# Advice for a new bike - at 300 lbs, am I overthinking how much my weight will impact my selection?



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

Looking for advice on a new bike. This is my first post but I have been watching this forum for a long time and appreciate how this community offers to help each other. Due to the bike shortage, I have not been able to test ride many bikes and just doing a lot of research online while waiting for bikes to get back in stock.

I have a few questions but first let me lay out what I think I need for a new MTB and then would appreciate your guidance / feedback. I am approx. 300 pounds and 6 feet tall, currently live in Texas but have been spending a large part of the past couple summers in Utah. I ride my old Specialized Rockhopper from 2010 (hardtail) but I don't trust it on anything more than a friendly / easy trail at this point so I am looking to upgrade. I have never taken a lift to do downhill (but think it would be fun) and mainly do trail riding. I have biked for most of my life but I am held back by my concerns about my current bike on any challenging terrain (so I don't push it at all).

I have watched a ton of the "Hardtail Party" videos on YouTube and they are great but the host / rider is a smaller guy so it's hard to understand how much my weight will change the feel / ride. This is why I am seeking all of your help.

For the right bike, I am happy to spend up to $3K+ for the right hardtail. Our plan is to move to Utah full time in the next year or so and can always go FS in the future (but I hope to drop some weight first and learn more about my interest to do downhill, etc.). Of course, if you think it is best to just buy a FS now, I am open to suggestions. Budget isn't a major issue as I have been saving for a while and for a FS, I could go well above $3K. I care more about finding the right bike than a specific budget.

Should I buy a stock bike or work with my local bike shop to custom build a bike. There are plenty of good frames but I worry that if I need to upgrade the front shock, brakes, wheels, etc. because of my size, is a custom build a better route than a "stock bike". When I say custom build, I mean buying a frame and then selecting components individually. It seems silly to me to buy a "high end" hardtail to have to swap out a number of the brand new components.

Because I will be doing more trail riding, I don't think I need a super slack bike but most bikes seem to be more aggressive geometry which is not what I need (right)? What quality hardtails are better for trail riding, etc.? I have been researching the Orbea Laufrey, Salsa Timberjack, Santa Cruz Chameleon, Surley Karate Monkey or Krampus, Pole Taival, etc. Some of these are Steel and other Aluminum. The only one that I have actually ridden so far was the Chameleon in a 27.5 (thanks bike shortage).

As for a front shock, due to my size, should I be focused on a coil shock vs air? Seems like less maintenance for a coil. Also, it is easy to get drawn into the idea that I need a ton of travel in the shock but I worry about my size vs the design of the shock.

Wheel Size - 27.5+ vs 29? I have a 29 now but not sure what is best for the future. Not sure if this is really a big deal or not.

Any recommendations on a bike shop that would be highly qualified to help a Clyd? Not as worried about geography but want to work with someone to help me identify what really matters when making a decision.
Wrapping up, I am wondering how much my 300 pound weight is messing with my head and causing me to overthink things. Eager to hear your thoughts to help guide me through this process. Thank you in advance!!!


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

You're a big guy and you're not over thinking this.

Make choices based on durability and robustness. 300 lbs. places additional stress on components and that needs your detailed attention. Pay particular attention to wheels & hubs. There are other important considerations, but this seems to be an area that demands attention and good decisions.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

nycadventure said:


> For the right bike, I am happy to spend up to $3K+ for the right hardtail. Our plan is to move to Utah full time in the next year or so and can always go FS in the future (but I hope to drop some weight first and learn more about my interest to do downhill, etc.). Of course, if you think it is best to just buy a FS now, I am open to suggestions. Budget isn't a major issue as I have been saving for a while and for a FS, I could go well above $3K. I care more about finding the right bike than a specific budget.


This is a pretty good path, but you're likely to find that whatever you wind up choosing, you'll have to change something because there will be SOMETHING that doesn't work how you envisioned.



nycadventure said:


> Should I buy a stock bike or work with my local bike shop to custom build a bike. There are plenty of good frames but I worry that if I need to upgrade the front shock, brakes, wheels, etc. because of my size, is a custom build a better route than a "stock bike". When I say custom build, I mean buying a frame and then selecting components individually. It seems silly to me to buy a "high end" hardtail to have to swap out a number of the brand new components.


​This one is really kinda difficult to say if one way is better than another. Current availability challenges make it even more difficult to say which is better. There's value to both paths. If you're in a "you don't know what you don't know" situation, starting with a complete bike and making a few changes over time can give you opportunities to learn so you can make better informed decisions. Certainly if you know exactly what you want, putting together your own bike from a parts list can get you exactly what you want with no fluff. But to put that pathway into perspective, a friend of mine started a new FS build a long time ago. I don't remember when, but he's had to do more waiting than anything. His frame had to be built, so there was a wait for that. The last part he's waiting on has been the brakeset. He wanted Hope brakes for this build. He ordered them in Feb and just got the shipping notice the other day. Thankfully he's been able to ride his hardtail this whole time. But if you don't have another bike to ride in the meantime? That can affect things quite a bit.​​I would say that most items will work just fine if you select a complete bike and modify it later as you learn about your needs. Some of them are going to involve a riding style component. You say you're about to move. Are you familiar with the trails in your future home? Have you ridden them already and know how your riding style will change compared to what it is now? Do you have a history of blowing up hub internals, dinging rims, etc?​​

nycadventure said:


> Because I will be doing more trail riding, I don't think I need a super slack bike but most bikes seem to be more aggressive geometry which is not what I need (right)? What quality hardtails are better for trail riding, etc.? I have been researching the Orbea Laufrey, Salsa Timberjack, Santa Cruz Chameleon, Surley Karate Monkey or Krampus, Pole Taival, etc. Some of these are Steel and other Aluminum. The only one that I have actually ridden so far was the Chameleon in a 27.5 (thanks bike shortage).


​The bikes in your list exist on quite a spectrum. The Surlys being on the conservative side of the spectrum. The Timberjack and Chameleon being pretty well-rounded trailbikes. The Pole being pretty progressive. I'm not familiar with the Orbea, so I dunno where it slots in. I ride a Guerrilla Gravity Pedalhead. It's not as progressive as the Pole, but moreso than the Timberjack and Chameleon, especially with the 140mm fork I put on it. I do mellow xc stuff on it, as well as burly technical trails. It's not an extremely progressive geometry, but I don't have any issues with it on plain old trail riding. I enjoy the geometry, really.​

nycadventure said:


> As for a front shock, due to my size, should I be focused on a coil shock vs air? Seems like less maintenance for a coil. Also, it is easy to get drawn into the idea that I need a ton of travel in the shock but I worry about my size vs the design of the shock.


​You can go either way, for different reasons, really. Air is more adjustable and to a finer degree. You'd probably need to replace the spring in a coil fork to get the firmest one offered. And you won't have as much fine control over the spring rate. Preload allows some adjustment once you get a spring installed, but adjusting a coil fork is less easy. Once you get it adjusted, reliability is very good, though. Honestly, though, I think picking a strong, stiff fork chassis is going to be more important for you, though. The travel you choose should be determined based on the frame you have (and the geometry that will result) and the terrain you're riding. Most forks out there are obtainable in multiple travel lengths (or are adjustable) to help dial in bike geo and handling characteristics.​

nycadventure said:


> Wheel Size - 27.5+ vs 29? I have a 29 now but not sure what is best for the future. Not sure if this is really a big deal or not.


