Fifty Plus (50+) - What benefits are there to being a taller rider?

What benefits are there to being a taller rider??? After wrestling through a number of days with some breezy conditions I started thinking about it and I'm struggling to come up with any positives. Maybe if you're really the social type and like collecting a lot of folks riding your wheel I guess that could be an asset. It's pretty easy to spot "Big George" in the Peloton-maybe that's another positive???

Help me here.

And no-the view is not that much better.

You can help your mates out by being the "WindShield"?

You fall over further?

If you ride MTB it's easier to lift your bike over kissing gates and stiles?

If you have nice legs, there is more to show off?

People like to say "you do pretty well for someone your size".

You can put bikes on the roof racks for everyone.

I do have great legs!!

Other than that, I can't think of any benefits. Our bikes are larger and heavier than others as well.

What benefits are there to being a taller rider???


You get all the chics!! ;)

You get more exercise per mile then the vertically challenged.

At 5' 7" I'll have to pass on that question.:o

There are no benefits to being a tall cyclist as height relates to performance. I'm considered lean at 6'3" and in the 180s but very heavy for a cyclist especially one that lives in the mountains. I have to be skinny, skinny lean to even think about hanging on the hills. Perhaps if I were a track cyclist my size wouldn't be as much of a handicap.

No benifit. More weight. Less aero. Bikes don't fit as well and the handling suffers.

And no-the view is not that much better.

And the weather is the same as it is for those asking how it is "up there'. Although I've been known to say it suffers from all the hot air rising from below. :o

One benefit is that we have a built in excuse when we are dropped on hill. But of course the last thing we need, motivationally, is an excuse to fall off the pace.

Nobody is likely to consider us a threat in a race, so we can sometimes 'sneak off the front'?

People are less likely to steal our bikes, because they are unable to ride away on them?

That's all I got.

(6'6" - 195#)

The ability to run big crank arms for better power strokes. The ladies really like the big bikes (i ride a 64cm). They get a kick out of how massive it is.

No one will ask to borrow your bike. :D

I do notice some extra speed down hill. It's about the only time I break off the front.

Being tall and thin (6', 144 lbs) I get the extra wind resistance of being larger, but not the power.

However the Schlecks are tall and thin and seem to do ok, so I can't use it as an excuse to be slow.

You protect you fellow riders from this.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/746129-Lightning-and-50-Bicycle-Safety

At 6'2", I'm the size of one of those short, quick NBA guards. So maybe I'm not so tall.

There are no benefits to being a tall cyclist as height relates to performance. I'm considered lean at 6'3" and in the 180s but very heavy for a cyclist especially one that lives in the mountains. I have to be skinny, skinny lean to even think about hanging on the hills. Perhaps if I were a track cyclist my size wouldn't be as much of a handicap.

I read a story a year or so ago that said the average rider in the Tour weighed 2 pounds per inch of body height, and none was heavier than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) per inch. That means you (and I) should weigh 150 pounds, 165 max. I passed that when I was 15 years old.

Team Kona riders Barry Wicks and Ryan Trebon, the twin towers of cyclocross, seem to benefit from being tall.

You're in good company: Alfredo Binda, Fausto Coppi, Hugo Koblet, Enrico Baldini, Felice Gimondi, Eddie and Axel Merckx, Francesco Moser, Fons DeWolf, George Hincapie, Magnus Backstedt, Fabian Cancellara, Bradley Wiggins, and Johan VanSummeren.

OK that settles it. I'm not going to get any taller.

Size is actually an advantage in sports. In cycling, your size gives you longer levers, more strength, and mechanical advantage. Yes, you have more weight to carry up hill, but that weight goes up far more efficiently than for those with shorter limbs.

The top trackies are usually over 6 feet tall and about 190 lbs. Eddy Merckx was my size, 6'1" and 175 lbs.

L.

Some of us are shrinking. Does that count? Will things get easier?

jppe - you, too, will shrink, so the future bodes well.

I read a story a year or so ago that said the average rider in the Tour weighed 2 pounds per inch of body height, and none was heavier than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) per inch. That means you (and I) should weigh 150 pounds, 165 max. I passed that when I was 15 years old.

I know, that seems just sickly thin. When I got to 171 a few years ago my friends all thought I had a serious illness.

