David G. White wrote:
> I was struck by that also. At 6'4" and 200# it gave me pause.
> According to that chart (see <http://tinyurl.com/6s5yo>) I can't
> safely ride most of my bikes. Yet none has failed on me... at least
> to date...
> Note the fellow who created the chart says "This information, except
> for the column on the far right, was compiled from sales catalogues
> and correspondences with. tube manufacturers and importers." (The "far
> right" column is the "maximum rider weight column"). He also says
> "The " TYPE(s) OF CYCLING" and "MAXIMUM RIDER WEIGHT" columns are
> intended to be only rough guidelines. Each of these can vary
> depending upon frame size, expected frame life, desired performance
> characteristics, weight, etc."
> Thus I choose to believe the max. weight is simply his personal guess.
> Otherwise I'd need to give up on this hobby -- I couldn't ride my
Despardo Cycles is run by Jalon Hawk, who is a custom bike builder who does lugged frames.
That page on tube dimensions is a part of a larger
series of pretty informative essays on the difference
of different tube choices.
I think it is pretty clear that those weight guidelines are more along the lines of matching tubesets to riders for the best riding experience. I wouldn't read them as being safety related (but that's just me, don't me because you buy silly light tubes and get hurt).
A big factor not mentioned in his chart (nor would I expect it to be) is rider preferance. I know some people feel that super light tubesets make bikes more efficient for long distance riding. Others prefer a BB that never moves no matter how hard the sprint or hill climb. Such riders may want to choose tubes that are thinner or thicker than average relative to other riders their weight. The Desparado site might give one builder's understanding of where that average is based on his feedback from customers.
-Dave Mann, Boston, MA
THE BIKE GEOMETRY PROJECT
A community effort to document and compare bike geometries