​This one comes down to preference more than anything. Your riding style will play a role in what you wind up preferring for a given bike and terrain, though. Plus size tires seem to be preferred by folks who take a mellower approach to riding. They "crawl" over technical terrain quite well. Bikepackers often love plus tires (especially 29+). But there's less sidewall support, so hard-charging riders often find that reduced support problematic in corners with high bike lean angles and speed. The last thing you want when you're pushing a bike over hard in a fast corner is for the sidewall to fold on you.​

nycadventure said:


> Any recommendations on a bike shop that would be highly qualified to help a Clyd? Not as worried about geography but want to work with someone to help me identify what really matters when making a decision.


​This one is a tough ask. If you're asking for help choosing a bike off-the-shelf, you're not going to wind up with much variation in clyde-worthiness. If you're looking to assemble one from the frame up, then you have more to choose from. Generally speaking, sizing up the brakes is easy to do. Instead of 2 piston calipers on 160 or 180mm rotors which is pretty standard OEM setup, you might consider 4 piston calipers and at least a 200mm rotor up front, if not more. Terrain plays a role here, too. If steeper, go bigger on the brakes. For wheels, rims are usually the biggest weak point. But hub internals can matter for some. Rims are pretty easy from most manufacturers to step up a level or two in the burliness category. Hubs are a bit more of a challenge. There's plenty of talk in the wheels forum about hub internals, and some ppl seem to manage to destroy any hub. Others never have a problem with anything. And it doesn't seem to me that the rider's weight is the major factor there.​


----------



## Pasta4lnch (May 29, 2020)

fwiw, I'm bigger than you (albeit not taller lol) and I struggled with finding a bike. Though my criteria was a bit less - I wanted less moving parts. I ended up with a Growler American Stout fat bike and could not be happier!! I will mention that I was in contact with 44 bikes. He was willing to make a special bike to fit my size. I ended up backing out when I realized it was going to be out of my budget, but it might be worth a shot to reach out...


----------



## KidCharlemagne (Dec 11, 2012)

nycadventure said:


> I am approx. 300 pounds and 6 feet tall. [...] I ride my old Specialized Rockhopper from 2010 (hardtail) but I don't trust it on anything more than a friendly / easy trail at this point so I am looking to upgrade. I have never taken a lift to do downhill (but think it would be fun) and mainly do trail riding.


I'm 6'0" and vary between 240-260. I used to weigh 420 but wasn't riding in those days. So I'm experienced at worrying about these things as well.

Downhill is great fun, but the concern is that at 300, you can bang yourself up at least as effectively as you can bang up bike hardware. That's especially true if you're over 35 -- I'm 60 and even though I have great health insurance, a low deductible on fixing a broken leg is not nearly as desirable as not breaking a leg in the first place. I go nice and slow and am in no rush to improve my performance at the local bike park.



nycadventure said:


> For the right bike, I am happy to spend up to $3K+ for the right hardtail. Our plan is to move to Utah full time in the next year or so and can always go FS in the future (but I hope to drop some weight first and learn more about my interest to do downhill, etc.). Of course, if you think it is best to just buy a FS now, I am open to suggestions. Budget isn't a major issue as I have been saving for a while and for a FS, I could go well above $3K. I care more about finding the right bike than a specific budget.


I thought about this, figuring that FS has more that can go wrong, but I wanted the option to get to places I couldn't go with a hardtail. My fat bike soaks up bumps pretty well so I use it for basic trails and social riding. So it seemed to me that a hardtail would duplicate a lot of the stuff I could cover on the fat bike. The rear shock has an easily accessed lockout so climbing isn't horrible.



nycadventure said:


> 1. Should I buy a stock bike or work with my local bike shop to custom build a bike.


I recommend against doing your own custom build, because you're going to pay retail for all the components and it will be a lot more expensive than buying a full bike and replacing stuff incrementally. Of course, in the current supply chain situation, you'll tear your hair out trying to chase down everything you need to build up a complete bike. We're going touring in September on our new Surly Disc Truckers, and putting together all the accessories for those bikes has been a lot of work over the last 3-4 months. The big distributors won't even take orders from the LBS's for backorder to get stuff whenever it comes back in stock, so my LBS can't even order most of the stuff we needed. I had to buy from shops all over the US and Europe who happened to have what I needed in stock.

When I got my mountain bike, my strategy was to buy used because I could afford something that was a lot more durable than I could get new for the same price. My budget was $3,000 to $4,000. I lucked into getting a used personal bike from the owner of my LBS, who had a gorgeous S-Works Enduro that he built up from the frame and rode for only 1.5 years. Since he gets components at wholesale, the build is above the spec of the top of the line Specialized mountain bike. I got it for a fraction of what it would cost to do a retail custom build with that spec, and since it came from a trusted source, I didn't have to worry about it being stolen. I haven't broken anything on it in perhaps 2,000 miles of trails at my weight. Perhaps buying a higher end model used might work for you. I haven't checked, but availability of used might be somewhat better than availability of new bikes at this point, though I'm sure a lot of people are buying used because they can't get new right now.

Getting that particular bike used was also good for someone of my size, since the frame is built like a tank. I'm getting the top-of-the-line carbon for an enduro rig, which is much heavier duty than entry level carbon you might find on an XC rig. So I'm not worried at all about failure risk there.



nycadventure said:


> As for a front shock, due to my size, should I be focused on a coil shock vs air? Seems like less maintenance for a coil. Also, it is easy to get drawn into the idea that I need a ton of travel in the shock but I worry about my size vs the design of the shock.


Before I got my current MTB, I had a $1,000 Trek (circa 2000) with a coil shock. Even at the limit of its adjustment, I bottomed out all the time on gravel roads. I suspect air is the way to go. I have never bottomed out the S-Works even on some fairly decent hits. Fork, hubs and wheels are the most important places to buttress up. While some Clydes in this site have reported that they've cracked frames, taco'd wheels, abused hubs and blown fork seals are probably far more common.



nycadventure said:


> Wrapping up, I am wondering how much my 300 pound weight is messing with my head and causing me to overthink things.


I don't think you're overthinking at all. Impact on parts goes up by n-squared as body weight goes up linearly. In other words, you're stressing parts 4x the stress a 150 lb rider would put on things. You can either over-think things or enjoy a few long walks back to the car towing a broken bike. In my world, zero walks back to the car is the only acceptable number. So think away!


----------



## D. Inoobinati (Aug 28, 2020)

Before you even start thinking about the components, make sure that the frame manufacturer rates the frame for your weight. You should find that info deep in the specs. I know that Trek's Supercaliber line of FS xc bikes has a total weight limit of 300lbs, and my own Canyon Lux has a rider limit of 250lbs.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Stick with a hardtail at your weight. I'm 260 geared and struggling with FS bikes since the suspension leverage ratio in most bikes today are very detrimental for the high weight riders.


----------



## v33sonata (Jun 30, 2016)

Ive been down your road before. I currently ride a Trek Stach 8 and a Superfly. I also made a video on this exact subject. (link below) Welcome to the cyldesdale club!


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

I just want to thank everyone for the detailed replies and guidance. This is great info and I will just be patient while supply of bikes picks up over the next year (fingers crossed). As I learn of my options, I will circle back for more specific feedback! This was a great first experience with you all on the Clyd board!!


