Do Short Cyclists Have A Disadvantage?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Do Short Cyclists Have A Disadvantage?
Height is a significant factor in many sports but I was wondering if cycling is one of them.
Are there any studies and/or has it been proven that short cyclists (under 5'7) are at a disadvantage compared to tall cyclists?
It seems as if the lighter and stronger you are - the better. So, if that's true height shouldn't matter - but what do I know.
Thoughts?
Are there any studies and/or has it been proven that short cyclists (under 5'7) are at a disadvantage compared to tall cyclists?
It seems as if the lighter and stronger you are - the better. So, if that's true height shouldn't matter - but what do I know.
Thoughts?
#2
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Usually shorter cyclists are lighter as well, so a lot of the pure climbers are relatively short, for ex. Quintata, Pozzovivo, Aredondo, JRod etc.. As in climbing what matters is not absolute wattage, but watts per kg.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: s.e. tn.
Posts: 1,245
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Caudel Evans and Levi Leipheimer are both very short, doubt LL tops 5'5". Their credentials are about as good as they get. Cavendish is listed at 5'9", maybe with cowboy boots. His resume' isn't to shoddy either.
#4
Falls Downalot
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 3,103
Bikes: Now I Got Two
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
just psychologically..."short man syndrome" can't be avoided...
Last edited by gc3; 05-24-14 at 07:11 PM. Reason: better pics
#5
Voice of the Industry
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1188 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 8 Times
in
8 Posts
Short riders have an advantage in that they can ride under semi's on the expressway. This is either a make or break strategy for training.
On one hand, if the shorter rider can keep up, he will be come stronger and flourish. But if not, it culls the herd which eventually results in a taller population by extinction.. A further tidbit is...it is broadly speculated that this is how Amazon women came into being. Btw, no affiliation with the widely successful retail website.
On one hand, if the shorter rider can keep up, he will be come stronger and flourish. But if not, it culls the herd which eventually results in a taller population by extinction.. A further tidbit is...it is broadly speculated that this is how Amazon women came into being. Btw, no affiliation with the widely successful retail website.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 6,319
Bikes: 2012 Salsa Casseroll, 2009 Kona Blast
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1031 Post(s)
Liked 208 Times
in
146 Posts
If anything, would think it is an advantage. Aerodynamics, body weight,, bike weight? How many pros have an NBA type physique?
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
There is a chart which I can't locate showing the height and weight of pro cyclists. There are exceptions like Cadel Evans and others but my recollection was that most were over about 6'. Larger riders would tend to have larger cardiovascular systems and a higher absolute VO2Max. That won't help on climbs where power to weight is the critical factor but for general riding it's the Power to CdA ratio that is important so it depend on who can get into the most aerodynamic position so perhaps tall skinny riders with a smaller frontal area but still large heart and lungs have an advantage.
#10
Senior Member
Shorter cyclists have a moderate advantage for climbing.
Look up square-cube law. Basically, your mass is proportional to the ^3 power of height (volume). The surface area of your lungs scale proportional to the square of height (^2). Lung surface area is basically correlated with your aerobic capacity. So on average a shorter cyclist would have a Power/Weight ratio. If I recall, Lance was one of the taller TdF winners at 5'10".
That said, if you're very short, the bike weight becomes a significant issue. A 5'0" rider would probably have an ideal body weight <100 lbs, and the 15 lbs min weight makes a large difference compared with a 130 rider on the same 15lbs bike.
Look up square-cube law. Basically, your mass is proportional to the ^3 power of height (volume). The surface area of your lungs scale proportional to the square of height (^2). Lung surface area is basically correlated with your aerobic capacity. So on average a shorter cyclist would have a Power/Weight ratio. If I recall, Lance was one of the taller TdF winners at 5'10".
That said, if you're very short, the bike weight becomes a significant issue. A 5'0" rider would probably have an ideal body weight <100 lbs, and the 15 lbs min weight makes a large difference compared with a 130 rider on the same 15lbs bike.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: location location
Posts: 3,035
Bikes: MBK Super Mirage 1991, CAAD10, Yuba Mundo Lux, and a Cannondale Criterium Single Speed
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 344 Post(s)
Liked 297 Times
in
207 Posts
Riis and Ullrich are both 6ft+, as is Andy Schleck.
And of course they all competed with midgets like Pantani and Contador.
There are advantages to height in cycling, more leverage with big long thighs, leading to more power, and usually bigger lung capacity as has been said. Very small riders have weight advantages in the high mountains, though, as well as a shorter wheelbase being better for getting around switchbacks on descents.
And of course they all competed with midgets like Pantani and Contador.
There are advantages to height in cycling, more leverage with big long thighs, leading to more power, and usually bigger lung capacity as has been said. Very small riders have weight advantages in the high mountains, though, as well as a shorter wheelbase being better for getting around switchbacks on descents.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Posts: 6,681
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Shorter cyclists have a moderate advantage for climbing.
Look up square-cube law. Basically, your mass is proportional to the ^3 power of height (volume). The surface area of your lungs scale proportional to the square of height (^2). Lung surface area is basically correlated with your aerobic capacity. So on average a shorter cyclist would have a Power/Weight ratio. If I recall, Lance was one of the taller TdF winners at 5'10".
That said, if you're very short, the bike weight becomes a significant issue. A 5'0" rider would probably have an ideal body weight <100 lbs, and the 15 lbs min weight makes a large difference compared with a 130 rider on the same 15lbs bike.
