# What weight makes one a Clyde ?



## mattbyke (Jan 14, 2015)

Well , I was going to ask what defines a Clyde. But now , after browsing the threads , I realize I'm not . Or am I ? I see a lot of line backers and power fowards here. I ride with guys at 145. 155. Hell , my brother is 6' 140. 
Im 190 in race season shape. All Xc mtn. SS and geared. Numerous 200 mile road and mixed surface events. I'm surprised I beat em at times. I find being heavier has some advantages.


----------



## Barman1 (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm 6'6" 215 pounds and didn't get a response when I asked the same question in a clyde thread a while back.

I guess I'm not.


----------



## mattbyke (Jan 14, 2015)

I'm 5-10.


----------



## mtnbikej (Sep 6, 2001)

According to most races......200+ lbs makes one a clyde.


----------



## snailspace (Jan 12, 2014)

Wouldn't it be more appropriate if one is close to either a weight limit of a bike or height limit. The bike I own say a limit of 300lbs.To me height issues are more easily solved with aftermarket parts.


----------



## burgrat (Mar 2, 2010)

I would say 200lbs.


----------



## sleepyguy1001 (May 26, 2014)

I guess I fall into this category then, 6'1" 240


----------



## Bike Whisperer (Aug 7, 2012)

200 lbs has been the baseline for quite a while in racing


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

I never considered myself a Clyde but I guess I am. I'm 6'1" and 240 currently. Very little fat to lose to get the weight down. I've considered trying to lose a bit of muscle to get me down to 200lbs for mountain biking as it seems like it would be easier on the bike and possibly myself.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

Well, a clydesdale horse is heavier and taller than other horses. So, does that mean a clydesdale human should posses the same features? 

Regardless, 6'2" 235lbs and people have never referred to me as a small person.


----------



## BuickGN (Aug 25, 2008)

Oh, it's definitely not a bad thing, except for the poor bikes that have to support our weight and power. I've been at least 6'1 and a lean 220lbs since my senior year in highschool and I'm 38 now so I rarely think of myself as a big person, I guess I'm just used to it but I guess we're all larger than average.

I did take my weight into consideration when choosing a bike. I got a 6" travel bike when a lot of my riding is cross country partially so it can go anywhere and do anything but also because I figure it will hold up better if it's meant for jumps and drops that I will likely never do. 

I've been reading this sub section for a few days now, trying to figure out if the cut down to ~200lbs might be worth it for a better biking experience. The only thing is losing muscle means low calories and lots of looooong runs and I love to eat. It seems like several guys in here heavier than me have had very few to no weight related parts failures. And now with the CC Inline, the rear suspension is excellent and well controlled even at my weight.

Anyone else (those that don't have excess body fat) ever consider cutting down for mountain biking or am I crazy?


----------



## spooney2 (Jun 7, 2011)

I have! I am the same size as you but when I drop down to 215 to 210 it seems to make a world of difference in my riding. It makes it so much easier. Now I trying to change my workouts to help me lose a little weight.


----------



## sir_crackien (Feb 3, 2008)

The line in racing and on this board has normally been at the 200lbs mark. I think that this mark is pretty accurate as well.

I'm closer to Super clyde territoy at 6'4" 260-270lbs. Most people feel that super clydes start at somewhere 280lbs to 300lbs

This board doesn't use height to determine clyde status. Though taller people also use this board for their special requirments. I even I feel my hieght as a restriction when it comes to parts and those challenges are much harder to deal with than weight as a general rule.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I think current system is crap. Unbalanced badly. big difference at a 5'10 dude at 210 lbs vs a 6'3 guy at 210. And response from everything one to that is "loose weight". Read it all the time.

Everything ive read clyde is 200, luckily my area is small and dont have a "clyde class" and only 1-2 races a yr I plan to do for fun. Wish they would fix the system so more "not super fit clydes" would join the riding fun with me cause as of last check, since Gigantic moved away, Im the biggest guy I know of riding the area atm.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

You rang?

personally, i think it should start at at least 220#s, I know some exceptionally fit guys who are 6'3"-5" & 200-215, but luckily, they race in sport and expert classes and would be sandbagging if they raced clydesdale.


----------



## clydeosaur (Apr 13, 2010)

6'4 220 here currently. I'm usually around 215 - 17 as seen in the picture below. Even with weight cut & abs showing at my best I was 212lbs. Always considered a clyde and told over 200 was the determination.


----------



## dave66 (Jan 15, 2004)

200 is a benchmark from the tri/running community, that i raced in in the 90's and 2000's 
the last time i really 'raced ' [as in in the category] as a clyde was a triathlon [real type A competitive types] and when i won i heard a yell from the back - check his weight! [i was 210/6 2] and i realized that the spirit of the clyde as i understood it was way off in this crew

luckily shortly after i discovered SS and fixies and itas been all cool since


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

My last MTB race a Clyde was 220. The morning of the race I weighed 219. I actually won and immediately went and ate a huge burrito just in case they weighed us afterwards.


----------



## clydeosaur (Apr 13, 2010)

Too damn funny...


----------



## askibum02 (Jul 7, 2005)

I haven't been below the "Clyde" category since Jr. High.


----------



## tehllama (Jul 18, 2013)

For mechanical pruposes, the ability to produce instantaneous loads over 1500lb seems to be what defines a Clyde.

