Sincitycycler

Another rookie question. Pluses /minuses to being a tall (over 6') rider if any?

P.S. How tall is Lance Armstrong and how much does he weigh (kind curious)?

Comatose51

He's like 5'10" and 150 pounds? There's a poll a few weeks back on our weight and height. It listed his weight and height.

nitropowered

5'10 170lbs according to the discovery team site. team.discovery.com

53-11_alltheway

That's not really that lightweight.

my58vw

Ok 6'6", so I will chime in.

THe highth part... not much, more disadvantages than advantages. The main advantage is that you can see everything from the back and in the pack. The disadvantage is that you get less draft and everyone wants to suck your wheel.

One advantage of being tall is that we can develop more wattage which if our body weight is low can let us sprint harder (expecially if like me you have a large frame size). We always have a disadvantage in climbing though!

simplyred

In road racing... if you were my teammate, I'd probably draft ya... heehee..
You could develop yourself to be king of the flats on your team and be the go-to guy when it comes to hammering flats...
As my58vw has already stated, taller guys weigh usually ~40 lbs heavier than us small guys [I'm 5'8]... Hills will always be your nemesis...
And it kinda sucks I can't return the favour of doing a pull on the hills to make it easier on you...

Sincitycycler

I see what you mean about going up grades. I just got back from Walmart (bought a cheap bike computer) lugging my 6'2" 200 lbs (hope to be 185 in 3 months) up a long Vegas hill into a headwind! Going down was sure fun though...

531Aussie

bigger guys tend to be better overall in flat races than little, light guys, but not necessarily better than mid-size dudes. It's very rare to see a little guy (<145lbs) winning a flat stage sprint or a flat stage time trial, or even a winning with a flat race with a short, fast break-away.

There has been plenty of tall riders that were very good flat time trialers, such as McGee (6ft), Indurain and Bjarne Riis.

Big guys tend to have a huge disadvantage when going up hills. Little guys can easily achieve a much superior power to weight ratio.

Sincitycycler

Gee, Miguel Indurain was pretty lanky at 1.88 m ( a shade over 6'2"). How was he on hills?

lilHinault

Those big guys have NOTHING extra on 'em though! They get pared down to skin, bone, and muscle, and no more muscle than they really need - take a look at LeMond's arms from his 2nd Tour and see, good example of being able to see every fiber of his triceps through the skin.

IF you're just big, you might consider the track. Nelson Vails is a good example, also the Heidens, track riders tend to be bigger because it's all about sheer power. There's muscle type to consider, a born sprinter builds muscle easily, has a genetically determined great sprinting ability, and is more in their element at the track. They're like a quarterhorse. A born road racer is more like a thoroughbred, more endurance type muscles, and can just keep pouring it on over the long haul.

Lance is an interesting hybrid, he was big, almost too big to be a good road rider, then the chemo burned away a good part of his muscle as well as fat etc., then he was able to rebuild himself as a pure road rider. You look at a photo of him just getting out of his car at a race site and there's just nothing extra on that guy.

lilHinault

When I was riding a lot it was pretty evident that I was one of those sprinter types I should say. My legs got so big and defined it was kind of embarassing, and I was a very good sprinter, riding in traffic was good practice too, it was weird because other gals who rode as much or more than I did didn't get the Captain America comic book legs. Genetics is weird!

531Aussie

No kiddin'!

That's one freakish example; can you name all the other 6'2" King of the Mountain winners?

It's unreasonable to select someone like Indurain to debunk a "rule"

Indurain was a freak of talent, as were arguably all the multiple Tour winners, but generally, big guys are crap in the hills

531Aussie

I hate to nitpick, but Armstrong wasn't that big before his cancer

here's an old photo

53-11_alltheway

Personally, the whole cancer thing wasting him away to make him a good cyclist doesn't really seem logical. Chemo isn't good for you.

DXchulo

I suck at physics, but Work = Force x Distance, right? Or Torque = Force x Lever arm? So taller guys have bigger lever arms and should be able to generate a higher torque with less force. Then again, the only thing I really learned from 2 physics courses is that any seemingly simple problem inevitably turns into a huge, complicated mess if you want to be accurate.

If I had to choose I think I'd choose being tall. I'd be at a slight disadvantage on the hills, but if I was as skinny as possible like I am now, then the disadvantage would be minimized. Around here most hills are short, so what little I'd lose on a half mile climb could easily be made up on the flats. In the end most of the races around here are decided by a sprint, so having a powerful sprint would be nice. Then again, I'm a tiny little 5'7" guy and you always want what you don't have, so that may explain why I'd choose to be tall. If I were riding the TDF I might stick with being short because there is tons of climbing involved in that.

Sincitycycler

Anybody know what sized bike frame Miguel used?

How tall is Lemond?

boze

i'm 6'4.5" and since i've started getting basic roadie miles in last summer i've gained weight so now i'm up to like 186lbs. i'm slow on hills, slow on flats, slow pretty much all over. if i go back a year i was 10lbs lighter - and if i go back 2yrs i was 20lbs lighter because i was a vegetarian then. but i like the look of my body better now and the extra weight has made me less prone to overuse injuries. and heck, i was slow back then too!

riding is great though - slow or fast.

53-11_alltheway

https://www.cyclingscience.org/largevssmallriders.htm

You might want to read that article.

timhines

It think the main disadvantage to being tall is having to fork out more cash for longer crank arms. I've searched high and low, and you can't find a deal on 180 / 185 crank arms

:-(

Brillig

That gets pretty fuzzy/complicated. Exactly where is the lever arm in this situation? Especially since the leg is not directly creating torque but turning crank arms which then create torque. In fact, you might argue a disadvantage for longer legs (considering the torque created at the hip) since the converse is that you need to create more torque to turn a larger lever arm witht the same force.

Anyway, in real life there is no doubt that taller riders have an advantage in the flats but I think it has much more to do with having bigger, longer muscles than having any physics advantage. But any advantage there is dwarfed by the disadvantage on hills.

531Aussie

Indurain rode a 59x59

https://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?...ures/pinarello (SCROLL DOWN)


LeMond is 5'91/2", and was about 150lbs

531Aussie

Tell me about it!! I've just bought 2 pairs of Dura-Ace 180s!!

TheKillerPenguin

feel like "lending" me a pair?

timhines

and lend me the other pair. Long term borrowing.

531Aussie

Man, I agonized over the decision.

I thought long and hard about getting the first pair, but I've got 3 "good" bikes, so there's no way I was gunna be confined to riding just one -- I therefore just got the 2nd pair.