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

I would look for a used AM bike with air suspension on both sides. A used bike will be cheaper since you will need some upgrades. Burly bikes will have stronger components that you will need. Special attention to wheels and hubs, which are not only the most likely to get damaged, but also very expensive. Hardtails are much more limited, and also much harder on wheels. But it also depends on your riding style, may be enough.
Like others said, check weight limits on components like wheels, frames and forks.

Another unexpected expense that you may need if you want top performance (at any price level) is revalving the suspension. Air suspension scales almost perfectly with rider weight, but dampers do not.


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

I haven't considered a used bike. Any advice on good platforms / websites to buy a used bike? There must be something better than Craigslist I imagine. LOL


----------



## bingemtbr (Apr 1, 2004)

Beyond frame failure, the most common bike part failure for a Clydesdale is the rear hub. Consider including an upgraded rear hub with your new bike. There are several threads in the Clydesdale forum which discuss what's worked for different riders. Give them a quick review to get an understanding of cost and build (spoke type, lacing patterns, preferred rims, etc.).


----------



## PattD (Feb 22, 2004)

Not sure if you've made your decision yet, but IMO, Hardtail is key for you right now. It'll be way more efficient than a FS bike. I fluctuate from 230 to 250's and when I'm in the 250's...or more....the hardtail is key to my happiness on the bike. At 300#, I'd definitely pay attention to wheels and cranks along with a very solid frame. 303 Bike Labs would do a custom wheelset for you (based on what materials he can get), but he's a clyde too that races and kicks ass at building strong wheels. Canfield makes extremely stiff/strong cranks that will limit the flex you get when really putting the hammer down. I bring these 2 components up as they were both extremely important upgrades for me on my bikes and make a huge difference...plus can easily be ported over to whatever your next bike is as well. Worth the $$ for sure! Good luck


----------



## CrozCountry (Mar 18, 2011)

nycadventure said:


> I haven't considered a used bike. Any advice on good platforms / websites to buy a used bike? There must be something better than Craigslist I imagine. LOL


Craigslist and pinkbike.


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

PattD said:


> Not sure if you've made your decision yet, but IMO, Hardtail is key for you right now. It'll be way more efficient than a FS bike. I fluctuate from 230 to 250's and when I'm in the 250's...or more....the hardtail is key to my happiness on the bike. At 300#, I'd definitely pay attention to wheels and cranks along with a very solid frame. 303 Bike Labs would do a custom wheelset for you (based on what materials he can get), but he's a clyde too that races and kicks ass at building strong wheels. Canfield makes extremely stiff/strong cranks that will limit the flex you get when really putting the hammer down. I bring these 2 components up as they were both extremely important upgrades for me on my bikes and make a huge difference...plus can easily be ported over to whatever your next bike is as well. Worth the $$ for sure! Good luck


Thanks for the great suggestions! My LBS suggested that I wait as Santa Cruz is about to come out with a new Chameleon frame, etc. Was told late August / early September. Actually got to test ride the Salsa Timberjack last weekend and it was a good one.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

nycadventure said:


> I haven't considered a used bike. Any advice on good platforms / websites to buy a used bike? There must be something better than Craigslist I imagine. LOL


Foes. They are very low-leverage bikes. Low leverage bikes are great for heavier riders. Metric shocks make this even better, giving more space for the spring length. 2:1 is probably a good leverage ratio for you. 2.5:1, not as much, closer to 2:1 the better. Coil shock is probably better, but at 2:1 an air shock like a RS Super Deluxe (that can go to 325psi) is not out of the question. As an example, on my Guerilla Gravity, at 165lbs, I am running around 140psi, so someone twice as heavy could still use twice as much pressure and be ok. A coil shock is generally a good idea, some of the smaller air-shocks will max out in PSI before they will support your weight, especially on lower leverage bikes. So Foes is a good one, there are others that would work. You want low leverage, but the shock should be a long shock, 230mm or longer, so that if you have to use a coil, you have plenty of space for a real heavy spring, like 600lb or more. Foes isn't the only one out there, but they are usually the lowest leverage ratio. Do some research on leverage ratio. Decide how much travel you want. Start looking up the shock specs, how long they are for how much stroke.

But yeah, with all that said, I would recommend a hardtail first. Better idea.

The other thing is that IME, bikes are not a great way to lose weight. They are decent for sustaining and excellent at making some exercise fun, but they aren't great at losing weight. I even got pretty fat while riding a bike. The real issue is regular exercise, like every day. Go walk for an hour every day or just do something physical for at least an hour. It's a hell of a lot easier to walk an hour than run for 20 minutes, but doing something physical every day for at least an hour will up your metabolism and make you start dropping lbs. Don't drink anything but water (humans were designed to eat a lot of stuff, but only drink water as adults). Not saying don't ever drink something else, but keep yourself well hydrated with water at all times, it makes cravings go away. All of these are keys to dropping the weight, no mysteries or fads, but one thing I really want to stress is bikes aren't really great at dropping weight, you gotta ride them for a pretty long amount of time every day to make a dent, time that most people don't have. It's possible, but it's often not practical. Using weight loss as a goal so you "can ride a bike" is a great way to think about it. It's a lot of fun riding a bike.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

I would be seriously considering a steel framed hardtail if I were in your situation. Aluminum is known to develop fatigue cracks. Steel is much more fatigue resistant. I maxed out at 203 and I'm currently 163 so I don't know what all considerations should be considered for a clyde. But I'm wondering if a 27.5 Plus bike would be a better choice. More tire volume would help with the impulse loading of the frame and all things being equal a 27.5 wheel/rim is stiffer than an equivalent 29er wheel/rim. That's just a hypothesis so maybe some real clydes can help prove or disprove this.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Jayem said:


> The other thing is that IME, bikes are not a great way to lose weight. They are decent for sustaining and excellent at making some exercise fun, but they aren't great at losing weight. I even got pretty fat while riding a bike. The real issue is regular exercise, like every day.


The saying is you can't out run a bad diet. I might burn 500-600 calories in 70-80 minutes of riding. When a small fried chicken finger meal is 1000 calories before you add sugared drinks it is really easy to consumer 4k+ calories in a day on a standard American diet. Use My Fitness Pal to track everything you eat for a couple of weeks and you will be shocked how many calories you eat. I lost 40 lbs doing mostly time restricted dieting (aka intermitent fasting) where I don't eat from 8pm to 12 noon. Try to stick to low calorie lunches and snacks during the day. And try not to restrict my dinner too much except for portion size. Calories burned from exercising is what I use for all my "cheat" foods. Burned 450+ calories in a 90 minute ride after work today. Had a scoop of ice cream after dinner.


----------



## Blathma (May 13, 2020)

DeoreDX said:


> I would be seriously considering a steel framed hardtail if I were in your situation. Aluminum is known to develop fatigue cracks. Steel is much more fatigue resistant. I maxed out at 203 and I'm currently 163 so I don't know what all considerations should be considered for a clyde. But I'm wondering if a 27.5 Plus bike would be a better choice. More tire volume would help with the impulse loading of the frame and all things being equal a 27.5 wheel/rim is stiffer than an equivalent 29er wheel/rim. That's just a hypothesis so maybe some real clydes can help prove or disprove this.


