Indurain when he was a pro racer and weighted 195, he wasn't called big mig for nothing. But he didn't start winning the tour until he got down to 170's.

I think 200 is a pretty good cut off. Even if you are strong at 200 lbs, the power to weight ration is really hard to match those little guys.

george


----------



## BubColorado (Jan 30, 2004)

*Gravitationally Challenged*



ncj01 said:


> Thought I'd bring this to a new thread...someone was complainin' about so much talk of people wanting to loose weight, and that we should be proud of our obesity. Does this guy want to stay fat? Fat is Fantastic, is that what he means?
> 
> This leads me to ask this: who are real clysdesdales? How do you compare a 205 pound guy with 3% body fat who is muscled up, or a 6'5" tall guy with 3% bodyfat who is built like Rolland Green, but is 205 due to being tall...how can you race against those guys when you're 5"11, and weight 285?
> 
> ...


In my opinion the Clydesdale classification is not designed for the overeater or the obese. It's for those of us who naturally have large frames and muscles. Look at the horse the class is named after: it's naturally large and powerful, not fat. These horses wouldn't have a chance in a race against thoroughbreds, but do they not still have the desire to compete? If you could be 160 lbs., you shouldn't be racing Clydesdale, you should lose some weight.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

I've got to agree with Bud and Dr. Glen. I've got no problems with overweight 5'8 guys racing in the Clyde class, but I don't want to hear any bit^&ing about these guys saying how its unfair to race against a 6'5, 210 guy with 8% body fat.

If they are really concerned, they can loose the fat, and become faster than the 6'5 anyway. 

Most of the people I ride with aren't Clydes, and the 160 pounds guys kick my ass in the steeper climbs. However, I've taken it to them on flats or slight inclines where you can still use the big ring.

Perhaps there should be a Superclyde class for 250+. But several races around here don't have the Clyde class in the first place. When they do have a Clyde class, there are only 5 people in it.


----------



## BruceBrown (Jan 16, 2004)

*Who said we have to race?*

Just thought I should point out - since it hasn't been pointed out - who the heck has to race just because they ride a mountain bike?

Of course, if you are talking about the racing category of Clydesdale which usually uses the barrier of 200 and over pounds qualifying to be in the category for a race - then the name of this board is appropriate.

If we are just talking big guys (and gals) who ride mountain bikes for fun, but don't ever enter in any sort of an organized race - no need to use the term Clydesdale. Just call ourselves big off road enthusiasts. I would be curious how many of us on this board do race and how many of us do not race. Of the 100% percentage of mountain biking I do and have done in the past, maybe .01% of it has ever been devoted to ogranized racing and there was no Clydesdale category available, but I did qualify for the over 40 crowd.

BB (6'3"+ and 200+)


----------



## BubColorado (Jan 30, 2004)

*Fatties*

Clydesdale is a race classification. I thought this was group for racers. Big boned and fat recreational riders shouldn't care what they are called. Perhaps there should be a group just called "gravitationally challenged riders". Fortunately, the race series I ride in (Winterpark, CO) has a Clydesdale class. Also, because of the few Clydesdales, you are guaranteed a top ten finish.


----------



## J.D. (Jan 14, 2004)

Jax Rider said:


> As far as the 200 pound starting point, it has to start somewhere.


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.

The World is a small place, made for small people.


----------



## jeffj (Jan 13, 2004)

*Can't we all just get along?*



BubColorado said:


> Clydesdale is a race classification. I thought this was group for racers. Big boned and fat recreational riders shouldn't care what they are called. Perhaps there should be a group just called "gravitationally challenged riders". Fortunately, the race series I ride in (Winterpark, CO) has a Clydesdale class. Also, because of the few Clydesdales, you are guaranteed a top ten finish.


If this was a group created just for racers that weigh over 200 lbs, there would be about the same amount of Clydesdales in this forum as there are Clydesdales at the races&#8230;. Almost none.