Look up square-cube law. Basically, your mass is proportional to the ^3 power of height (volume). The surface area of your lungs scale proportional to the square of height (^2). Lung surface area is basically correlated with your aerobic capacity. So on average a shorter cyclist would have a Power/Weight ratio. If I recall, Lance was one of the taller TdF winners at 5'10".
That said, if you're very short, the bike weight becomes a significant issue. A 5'0" rider would probably have an ideal body weight <100 lbs, and the 15 lbs min weight makes a large difference compared with a 130 rider on the same 15lbs bike.
ya, it seems like the small rider is getting the short () end of the stick here.
a 15 pound bike may be safe for a 180 pound rider, but is way overbuilt for a 120 pounder. he or she should not be penalized by having to carry a proportionately larger percentage of weight by a boneheaded blanket bike weight rule. if the UCI doesn't find something more equitable, then they just aren't trying, IMO.
and, no, i don't think small riders have any natural disadvantage due their weight, but i think they are, to some degree, discriminated against.
Last edited by hueyhoolihan; 05-24-14 at 03:54 PM.
#15
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: take your time, enjoy the scenery, it will be there when you get to it
Posts: 7,281
Bikes: 07 IRO BFGB fixed-gear, 07 Pedal Force RS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Short answer, no.
Short riders, and very tall riders often have fit issues, but it's really all about power to weight ratio.
One of my friends is 5 foot tall(maybe 110lbs.) on her best days, and she can be a beast. I'm 6' 2" and normally about 170. We are about equal on the flats and climbs, but gravity helps the heavier rider on a downhill. Aerodynamics help her a bit on the DH, but not enough to make her faster.
Short riders, and very tall riders often have fit issues, but it's really all about power to weight ratio.
One of my friends is 5 foot tall(maybe 110lbs.) on her best days, and she can be a beast. I'm 6' 2" and normally about 170. We are about equal on the flats and climbs, but gravity helps the heavier rider on a downhill. Aerodynamics help her a bit on the DH, but not enough to make her faster.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
ya, it seems like the small rider is getting the short () end of the stick here.
a 15 pound bike may be safe for a 180 pound rider, but is way overbuilt for a 120 pounder. he or she should not be penalized by having to carry a proportionately larger percentage of weight by a boneheaded blanket bike weight rule. if the UCI doesn't find something more equitable, then they just aren't trying, IMO.
and, no, i don't think small riders have any natural disadvantage due their weight, but i think they are, to some degree, discriminated against.
a 15 pound bike may be safe for a 180 pound rider, but is way overbuilt for a 120 pounder. he or she should not be penalized by having to carry a proportionately larger percentage of weight by a boneheaded blanket bike weight rule. if the UCI doesn't find something more equitable, then they just aren't trying, IMO.
and, no, i don't think small riders have any natural disadvantage due their weight, but i think they are, to some degree, discriminated against.
#18
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,410
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 914 Post(s)
Liked 1,131 Times
in
487 Posts
https://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf06-bmi.png
1. Current UCI minimum bike mass is 6.8kg whether you're small or big, so that will be a larger fraction of a light rider's mass, so for equal watts/kg of bodyweight, the larger rider will have higher watts/kg of total mass.
2. CdA scales at less than mass, so if rider A weighs 20% more than rider B, his CdA typically will be less than 20% higher.
Both of these mean that larger riders have a *slight* advantage over smaller riders.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
177 Posts
https://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf04-bmi.png
https://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf06-bmi.png
1. Current UCI minimum bike mass is 6.8kg whether you're small or big, so that will be a larger fraction of a light rider's mass, so for equal watts/kg of bodyweight, the larger rider will have higher watts/kg of total mass.
2. CdA scales at less than mass, so if rider A weighs 20% more than rider B, his CdA typically will be less than 20% higher.
Both of these mean that larger riders have a *slight* advantage over smaller riders.
https://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/tdf06-bmi.png
1. Current UCI minimum bike mass is 6.8kg whether you're small or big, so that will be a larger fraction of a light rider's mass, so for equal watts/kg of bodyweight, the larger rider will have higher watts/kg of total mass.
2. CdA scales at less than mass, so if rider A weighs 20% more than rider B, his CdA typically will be less than 20% higher.
Both of these mean that larger riders have a *slight* advantage over smaller riders.
#20
.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Rocket City, No'ala
Posts: 12,760
Bikes: 2014 Trek Domane 5.2, 1985 Pinarello Treviso, 1990 Gardin Shred, 2006 Bianchi San Jose
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 28 Times
in
13 Posts
At 5'8", I enjoy being one of the shorter riders. Makes finding drafting buddies so much easier.
I ride mostly alone, though, and so do not feel disadvantaged one bit.
I ride mostly alone, though, and so do not feel disadvantaged one bit.
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for all the responses. I'm 5'6" an ride a 52 cm bike. I feel like I climb very well and I usually wait at the top for cycling friends that are about 5'10". I was just wondering if I would be at a disadvantage if I wanted to train for a race down the road. Thx.
Last edited by rekon; 05-24-14 at 08:15 PM.
#23
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 495
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
We're all at a disadvantage compared to those pros. Short, tall, stout willowy it doesn't matter, it's in the legs and lungs.
#25
Full Member
A better question is, What are my strengths relative to the peloton and how do I capitalize on them? ;-)