Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)
-   -   Serious question - does height matter? (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/337839-serious-question-does-height-matter.html)

Idioteque 08-28-07 08:30 AM

Serious question - does height matter?
 
In certain sports height gives quite a benefit, for example in swimming, what does research say about cycling?

I do understand that taller guys have more leverage and therefore more power, but they are also heavier typically.. etc

Thoughts?

ridethecliche 08-28-07 08:47 AM

It's all about the power to weight ratio.

If you have a high ratio and you're tall, then that's good. If you have a high ratio and you're short, then that's good too.

Though, a taller person will need a bigger frame which means higher weight. So a slight penalty I suppose.

dpr 08-28-07 08:51 AM

Theres also the type of cycling to consider. People who are small and lighter have less to propel up hills. Where as only taller, more heavily built people can pump out the kind of power needed for sprints. Apples and oranges.

Idioteque 08-28-07 09:03 AM

I wouldn't say its apples and oranges, it is more like physically different human beings in the same sport.

So would a taller(shorter) person have an easier time achieving a higher power ratio than a shorter(taller) person... I suppose not but at the same time maybe having longer legs and more power is of more advantage than having a lesser weight.

666 08-28-07 09:07 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Here's a chart showing height/weight/BMI for the 2007 Pro Tour. Draw your own conclusions.

ridethecliche 08-28-07 09:15 AM


Originally Posted by Idioteque (Post 5160098)
I wouldn't say its apples and oranges, it is more like physically different human beings in the same sport.

So would a taller(shorter) person have an easier time achieving a higher power ratio than a shorter(taller) person... I suppose not but at the same time maybe having longer legs and more power is of more advantage than having a lesser weight.

I have longer legs, and geometry charts are not my friend...
I'm having a heck of a time finding a bike that fits right.

esammuli 08-28-07 09:37 AM

It depends on the discipline. Time trialists are usually taller and heavier. A larger rider is usually able to produce more absolute power and will be fast despite having a lower power/ weight ratio than a pure climber. Taller riders are able to overcome the reduced aerodynamics of having a larger frontal area by producing more power. The relationship between frontal surface area and power is non-linear, and the benefits of higher absolute power often outweigh the costs associated with a larger frame.

Climbers on the other hand benefit almost entirely from power/ weight ratio. Its much easier to put out 6 watts/kg at 65kg (390 watts) than at 80kg (480watts).

esammuli 08-28-07 09:40 AM

For reference Fabian Cancellara is 6ft-1in and Alberto Contador is 5ft-9in.

countdowntolife 08-28-07 09:47 AM


Originally Posted by 666 (Post 5160124)
Here's a chart showing height/weight/BMI for the 2007 Pro Tour. Draw your own conclusions.

This is rad. :D

johnny99 08-28-07 10:03 AM


Originally Posted by 666 (Post 5160124)
Here's a chart showing height/weight/BMI for the 2007 Pro Tour. Draw your own conclusions.

Kind of interesting that you think of pro cyclists as being super skinny, but almost all the dots on that chart are in the normal range. Anyone know who those 2 dots near the 6'6" line are?

DocRay 08-28-07 10:16 AM


Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 5160560)
Kind of interesting that you think of pro cyclists as being super skinny, but almost all the dots on that chart are in the normal range. Anyone know who those 2 dots near the 6'6" line are?

Roesems and Sosenka.

"normal" is skinny. "normal" in North America is far into obese.

Cycling has riders of all heights and sizes, traditionally, this meant that certain physiques had certain strengths (small riders, climbing, big riders, sprinting), but this all changed drastically in the 90s with the advent of hormones and other PEDs -many historians of cycling have noted this. Power to weight ratios also changed dramatically in that time over the previous 100 years, which means that either there was as leap in human evolution, or other things are at work.

Idioteque 08-28-07 10:21 AM

Hm from the chart it seems to be that 5'11 at around 150pounds is optimal... so you're sort of tall yet light.. damn, i'm 5'6-7 and am at 150 when in shape, if i was at 140-145 i'd be really really fit looking. Oh well sucks for me

bbattle 08-28-07 10:40 AM


Originally Posted by Idioteque (Post 5159889)
In certain sports height gives quite a benefit, for example in swimming, what does research say about cycling?

I do understand that taller guys have more leverage and therefore more power, but they are also heavier typically.. etc

Thoughts?

Look at the riders in the Pro Tour. Draw conclusions.