As the line under the "Clydesdales" forum link states: "heavy duty bikes/parts/discussions for heavy duty folks"

That's me. If that's you, welcome. Pull up a chair (a heavy duty chair) and set a spell. >8P


----------



## PattD (Feb 22, 2004)

*Ah hell, it' s all about fun, isn't it?*



jeffj said:


> If this was a group created just for racers that weigh over 200 lbs, there would be about the same amount of Clydesdales in this forum as there are Clydesdales at the races&#8230;. Almost none.
> 
> As the line under the "Clydesdales" forum link states: "heavy duty bikes/parts/discussions for heavy duty folks"
> 
> That's me. If that's you, welcome. Pull up a chair (a heavy duty chair) and set a spell. >8P


It's kinda like the XC vs DH vs FR debate. I don't know about you all-but I just love to ride my frikkin' bike. Used to race-don't really anymore-kids, job, those sort of things. THere was a time when I don't think I would have ridden as much if I didn't race-every weekend! So, it's all about the ride. Whether you're fat, tall, big boned, have an extra leg-or whatever your reason for being "heavier" than average-if you're having fun riding your mountain bike and you are a "heavier" than average person-you're a clydesdale. As long as your ride ends with a smile! If you happen to be over 200 lbs and race-then you race in the clydesdale category-now go beat the snot out of the little folks times and make the rest of us proud you tall, big boned, beer belly, extra hair, spend too much time at the drive through cyclist! PattD

PattD


----------



## Mattman (Feb 2, 2004)

*5'6" and 180# qualifys*

I've always heard that 200+ is the club, but if you are 5'6" and 180# I would vote you in.


----------



## Fattirewilly (Dec 10, 2001)

Mattman said:


> I've always heard that 200+ is the club, but if you are 5'6" and 180# I would vote you in.


I disagree.

At 180 pounds you probably don't even have to swap out the stock coils in your shock.

As far as racing, the line is 200 pounds and the line is well established. Why screw with it. Would it be fair to bend the rule for this 5'6" /180 person when he could be competing against 6' 250 pound riders??


----------



## hoss10 (Mar 12, 2004)

I'm glad this is not restricted to racers. I think that riding is a great way for large people to get and stay in shape witjh minimal wear and tear on joints. I'm on old, big Clyde who rides to stay in shape and loose some weight and because I love it. Through years of body abuse from sports I can't participate most other sports, my body can't take it. Cycling has given me a cool way to stay active. The advice on tough parts which can stand the added stress is a great help to me. Rather then excluding anyone we should be spreading the word. As for the 200 pound cut off, it really is a low number, but I guess usefull for racing, but my oldest son raced at 210 pounds (he is 6'6") and I never thought of him as a "Clyde"


----------



## J.D. (Jan 14, 2004)

BruceBrown said:


> Just thought I should point out - since it hasn't been pointed out - who the heck has to race just because they ride a mountain bike?


Hear Hear! Amateur racing is a joke anyways.

BTW, I really liked the _Endless Summer_. A great film and the inspiration for my first surfboard, which was a Robert August.


----------



## IndyFan (Feb 5, 2004)

*I'm 5'9" and currently 220ish, but...*

...even when I was younger and in 'fightin' shape, I was still hovering around 200. I used to smoke almost anybody on the flats, gradual uphills, and downs, but going up has always been a slow proposition. I've never had any interest in organized racing, and I'm sure the vast majority of people (clyde or not) at this website probably don't either. It's all about having fun. I don't think the intention of almost any of these forums is about racing, unless it is specified in the title "Blah blah...Racing forum". If someone is seriously into racing, where would they find the time to spend here anyway? We should be welcoming anybody to these forums, not excluding anyone. Cycling in the US is almost an underground sport as it is. Most people think of bikes as toys in this country.


----------



## IndyFan (Feb 5, 2004)

*Excuse me...*

..after readin something I said in my previous statement,



IndyFan said:


> ...even when I was younger and in 'fightin' shape, I was still hovering around 200. I used to smoke almost anybody on the flats, gradual uphills, and downs, but going up has always been a slow proposition.
> 
> I'd like to say that statement is a little haughty. Sorry, I don't usually go in for those kinds of statements. I did have the ability to drop a large number of the folks who would do the stoplight-challenge thing (this was on the road - I didn't trust the early mtbs to be strong enough). Maybe it was the fact that 20 years ago I had hair down to the middle of my back and aside from the bike, I didn't look much like I could ride that well. Of course it's a little different now. With a good wife and 8mo old boy, I'm not spending 2-3 hours a day in the weight-room, or all day on 2 wheels like I used to. Little old ladies on beach cruisers can take me out now. But I'll be back...


