Home

Thinking of getting a new bike.I'm 6ft 4ins 15.7 stone.Is carbon any good in a large size or is aluminium better in large size.I've got a Cannondale cad 3 now and it's stiff and works well but looks old school.I like the look of carbon bikes but would be sick if I was to splash out only to find the frame to flexi.  7

18 comments

Avatar
truffy [653 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I have yet to get a carbon bike (currently cromo), but from what I've read and those I've talked to, some manufacturers' warranties top out at 95kg. That's not to say that it'll bust if you're heavier, but if it does you're not covered.

15.7st is ~100kg, so lose a few lbs first? (I'm 105kg, but only 5'11")

Avatar
big mick [184 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I've seen the Cannondale cad 10 black.Looks like a nice bit of kit.  105

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde [1773 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

The great carbon myth of the shattering bike. Good bikes are made to last and a well made carbon bike is about as good as they come (why would a pro ride second best). OK not all of them weight 15st plus, but how many people can churn out the wattage of Chris Hoy, Griepel or the German chap who had his legs transplanted for rhinoceros'.

Production quality is improving all the time, but if you get a cheap carbon bike you're more likely to get a problem - same with a steel, aluminium or chrome alloy. I've yet to see a sign on a bike which gives a weight restriction.

Avatar
giobox [360 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:

I have yet to get a carbon bike (currently cromo), but from what I've read and those I've talked to, some manufacturers' warranties top out at 95kg. That's not to say that it'll bust if you're heavier, but if it does you're not covered.

15.7st is ~100kg, so lose a few lbs first? (I'm 105kg, but only 5'11")

Alloy frames aren't a sure fire cure for this either. The Kinesis aithein for example, has an 83kg rider limit.

Carbon is fine, and a good frame from the big manufacturers will usually have no specified rider weight limit. Wheels on the otherhand...

Avatar
giobox [360 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I've yet to see a sign on a bike which gives a weight restriction.

Click here and scroll down.

This is on a very highly regarded bike too.

Avatar
truffy [653 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
giobox wrote:

Carbon is fine, and a good frame from the big manufacturers will usually have no specified rider weight limit. Wheels on the otherhand...

I enquired about the weight limit of a Colnago CX Zero, and this is the resonse that I got from the manufacturer "There is no specific weight limit, so your weight would not be a problem, even if we put 95kg as a reference weight in the warranty issue."

My LBS said the same is true for Bianchi and Scott (he's a dealer for both), but did go on to say that one of the senior Scott management was 102kg and got on fine.

I think that there's just a difference between what you can get away with with and without cover.

Avatar
dannycarr2k [29 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Got my Felt at 6'5" and 103kgs of gym induced bulk. It has been a work horse. I'll wager most carbon frames from the big brands will be built similarly well.

Another thing to consider is the aesthetics. The Felt a sctually looks normal in a 61cm as it has quite an oversized diameter to the tubes, especially the head tube, which helps the bike not look so much like a garden gate. In comparison, Google some images of large (60cm) Cervelo R series bikes. Or larger Cervelo S5, which looks bizarre. S3 looks okay though. I've got a 2014 P3 and that looks quite normal too.

Weight and size, etc... won't be an issue for you with a carbon. Just don't go silly with carbon bars and stem. Having said all that, a decent aluminium frame like the CAAD10 would be a fantastic choice.

Avatar
big mick [184 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Not so much shattering I've seen to many with cracks and a bike mechanic told me a tale of trying to set up a front mech on a Planet x carbon frame and the seat tube flexing so much they could not get it to work right.

Avatar
dannycarr2k [29 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I don't know whether that can be leveled at all carbon bikes but I personally don't have a great deal of confidence in open mould frames. If you're bringing a frame to market you need to have high levels of quality control and destructive testing.

Plus, why have a cheap, generic and uninspiring carbon frame when you could have a top end lively aluminium frame like the CAAD10 or Kinese? My Felt has been a trusty mile muncher, but I can't say it's lit my world on fire. I'm toying with a CAAD10 for a replacement, although Cervélo's S3 is nice.

Check out the R2. Shimano 5800 series 105 and a good frame... It's a super competitive price point for bikes; as consumers, we're spoilt for choice.

Avatar
PurpleDog [37 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Trek say 125 kg limit (275lb) on most road bikes... I'm 90kg and ride a Trek Emonda lightweight carbon, Pilot aluminium and X-caliber aluminium mountain bike - all perfectly happily, and the Emonda is the stiffest of the lot when I'm pushing hard (though far more comfortable than the Pilot at the same time).
I did find the flex in the seat tube of the Domane I tested a bit too much for my liking when putting down the power (felt a bit bouncy!) and wondered if that were maybe to do with my weight, and a lighter rider wouldn't flex it so much?
Oh, and Trek apparently (and others too I believe) make their larger frames thicker because they're expecting heavier riders - I can't point you to a reference but I was reading about it a few weeks back.
So I'd say don't worry about it, carbon will be able to do the job perfectly, and above the entry level, better than aluminium.

Avatar
truffy [653 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes
dannycarr2k wrote:

I personally don't have a great deal of confidence in open mould frames. If you're bringing a frame to market you need to have high levels of quality control and destructive testing.

The old "if it seems to good to be true" rule.

But how do you know if the frame of the bike that you're buying isn't open mould?

