Weight limits for bicycles need to be higher and more transparent, especially if the majority of people want to use them.

  • SuiXi3D
    link
    fedilink
    22
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I got an e-trike that lists its weight limit as 330lbs. However, the seat post only supports 220. So one bent seat post later, I’m looking for a new post that can support my fat ass and I’m coming up short. Help?

    • @domdanial@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Solid aluminum bar is pretty cheap, if you have any sort of tools to cut it to length. I don’t know what your clamping/attachment method is for your bike.

      • SuiXi3D
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Was hoping for something premade. I’ve got a Lectric XP Trike.

        • @domdanial@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Yeah, I haven’t seen anything for a more sturdy seat post. Im willing to bet you could find an aftermarket seat and post though, because it looks like it’s a pipe-in-pipe attachment to the rest of the bike. As long as it’s got the same diameter.

          Or fill the stock one up with JB weld or something. Give it some extra stiffness.

          • SuiXi3D
            link
            fedilink
            2
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Stock post is suspension, and given that it’s a trike I’m not sure a suspension fork would do much. In any case, getting a solid piece custom made would likely be my best option. Thanks.

            • mosiacmango
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Old thread, but I’m loving this suspension post with my xpress. Rated for 264lbs, but that’s underselling it. It has an extra spring you can add in for heavier riders that really ups the stiffness, but still has great give. The design is way more seriously engineered than Lectrics generic style spring post.

              The 31.6/450mm long is what fits my bike with the lectric stock seatpost clamp.

    • @Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Idk for sure, but maybe look into recumbent bikes? 3 wheels for more support and usually outfitted with a full seat and not just a bike post.

    • FartsWithAnAccentM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We have a “don’t be an asshole” rule here. It’s pretty easy for most to follow but you repeatedly chose not to, so now you are banned.

      Everyone else reading this: You can make your points without being verbally abusive.

      If act like an asshole here, you will be permanently banned.

      This is not the place for that.

        • FartsWithAnAccentM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’ll probably get better the more they ride, so the riding will get easier, so they will ride more, and the virtuous cycle (pun intended) will continue.

  • @litchralee@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree that there exists a problem with unmarked weight limits and this affects larger riders, but I think the author’s proposed change will not be sufficient to increase the availability of bikes with higher limits. The author writes:

    My proposed solution, which I presented recently at the National Bicycle Dealers Association annual meeting, is to add the weight limit to the geometry spec sheet for every bicycle next to the standover height and reach

    Publishing a spec is (and ought to be) a minimum obligation by a manufacturer, since the consumer has no way to compute these values on their own. So I agree with that. The problem is that unlike the standover height or wheel diameter, the weight limit is artificially constrained downward by limits of mechanical modeling software or destructive testing, and artificial limits like how much product liability the lawyers are willing to permit.

    If bike manufacturers have a robust regime for testing up to 136 kg, then testing beyond that would require new processes and test equipment, all of which cost money. So a manufacturer that complies with the author’s proposed rule would simply publish the 136 kg and call it a day, foregoing a supposedly narrow market segment. So a frame that could have supported more weight has been marked lower than it ought to be, while fully complying with the proposed rule.

    We run into the crux of the issue: economic demand for higher weight limit bikes is not perceived as being significant. So few will supply that market. Which means there’s little demonstrable demand. Which keeps the supply small.

    If this sounds familiar to this community, it’s essentially the same problem as with micromobility from the regulatory aspect in the USA: only the automobile is viewed as “serious” transportation, so everything else is just for recreation and doesn’t warrant its own infrastructure. So no separated infrastructure is built. Which keeps viable options like cycling and roller-blading from becoming popular. Which reinforces the perception as not being a “serious” mode of transportation. Repeat ad nauseum.

    There are no easy answers to such structural issues, but we can take inspiration from the popularity of ebikes in the past decade: growing from a niche of motors crudly strapped to conventional bikes, ebikes nearly single-handedly transformed the perception of bikes overall, showcasing their strengths in sense urban areas like NYC for delivery vehicles: fast, nimble, cheaper than an automobile. From there, they became popular not just for existing cyclists, but new riders, some whom haven’t been in the saddle since childhood. New markets opened up, and combined with a touch of enabling legislation, ebikes have taken off.