----------



## TobyNobody (Mar 17, 2004)

*As I recall...*

For those fat-arsed naysayers, they should be reminded that a bike race is an *athletic* event . ANd in most athletic events, fitness is an advantage. If you weigh a flabby 350lbs, you will be slower on a bike than someone that is 250lbs and fit. That is a problem for the fat guy to worry about. He should be encouraged and welcomed and treated with respect, but his presence at the race does not mean those of us who are faster and a little smaller should make special concessions for him.

DIdn't there used to be a sort of handicapping system for lighter clydes racing against the really big guys?

Anyhoo, I think 200lbs is a great cutoff. ANd whether you are 6'9" or 5'11", speed up a hill comes from strength in the legs, lungs and heart. ANd your height does not limit any of these things - they are dependant mainly on training.


----------



## bryang (Apr 24, 2004)

*Does it really matter...*

As long as I'm out having fun, I could really care less how others label me. Right now, at 5'9", I'm running about 240 and can ride as long as I want endurance-wise. About 5 years ago, I raced BMX competetively, trained like crazy, and still came in at (healty & solid) 220. Anyway, I plan to hit a few DINO races this year, but will probably just do beginner, as profeciency rating makes more sense to me than weight class.


----------



## Scottie Rox (Jul 1, 2003)

*205 lbs @ 6"*

I am 26 and trying to get in better shape than when I was 18. 
I have a bit of fat, circa de 15% or so, but I want to add more mussel.
I am just about to enter my first race in June,
and would be proud to represent the Clydesdales. 
I agree all should be welcome!


----------



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

*Clydesdale Formula That Works!*

Our local Giant Rep is an ultra fast clyde, but races elite. He organized a clydesdale formula that levels the playing field. It's simple, but the mathematically challenged might need a calculator. Multiply your height in inches by 3 - this number must be lower than your weight to qualify as a clydesdale.

Example 1: I'm a tall muscular type at 6'6" or 78" x 3 = 234, but I weigh 225 - so I do not qualify as a clydesdale (I'd have to weigh more than 234)

Example 2: A rider at 5'5" or 65" x3 = 195, and weights 198, is a clydesdale, even though he does not weigh 200#.undefined


----------



## bikerboy (Jan 13, 2004)

*Clydesdale formula that works? Maybe, but tell us why.*



MichiganClydesdale said:


> Our local Giant Rep is an ultra fast clyde, but races elite. He organized a clydesdale formula that levels the playing field. It's simple, but the mathematically challenged might need a calculator. Multiply your height in inches by 3 - this number must be lower than your weight to qualify as a clydesdale.
> 
> Example 1: I'm a tall muscular type at 6'6" or 78" x 3 = 234, but I weigh 225 - so I do not qualify as a clydesdale (I'd have to weigh more than 234)
> 
> Example 2: A rider at 5'5" or 65" x3 = 195, and weights 198, is a clydesdale, even though he does not weigh 200#.undefined


Interesting formula. I would need to be 219 to qualify and I come in at 226, so I am not far off from being below the minimum weight. I really can't see much of a different in loosing 7 lbs that would make me less than a clydesdale. That formula seems to assume that everybody would have the same BMI. If two people of the same height and same weight raced, but one was flabby and the other was full of muscle, who would win?


----------



## noise_is_life (Mar 28, 2004)

MichiganClydesdale said:


> Our local Giant Rep is an ultra fast clyde, but races elite. He organized a clydesdale formula that levels the playing field. It's simple, but the mathematically challenged might need a calculator. Multiply your height in inches by 3 - this number must be lower than your weight to qualify as a clydesdale.
> 
> Example 1: I'm a tall muscular type at 6'6" or 78" x 3 = 234, but I weigh 225 - so I do not qualify as a clydesdale (I'd have to weigh more than 234)
> 
> Example 2: A rider at 5'5" or 65" x3 = 195, and weights 198, is a clydesdale, even though he does not weigh 200#.undefined


It seems to me that weight is kind of an absolute when it comes to climbing. Does a taller guy really have some advantage on the bike.

I always thought it would be interesting to just have handicapped race with the handicap based directly on weight.