I went with 29+ for that exact reason. Couldn't get the krampus with front fork. But the rigid frame is setup with 29+. The volume is very nice and soaks up the bumps. At 280lb in my birthday suit, I just couldn't find a FS bike that felt right. 
At some point I'll swap out the rigid fork for suspension. But first I really need to upgrade the brakes.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

DeoreDX said:


> I would be seriously considering a steel framed hardtail if I were in your situation. Aluminum is known to develop fatigue cracks. Steel is much more fatigue resistant. I maxed out at 203 and I'm currently 163 so I don't know what all considerations should be considered for a clyde. But I'm wondering if a 27.5 Plus bike would be a better choice. More tire volume would help with the impulse loading of the frame and all things being equal a 27.5 wheel/rim is stiffer than an equivalent 29er wheel/rim. That's just a hypothesis so maybe some real clydes can help prove or disprove this.


So, for both of these the important part is the designed Limit Load. Ultimate limit is where you will damage both. For aluminum, the number of times you can cycle to the limit load is limited by the material, but it's usually so high that no one approaches it in years and years of riding. For steel and Ti, it can be virtually "unlimited", but there are issues specific to each material, steel corrosion and Ti brittleness/welds. Aluminum is not a better or worse material here. For all three, they will develop cracks if not designed properly or there is a production flaw. What would be better would be a thicker tubing gauge and stronger frame. There are some that are intended as "all mountain" type hardtails and that would be my choice, regardless of the material. Custom manufacturers are even better at being able to make something like this for a heavier rider, but it costs more of course.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

DeoreDX said:


> Aluminum is known to develop fatigue cracks.


We're in trouble...all airplanes are made from aluminum.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Cleared2land said:


> We're in trouble...all airplanes are made from aluminum.


An airplane is carefully designed and numerically analyzed and tested so that the loads are known and the airplane is rigorously tracked so they know when the airframe is approaching it's number of cycles and fatigue limits. An airframe will be retired after a certain number of flights unless the parts that fatigue can be replaced. Military airframes have advanced fatigue monitoring systems built into the airframe that is used to calculate the safe like and develop inspection intervals for the airframes. Airplanes have a quite rigorous inspection and maintenance program built around airframe fatigue. Your Aluminum bicycle doesn't.

The fact is steel has an endurance limit while aluminum does not. You can design a steel component to never crack under fatigue but you can't do the same with aluminum. Usually when you see an aluminum frame crack it is because of fatigue. The dynamic loads on the frame isn't linearly proportional to rider weight so a 300+ lbs rider isn't going to fatigue a frame 2x faster than a 150lbs rider, it will be much much faster than 2x. IF he plans on riding a lot and plans on keeping the bike for a while a well steel frame would be a better investment.


----------



## Blathma (May 13, 2020)

A riding buddy of mine has a collection of bikes, CF to steel... When I got to looking for a replacement he let me ride the various ones he has on hand. From FS to rigid. Here's what I found as a Clydesdale.. CF is rigid and light but has a harshness I didn't like, even with FS my weight had it at the limit, didn't feel relaxed on it as you're just waiting for something to fail. If I was significantly lighter CF would be the top choice. 
AL, light but not rigid in 'twist', not sure what that's called in the bike world. The frame would twist under pedal force, it was weird. Could have been just that particular frame geo, not sure. There was also a slight harshness to the ride, not as noticable as CF but the 'buzz' was there. 
Steel... My favorite for 'smooth' 'cushy' ride. Heavy, yeah.. But 'cmon we're already heavyweights. I don't have to worry about frame fatigue, the 'buzz' or harmonics of the light CF and AL frames are not there. The 'twist' under load is very slight, not gone but not as bad as AL. 
If I was 220-240lb and looking to race or be far more competitive... CF hands down. Otherwise steel works great. AL seems to be the budget middle man. Yeah CF has it's downsides too, like all frame choices. But I do see the appeal for racers and competitive riders, you really feel the tires weight and location in space, makes for nimble and agile riding.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Cleared2land said:


> We're in trouble...all airplanes are made from aluminum.


All airplanes fly with cracks, especially airliners.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

DeoreDX said:


> An airplane is carefully designed and numerically analyzed and tested so that the loads are known and the airplane is rigorously tracked so they know when the airframe is approaching it's number of cycles and fatigue limits. An airframe will be retired after a certain number of flights unless the parts that fatigue can be replaced. Military airframes have advanced fatigue monitoring systems built into the airframe that is used to calculate the safe like and develop inspection intervals for the airframes. Airplanes have a quite rigorous inspection and maintenance program built around airframe fatigue. Your Aluminum bicycle doesn't.


I understand the general gist of your statement, particularly for a clyde. Fortunately bicycle frames are (usually) carefully designed and NOT made from 2024. Poor analogy to compare 1045 to 2024. I fact, I think most steel bike frames are made from 4130. At least those few I know that have been involved frame building used 4130. And there are no bike frames made from 2024

What's your involvement with aviation or aircraft?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

DeoreDX said:


> An airplane is carefully designed and numerically analyzed and tested so that the loads are known and the airplane is rigorously tracked so they know when the airframe is approaching it's number of cycles and fatigue limits. An airframe will be retired after a certain number of flights unless the parts that fatigue can be replaced. Military airframes have advanced fatigue monitoring systems built into the airframe that is used to calculate the safe like and develop inspection intervals for the airframes. Airplanes have a quite rigorous inspection and maintenance program built around airframe fatigue. Your Aluminum bicycle doesn't.
> 
> The fact is steel has an endurance limit while aluminum does not. You can design a steel component to never crack under fatigue but you can't do the same with aluminum. Usually when you see an aluminum frame crack it is because of fatigue. The dynamic loads on the frame isn't linearly proportional to rider weight so a 300+ lbs rider isn't going to fatigue a frame 2x faster than a 150lbs rider, it will be much much faster than 2x. IF he plans on riding a lot and plans on keeping the bike for a while a well steel frame would be a better investment.


You are really not getting it here. Aluminum bikes aren't going to crack because a 300lb rider reaches the designed fatigue life (cycles), unless we are talking about riding it for 20 years. And even then, that would be due to cycles, NOT the rider's weight. Do you understand the difference? If it cracks because of weight, it's because they exceeded the designed elastic load limit. *Both steel and aluminum will crack under this situation.* No difference here. If it's a strong enough overload, they will tear apart or buckle rather fast. If it's not that strong, but still over the elastic limit, a crack will develop and propagate/deform with each cycle. This will happen at the weakest part or that which sees the most stress.

Are you trying to imply that steel bikes are stronger in terms of their designed limit? This is where your graph is wrong. The material thickness and other aspects mean that generally, most bikes or tubing are relatively the same strength. Very few people are designing bikes to carry around weight that is not needed. So in all reality, that steel tube is more aggressively butted (steel is stiffer, so this is possible) and thinner. If you set your design goal at a certain design load limit, anything else is just extra weight you are carrying around for no reason. This is where you could use a custom manufacturer and again, it doesn't matter what material they use, steel, aluminum, CF, titanium, etc. They just have to set the appropriate load limit and go from there.

The real material benefit to steel is that it's easier to repair, more similar to carbon fiber in that respect, compared to aluminum that needs proper heat treating and is more difficult to work with.

There are manufacturers that set out to design an "extra strong frame", no doubt, but again, this isn't because they are using steel or cheese, this is because they made this the design goal. It can be (and is) easily done with aluminum alloys.