Avatar
dannycarr2k [29 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

Research the brand you're buying from. It's not rocket science.

Avatar
big mick [184 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

That's what I'm trying to do.By asking people in the real world and not taking the marketing mens patter.So far I've had the pros ride them they must be good.Pros ride what they are given and paid to say the bike they ride is the best.If the frame breaks they are GIVEN a new one.I would rather here from people who have paid with here own cash and then say the frame is great for them.You could say I'm researching the brand but in the real world.  1

Avatar
keirik [76 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm 6'3" weigh 16 stone and have a Trek Domane 5.2 (carbon) and its perfectly fine.

Despite me riding it on the road, in the rain, and in the sunshine, it hasn't yet spontaneously disintegrated into a trillion pieces, fallen apart due to the UV getting to it, or melted, or collapsed under my gravity defying bulk.

It could be quicker, but I suspect that might be due to the said 6'3" 16 stone mass on it and not due to the bike  4

Avatar
ScruffBag [1 post] 2 years ago
0 likes

Just to add to the comments. I am 1.97 and 92Kg and like all of us on this thread fall outside the bell curve of most manufacturers. I've owned every type of frame material and I have to say I was least impressed with my carbon Spesh Tarmac. It is not particularly how much we weigh (other than going up hill) but the forces we exert on the frame - especially leverage. People (reviewers) talk about BB stiffness but this is less important than torsional stiffness - the side to side flex along the top tube. I find this is compounded by some carbon forks not having sufficient longitudinal stiffness - front to back, especially on rough roads and/or fast twisty descents. What seems to be the norm is that manufacturers talk about 'proportional sizing' but only to the point of making sure the frames don't break - not how they perform relative to a smaller size frame that most of the population buy. I own a custom oversize Ti frame with the Z-Pro fork, which is almost perfect if only it had a bit more stiffness in the BB. I've ridden this bike summer and winter and raced on it regular. As I've raced more, so I've wanted something a bit more specific without spending silly money so bought a 63cm Storck Visioner alloy frame. In a Tour magazine review this bike rated as the stiffest in the group test. Perfect then? No - insufficient torsional stiffness and the Stilletto 300 fork has too much longitudinal flex. BB stiffness is great but as a whole the bike doesn't gel and it fits perfectly by the way! What do I mean? When pedalling on fast descents at 35mph+ it gets the shakes, same on fast twisty descents under hard braking. My Ti frame doesn't do this but the Spesh did! After much time and money spent on trying to go fast on a bike made for the job I would conclude:
- spend £££ on THE best carbon frame (only justifiable if I was winning every race and killing kids 20 years younger, which I'm not)
- buy a hard core aluminium bike (Scenario Pro??) that will not be light but will be stiff - if you can find one to fit
- buy a custom Ti or steel frame with proper OS tubing and especially chunky chainstays. It won't weigh much more than the Alu frame but can't compete with the £££ carbon but ask yourself what are you really using it for?
Bottom line is that I am too tall and create massive wind resistance = drag = extra watts = requires bigger muscles = more weight = marginally faster on flat but even slower on the hills. No matter how light the bike it will not compensate for my physical limitations as a bike rider compared to the majority of the population. The other thing to do is buy 'proper' wheels = 28x32, 32x32, otherwise you will spend a lot of money to eventually work your way back to this conclusion. Quotes like 'I've had no issues after 3000Km' is not sufficient to warrant any sort of judgement on reliability. Cycling is expensive enough without turning it into the 'disposable' culture it rapidly seems to becoming - OK a bit cynical I know.

Avatar
cbrookes75 [30 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I have bought a Specialized Roubaix I weight about 107 Kg and am 5ft 11 and a half! I have hit countless potholes and rode over rough bumpy roads without issue, bike feels super solid! In stones I am heading down toward 16 and a half stone, and was a little heavier than I am now when I first got the bike! Have no fear at 15 and a half stone, buy any bike you fancy! I am only a novice cyclist, so I don't really know what I am talking about! Well only my own experiences!

Avatar
Huw Watkins [105 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I'm 6'4" and 14 stone and I race a 63 cm Cannondale SuperSix - not an Evo. It's a better race bike than any of my past 3 Ti bikes or the Ridley Damocles I had before. I've crashed it once with no ill effects.

It's stiffer than any of my previous bikes but just as comfortable as the Seven Axiom - the best of the Ti bikes. I've also got an Al framed Scott as a training bike which is certainly stiff but dead to ride too.

Avatar
BillyElNino [11 posts] 2 years ago
0 likes

I have a Cube Carbon frame bike, I'm 6'5" and circa 18 stone (115kg).

I've had paint crack / frame crack issues that I've been unable to get an answer from Cube as to which it is but I'm well into my 3rd year on the bike and it's still going. I also got a fork warranty for small black cracks to the rear but they've occurred again.. I'm assuming it's just paint flex.

In terms of distance I've covered 3,500kms so far this year and I've done the Flanders sportive on it too.. Poor bike.

Cube's own upper limit is 115kg for road bikes:

http://imgur.com/bF5dcm0

Much of it is perception. I've hammered this bike at the upper limit and beyond for nearly three years and it's not snapped as of today. (the factory wheels only lasted 18 months though). I'd consider it to be a 'value' carbon frame too.. Unless I'm being harsh.