----------



## OGDHr (Jan 13, 2004)

*remember the wattage output necessary*

There was an article in one of the bike mags a few monts ago that showed the difference in time to climb a 3 mile hill for weight ranges from around 160 to over 200. The disadvantage that a clyde has is that it takes a proportional higher wattage output to climb a the same rate of speed. The real disadvantage comes in longer races where refueling the body comes into play. Your body can only absorb around 300 cal per hour, while the calories spent per hour is dramatically higher for a higher weight person. At this rate a clyde will deplete all available energy stores well before a light rider will. That all said I take a lot of crap from my teammates for racing clydes instead of Sport or Expert age groups. They forget that Clydes are an open age and class group. At 40 years old it is a challenge to line up next to a younger 20 or 30 something along with the occasional 30 yr old 205# Cat 3 Crit monster that has legs from hell.

So I'm happy to be racing in the Clydes, Supah-Clydes, or where ever we can all have fun.

6'5" 210# 40yr old, never gonna be under 200, clyde for life!


----------



## ncj01 (Jan 13, 2004)

Scottie Rox said:


> I am 26 and trying to get in better shape than when I was 18.
> I have a bit of fat, circa de 15% or so, but I want to add more mussel.
> I am just about to enter my first race in June,
> and would be proud to represent the Clydesdales.
> I agree all should be welcome!


You'll be the sandbaggin'est guy out there...but it's all good. We take all kinds.

You have to ask yourself: what is more fun, to race and win by a large margin without much effort, or to race and place towards the top after a really heated race?


----------



## BikeQuest (Jul 13, 2004)

Someone was reading my mind! I'm 6" 6" and about 300lb. I stopped growing (upward) when I was 14 yrs old. At that time I was about 210lb. Now, lets jump forward about 15 years. Imagine how disturbed I was, when I really got into mountain biking to learn that not much was made for me in the sport I loved. The clothing options that were available for me to buy would have made me look like a transvestite basketball hooker! And bike choices were not that much better. It has since gotten better on the bike front. Clothing choices however, will still make a person have to sell a liver or become a thief just to buy overpriced no name stuff. I'm not complaining, but a two hundred lb man is a Clydesdale? I guess I must be a T-Rex! Well, no big deal; I love the sport too much! Keep on riding!


----------



## Crawfishy (Jun 17, 2004)

*BMI is crap*

I, like many of you, have heard most of our lives that our BMI (Body Mass Index) is to high. I consider this to be a load of crap. They tell me I should weigh 160. I haven't weighed 160 since middle school. I like to think of my self as one of those fit 230's. At my best health (while playing college soccer) is still could only manage 182. I will admit that I need to loose the spair tire, but I am sure I would still be over 200.

As for racing, I used to do it. When I stopped doing it 10 years ago, one of my excuses was that I was tired of getting my but kicked by guys 140 lbs. I have since come to the realization that I didn't really train nor have I ever been good at pacing myself during competition. I would do great on the first lap and then drop off. Prob. only a little of that had to do with weight.

Enough of my babbling. I need to go back out and bake in the hot sun.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

You know, I am of the 14% body fat clydes classification, I am just dense so therefore I am heavy. I started racing here in arizona and the first time I weighed in the classification was 220lbs (i think), the crazy thing was that the guy infront of me waiting to weigh in was about 285lbs and 6'4. I weighed in around 225lbs and I am 5'10. So I kick his tuckus around the course and finished second in my first race. Three or four races later there were only two guys really competing in the catagory for the podium and we were both stout fit fellows. After my third win I quit the clydesdale racing because I thought it was just too unfair. I mean we were finishing on the podium 10-15minutes before the others. The other issue was that as I got fitter the course length got too short and seemed much less of a challenge to me. 

I think that if you really want to be consider a clydes you should have to weigh over 240-250lbs. This pretty much guarantees that the people in the class will be large fellows. When they race they will be racing against similar people and this will give them a chance of a podium finish. The rest of us can work our ample asses off in the regular categories just like everyone else. I think that this goes for all heavy classes. When you loose enough weight to be out of this group you should have the incentive to work even harder to get to the next class podium.


----------



## DrGlen51 (Mar 4, 2004)

For the purposes of this forum I just figured anyone over 200 is a clyde and this makes sense because nearly all of us has likely had some issue over bikes and parts not holding up to our type of use.