At 6'1" and 222 lbs, downhills sure are nice. I pass everyone going downhill...without pedaling. Going up the other side is another story :) I milk downhills for all they are worth. Even slight downhill grades are an advantage. I save energy for the uphills.

It didn't keep Johan van Summeren out of the TDF. 6'5.5"

Only advantage I've discovered so far is that on a downhill, if I don't want to go so fast, I just sit up and use my body as a big "wind catcher" to slow me down. (6'3")

You can help your mates out by being the "WindShield"?

That's an advantage for THEM, not for YOU (he said from experience).

SP
Bend, OR

You're in good company: Alfredo Binda, Fausto Coppi, Hugo Koblet, Enrico Baldini, Felice Gimondi, Eddie and Axel Merckx, Francesco Moser, Fons DeWolf, George Hincapie, Magnus Backstedt, Fabian Cancellara, Bradley Wiggins, and Johan VanSummeren.

You forgot "Big Mig" (Indurain): 6'3", 175lb at his Tour-winning prime.

SP
Bend, OR

No benifit. More weight. Less aero. Bikes don't fit as well and the handling suffers.

Actually, I've heard it said that bigger riders make better TT'ers, due to a more favorable power-to-drag ratio. And if your framebuilder know's what he (or she!) is doing, the fit and handling will be just fine.

SP
Bend, OR
6'3", 185 lb, 63-65cm frames

I read a story a year or so ago that said the average rider in the Tour weighed 2 pounds per inch of body height, and none was heavier than 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) per inch. That means you (and I) should weigh 150 pounds, 165 max. I passed that when I was 15 years old.

Indurain was 6'3" and 175 lb during his Tour-winning years. That's a good bit more than 1kg/inch...

SP
Bend, OR

I am sort of tall (6'0") and not too heavy 185 lbs. I have a friend who is 6'4" and 220. We were riding together in front. A third rider said it was like being motor paced. Well, I guess size is good for something.

Tall Rider Physics:

This is my understanding of how height affects cycling:

A. Leverage and Leg Length
I hear people talk about us tall people having greater leverage, like that is a good thing. In Cycling, it's not. The pedal is the weight that is acting on the lever, not the other way around. We are doing repeated leg extensions, and the further the weight is from the pivot point, the more strength it takes to move it. Unless the arc is mechanically limited, it also has to go a greater distance, requiring more total energy (see next point).

B. Crank Length and Leverage
A longer crank length does provide greater leverage to turn the chainring, but it comes at the cost of needing greater pedal velocity to achieve the same cadence/speed. The circle you spin has a greater circumference. Given equal leg strength, a cyclist with a longer crank will be able to pull a higher gear, but he will be spinning bigger circles, requiring greater pedal velocity, and probably consuming more energy. Since we tall riders tend to have big feet, the size of that circle matters even more, as we are moving a greater weight a greater distance. If you have the leg strength to use it, you will likely be more efficient with a shorter crank.

C. Crank Length and Fit
A taller rider needs a longer crank to enable a more forward position. It pushes the pedal spindle forward (think of it in the 3:00 position used to measure where your knee is relative to the pedal), thus moving the rider's position forward. This enables better balance/handling, and an aero position that still allows the hips to be open enough for you to breathe.

D. Power
As mentioned above, a longer crank requires a greater pedal velocity at a given cadence. This is a mixed bag. Pedal velocity is good, as it is at the root of power and it creates momentum. But power requires energy, and pedal velocity must translate into cadence to get the "power to the ground". Energy expended is a function of pedal velocity and torque, while speed is a function of torque and cadence. At a given speed, a rider with a shorter crank is generating more torque - the rider with the longer crank is generating less torque, but applying it for a greater distance. Big riders tend to be more powerful. We also tend to be not as quick. A longer crank is not necessarily advantageous, except for the fit issue mentioned above, and the fact that we don't have to be as "quick" as we would turning a shorter crank. The racing trend in crank length has been towards shorter, rather than longer, cranks.

E. Ideal Height
If you look at the height of the most athletically dominant players in NBA history (Jordan, Irving, Bryant, etc) on a scatter graph, they range from about 6'5" to 6'7", centering on about 6'6". It's the best combination of quickness, strength and 'length'. Here are the heights of some of the great cyclists.