----------



## MTB_Underdog (Jul 8, 2020)

Jayem said:


> Foes. They are very low-leverage bikes. Low leverage bikes are great for heavier riders. Metric shocks make this even better, giving more space for the spring length. 2:1 is probably a good leverage ratio for you. 2.5:1, not as much, closer to 2:1 the better. Coil shock is probably better, but at 2:1 an air shock like a RS Super Deluxe (that can go to 325psi) is not out of the question. As an example, on my Guerilla Gravity, at 165lbs, I am running around 140psi, so someone twice as heavy could still use twice as much pressure and be ok. A coil shock is generally a good idea, some of the smaller air-shocks will max out in PSI before they will support your weight, especially on lower leverage bikes. So Foes is a good one, there are others that would work. You want low leverage, but the shock should be a long shock, 230mm or longer, so that if you have to use a coil, you have plenty of space for a real heavy spring, like 600lb or more. Foes isn't the only one out there, but they are usually the lowest leverage ratio. Do some research on leverage ratio. Decide how much travel you want. Start looking up the shock specs, how long they are for how much stroke.
> 
> But yeah, with all that said, I would recommend a hardtail first. Better idea.
> 
> The other thing is that IME, bikes are not a great way to lose weight. They are decent for sustaining and excellent at making some exercise fun, but they aren't great at losing weight. I even got pretty fat while riding a bike. The real issue is regular exercise, like every day. Go walk for an hour every day or just do something physical for at least an hour. It's a hell of a lot easier to walk an hour than run for 20 minutes, but doing something physical every day for at least an hour will up your metabolism and make you start dropping lbs. Don't drink anything but water (humans were designed to eat a lot of stuff, but only drink water as adults). Not saying don't ever drink something else, but keep yourself well hydrated with water at all times, it makes cravings go away. All of these are keys to dropping the weight, no mysteries or fads, but one thing I really want to stress is bikes aren't really great at dropping weight, you gotta ride them for a pretty long amount of time every day to make a dent, time that most people don't have. It's possible, but it's often not practical. Using weight loss as a goal so you "can ride a bike" is a great way to think about it. It's a lot of fun riding a bike.


Yeah, I'm learning big guys struggle with full suspension. I got a Stumpjumper a few months ago, with the rear shock at max pressure I still have 40% sag. Geared up I'm probably 265-275. Cane Creek said they didn't have anything for someone my size on that bike. No response from Ohlins. With the new Fox Float X they say you run 40# lower pressure than their other shocks. That and the bigger bump stop to reduce harshness on bottoming seem like they may be the ticket. Gotta wait for my shoulder to heal, then I'll be doing some experimenting to see if I can get the rear suspension in a happier place.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Yeah, in general, the big manufacturers like Trek, Specialized, Giant and others will not be offering very low leverage frames. In fact, some intentionally use higher leverage because the shorter shock is lighter, so they can show their bike is lighter than their competition.

Really though, its the leverage ratio, in that the Cane Creek on a bike like the Foes would be seeing LESS pressure and wear than the same shock on a higher leverage bike. They are likely assuming normal leverage ratio of 2.5:1 or higher, so that could be why they would say that. The leverage ratio on the Specialized is likely the issue.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Yes the new Fox Float X seems to be a game changer for us big guys. I just got one in but haven’t mounted it yet. May be a week or 2 but I’ll report back once it is on a set. I’m 285 and hoping to run it at 300-310 ish.


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

This is a fascinating discussion and appreciate the opportunity to learn from this debate. Look forward to hearing more on the Fox Float X and which manufacturers are making the most robust frames (steel vs AL vs CF), etc. What a great and active community... so thank you all!!


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Brules said:


> Yes the new Fox Float X seems to be a game changer for us big guys. I just got one in but haven't mounted it yet. May be a week or 2 but I'll report back once it is on a set. I'm 285 and hoping to run it at 300-310 ish.


What's your bike's leverage ratio?


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

matadorCE said:


> What's your bike's leverage ratio?


2022 Hightower but I'm running a cascade link.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Brules said:


> 2022 Hightower but I'm running a cascade link.


So what's the leverage ratio?


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Here you go. This shows stock and cascade link ratios.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Thanks for posting. It's high with the link so I'm very curious what pressure you can get to with the Float X!


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Lower no matter what as it runs so much lower psi than the others. Will post when I get it mounted. Still trying to find a new 4 piston brake set! 😢


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

I'm looking at a Hightower now, and the FAQ says it's not compatible with a Float X. 
Does the cascade link change things enough to make it work with it, or is there something else going on?


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

https://www.pinkbike.com/buysell/3114203/



Looks like it fits. I've seen several ppl run them in pics and videos. I'll know in a few weeks lol.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Jayem said:


> You are really not getting it here. Aluminum bikes aren't going to crack because a 300lb rider reaches the designed fatigue life (cycles), unless we are talking about riding it for 20 years. And even then, that would be due to cycles, NOT the rider's weight. Do you understand the difference? If it cracks because of weight, it's because they exceeded the designed elastic load limit. ...
> 
> This is where you could use a custom manufacturer and again, it doesn't matter what material they use, steel, aluminum, CF, titanium, etc. They just have to set the appropriate load limit and go from there.


I have a bit to add to this, as I had the good fortune to meet one of the top engineers of carbon fiber bikes. He drove the programs of several companies we all know, and fatigue and stress testing (by breaking bike parts of all kinds in a lab) was a key part of his job. I picked his brain about Clydesdale things on a few long rides.

The gist he said is: frames and forks of most brands are extremely over-engineered, due to liability. So, as long as you ride within your abilities and a healthy amount of self-preservation instinct, don't stress so much about breaking stuff due to weight. There are few brands that aim for weight-weenie numbers for elite XC racing, but you can easily tell who they are by how light their stuff is. So, just avoid elite racing gear.

If you're really big, upsizing one 'category' is a safe bet. The extra peak load strength built in to a Trail bike makes it perfectly safe for a big Clyde to use for XC. And, the same goes for an 'all mountain' or 'mini-enduro' or whatever it's called now for Trail. And, if you're like me - a bigger Clyde that's aged out of any illusions of immortality - you won't be riding faster or harder than Trail.

--

As for my own experience, full suspension bikes get complicated. Air shocks, even when we can get enough pressure, don't work nearly as well because of the increased stiction in the seals. Most bikes designed for air shocks have fairly linear suspension curves and expect the shock tune to handle most of the work. So, us big Clydes will always have sub-optimal performance. (I'm about 5 years out of the loop on air shock development, so I'll defer to others who say otherwise.)

But, with a progressive enough bike, I've found a coil shock works really well. There are only a handful of bikes with that level of progressive suspension _and_ moderate travel (i.e. Banshee Prime, Norco Optic, the early Jeffsy, and a precious few others), so going that route is far more likely to result in a 150+ travel 'mini-enduro' that turns the rough terrain a magic carpet, and makes flats and smooth climbs a bit of a slog. So, to get great results requires diligence, lots of emails to bike and shock manufacturer customer support, and digging through obscure technical blogs to learn things that customer support may not answer.

So, IMO pick your poison - a cheaper burly hard tail that rattles your butt when it's rough, a pricey mid-travel FS that requires extensive research to put together, or an overkill longer-travel FS.