As for the Clydedale racing classification it's a lousey compromise that trys to catch the out of catagory riders. I considered it because I weigh 210lbs at 6ft, but I am also 52 years old. So no chance for me racing the younger guys. So try the Senior class, you say. I haven't got a prayer against those guys either, the retired Gary Fishers and other sub 170 lb guys.

Lose weight you say, right, I rode like hell one year and managed to get in excellant bike riding shape and got my weight down to 204 lbs. I could maybe really go for it with diet and stuff, but the best I could do there is 185 and be really buff and that's an ideal. Been there once, but a funny thing happens when you age, you hold more weight on less food.

The bottom line is the Clydedale Classification is never going to be fair unless the impossible happens. That would be that enough people race that they could divide it up by age and weight. I bet that when that earlier poster quite racing Clyde because he thought it wasn't fair beating everyone by 15 minutes there were a few guys behind him beating the rest of the Clydes by 15 minutes. Life ain't fair, Clydesdale is an imperfect classification, now live with it.


----------



## jbogner (Jul 3, 2004)

Clydesdale racing class doesn't exist to let fat and out of shape guys win. The class exists to correct for the natural advantage that in-shape 140-150 lb 5' something racer-boys have over in-shape 6+ footers over 200. See the previous post about power output for lighter versus heavier riders.

If you're 5'7", weigh 250 lbs, and expect to win a physical competition, then you're kidding yourself. Racing is SUPPOSED to be difficult, and it's something that you SHOULD have to train and lose weight to be competitive in if you are significantly overweight. If you're heavy and out of shape, by all means keep riding, have fun and do what you love to do. Go head to head with your riding buddies and push yourself- hell, show up and race if you want to. But don't expect to win and don't further try to stratify the already under-populated race categories by pushing for ridiculous "super-clyde" categories or re-categorizing clydesdale to mean short and fat folks at the exclusion of taller and more-in-shape riders who don't fit some mathematical formula that attempts to define fitness level. That's just PC bs run amok.

For non-racing purposes, defining clyde as over 200 lb is fine- it's all about bike and equipment issues, which we do share regardless of height when you weigh this much. In this case the exact weight definition doesn't matter- what does matter is the shared experience. A 5'7" 250 lb'er is gonna break stuff just as much as a 6'7" 250 lb'er.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

the only real solution is to race single speed. That way you know you are going to get your ass handed to you but you at least get to ride a longer race and have the bragging rights of having raced singlespeed. Plus it is cool. Chicks dig single speeders of all kinds, seriously.


----------



## SanAnMan (Mar 22, 2004)

*200 is good!*

I remember reading an article about Wade Boots in his prime and the disadvantage he had on downhill events that involved more pedaling becuase he came in at 180. But he still kicked butt back then. So we clydes need to make sure we don't stop pushing

Remember, we can bench 315....


----------



## SanAnMan (Mar 22, 2004)

*1" taller and 3 pounds heavier???*

I like the formula and it just may be the hot ticket, it seams to work. Except for the fact I'm right on the edge and and I don't want to loose my card carrying "Clyde" member status if I loose 2 pounds. I better hit the pasta for breakfast.....


----------



## FatFrank (Jun 23, 2004)

Fattirewilly said:


> I've got to agree with Bud and Dr. Glen. I've got no problems with overweight 5'8 guys racing in the Clyde class, but I don't want to hear any bit^&ing about these guys saying how its unfair to race against a 6'5, 210 guy with 8% body fat.
> 
> If they are really concerned, they can loose the fat, and become faster than the 6'5 anyway.
> 
> ...


Wow then I could join the race and get 6th place in my class!

I never knew clydes was a racing catagory. I thought it was a bike parts equipment issue catagory.


----------



## Ken in KC (Jan 12, 2004)

*WTF Cares?*

Does it really matter that much? Typically Clydes are 200 pounds without gear and bikes. Mostly that's to establish a racing catagory.

The only reason it's important otherwise is to help point out the need for robust, functioning components that stand up to the abuse that heavier, to which stronger riders subject their parts. If a component happens to be light weight that's great but it's a far distant priority over function and durability.

