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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.