It kinda sucks, but it is what it is for an 'edge case' person.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

I’m going overkill lol.

Speaking of engineering I was told the new ebike forks are stiffer than normal due to ebike increased weight so they are good for clydes on non ebikes.


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

If you look at my signature you'll find a ton of Carbon Full suspension bikes that all worked great for me at 300lbs. ( Float between 250- 350 lbs...over the last 15 years.... Currently put on a lot of unfortunate weight in the past year and a half and my currents still perform amazingly well, plush, supportive, don't blow through travel. Tipping the scales at 340 geared up now and can still do 200ft+ climbs and 15-20 miles all day through the rockiest terrain that I can find in Norcal without issue. The one caveat is they are all high end builds w/ SC Reserve Carbon wheels. Been running SC30's for a while now but tried to go Aluminum on the Evil and busted two rear wheels after just a few rides on each before building a 3rd set of Reserves....this time a set of reserve 37's. All still run true after 1000's of miles. I will say I could never tune low end dampers to be great as a clyde....only Fox Grip2 or RS RC2's on the standard forks for me to get small bump compliance and still be comfortable on the big hits. For the Rear, Factory/Performance Elite or Ultimate dampers. I do love Trust Shout forks, they are perfect for me for the tech I ride. Ran it first on My Orbea and fell in love with it. Tried it on the Evil WV3 but never quite right so I swapped my 38 from my Rail over and now all three are perfect in any situation for me. They are a little firmer through high speed chatter but are so stiff and corner amazingly well and just roll through 6-12" rocks like they are pebbles that it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take any day of the week. I think the Evil was just a bit too slack for the design of the linkage. I'm not a jumper as you can imagine but up to 2-3ft drops comfortably. By the end of the year i'll be 300 again and they'll all be even better........and so will the next build as I'm getting bored and feel the need to build up something else.......


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

BigJZ74 said:


> If you look at my signature you'll find a ton of Carbon Full suspension bikes that all worked great for me at 300lbs. ( Float between 250- 350 lbs...over the last 15 years.... Currently put on a lot of unfortunate weight in the past year and a half and my currents still perform amazingly well, plush, supportive, don't blow through travel. Tipping the scales at 340 geared up now and can still do 200ft+ climbs and 15-20 miles all day through the rockiest terrain that I can find in Norcal without issue. The one caveat is they are all high end builds w/ SC Reserve Carbon wheels. Been running SC30's for a while now but tried to go Aluminum on the Evil and busted two rear wheels after just a few rides on each before building a 3rd set of Reserves....this time a set of reserve 37's. All still run true after 1000's of miles. I will say I could never tune low end dampers to be great as a clyde....only Fox Grip2 or RS RC2's on the standard forks for me to get small bump compliance and still be comfortable on the big hits. For the Rear, Factory/Performance Elite or Ultimate dampers. I do love Trust Shout forks, they are perfect for me for the tech I ride. Ran it first on My Orbea and fell in love with it. Tried it on the Evil WV3 but never quite right so I swapped my 38 from my Rail over and now all three are perfect in any situation for me. They are a little firmer through high speed chatter but are so stiff and corner amazingly well and just roll through 6-12" rocks like they are pebbles that it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take any day of the week. I think the Evil was just a bit too slack for the design of the linkage. I'm not a jumper as you can imagine but up to 2-3ft drops comfortably. By the end of the year i'll be 300 again and they'll all be even better........and so will the next build as I'm getting bored and feel the need to build up something else.......
> 
> View attachment 1946931


Great feedback! What do you think of the Orbea Rallon? Saw that they just released an updated version. Looks like it is called an "enduro" bike but really closer to a "trail" set up which is much closer to what I am looking for right now. Was considering spending $2.5K on a hardtail but maybe it just makes more sense to spend double that and get a solid FS bike. I am not familiar with the front shocks you are running on a couple of them in the picture? I am guessing those are the Trust forks you mentioned above. Do you think the Trust fork is better for a Clyd than a Fox 38 that comes on the new Rallons? Appreciate your time and feedback in advance!


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

The Rallon has too high of a leverage ratio, especially the new one


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

matadorCE said:


> The Rallon has too high of a leverage ratio, especially the new one


Can you help me understand what that means? Is that related to my size or type of riding? The Occam is the Orbea trail FS bike. Not sure if that would be any better or if I should consider Santa Cruz. Sorry for the rookie question...


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

I wouldn’t let the bike dictate what you get, rather I would let local support dictate it. Ie: find a brand that has good local support for you. That’s what I did and settled on Santa Cruz as I have 2 really good local shops with great techs who can support me locally. At the price range you are looking at - most of the bikes perform really really closely. Also SC has one of the best warranties out there and lifetime bearings. Can’t beat that!


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

Yeah, agreed. It's a lot of work to bring in some odd boutique brand from elsewhere, you take on so much more responsibility. The 'best of what's already there' will be a lot easier to own in the long run with a good shop behind you.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

nycadventure said:


> Can you help me understand what that means? Is that related to my size or type of riding? The Occam is the Orbea trail FS bike. Not sure if that would be any better or if I should consider Santa Cruz. Sorry for the rookie question...


Leverage ratio is the force multiplier that acts on the shock due to suspension linkage. The higher the leverage ratio, the more force is put on the shock. An advantage of this is that the shock is more sensitive to small inputs but also makes it very hard to achieve proper sag if you're above a certain weight since you'll max out the shock pressure. Doesn't matter how fancy or expensive the bike is if you're out of the bounds of the suspension design.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

I ordered a Santa Cruz Hightower 2022 and am cascade linking it and then putting a fox float x/factory 36 fork on it. The float x takes 40% less psi so it’s the holy grail for big clydes for rear shocks I think.


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

matadorCE said:


> The Rallon has too high of a leverage ratio, especially the new one


Original Rallon's Lev Ratio works just fine for a Clyde, I have one and runs great even when I got up to 340. Ran a Dpx2 (max spacer) and a DHX2 700lb coil on it, and it's my fav out of all the FS bikes I've owned. I will admit that I'm not sure about the new one. Lev R on the original was 2.96-2.46, vs. new 3.14-2.35 avg 2.73 vs 2.745. I think it feels even better with a long stroke 65mm shock. The high initial on the new does make me a bit nervous although avg is the about same.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

So if you’re a really big guy like me or bigger - are coil shocks the best way to go then?


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

Brules said:


> So if you're a really big guy like me or bigger - are coil shocks the best way to go then?


 For me, I can't get low end dampers to feel both supportive yet plush....typically sacrifice one for the other. With Fox/RS forks I run Grip 2 for fox and RC2 for RockShox....I do like the RS RCT3 Damper, better than the Fit 4 but performance as a clyde, it was best with the Grip2/RC2 dampers.

For Coil Shocks, I love the Factory DHX2, feels amazing plus Fox has the 700lb SLS spring. I run a RS Super Deluxe Coil on my Wreckoning, but max is a 650lb spring which suits me fine on the Evil. For my Rallon and Wreckoning, I also have DPX2's which I do like for normal trail riding but found on both bikes that the coils felt better for me in really fast rough situations where I'd find a bit of a loss of traction on the DPX2's which tbh is expected. On normal trails, performance was pretty even otherwise when climbing or descending. On the Evil, the DPX2, on flat roads riding to trails or smooth fire roads I notice more pedal bob that I don't feel at all on the Coil. I don't feel the bob on the DPX2 when there is any roughness on trail. Part of that could be that the shock was originally off a Transition so not necessarily tuned for the Evil.. I don't feel bob on the DPX2 on the Rallon, but that was original one tuned from the factory for the Rallon.