Even the durability is clouded because so much is dependant upon the type of rider. A buttery smooth, flowing 220 pounder will break less components than a pedal mashing, non-line picking 185 pound rock basher.

BMI is bunk. Way back in nineteen hundred and ninety when I was in the military, I had to get a weight waiver that allowed me to weigh more than the 175 pound "standard" for my height (5'8"). At 184-187 pounds I hovered between 11-13% body fat. By contrast, there were taller people with whom I served that were well within their weight range that had guts that overhung their bellies to the point where they couldn't see their shoes.

Clydesdale is a term used in racing *and* used to describe someone who places a high load demand on their parts through increased strength to weight ratios and the subsequent increased torque loads placed on the components.

And that's all I got to say 'bout that.

Ken


----------



## fredrick flintstone (Jun 1, 2004)

*my 3 cents worth*



ncj01 said:


> Thought I'd bring this to a new thread...someone was complainin' about so much talk of people wanting to loose weight, and that we should be proud of our obesity. Does this guy want to stay fat? Fat is Fantastic, is that what he means?
> 
> I haven't raced in over a decade and have no desire to start again. At that time if you were to suggest a class for people that are "gravity challenged" you would have been laughed at profusely. During that time I weighed as much as 300 lbs and I would consistently beat 20% of the people in my age class. While an 80th percentile showing is nothing to brag about, I took pleasure I knowing that I beat 1/5 of the riders, most of whom weighed less than 200 lbs.
> I used to hang out at my lbs a lot back then. The employees ranged in age from 17 to 24 (I was around 30) and their average weight was no more that 160 lbs. one day during a B.S. session with them I said I would race any one there for $200 cash. They were all ready to bet me. I said there were two conditions, the first being it would be an individual timed run on 5 miles of single track. Still everyone was ready to bet. My second condition was that they would have to wear a backpack with enough ballast in it to equal the weight between us. No one wanted to bet me. They did however start to realize how fast I was for as big as I was.
> Just go out and enjoy the bike, and the people you bike with. Life is too short to worry about your girth. We have all eaten too many Mc burgers, just get out and ride.


----------



## evildead (Aug 1, 2004)

BubColorado said:


> In my opinion the Clydesdale classification is not designed for the overeater or the obese. It's for those of us who naturally have large frames and muscles. Look at the horse the class is named after: it's naturally large and powerful, not fat. These horses wouldn't have a chance in a race against thoroughbreds, but do they not still have the desire to compete? If you could be 160 lbs., you shouldn't be racing Clydesdale, you should lose some weight.


Word!! Right now, I weigh 205. IF I were to lose enough to get back to my early days, when I rode every day after scholl, etc, the lowest I'd get AND still be healthy would be 185. Not quite a Clyde, but not a "weight weenie" or stereotypical XC geek either. Some of us are just predisposed to be a certain weight, or body type. Make the most of it, before you lose it.


----------



## Kneedragger (Aug 16, 2004)

I am 6 two and a half, and weigh 220 without bike or gear. I had a room mate and fellow mountain biker that was 5-7 and about 145#'s. He could clobber me climbing up the hills, but on the downhills I could practically coast and he would have to peddle a bit to keep up. I have never been too hard on equipment, never broken anything to speak of, but I have never really owned a really lightweight racing oriented rig.


----------



## mark_kendrick (Sep 7, 2004)

200+=clydesdale.

regaurless of fitness we need better parts.

I'd like to see a sport clydesdale class but there aren't enough competitors.

You don't have to be Lance or Tinker to race. You just have to pay the entry fee, collect your t-shirt, and try like hell to finish and win. If enough big guys/gals race there will be more classes.. sport expert and maybe even age classes etc But until all the heavy folks get out and support the sport we'll just have to suffer.

I raced the Tour De Lizard a couple weeks ago. Clydesdale all the way. I'm 6'2 ~255# The guy that handed me my a$$ on a platter (by 30 min) looked to be in much worse shape. Boy was the look misleading. It was a 9 mile couse that had over 1000' of evelation change.

I'm 30 probably 20% BF and declining. I haven't weighed under 200# since I joined the military at 19. I left at 190 and came back at 225. I started traveling for work about 4 yrs ago and have gotten in worse shape and heavier. I'm on the path to fitness riding 3-5 times a week. Monday was a 17mi mtn ride, tues 15mi, tonight will be an easy ride. I hope to ride lake thunderbird friday in prep for the 'Sonner Stampede' on Oct 3. I'll put in 15-20 then and ride easy saturday or sunday. Monday I'll storm tulsa's Turkey mountain again..