Some riders heavier than myself aren't really clydes because they can ride extremely smoothly, and never send it off anything taller than 20cm; I fall under the moderate clyde category because I'm 235 but I'll send it off of big jumps and have some awkward/abrupt landings where I'm really landing hard.


----------



## circusubet (Aug 5, 2006)

mattbyke said:


> I'm 5-10.


Standing on your hind legs??

Thx.
John


----------



## sc951 (Apr 18, 2015)

I'm 6'6" and 290, posted earlier looking for advice. Will a BD Boris X7 be OK for me?


----------



## theMISSIONARY (Apr 13, 2008)

To me a Clyde is height + weight(BMI is rubbish) ....or one of those,in racing here we don't have weight classes its all on age groupings 

i am 5'10" and 235 lbs at the start of the year i have got down to 220lbs....so i am a short fat Clyde  


the Tall guys and girls often have issues with bike sizes and components and as such needed a form for them so they got tossed in with the fattys


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Bike Whisperer said:


> 200 lbs has been the baseline for quite a while in racing


Supposed to be harder for big people to produce the sustained watts/kg that smaller people can. XC is won by good bike handlers with ridiculous sustained watts/kg, and the conventional wisdom is that even an extraordinarily fit person who weighs 200 lb just can't be competitive.

OTOH, those of us who aren't built to be big are also not cut out to be competitive at sprinting.

In amateur racing, usually people who put in the time can be competitive - most of us are really pretty far short of racing at our genetic potential. It's good to hear that in a lot of regions, the really strong big guys are choosing to race their AGs and speed categories instead.


----------



## mark! (Jun 1, 2012)

Around here, us clydes are usually wherever the grill or food truck is. We've got some of the "technically speaking" clydes, but they all cat up and don't race in cat 3 clydesdale class, all good dudes. For the most part, in our cat 3 clydes class, we're fortunate to make it to the finish line without a major malfunction.


----------



## ShaleBreaker (Sep 16, 2012)

I don't remember what the race was here in Colorado, but the registration defined the Clyde Class
as those with height (in inches) plus weight totaled greater than 300. Seems pretty reasonable to me.


----------



## HelmutHerr (Oct 5, 2012)

AndrwSwitch said:


> Supposed to be harder for big people to produce the sustained watts/kg that smaller people can. XC is won by good bike handlers with ridiculous sustained watts/kg, and the conventional wisdom is that even an extraordinarily fit person who weighs 200 lb just can't be competitive.


I don't know enough to check the equations of this article, but it confirms the common wisdom: being big is terrible for climbing but great for descending.

Bike weight mean next to nothing, FWIW.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

I agree with his conclusions, but not really how he gets there.

Bigger people tend to be stronger. They have bigger muscles and proportionally bigger infrastructure to support then. And their frontal area doesn't increase as fast as their weight and volume. So it seems like they should be better at everything unless something else is going on.

I did a little Googling and couldn't re-find it. What I was thinking about is the idea that people's potential to produce power doesn't increase as fast as their weight. So in a contest of power to weight ratio, like climbing on a bike, smaller people have greater potential.

Depending on the branch of cycling, there's sometimes more diversity than other times. I think it's watts vs frontal area against watts per kilo thing, and maybe also how competitive that branch of cycling is. All the pros are quite lean, which does argue for something happening to limit power scaling up for the big guys.


----------



## idea man (Oct 24, 2012)

Would really like to see more "Super Clyde" category (Obviously 260 or better) races. It might get me racing some and thus riding more and maybe get me below the "SuperClyde" threshold. Screwing up in reverse. Anyone know of "SuperClyde" cat races?


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Mini Clyde = 200-220lbs?
Clyde = 220-240lbs?
Super Clyde = 240-260lbs?
Pachyderm = 260+lbs?

20 pound increments for mind...

I'm 225lbs in birthday suit, could lose another 5lbs - but I enjoy a post ride brew.

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I'll stop with clyde/superclyde im not a pachyderm lol (though weight says otherwise, gotta get it back off now that I can really ride again


----------



## rooze (Oct 22, 2014)

I think there should be a formula for determining Clyde eligibility (Clydility?) that takes into account height and weight. 

On another note, my climbing ability dropped off when I lost the flab. I used to stand up on the pedals and set down with all my heft and bulk and power up the hills. Now I park my chicken bones on the skinny saddle and spin like a demented hamster in a wheel.....I'm sure I was quicker before..!


----------



## AndrwSwitch (Nov 8, 2007)

Stand up and pull up on your handle bars.


----------



## NytrostarSS (Mar 6, 2006)

If you've lost weight and are slower because of it, you did it wrong.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

rooze said:


> I think there should be a formula for determining Clyde eligibility (Clydility?) that takes into account height and weight.


BMI?

Sent from my Kin[G]_Pad ™


----------



## IceBuerg (Apr 7, 2015)

All I know is that at 6'3" and 285lbs, racing dudes who are 60-70lbs lighter than me just doesn't seem right. At my most fit (abs showing) I can get to about 255, but that's it. Even at my most fit, a middling 200-pounder would smoke me up any substantial climb....unless maybe he strapped a 50 pound weight to his back.


----------



## tigris99 (Aug 26, 2012)

I gave up on trying to hang with skinny guys at any point. Goal is just to minimize their wait time for me (and any others back with me) to catch up.

But when it comes to weight class, bmi needs to be used cause 200-210 is just bogus lol. Tall and skinny guys aren't clydes, look at the horse, a Clyde, that thing is just huge all around.


----------