    I think the author touched upon the niche that could drive higher weight limits, and that would be cargo ebikes. That space is growing as ebikes – a bonafide transportation answer to American sprawling suburbs – become more readily accepted, and more fairly-wealthy suburbanites take up cargo ebikes to move the whole family.

    Of course, this is going to be a slow process. And it will take a while for cargo ebike prices to come down from the “luxury” range to an “affordable” figure. But I think that’s the crack that will grow to break the ice.

    As for whether the demand should even be met, I saw that a different comment remarked that today’s bikes aren’t built for larger people, since in the past, most people weren’t as large. And that’s factually true, but it doesn’t justify not fulfilling a market in the here-and-now. Nor does it support the idea that nobody in the past was over 100 kg (220 lbs).

    A quick web search shows that some NFL players in the 1930s Hall of Fame were over 100 kg. If these folks wanted to ride a bicycle with any amount of cargo, it probably would be as difficult to find a sufficient bike then or now. So the problem has always existed, but the degree to which it’s a problem has changed to include more people. That should be a reason to encourage more bike varieties, not to shut down the very idea that larger bikes ought exist.

    As another commenter notes, these people deserve bikes too.

    • JohnEdwa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      With bicycles one major hurdle is that they are assembled out of a bunch of components sourced from multiple different manufacturers, meant for different uses. So while you can create a bicycle frame that handles 150kg fine, can you find a saddle, seat post, suspension fork, hubs, wheels, tubes, tires, cranks etc that all also support 150kg? Or will one of those parts be cheaply sourced as only promising 100kg, so that’s what the label will say in the end.

      • @litchralee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Component-level weight ratings are indeed lacking right now, although I will note that the author appears to be proposing a frame-only weight rating, presumably because while all other parts of a bike can be replaced, the frame is at the center of a bike, setting aside Ship of Theseus considerations. Replacing a frame is virtually equivalent to building a new bike, after all.

        Of course, a manufacturer of assembled bikes should publish an overall weight limit for the bike as-assembled. But still, it might be nice to know that the frame specifically is overbuilt for that particular assemblage, meaning it has capacity that can be utilized with the appropriate upgrades.

        You’re absolutely right that just rating the frame alone won’t necessarily result in broader marker supply, but it’s certainly a start. As I said, there’s a vicious feedback cycle and the way to break it is to find a niche and grow it. Perhaps mandating a frame-only weight rating will spur lawyers to require all weight-bearing components to also have weight ratings as legal cover, or something like that. Such a limit might be low, though, but is still progress.

  • @Akumakins@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    I’m still pretty new to riding bikes as a adult, but wanted to share my experience in hopes it helps folks:

    Im 6’ 330 lbs and ended up getting an aventon aventure eMTB. It’s held up well over the 400 miles I put on it, but I definitely notice the brakes going quicker than advertised with all the hills near me and my size. I’m sure it won’t last forever, but I’m expecting to get under $1 of initial cost per mile ridden, which felt worth it to me as a 2nd car alternative.

    I’ve been looking into a company called Clydesdale also to plan for bike 2.0 in a few years. They advertise titanium framed bikes made for very tall folks. I never used them myself, but they may be a good option for folks willing to pay 5k for a bike.

  • Milan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91 year ago

    i actually had trouble with that and found my only option being giant so far…

  • defunct_punk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    551 year ago

    “Fatphobic” (because that’s what we call social health consciousness these days) rant incoming:

    It’s been an issue for a while across all facets of life now and no one is brave enough to be the first voice to say “hey, these things literally were not made to support people as heavy as you.” In the past year, a horseback riding trail in my hometown had to close because there were not enough customers whose weight didn’t pose a serious risk of injuring the horses. A few years ago I had to install a steel support beam in the crawlspace under the master bedroom of a morbidly obese couple. Together, they probably pushed a half a ton and spent easily 16 hours a day on that bed. The framing had become so sunken that you could see the subflooring through the gaps that appeared between the flooring.

    Just the other week my roommate invited an old school friend over, the guy probably weighed about 300lbs at 5’8" and broke a stool (Lyra by Magis, very nice, one of my favorites) in my kitchen. How anyone can be that big and so unaware of the strain their weight is putting on the things underneath them is beyond me.

    • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      91 year ago

      Yeah I mean even if you’re someone who feels that being fat is not their fault or something to be ashamed of, nor are the laws of physics and limitations of structural integrity someone else’s.