Indurain 6' 2"
Cancellara 6' 1-1/4"
Merckx 6' 0"
Armstrong 5' 9-1/2"
Contador 5' 9-1/2"
Hinault 5' 8-1/2"

I'd put Vansummeren in, but so far he only has the one big win. Love the guy though, and I use him to justify my weight loss, as we very close to the same height. I couldn't find LeMond's height.

The aerodynamic aspects have already been covered, and A'Jet has pointed out how helpful height can be getting over 'Cross obstacles. In most ways though, the physics are not in our favor. But hey, it's just another factor to contend with... like age. Phhhhhtttt~~~~~

LeMond was 5'10", if memory serves. Merckx was somewhere between 6' and 6'1", but his weight was 165 at the height of his season and the height of his powers. Maybe he packed on 10 after 1975.

......the further the weight is from the pivot point, the more strength it takes to move it. Unless the arc is mechanically limited, it also has to go a greater distance, requiring more total energy

If I understand what you are saying, the above is generally incorrect. The further from the pivot point, the less force is needed to move a lever. Think of a breaker bar. The total energy used is the same, it's just less energy applied over a longer distance.

Tall Rider Physics:


We are doing repeated leg extensions, and the further the weight is from the pivot point, the more strength it takes to move it.

Looks like I am going to have to gp back to all those 6th graders I taught levers to and apologize!! I guess I was wrong about the levers length and force needed and relationship to the fulcrum!! This is a new day in science.

Using reductio ad absurdum, we should all be pedaling with 1" length cranks as it would use less strength.

Uh - last one to know when the road floods?

Uh - last one to know when the road floods?

Just one more advantage of the new science!

Actually, I've heard it said that bigger riders make better TT'ers, due to a more favorable power-to-drag ratio. And if your framebuilder know's what he (or she!) is doing, the fit and handling will be just fine.

SP
Bend, OR
6'3", 185 lb, 63-65cm frames

I think we agree here that taller riders need a more specialized fit than what is seen in most bike shops. I'm 6'0" and seem to be at the tall limit for many short-wheelbase, race-oriented, road bike models. I'm lanky and fit best on a bike with a 60cm VTT length with a taller head-tube. Most models that are in-stock at most bike shops are smaller than this.

Zinn Cycles may be the world authority on fitting larger riders for anyone considering the custom bike option: http://zinncycles.com/Zinn/index.php/archives/5

Here Lennard Zinn explains the geometry issues when building larger bike sizes: http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/06/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq/technical-faq-with-lennard-zinn-why-tall-bikes-often-handle-poorly_121162

"Dear Lennard,

I am 6’6” tall, and I should probably concentrate on basketball, but for better or worse I’m hooked on cycling. I’m also an engineer, so I like to understand how things work.

It seems to me that just by looking at medium-sized frames and extra large frames, the proportions are not the same.

Really big frames seem tall, but proportionally short front-to-back.

I also found by crunching numbers that larger frames (with higher saddle positions) have less offset from the rear wheel (axle) to the saddle (at centerline of seat tube) than smaller frames. 
Medium-sized riders seem to be positioned in a relatively neutral point between the wheels, where tall riders seem to be quite high above the cockpit and skewed towards the back wheel.

I personally noticed a big improvement in feel when I switched from a standard mountain bike to a 29er, where now I’m more ‘in’ the bike and not so much ‘on top of’ the bike.

I am interested in upgrading to a moderately-priced stock carbon frame, hoping for a lively feel that is quick but not unstable, and not a sluggish cruiser.

So I am scanning the geometry charts of the manufacturers, looking for the best fit.

So my question is: are there any generic rules about front-center, wheelbase and saddle position relative to the rear wheel (in proportion to frame size or rider height)? 
How does the position of the saddle relative to the rear wheel affect bike handling?

My current bike (Giant TCR 58.5) gives me only 137mm of offset from saddle to rear wheel due to short 405mm chain stays and slack 72-degree seat angle. Wheelbase is 1021mm.

Most of the bikes I see have the saddle more in front of the rear wheel due to longer stays and steeper seat tube angle. (149mm to 159mm). None of them have the rear wheel tucked under the rider as much as mine does. Does this make much difference in handling?

Is a longer wheelbase, longer front-center, and more centered saddle position important for handling for a tall rider?