I think all Clydes benefit from higher end suspension, you just need to learn how to tune it. This is also the main reason I don't recommend low end builds for clydes, drivetrains will work but suspension imo will be garbage and need immediate upgrading. I've been riding full suspension as a Clyde since 2011 and tried all sorts of suspension, all frame up builds except my first. I do prefer Fox air shocks to Rockshox, Coils are close, but slight edge to the DHX2. I do like Ohlins Air shocks, ran one on my Evil Insurgent, an STX22 air which was amazing, I wanna try their new TTX1 but haven't got a hold of one yet. There Coils are great too. I do have a Float X on order for a Transition Spur X01 I'm building up, but its not due for a few months, and bike isn't due until October if there isn't another delay. If I get the new Rallon I'd definitely use a Factory Float X if I went w/ Air but more likely would just get the LTD w/ Coil from the Start or the M-Team and upgrade to the coil. Float X2 not Clyde worthy when ur 300lbs unless leverage ratio is in the low 2's which on newer bikes is pretty nonexistent with most brands. Bike would have to run on pressures that are lower than bodyweight which is hard to find. Components wise SLX, XT, GX are all fine, I always run Santa Cruz Carbon wheels, whenever I try Alloy, I destroy the rear rims on rocks in less than 10 rides riding the same trails that I've ridden on the Carbons for 400+ rides combined without even the need to true a wheel. Brakes, 4 piston only for me, and 203 rotors front and rear at a minimum. Prefer Shimano 4-pots, I do run Magura MT7's on one of my bikes but not necessary, just wanted to try something new.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Brules said:


> So if you're a really big guy like me or bigger - are coil shocks the best way to go then?


Depends, if the bike has enough travel that you can find your correct spring rate then sure. Otherwise you may need too high of a spring rate that's not just possible.


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

This is fantastic feedback so thank you all. Started looking more closely at Santa Cruz (as it was recommended above to stay with bikes that can be services widely / locally). Looking at the new Bronson (FS) or the new Chameleon (HT). I think the new Orbea Rallon is in the same category as the new Bronson as well. I know that BIGJ mentioned that the lower level versions are not Clyde worthy but is it better to buy the lower end and then just upgrade a few key components vs spending 2X the base bike level to get a high end version? Interested in your thoughts!


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

nycadventure said:


> This is fantastic feedback so thank you all. Started looking more closely at Santa Cruz (as it was recommended above to stay with bikes that can be services widely / locally). Looking at the new Bronson (FS) or the new Chameleon (HT). I think the new Orbea Rallon is in the same category as the new Bronson as well. I know that BIGJ mentioned that the lower level versions are not Clyde worthy but is it better to buy the lower end and then just upgrade a few key components vs spending 2X the base bike level to get a high end version? Interested in your thoughts!


I still own a 2018 Rallon, Bought the m10 version....came with a factory DPX2 in the rear but a Performance 36 up front at the time. You don't need the top build....just better fork to start... I sold the performance which was a pogo stick and bought the Factory Grip2 36....Transformed the bike and it's still my favorite in the stable. The only parts that I think need to be "high end" are the fork and shock..because you need the adjustability to tune them as a big guy. Drivetrain wise, I like SLX/XT for shimano...prefer XT, and with Sram... GX Eagle is all I need. I'd get the build you can afford and sell the fork and upgrade if you want better suspension performance. You def don't need to spend for XTR/XX1/X01 stuff just to get the Factory or Ultimate level suspension from Fox and Rockshox. I don't know the terrain you ride so you might find out that you can live with the performance level suspension. For me, for it to be supple through tech, it pogo'd like crazy whenever you stood or put power down. To get performance in all positions that I needed for the variety of terrain I ride in NorCal...I found the better dampers were necessary. I may be buying a new M20 Rallon to get the frame them swap over all the parts from my 2018....then sell that one. With the New Rallon, M20 and M10 have same performance suspension. I'd go M20, and upgrade the fprk. You could even just have the shop upgrade the damper to Grip2...u don't need the Kashima Coating...


----------



## Flexderec (Nov 20, 2019)

Looks like it fits too


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

nycadventure said:


> This is fantastic feedback so thank you all. Started looking more closely at Santa Cruz (as it was recommended above to stay with bikes that can be services widely / locally). Looking at the new Bronson (FS) or the new Chameleon (HT). I think the new Orbea Rallon is in the same category as the new Bronson as well. I know that BIGJ mentioned that the lower level versions are not Clyde worthy but is it better to buy the lower end and then just upgrade a few key components vs spending 2X the base bike level to get a high end version? Interested in your thoughts!


Having just done this - go highest spec you can get now. I got a C Hightower but the lowest Carbon spec and have had to source the stuff I want like fox factory shocks, code RSC brakes etc and it’s been a huge pain!!!!! I can’t find any driver train stuff I want. It sucks right now!!!! So if you can swing it spec up or you’re going to have a hard time. My local shop has 2 large Bronsons in stock if you’re interested. Both Gold - I almost bought one as they are gorgeous and look fun as hell!!!!


----------



## DrewT (Sep 17, 2012)

Hello Fellow Big Guy!!
I was pushing 300 and now around 250. If I had to make a recommendation, I would suggest the Specialized Fuze (I am currently on a 22 Expert 29 M). First, the frame is BEEFY and stiff as a board after a soak in a viagra solution. SO it will carry the weight. Second, if you go tubeless, you can run a lower tire pressure and add more cushion to the ride. Third, there is a lot of room on the bike. Drop the post and you can easily move and feel both stable and fast.
Plus, on a completely silly note, if you get the Expert.. Matte Black, like the Metallica Album.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

DrewT said:


> Second, if you go tubeless, you can run a lower tire pressure and add more cushion to the ride.


Caution on this advice. Clydes can have profound impact on lower than idea tire pressures. This advice is not necessarily incorrect, just consider starting high and working your pressures down incrementally until you're happy with the results for your riding style and terrain.

If not talking about a hard tail, the suspension can be correctly dialed in to accommodate appropriate suspension needs, but tire pressures should be adjusted for the terrain and rider aggressiveness, not ride comfort.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Cleared2land said:


> Caution on this advice. Clydes can have profound impact on lower than idea tire pressures. This advice is not necessarily incorrect, just consider starting high and working your pressures down incrementally until you're happy with the results for your riding style and terrain.
> 
> If not talking about a hard tail, the suspension can be correctly dialed in to accommodate appropriate suspension needs, but tire pressures should be adjusted for the terrain and rider aggressiveness, not ride comfort.


I’ve heard the new Michellin tires (DH 22 and 34) has super stiff side walls. Would that be helpful for a Clyde?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Brules said:


> I’ve heard the new Michellin tires (do 22 and 34) has super stiff side walls. Would that be helpful for a Clyde?


An arbitrary provided pressure is irrelevant without factoring the rider's weight, riding style and terrain. What works for one might not for someone else.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

You can add tire and rim widths too. A lot of variables involved imo.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Well since those are tire types and not tire pressure lol…….