    • @knexcar@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      301 year ago

      But bigger people deserve to be able to bike too! It’s just the reality of the world we live in, plus many people have genetic issues that make it fairly difficult to lose weight. They shouldn’t be locked out of basic things like being able to survive without a car. I admit horses are a different story because they’re live animals, but bicycles are human-made and can and should be designed to handle more weight, especially with how many people are bigger.

      • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        251 year ago

        I agree that there should be options for bigger people, but that doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be bikes as light and high-performing as possible made for those who can use them, and if that’s the focus of a given manufacturer, that’s not an ethical issue. It’s just their specialization, and there’s plenty of room for other designers to focus on bikes for heavier riders as that market becomes viable.

        Everyone deserves to ride bikes, and bike designers deserve to focus on the types of bikes they want. 7-foot NBA players deserve to be comfortable in cars, but it’s not Ford’s fault or responsibility that finding a car is more difficult for them than for those between the 10th and 90th height percentiles. No less unfortunate, but changing the design of all cars or expecting app major manufacturers to design for outliers isn’t necessarily a solution.

        • @cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          I don’t read the article as an attack on building high performing bikes.

          Just about manufacturers giving a better idea of what a bicycle or wheel set can stand up to by including some maximum supported weight information that is not just available in a manual (which most people don’t see until post-sale)

          We can pretty easily infer the weight of an overall build down to how much the spokes weigh before buying… why can’t we be given more information about what a rim or frame can stand up to with regards to weight?

          • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            100% agreed with this point. I don’t think the article attacks bike makers for their specialization, but I think a lot of the people reacting to pieces like this take it there or read active/intentional fat-phobia into brands’ current practices.

        • Transporter Room 3
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          there shouldn’t be bikes as light and high-performing as possible made for those who can use them

          … Nobody is saying that?

          This is literally the same argument Republicans used during BLM protests.

          Nobody was saying non-black lives don’t matter. Nobody is saying lightweight bikes for fit people should be a thing of the past.

          I just want to be able to tell my buddy pushing 250 where he can get a bike that won’t cost way more than someone just getting into a hobby is willing to spend. I want to be able to get my parents and sister and in-laws riding with me and my wife without telling them “sorry, you need to buy a $3,000 bike because nobody makes a standardized style for people your size”

          • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            Totally agreed and I see the connection with the (deplorable) “all lives matter” reactionary argument. I don’t think this article makes the argument I was referencing, but many people’s reactions in these comments do. I honestly don’t find much that I disagree with in the article, but in how people suggest the bike industry addresses those issues, there may be a lack of balance.

            • Transporter Room 3
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              A lot of people just go knee-jerk in the direction they want, not realizing they’re dragging everything along with them.

              I would love for there to be a “fat bike” style that’s fairly standard across the industry, but there simply isn’t. I spend all day building bikes for various companies, and the only new things I see are ebikes, and a lot of those are simply hub motors and speed controllers crammed onto existing frames. That means the effective weight limit is even more reduced.

              It’s going to be quite some time before the industry changes to heavier models simply because they don’t see it as profitable yet. Even if they tried to pivot today, it would be years before you see changes in your local stores.

              I wasn’t reading through every comment, I just saw a bunch of people saying they want heavier bikes, but it didn’t seem like anyone was trying to suggest normal bikes stop being made. Heck, as far as I’m concerned “skinny person bikes” should always continue being made just for the same reason some people want “fat people bikes” today, so someone with an abnormal body type can ride comfortably, and safely.

              The fact of the matter is, the industry will only go where the money is. And as sort of a logical conundrum, more fat people would hike if they had better bikes, but the bikes won’t show up until more fat people ride.

              • @The_v@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                41 year ago

                So the question is how big is the demand?

                If the industry clearly advertised the weight limits of each model it would help. This would allow a company to offer a niche product. If the demand is there, the company will succeed.

      • @WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Deserve to bike and “deserve to force bicycle manufacturers to make mass-produced models that super serve the super-sized even though they’re a significant minority of the actual and probable global customer base” are very different things.

        If you want a bike for someone 300+, get a used, big steel frame and start assembling. Same for weight weenies the want bikes as light as a feather: customization is on you. Mainstream, pre-assembled bikes are going to be made for the majority of people that are likely to buy them, because otherwise they won’t sell.