I test rode a 58 Specialized Tarmac (no 61’s were available to test) that felt quick, but stable. It has steeper angles and a shorter wheelbase than my current ride …

-Joe

Dear Joe,

You’re living in my world. I also fell into cycling due to a profound disinterest in ball sports and was also 6’6” until I lost a couple of discs in my back. However, most people don’t notice the idiosyncrasies of stock big bikes that make them so much less than ideal relative to what people 6-to-12 inches shorter experience.

After a stint on the national team when I was subject to the whims of tall frames provided by sponsors, I couldn’t stand it anymore and started building my own frames. My tolerance for high-speed shimmy as well as for the saddle cantilevered way back over the rear wheel, as you point out, eventually came to an end.

There is not a good answer to your question about generic rules about front center, wheelbase, and saddle position relative to the rear axle for tall riders on stock bikes, because all of the options you are likely to find in a frame that best fits you make for a poorly handling machine.

The fact is, most stock tall frames have a ridiculously slack seat angle so that the knee can get over the pedal spindle. But that’s because the cranks are not proportional to the rider’s leg length; 175mm cranks are very short relative to somebody with an inseam of around 1000mm, as I imagine yours is.

And most manufacturers slap a really steep head angle on the frame (with the same fork rake as all of the other sizes so they don’t have to make another fork mold). That way, they can reel in the wheelbase and front center (bottom bracket to front hub) dimension, both of which are specs that consumers look at when making their buying decisions (seeking smaller numbers, of course).

All of those things together add up to terrible handling and encourage front-end shimmy at high speeds (or at lower speeds with the hands off).

The 58cm Tarmac felt good to you because it IS good. But you didn’t get fitted to that bike, and any fitter would slam your saddle way back in order to get your knee over the pedal, and the nice performance you enjoyed would go straight down the toilet. Bikes with the saddle way back over the rear wheel are very light in the front end; ride a steep climb seated on one and you’ll be pulling wheelies the whole way up. And in a criterium, with so much of your weight over the rear wheel, combined with a tall stock bike’s steep head angle and too much fork rake for that angle, the bike will oversteer while at the same time washing out the front wheel due to lack of weight on it.

Building my own frames, I was able to eliminate the shimmy and improve the steering and stability with good frame design, but after decades of messing around with alternatives, I realized that the key to the decent weight distribution on the bike was the crank length (and the wheel size, but you can’t fix that on a road bike). With a crank length in a similar proportion to your leg length as top pros ride, you no longer need a super-shallow seat angle and/or a seatpost with massive setback, because with a, say, 215mm crank (if your inseam is 100cm), your knee will come out over the pedal spindle with a seat angle in the standard 73-degree region.

Happily, I also found that if I have a crank in a similar proportion to my leg length as Lance Armstrong or Paolo Bettini ride, I also go uphill faster (while not pulling wheelies on the steep pitches) and feel more comfortable, as my muscles and joints are going through a similarly efficient range of motion to theirs.

Why is it that it makes sense to us that little kids’ bikes get progressively shorter cranks and smaller wheels, but when it comes to “adult” bikes, we’re all stuck with the same wheel size and virtually the same crank length? We can all be thankful for 29-inch (and 650B, 26-inch, and 24-inch) wheels for mountain bikes; they allow any size rider to have a proportional wheel size with a correspondingly rational frame design scaled up or down, allowing, as you say, for the rider to fit “more ‘in’ the bike and not so much ‘on top of’ the bike.”

Unfortunately, on road bikes, we don’t get a bigger wheel-size option, and, to add insult to injury, we even have rocket scientists at the UCI telling us that the maximum front center dimension we can race is 65cm. Tell that to 6’9” guy who needs a 69cm top tube. How are you going to get to 65cm from the bottom bracket to the front hub if you have parallel seat- and head-tube angles (which so many 5’9” riders find to be quite stable and nice handling) when you also have to add on the fork rake? Any small or medium-sized bike has a front center dimension longer than the top tube, not shorter! The only way you’re going to get to UCI legality if you’re 6’6” or more is to make the head angle way steeper than the seat angle. And you can promptly kiss your good handling goodbye; hello oversteering!

Some good news for a rider as tall as you is that if you use a proportional crank length (say, 21.5 percent of your inseam length — inseam length is usually a couple inches longer than your pants length, BTW), you can use a smaller frame size.