I race because I'm competitive by nature. I don't mind anyone beating me by any margin. It motivates me to get off my doghy arse to workout. I aim to win a few races next year.

Later,

Mark


----------



## MichiganClydesdale (Mar 24, 2004)

*Come to MI*

Come do a couple races in Michigan, theres a few fast (legitimate) clydes here.


----------



## Sumo-class Rider (Apr 26, 2004)

*My handle says it all.*

"Sumo-class" is for us gravitationally challanged, but high-spirited, folk. Don't get in our way if you value your life


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

*A REAL Clyde*



ncj01 said:


> Thought I'd bring this to a new thread...someone was complainin' about so much talk of people wanting to loose weight, and that we should be proud of our obesity. Does this guy want to stay fat? Fat is Fantastic, is that what he means?
> 
> This leads me to ask this: who are real clysdesdales? How do you compare a 205 pound guy with 3% body fat who is muscled up, or a 6'5" tall guy with 3% bodyfat who is built like Rolland Green, but is 205 due to being tall...how can you race against those guys when you're 5"11, and weight 285?
> 
> ...


A REAL Clyde can get down to 5% bodyfat and still LAUGH at the 200 lb mark as a ridiculously low threshhold.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

*It would be easier ...*



jbogner said:


> Clydesdale racing class doesn't exist to let fat and out of shape guys win. The class exists to correct for the natural advantage that in-shape 140-150 lb 5' something racer-boys have over in-shape 6+ footers over 200. See the previous post about power output for lighter versus heavier riders.
> 
> If you're 5'7", weigh 250 lbs, and expect to win a physical competition, then you're kidding yourself. Racing is SUPPOSED to be difficult, and it's something that you SHOULD have to train and lose weight to be competitive in if you are significantly overweight. If you're heavy and out of shape, by all means keep riding, have fun and do what you love to do. Go head to head with your riding buddies and push yourself- hell, show up and race if you want to. But don't expect to win and don't further try to stratify the already under-populated race categories by pushing for ridiculous "super-clyde" categories or re-categorizing clydesdale to mean short and fat folks at the exclusion of taller and more-in-shape riders who don't fit some mathematical formula that attempts to define fitness level. That's just PC bs run amok.
> 
> For non-racing purposes, defining clyde as over 200 lb is fine- it's all about bike and equipment issues, which we do share regardless of height when you weigh this much. In this case the exact weight definition doesn't matter- what does matter is the shared experience. A 5'7" 250 lb'er is gonna break stuff just as much as a 6'7" 250 lb'er.


... to define Clyde by height. All race organizers would need is one of those things at an Amusement park portraying a cartoon character with a 6' marker.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

*Lift Weights ...*



evildead said:


> Word!! Right now, I weigh 205. IF I were to lose enough to get back to my early days, when I rode every day after scholl, etc, the lowest I'd get AND still be healthy would be 185. Not quite a Clyde, but not a "weight weenie" or stereotypical XC geek either. Some of us are just predisposed to be a certain weight, or body type. Make the most of it, before you lose it.


It's a good idea for REAL Clydes and psuedo-clydes like yourself ;-)


----------



## mark_kendrick (Sep 7, 2004)

MichiganClydesdale said:


> Come do a couple races in Michigan, theres a few fast (legitimate) clydes here.


I'd be glad to. I got a buddy up there I need to visit.


----------



## talpaman (Jul 27, 2004)

*A REAL Clyde...*

...looks at the first dozen hot glazed Krispy Kremes and wonders when the red light will come on again!

Being a Clydesdale has never been about height, it's a weight class and the horse was chosen so many people wouldn't be offended, that mascot was not chosen because it truly embodies the group. People figured calling a whale a whale would be an insult. Besides if clydesdale-esque individuals truly want to compete at an elite level they can (look at Magnus Backstedt - 2004 Paris-Roubaix Winner) it just takes a lot more effort.