        Again, to emphasize: AT EITHER END–super comp or super weight–bikes are specialized (not the company) bicycles that require parts selection and piece-by-piece assembly. It’s not “unfair” to morbidly obese people anymore than it is unfair to someone that wants a super light bike or a super durable, weight-bearing, bike-packing ride.

        My friend is 6’5 and all muscle, idk how much he weighs but it’s got to be a lot. He had to build a bike from scratch as well. He would pop spokes and mess up frames. It’s not about fat it’s about weight. Less than 2% of the population in the United States weighs more than 300 pounds, and I imagine only a fraction of that fractional subset of people intend to ride a bicycle.

        Also, “custom” does not necessarily mean expensive. It just means building it up piece by piece. Many people who have very little money but want a decent bike also build “custom” bikes from used parts, because you can slap together a decent bike from good used parts rather than spend the same amount on a Walmart special that breaks apart in two months.

      • @Hawke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        261 year ago

        I agree with most of what you said but not It’s just the reality of the world we live in, plus many people have genetic issues that make it fairly difficult to lose weight.

        It’s not just the reality of the world we live in. People were not this fat 30 years ago, let alone 50 or 100 years. And it is something we can change, if we cared to.

        “Genetic issues” are too much of a crutch or a lame excuse. Yes that makes it more difficult, but it doesn’t make it impossible or justify not trying to get to a more reasonable weight.

        But there absolutely should exist a segment of bicycles for almost every range of weights.

        • @JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          I never thought about this until it happened to me, but a lot of medications can cause significant weight gain. I used to weigh 110lbs for a good chunk of my existence and was very fit.

          I experienced a mental health crisis and the antidepressants made me gain around 60lbs. Don’t ask me how, I’m not a doctor. But to go from being very thin to overweight was kinda disturbing…just ballooning up like that. Also…the constipation was the worse I’ve ever experienced. I could eat salads all day(and did) and my shit was still rock hard.

          I’ve since quit taking them due to side effects killing my quality of life and the weight is slowly coming off…but it’s like my whole metabolism is fucked forever now. (I’m doing much better mentally, I was in a bad situation, and leaving it helped immensely)

          There are people who need those meds to function, and A LOT of people take them. Probably a contributing factor as to why there’s more large people now. Either accept the weight gain and be mentally healthier, or have more mental health problems with no weight gain. Thats a hell of a choice.

          Hopefully newer meds are being developed that don’t have those side effects.

            • @JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              Dude, it didn’t matter how much water I drank, or how much fiber(Dr’s advice was to eat salads and high fiber food) I couldn’t shit. Laxatives didn’t even help. Never had that issue before or after i stopped taking those meds. It was fucking awful.

              Also, without medications messing up my digestive system, salads usually make me poop. Not diarrhea or anything, just…kinda moves things along if you will.

              Maybe your body reacts differently? Bodies are weird as fuck like that.

              • @rooster_butt@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                I had some issues with retention and changing diet to high fiber made it worse… so yeah bodies are weird like that.

      • @mipadaitu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        Cycling is extremely low impact, and getting exercise on a bike can be a lot easier on the joints than walking or running.

      • @Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Genetic issues have always been around, but the rise in obesity is strictly modern. Throughout eons of history, people have been at a severe calorie deficit. Your body has many amazing background processes to help you survive famines (your body will try to retain as much fat as possible when starving over longer periods of time), avoid accidentally killing yourself due to excess calorie burns while foraging (your body builds in an automatic efficiency curve into repetitve exercise to conserve calories), and even some genetic changes for those that endured exteme famine conditions, which were passed down between generations after calamities like the irish potato famine, making people more likely to survive. These are great during civilization collapses, but really bite us in the ass in modern times.

        However, the rise of ultra processed foods (UPFs) and other calorie dense foods make it extremely easy to take in far more calories than one could ever burn though exercise alone. As more jobs transition from labor intensive (bricklaying, farming, digging trenches, and laying roads by hand and pickaxe), we have created a more sedentary lifestyle at the same time, compounding the issue.

        We definitely need to factor in larger people into stuff like biking, but biking alone will not address the root cause of the problem: 1. the proliferation of UPFs coupled with their low costs, 2. a sedentary lifestyle due to cars and office jobs, and 3. the collapse of third places where people can hang out, swim, play outdoor games, sports, etc.

        Nip those three problems in the bud, and you improve the health outcomes for generations of people.