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Cleared2land said:


> Caution on this advice. Clydes can have profound impact on lower than idea tire pressures. This advice is not necessarily incorrect, just consider starting high and working your pressures down incrementally until you're happy with the results for your riding style and terrain.
> 
> If not talking about a hard tail, the suspension can be correctly dialed in to accommodate appropriate suspension needs, but tire pressures should be adjusted for the terrain and rider aggressiveness, not ride comfort.


Yeah, it's totally a myth IME that you can run lower pressure with tubeless.

If you can run lower pressure with tubeless, you could have run lower pressure with tubes, because they only pinch when you are pinching the tube on the rim and tubeless tires STILL pinch on the rim in the same way. If you run less, you'll be banging rims, cracking CF and denting aluminum. Bigger tires, wider rims that support sidewalls better, inserts, these all allow you to run lower pressure. Tubeless allows for more supple casing due to no tube friction, this is significant. But lower pressure?


----------



## DrewT (Sep 17, 2012)

Cleared2land said:


> Caution on this advice. Clydes can have profound impact on lower than idea tire pressures. This advice is not necessarily incorrect, just consider starting high and working your pressures down incrementally until you're happy with the results for your riding style and terrain.
> 
> If not talking about a hard tail, the suspension can be correctly dialed in to accommodate appropriate suspension needs, but tire pressures should be adjusted for the terrain and rider aggressiveness, not ride comfort.


Absolutely agree, and it is a step-down process (trial and error). HOWEVER, it is needed with an HT (only when are riding tubeless). ESPECIALLY with me being a bigger guy.


----------



## shwndh (Nov 20, 2004)

Not finished reading all the posts yet but this is one of the most useful threads I've come across in a long time being a Clyde myself.


----------



## Cygrace724 (Jan 8, 2021)

Anyone 260-280 range on a Supercaliber and made it work for them?


----------



## DonaldD (Jun 7, 2017)

Cygrace724 said:


> Anyone 260-280 range on a Supercaliber and made it work for them?


Yes, 2020 GX 9.8, I'm currently between 290-300 but bought the bike when I was 270ish. I've stripped 2 rear hubs on the Kovee Elites but currently run Santa Cruz reserves or Line Pro 30. According to trek techs, that's more of a hub issue and not unusually for someone with a lot of power.

I typically ride 20 - 50 miles per weekend on it. Mostly local mtb areas or locations where XC races are held.


----------



## nycadventure (Jul 18, 2021)

Update from original poster. I am moving to the Seattle area in the next month and been continuing my search for a new FS bike. In Denver for work and stopped by Guerrila Gravity headquarters. Really impressed by the team there and loved their ability to build the bike to fit my needs (from a component standpoint). GG felt that the Smash would be a great fit for what I am seeking. They took my weight into consideration and walked through the key areas to upgrade. Even went so far to not recommend that I get the rims from them and get a front shock from a 3rd party that could tune it properly (they didn’t want me to waste the money knowing that the best thing for me was a different solution which is always a great sign of being customer focused vs pushing product). 

This is the rundown of what they recommended… curious about everyone’s thoughts and experience with GG from a Clyde’s perspective (6-1 and 300)???? What do you think of the build, the recommendation on the fork and welcome advise for a custom wheel build for my size??

The Smash - Frameset
Shock: RockShox Super Deluxe Ultimate 230x60 / Retuned for rider weight 
Stem: Industry Nine A35 - Ø35 - 50 mm - Black
Bars: e*thirteen Race Carbon - Ø35 x 800 x 20 mm
Grips: ODI Elite Pro Lock-on
Saddle: GG Custom SDG Radar
Seatpost w/ 1x Lever: Bike Yoke Revive - 160 mm
Brakeset: Shimano XT 8120 w/ RT86 Rotors
Drivetrain: SRAM GX Eagle w/ Descendant Carbon Cranks
Color: Black
Size: Size 4

Recommended the following from someone else to build / set properly for me:
Fork: Zeb w/ 160mm Air shaft/ retuned for rider weight
Wheels/ Custom - recommendation TBD
Tires Maxxis with DD Casing 
Cushcore pro inserts

Thanks for your help in advance!


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

If you’re 300lbs the Fox Float X is the shock you want. I think the SDU has a max PSI of 300lbs so you would be right up against that or over. 

The Float X max is 350 but the way it works you are usually within 10lbs of body weight. I’m 285 and mines at like 290-295. It is THE ultimate Clyde shock. 

On brakes put biggest rotors possible for the bike and make sure they are 4 piston. Otherwise nice setup.


----------



## Swolie74 (11 mo ago)

Brules said:


> If you’re 300lbs the Fox Float X is the shock you want. I think the SDU has a max PSI of 300lbs so you would be right up against that or over.


if he was running a stock tune, sure but if he’s dropping the coin to have a custom tune then he should be fine.


----------



## Brules (Jul 10, 2021)

Is still be leery of SDU working at 300#. Float X is a lock in no question and no cost for custom tune. There’s a thread in this Clyde forum with a lot of info on the X.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

nycadventure said:


> Update from original poster. I am moving to the Seattle area in the next month and been continuing my search for a new FS bike. In Denver for work and stopped by Guerrila Gravity headquarters. Really impressed by the team there and loved their ability to build the bike to fit my needs (from a component standpoint). GG felt that the Smash would be a great fit for what I am seeking. They took my weight into consideration and walked through the key areas to upgrade. Even went so far to not recommend that I get the rims from them and get a front shock from a 3rd party that could tune it properly (they didn’t want me to waste the money knowing that the best thing for me was a different solution which is always a great sign of being customer focused vs pushing product).
> 
> This is the rundown of what they recommended… curious about everyone’s thoughts and experience with GG from a Clyde’s perspective (6-1 and 300)???? What do you think of the build, the recommendation on the fork and welcome advise for a custom wheel build for my size??
> 
> ...


No to the stem, it will creak. No to the carbon bars too, just way too easy to break.

Cushcore is only useful if you are someone that currently has issues with ripping tires off the bead. They won’t do much at all to protect your rims from damage.

Tires, if you are at all aggressive riding in rough terrain I would go for downhill casing, DD doesn’t have extra protection across the knobs.

The rest sounds good, especially custom tuned suspension for your weight, riding style and trails mostly ridden.


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

yzedf said:


> No to the stem, it will creak. No to the carbon bars too, just way too easy to break.
> 
> Cushcore is only useful if you are someone that currently has issues with ripping tires off the bead. They won’t do much at all to protect your rims from damage.
> 
> ...


I've run RF Next R carbon bars on all my bikes 7000+ cumulative miles in the rockiest of terrain on all the bikes with many OTB crashes and I've never broken a carbon bar or rim....i'm currently 340lbs.


----------



## yzedf (Apr 22, 2014)

BigJZ74 said:


> I've run RF Next R carbon bars on all my bikes 7000+ cumulative miles in the rockiest of terrain on all the bikes with many OTB crashes and I've never broken a carbon bar or rim....i'm currently 340lbs.


I’m 197lbs and when I was 220 I hit a tree and broke a OneUp carbon bar.


----------



## BigJZ74 (Jul 18, 2010)

yzedf said:


> I’m 197lbs and when I was 220 I hit a tree and broke a OneUp carbon bar.


As a super clyde I wouldn't even try to run a Compliant Carbon bar but when you hit a tree....anything can break.


----------

