
New York City bike-share program bans fat riders - Lightning
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/apple_snubs_chubs_wPsjx5Q7LjJICDn4j0oOLI
======
herge
I use the original Montreal based version of this program, and they caution a
limit of 265lbs[1] for the bicycles. It is also really popular, and amazingly
handy. 260 is probably the limit the bikes can handle while lasting a whole
season.

[1] <https://bixi.com/foire-aux-questions?lang=en>

------
revelation
Bikes are a total enthusiast crapfest, but if you are running a bike-share
program, you should invest some money to get bikes that will last at least a
year. Plenty of normal sized bikes out there that will withstand 290 pounds
and more.

~~~
dalke
"enthusiast crapfest" .. perhaps in a hilly area, or region which doesn't keep
bike traffic in mind. But as every discussion on this topic points out, there
are cities (Amsterdam and Copenhagen are the most common examples) which
include bike traffic as an integral part of the city and building
construction, so people use bikes for practical reasons, and not only for
enthusiasm.

In any case, have you looked at what the manufacturers say about "normal sized
bikes"? Trek specifies a weight limit of 275 lbs for a road bike and 300 lbs
for a city bike ( <http://www.trekbikes.com/faq/questions.php?questionid=104>
) while Schwinn bikes meant "To be ridden on paved roads only" have a limit of
275 lbs (
[http://media.schwinnbikes.com/skin/frontend/schwinn/default/...](http://media.schwinnbikes.com/skin/frontend/schwinn/default/pdf/Schwinn-
Owners-Manual_IBD.pdf) ).

Based on that Schwinn link, it appears that "ASTM CONDITION 1" bicycles have a
rider limit of 275 lbs and luggage limit of 10 lbs.

These Citi Bikes have a limit of 265 and 11 lbs, respectively. No, it doesn't
make sense to me that they are of a lower limit than the Trek and Schwinn
bikes. Still, it seems there is an entire class of bicycles that aren't
designed to withstand the 290 lbs that you think is reasonable.

Of course, even if they were designed to handle 300 lbs, there would still be
a restriction on those who are over 300 lbs, and this headline and the
arguments therein would be unchanged. Citi Bike can't win in that case.

There has to be a limit. What should that limit be? The sumo wrestler
Asashōryū Akinori weighs 330 lbs. Should the bikes be designed with people
like him in mind? U.S. sumo wresting champion Kelly Gneiting was 400 pounds
when he did the L.A. marathon. John Taylor, is a defensive tackle for the
Central Penn Piranha of the semiprofessional Gridiron Developmental Football
League and weighs 500 lbs. These are athletes. Should all of the bikes be
designed with them in mind?

I say no. At some point it's just not reasonable.

~~~
revelation
I don't mean "enthusiast crapfest" as in "nobody considers bike for serious
transport", but as in "build quality and engineering of modern bikes is stuck
in 1920".

Brakes, transmission, drivetrain - one of these is guaranteed to fail in a way
that makes the bike unsuitable for driving within a year. You basically can't
use a modern bike in winter if you want to still be using it come spring.

That's what I mean with "enthusiast crapfest" - bikes were replaced by public
transportation and cars and reduced to a hobby segment, where all
manufacturers produce is overpriced gadgets for people that like building
bikes but would never dare drive their beloved posessions.

They are basically not usable as dependable transport.

~~~
dalke
Overall I agree with you.

My current bike has been quite good, but that's because I bought one (a Koga)
designed for long-distance cycling trips. My previous bike (a Trek) was indeed
a bit of a lemon. OTOH, my wife's, a Hase, is expensive, but apparently uses
some crappy, non-standard parts and it's been at the bike shop for a few weeks
waiting for replacement parts.

I think an issue is that most people neither need nor want a bike that they
use in winter, so most of the bikes aren't designed for that. A $200 bike from
Walmart is probably good enough for a few summers of use.

Another is that bikes, because they are human-powered, don't have much
flexibility. Someone interested in "relaxing" 100 mile ride isn't going to
want the heavy frame and pannier holders that my bike has, and neither is a
mountain biker. The field of commuter bikes is much smaller than those two, so
I think there's been less optimization for that style.

I don't know much about the biking world, but looking around now it seems that
Kona makes a dependable commuter bicycle. There are likely others.

A third problem is that it's hard to figure out which are the good bikes, and
it's really hard for me to care about most bike reviews. With car reviews I
feel that most care about things that I don't, like "high speed handling", and
I think most reviewers are chummy with the manufacturers in order to get
access to the vehicles for testing. This is why I have a much higher respect
for Consumer Reports policy of only reviewing cars they or their members
bought.

Bike review have much of the same feeling, compounded by the much greater
diversity of bicycle manufacturers. I had not heard of a Koga before I
borrowed one from a friend, and had not heard of a Kona until today.

The is the paradox of choice and the sense of complete ignorance mean that
people will tend to buy something "cheap", in the hopes that it's good enough.
Which it is, for a while.

------
dllthomas
They're probably just going with what the manufacturer says. My bike has a
limit lower than 260 printed on it.