        Stuff like urban density, lowering the cost of healthy foods while improving signage on UPFs, making it easy to walk, bike, bus, or commute via rail instead of drive, and improve free or low cost social spaces will help. :)

      • @Crampon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        They’re not left out. They just have to purchase the right equipment for their condition.

        They have excluded themselves from a segment of the market.

        We have to stop infantilizing adults and actually tell grown ups what’s actually going on.

        • @BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          They are purchasing the wrong equipment because the manufacturer isn’t being upfront about the limits. That’s one of the problems this article is about.

    • @ieatpwns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      That stool is more of a decoration piece than a stool it’s not built with sturdiness in mind sound more like a failure on the designers part

        • FartsWithAnAccentM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s a little sad that we need to actually say this, but:

          Don’t be an asshole or you will be permanently banned.

          Respectful debate is totally OK, criticizing a product is fine, but being verbally abusive will not be tolerated.

          Focus on discussing the idea, not attacking the person.

        • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          If it’s not meant to hold 300lbs, it’s a decoration, not a stool! My apartment is only built for 2 relatively fit people, being a small walkup. So I consider it more a sculpture than something functional.

          • defunct_punk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            161 year ago

            Have we really normalized obesity to such an extent that we consider “a small walk” to be an indication of being fit? God.

            On the other point, maybe some Europeans can chime in: would you consider a stool unusable and fit only for decoration if its weight limit was 140 kilos?

            • @hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              8
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              140kg limit for anything you’re putting all your weight on is quite generous.

              Anything over like 100kg limit is bonus

            • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              A walkup apartment means no elevator, so to be fair to anyone else, a small walkup could still require like 15 flights of stairs. And by “small” I was referring to the apartment, but obviously still joking about the whole comment. Saying that a small apartment is only for fit people is supposed to be like saying a stool with a 300lb limit isn’t a stool.

          • defunct_punk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            141 year ago

            I implore you to go to Italy circa 1970s and tell Design Group Italia that 140kgs is an unacceptably low weight limit for a single-person stool. Quit normalizing suicide via obesity.

            • @ieatpwns@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              61 year ago

              I’m not normalizing obesity I’m criticizing the design of a stool. I looked up the stool you mentioned and it looked like it connected the seat to the legs just by being fastened together from center of the seat to a small point where the legs joined together in a sort of pyramid like design. If the stool had been designed with each of the legs equidistant closer to the circumference of the seat it probably wouldn’t have taken as much damage from Bigman. But idk I’m not a stool designer or a Time Machine owner

              • Zoot
                link
                fedilink
                English
                101 year ago

                Youre a person who prefers function over aesthetics, thats totally fine.

                140kg stool is perfectly acceptable as a furniture piece anywhere but your mind.

                • @Samuel_Sturm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  Well, no. There’s a place for design and fashion pieces and a place for lightweight / inexpensive pieces. But the middle of the road options, your everyday average furniture? Those should be sturdy, reliable, simple pieces. I can see a stool having a 140kg weight limit when looking at it from the perspective of “a stool is for one person sitting on it”.

                  But I’d rather it have a bit more strength. Things happen, like somebody wanting to sit in your lap for a moment or children being silly. Design for when things go wrong, not for a happy path use case.

    • @PerogiBoi@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      141 year ago

      I got put on Concerta as a kid and I ended up gaining quite a bit of weight very quickly. You don’t really notice these things when you’re living in that body 24/7. All of a sudden I was not able to fit in my favourite hide and seek places. Just another perspective since you said you couldn’t wrap your head around people who don’t know their own weight.

      Sorry about your stool though that really blows.

    • @exanime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Found the European ^

      Just kidding, apparently the complaint is that such weight limites are not prominently shown. I’ll be the last to defend any industry but this one does seem a bit of a stretch

  • @cerement@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    how well do Dutch omafiets and Japanese mamachari fare in this regard? so much of what’s available in the US seems aimed at sport (racing or mountain biking) rather than the utility and daily commuting focus of Europe and Japan …

    • @vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Generally 120 or 150 kg judging from Sparta and Gazelle materials. That’s about the same as in the article.

      Now, our weight distribution is a bit less extreme than in the US, But there are definitely commuters using their bike outside the manufacturer specifications out there right now.

      To say nothing of toddler moms.

    • @Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      mamachari

      I picked a random bike on their website and it had the exact same problem the article is about: it doesn’t list a maximum weight for the rider.