With more of your pedal-to-spindle length taken up in the crank, you can sit on a smaller bike, which will have the nicer seat angle you enjoyed on the 58cm bike you rode. Unfortunately, there’s no way you can ride a criterium with a long crank on a stock bike. For that, you need a custom frame with a higher bottom bracket.

And while I seriously doubt that a 6’6” guy can be properly fit with a 60-61cm top tube, which is about as much as you’ll find on any stock carbon frame, I’m also aware that people your height have adapted their entire lives to things that are too small – beds, cars, door frames, etc. and don’t actually realize how scrunched up they are until one day they get on a frame with a 65cm or so top tube and a 46cm-wide handlebar and realize how it feels to breathe and stretch out on a bike.

Very few tall riders notice these things enough to say as you have, “that just by looking at medium-sized frames and extra large frames, the proportions are not the same.” Rather, tall riders very often wonder why they can’t handle their bikes like smaller riders, coming to the conclusion that with their height and high center of gravity, they are doomed to being poor bike handlers.

But I can tell you that the high center of gravity is not a detriment. In fact, it is very rare for me to find anyone who descends a winding mountain road as fast as I do. With the proper bike, a big rider can take advantage of some of the benefits that large size brings, just as top skiing downhillers do (try to find a top downhiller on the skiing World Cup who is not at least 6’2”; the higher center of gravity is not a detriment to their ability to hold a sharp turn at speed).

-Lennard

Follow Lennard on Twitter at www.twitter.com/lennardzinn

Lennard Zinn is a frame builder (www.zinncycles.com), a former U.S. national team rider and author of numerous books on bikes and bike maintenance including the pair of successful maintenance guides “Zinn and the Art of Mountain Bike Maintenance” – now available also on DVD, and “Zinn and the Art of Road Bike Maintenance,” as well as “Zinn and the Art of Triathlon Bikes” and “Zinn’s Cycling Primer: Maintenance Tips and Skill Building for Cyclists.”Zinn’s regular column is devoted to addressing readers’ technical questions about bikes, their care and feeding and how we as riders can use them as comfortably and efficiently as possible".

Big powerful men are good in the one day spring classic races with rough roads and short rough road climbs. The lightweight climbers bounce around on the cobbles and any power to weight advantage is nullified on shorter climbs where the bigger taller riders amp up the power.

Pic of Summerman looking good and aero with some great competitors

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/Summerman.jpg

Summerman's girlfriend

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u250/rallen94402/belgian-18jvsgirl.jpg

I rest my case.

VanSummerens girl friend: Enough said :). That advantage trumps all.

If I understand what you are saying, the above is generally incorrect. The further from the pivot point, the less force is needed to move a lever. Think of a breaker bar. The total energy used is the same, it's just less energy applied over a longer distance.

You are thinking about it backwards. The pedal is essentially the weight acting on the lever in this case, with your joints the fulcrum. Pick up a barbell and do triceps extensions. If the barbell is out near your fingertips, it will take more strength to move than if it is closer to your wrist. This is what applies concerning leg length. You are correct if you apply it only to the crank arm length.

Summerman's girlfriend

I rest my case.

And the jury finds in your favor. When he won that race, there was even dirt caked on his teeth, but he still got his kiss.

And the jury finds in your favor. When he won that race, there was even dirt caked on his teeth, but he still got his kiss.


Unless I'm mistaken she's not a real blonde............if that has any bearing.

Unless I'm mistaken she's not a real blonde............if that has any bearing.

Her cuffs and collar do not match? You have better information than me.:D

I'm having trouble working up any sympathy for you tall you guys. I'm 5'5" and 130lbs. If I walk into ten bike shops maybe one will have a bike in my size....that doesn't have pink on it somewhere. And test riding a bike is a near impossibility since every shop has to order a 48-49cm and they don't want to do so unless you are going to buy it. And then you guys want to date all the short girls too!

I'm having trouble working up any sympathy for you tall you guys. I'm 5'5" and 130lbs. If I walk into ten bike shops maybe one will have a bike in my size....that doesn't have pink on it somewhere. And test riding a bike is a near impossibility since every shop has to order a 48-49cm and they don't want to do so unless you are going to buy it. And then you guys want to date all the short girls too!

And it's somehow easy to find a 64cm? If you're not in the middle of the bell curve, you're gonna have trouble finding stuff that fits - short OR tall.

SP
Bend, OR

At 6-3 I'm told I give good draft.