I know I'm committing heresy here, but Clydesdale racing isn't limited to cycling, in fact running has been dealing with "weight class athletic" events for quite some time. There has been so much participation in these events that they have more guidelines than you can shake a stick at, check out:

http://www.teamclydesdale.com/weight_clydesdale.htm

if you don't believe me. This is primarily for runners, however, as we all can attest to; athletics at the clydesdale size tends to wear out equipment rapidly. If your equipment is your own knees and ankles (as mine were) after a while of clydesdale running you look to clydesdale cycling. My guess is that more and more former clydesdale runners will look into cycling as a way to continue the fitness kick. With these nee runners will come more regs, so get used to it if you really are so competetive you need to win your class. However, if you just want to compete with big people and comisserate about bending handle bars then just ride on and smile.

Running brought me down from 6'4" 315# to 6'4" 275#. Running's too rough on the joints currently so cycling has dropped me to 255#. Even at my thinnest, I'll still be a clydesdale and I'm proud of that. Just being able to have the fitness to complete an event I start is worth the effort. I'll never win the hill climbs, but I love the people I ride with, which is why I try to win them anyway. Besides these people are kind enough to wait up for me.

That's my wooden nickel, cause it ain't worth s**t.


----------



## edouble (Apr 16, 2004)

*im 6ft 2in and 245 lbs...*

with a 36 in waist so im not fat. ive been ripped at 227-230 lbs (33 in waist) so like some others, im just a big guy. to me a 200 lb'er may be a clyde but 225 lbs and up should be "super clyde's" like they have in the triathalons. my wife competed in one recently and i was shocked to see this class. the women were called "athena" if they were over 160 lbs.
this maks sense to me but it probably will never happen. anyway, i enjoy smoking many smaller lighter riders, much to their shock. i also love trying to stay with the really fast skinny racers, it makes me a better rider. still it would be great for us bigger big guys to have a class of our own. no one knows how hard we work just to climb even moderate hills.


----------



## SocalSuperhero (May 5, 2004)

edouble said:


> with a 36 in waist so im not fat. ive been ripped at 227-230 lbs (33 in waist) so like some others, im just a big guy. to me a 200 lb'er may be a clyde but 225 lbs and up should be "super clyde's" like they have in the triathalons. my wife competed in one recently and i was shocked to see this class. the women were called "athena" if they were over 160 lbs.
> this maks sense to me but it probably will never happen. anyway, i enjoy smoking many smaller lighter riders, much to their shock. i also love trying to stay with the really fast skinny racers, it makes me a better rider. still it would be great for us bigger big guys to have a class of our own. no one knows how hard we work just to climb even moderate hills.


I've been racing a bunch of the local xc races up here in mammoth. I usually finished top 5 in teh sport classs, with one third place this season, and regularly smoked the smaller people I raced against. I'm 6'4"/215lb and have been called a freak by those i compete with since I can out hussle most of then on a bike even though i'm the last person you'd expect it from. I also raced in the mini-marathon (23miles) yesterday at the US Nationals and posted a time mid pack in the amatuer field, but second in my non clydesdale class since there were only two riders.

It's all about using your higher mass on the downhills, and higher power output to hammer the flats. It all balances out with the uphills in the end anyways.


----------



## goneskiian (Sep 27, 2004)

Very interesting discussion! Glad to have found it. 

Personally I've never raced in the Clydesdale class, but I'd be a liar if I said I hadn't thought about it.  

Right now, I'm weighing in at about 195 and at 6'1" I realize most of you wouldn't think of me as a true "Clyde". But I just finished a season of road racing so I might see that 200 lb. mark in the next month or so.  

I agree with the posters that say it's also about the stress we put on equipment. I really want to ride all the cool lightweight stuff, but it just doesn't last with the stress I put on it. 

I agree that we can be competitive though (if racing is something you want to do). Before I started road racing I won my fair share of Sport class mtb races, enough to consider racing Expert anyway and I'm currently a Cat. 1 on the road. We've just got to pick our races. The ones with really long climgs aren't likely for us. Magnus Backstedt is a great example. You won't see him winning climbing stages of the Tour but a race like Paris-Roubaix fits him perfectly. 

Cheers!
-Ian


----------



## Octane (Mar 16, 2004)

I think a true Clyde should be measured as rider + bike, and be set at 250lbs limit.

Just my opinion.

-B


----------