      I guess this is one situation of privilege I and a lot of lightweight people experience: Of course the bike will support my weight, I don’t even have to check. Meanwhile people over 200 pounds are told to import bikes and 300+ people don’t even get any certainty that an import will support them.

    • @Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well only 15% and 4.5% of adults are obese in the Netherlands and Japan, respectively. Nearly 50% in the US are. I don’t see any reason why the few design differences between a classic American hybrid or road bike and either of the types you mention would drastically affect their weight capacity, but it’s also just much less of an issue in those countries.

    • @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      Those bikes are often steel, and likely could support more weight, but not by much. Wheels and tires have their limits too. I wouldn’t consider anything but a custom bike or higher-end steel touring bike if I weighed more than 250lbs.

  • @Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What kind of bike is that in the pic?
    (I dont know shit about bikes, but no amortisation, medium but flat tires, a handlebar that seems street sporty … seems frankensteined)

  • @Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is why I’m so pro regulations - a simple (predetermined) fact sheet that every bike sold needs to disclose.

    And as society and needs evolve keep the regulation alive and modify it accordingly.

    Ofc the industry is gonna bitch about it like it’s the end of bike industry for good & try to gift it, but after a year it will be normal, costs negligible, profits the same - but the market more transparent.

    And for most things, like this bike thing, it can be super a simplistic requirement, no need to be to the kg exact, it could be defined by categories of 50kg even. However the weight class should mean under a certain higher-than-usual stress on the constriction (bikes mostly arent meant to be used stationary).

    But yes, manufacturers should test their products to the breaking point, not let costumes do it (unless it’s Bethesda, then it’s just expected).

    Also - I’ve recently helped a 130kg friend get an office chair, nothing too demanding I know, but I noticed how weight specs, if even provided, seemed a bit random. Even (separately provided) piston specs were different for what seemed the same model.

  • @KillerTofu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    221 year ago

    With 74% of adults in the United States classified as being bigger-bodied individuals by the CDC

    I’m sure that’s the CDCs preferred term.

    • Demographics (She/Her)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      I know everyone likes to be mean, but let’s be creative here: It’s not just the stereotypical fat American. Look at our athletes and body builders, a lot of people who could possibly be in these terms are healthy by all metrics; some Americans are just taller and more muscular.

      I’m not downplaying the obesity epidemic, but I feel like a more generic term is appropriate here.

      • @KillerTofu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        161 year ago

        It’s rare for bodybuilders to push over 300lbs in weight, even supplemented. When talking about body mass, sure BMI is just an indicator and not a diagnostic measure.

        Of the 74% mentioned in the article, a small percentage of that would be the athletes and other genetic outliers.

        • @Mojave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Skewed anecdote:

          There’s a decent portion of the US military who I’ve seen fail height/weight standards from powerlifting themselves into being too muscley.

          If your weight is too high compared to your height (BMI), they flag you. Then they wrap a tape measure around your neck, and your waist, and if your core is too thick comparatively, you get forced to cut weight. I’ve seen soldiers fight back, and successfully convince their command team to waive their “weight problem” by going out of their way to get BodPodded and proving they are as low as 12% body fat.

          I don’t know how much of an outlier the military population is statistically compared to the general US population, but by CDC standards these individuals count as “overweight” despite being incredibly in shape. I have zero faith and trust in the CDC’s use of BMI to generalize a population’s health level.

          • @TurtleTourParty@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            I would guess the military is a large outlier compared to the general population considering all of the physical training soldiers are required to do. People don’t just accidentally gain a bunch of muscle, it takes a lot of hard work.

  • Makhno
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    Oh no, fat motherfuckers in the west bitching about a lack of accommodations? Eat a salad ya fucks lol

    • FartsWithAnAccentM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hey uh, we have a “don’t be an asshole” rule so, don’t be an asshole.

      Please dial it back or we’ll have to ban you if you keep it up.

  • @lobo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also had weight issue converting bike into electric with custom lifepo battery, which ended up being almost 30kg alone. Rear wheel was shot after like 20kms. But the bike was so cheap it wasnt surprising.

    Too bad i came across this bike after finishing the build, might’ve got it instead. https://youtu.be/QV88C5ZK0x0?si=C9Ik2iCy_xDxlNbb edit: look like you cant buy it anyway