hobkirk

Fantastic climber. Every pound matters. Nibali is MAGNIFICENT. But does he really only weigh 120#? He's 5'11" (1.81M) tall.

I see him listed at around 143# (65kg) everywhere, but Paul Sherwen has mentioned 54kg several times. He keeps saying that his light weight makes the cobbles more painful.

FWIW, Chris Froome is 157# and 6'1".

Thanks

LMaster

Froome has said he is around 67-68kg race weight.

I think you confused commentators talking about Nibali and Quintana. Quintana is a small dude at around 5'6" and 56kg (126 is a common figure for him). Nibali is, unsurprisingly, quoted at being between both of them at around 65kg (143lbs).

Nibali is still lighter than the "cobble specialists" who tend to be bigger more powerful oriented riders. Combined with commentators mentioning smaller riders getting bounced around more, and several times mentioning Quintana at 126 I can see why you would have heard Nibali = 126...or why the commentators tripped themselves up and asserted that.

Ken Brown

Agree with Lmaster, he said Quintana is 56 kg.

sprince

I'd say Froome is closer to 60kg race weight. The 65kg figure sounds a little low for Nibali but still way more than typical climbing specialists, maybe it was race weight at some time in time.

LMaster

Nibali is 5'11" and Froomey 6'1". There is no chance that Nibali weights 5+ kg less than Froome and is two inches shorter.

60kg for Froome is crazy low. He is 6'1", and while I know he is a skinny looking dude, a 60kg number doesn't work. He has published power numbers where he states his FTP is between 440-460W. If he was 60kg...well let's just say 7.5 w/kg for threshold would have him riding away from any cyclist that has ever lived in the mountains. Sky has also released information about Froomes weight, saying that it's always been 68kg +/- 900g.

I'd be shocked if Nibali was any heavier than 65kg. 65kg/145lbs would be pretty big for a 5'11" top climber.

sprince

It can't be easy to get all 8 of those arms and legs on the scale at the same time for an accurate measurement.

cthenn

Doesn't he already do that? At least, I'm sure he will, once the first MTF happens.

Marcus_Ti

Yes it is crazy low.... But why else do you think a Froome looks like a plucked chicken, in a sport where everyone even the heavy guys are featherweights compared to the general population?

LMaster

Well considering Sky and Froome have been kind enough to tell us Froome has weighed 68kg +/- 900g in his time at Sky we know it isn't weight. I'd say primarily his limb structure. He has long legs and arms. A guy with a bigger torso and shorter limbs proportionally never will look as skinny as the reverse. A guy like Kruijswijk looks just as skinny as Froome.

If you want to see what that body type actually looks like compare these two:

Froome: https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...1_2610680b.jpg
Asbel: https://im.rediff.com/sports/2013/aug/18iaaf5.jpg

Froome looks like a giant next to Kiprop, and that's not even being able to see Kiprop's legs. Kiprop is 6'2" and 130.

Let me rephrase that. 7.5 w/kg would eviscerate any cyclist ever to have ridden the tour at any point. I don't even think Froome will be especially dominant in the mountains...and 7.5 w/kg is good for a handy 33:xx time up Alp d'Huez, a mere 3 minutes or more faster than the best time ever recorded.

sprince

I just can't see much difference, Froome has maybe an extra 1.2 mm's around the biceps?