You are what you are so be the best you can be.

Okay, enough thinking for one day. Off to lurk on eBay.

666 08-28-07 10:44 AM


Originally Posted by DocRay (Post 5160655)
Power to weight ratios also changed dramatically in that time over the previous 100 years, which means that either there was as leap in human evolution, or other things are at work.

So, DR, are you saying that, at 5-9/150 I'm gonna have to juice to get my FTP up to 380 W? You are crushing my hopes!

ridethecliche 08-28-07 11:56 AM


Originally Posted by DocRay (Post 5160655)
Roesems and Sosenka.

"normal" is skinny. "normal" in North America is far into obese.

Cycling has riders of all heights and sizes, traditionally, this meant that certain physiques had certain strengths (small riders, climbing, big riders, sprinting), but this all changed drastically in the 90s with the advent of hormones and other PEDs -many historians of cycling have noted this. Power to weight ratios also changed dramatically in that time over the previous 100 years, which means that either there was as leap in human evolution, or other things are at work.

Wouldn't some of this increase have to do with better training tools?

I agree that some (or most) of the increase has to do with the use of PEDs in the 90s.

Sprocket Man 08-28-07 12:11 PM


Originally Posted by dpr (Post 5160022)
Theres also the type of cycling to consider. People who are small and lighter have less to propel up hills. Where as only taller, more heavily built people can pump out the kind of power needed for sprints. Apples and oranges.

Robbie McEwen - 5'7", 147 lbs. - 3 time TDF green jersey winner

Smorgasbord42 08-28-07 12:35 PM


Originally Posted by 666 (Post 5160124)
Here's a chart showing height/weight/BMI for the 2007 Pro Tour. Draw your own conclusions.

That's cool, but it would be even cooler if the dots were colored by how well they finished (black for first, all the way through light yellow for last place).

permanentjaun 08-28-07 12:38 PM


Originally Posted by 666 (Post 5160124)
Here's a chart showing height/weight/BMI for the 2007 Pro Tour. Draw your own conclusions.

Apparently I need to lose 20-25 lbs to be in pro tour form. I don't think I have that much fat on me to lose. Do I give up on the dream or try to become an extreme outlier?

badfishgood 08-28-07 12:44 PM


Originally Posted by Sprocket Man (Post 5161442)
Robbie McEwen - 5'7", 147 lbs. - 3 time TDF green jersey winner

Doper.


(Don't mind me, I'm just trolling.)

ZG2NYC 08-28-07 01:02 PM


Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 5160560)
Kind of interesting that you think of pro cyclists as being super skinny, but almost all the dots on that chart are in the normal range. ?


Um, everyone around 6' tall seems to be around 150lbs...that's skinny in my book!! I've been biking all summer and I'm at around 175lbs. Everyone keeps asking me if I'm losing weight on purpose! Guess I still have a ways to go for "Pro"...that and about 20 years of training, new legs, new lungs...

:p

DocRay 08-28-07 01:03 PM


Originally Posted by ridethecliche (Post 5161360)
Wouldn't some of this increase have to do with better training tools?

There has been some nice tools like power meters and fast lactate tests, but they cannot explain why riders are putting out more power all of a sudden within a 2-year period.

John Wilke 08-28-07 01:04 PM

The guys drafting off me never seem to mind that I'm 6' 5" and 200+ lbs. :D

666 08-29-07 03:48 PM


Originally Posted by johnny99 (Post 5160560)
Kind of interesting that you think of pro cyclists as being super skinny, but almost all the dots on that chart are in the normal range. Anyone know who those 2 dots near the 6'6" line are?

That's because of the weight of muscle in the legs/glutes. They are wispy up top, but have more weight than you think below the waist. I'm running into this myself. Had been dropping 5 lbs/month in body fat, then added weight training (squats, leg raises, etc). For the last 2 months my weight has leveled off even though I'm riding just as much. I've put nearly an inch on my guads, though. So the increase of weight of muscle in my legs has offset the loss of body fat the last 2 months.

howsteepisit 08-29-07 04:32 PM

The pro riders graph kind of shows just how off base the BMI is. Hell there are 5 tour de Frnace rides who are overweight? Like Hell.

San Rensho 08-29-07 04:38 PM

Shorter is always better. Stregnth to weight is defiitely on the side of the shorter rider and shorter riders are more aero (or at least they can suck wheels better).


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:35 AM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.