Heh. Sorry. Just got done giving BananaTugger the run around over in the HED thread..."goes like" is a nerdy expression that we use in scaling analysis. Assuming you're seriously interested in an answer and not just laughing at my geekitude, I'll try again:

Imagine you have two people, with exactly the same proportions, though one is taller than the other. That is, the taller one is taller, wider, and thicker _by the same percentages_ than the shorter person.

Now, since wind resistance is proportional to frontal area, we need to find the area ratio between the two riders. The area of the taller person will be proportional to height squared more than the shorter person because he is both taller AND wider (remember, by the same percentages).

But muscle mass would be proportional to height cubed in this perfect comparison. Each muscle would be longer, wider, and thicker. If muscle mass is proportional to height cubed, then one could argue power is also. Unfortunately for our taller friends, the energy delivery systems (blood vessles and such), don't "scale" the same way, so power is proportional to somewhere between height squared and height cubed.

So, what we see is as the height goes up, the drag goes up by height squared, but the power goes up by something more than height squared, and so a bigger rider can go faster in the wind.

In addition, weight goes up proportional to height cubed (more or less), and since power goes up by less than height cubed, the smaller rider has the advantage in climbing.

Is this better?

Caveat: Other factors make a BIG difference, but this is the fundamental underlying reason.