Height v's Weight

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

if its beneficial for a cyclist to be light.. how light must that be in relation to the height? any peak range?

Spilt thread, 2LAP

Originally posted by SniperX
if its beneficial for a cyclist to be light.. how light must that be in relation to the height? any peak range?

Spilt thread, 2LAP

Well, according to Joe Friel (Cyclist's Training Bible) the "ideal" climber has less than 2lbs of body weight per inch of height :eek: or 0.357 kg per cm (direct conversion). So someone like myself @ 5'7" (some might call that vertically challenged...) would have to weigh 134 lbs !!! At 10% body fat even if I reduce it to 1% I would not achieve this. Can we really compare Roberto Heras to Jan Ullrich to Erik Zabel (OK, maybe Ullrich is an exception)? These riders vary quite a bit in height and weight and each excels at a different discipline of racing. So to determine an overall weight to height ratio for the average cyclist would be difficult. Of course the main factors that play into this are body fat%, genetics, diet and training regimen.

Originally posted by wamara
Well, according to Joe Friel (Cyclist's Training Bible) the "ideal" climber has less than 2lbs of body weight per inch of height :eek: or 0.357 kg per cm (direct conversion). So someone like myself @ 5'7" (some might call that vertically challenged...) would have to weigh 134 lbs !!! At 10% body fat even if I reduce it to 1% I would not achieve this. Can we really compare Roberto Heras to Jan Ullrich to Erik Zabel (OK, maybe Ullrich is an exception)? These riders vary quite a bit in height and weight and each excels at a different discipline of racing. So to determine an overall weight to height ratio for the average cyclist would be difficult. Of course the main factors that play into this are body fat%, genetics, diet and training regimen.

I think it's pointless to try to come with some anatomical idea such as this. What we can say, however, is that the less mass a rider is, the less power they have to produce at a given velocity under given conditions compared to a rider of greater mass, assuming that the grade of the climb is steep enough.

All that matters (when cycling uphill) is that your power to mass ratio is higher than your competitors. However, on the flat, it's absolute power output that is more important or power output to CdA ratio (CdA being the product of effective frontal area and drag coefficient).

Ric

According to CTS, 2.1lbs/inch = somone who can climb better out of the saddle.
2.5lbs/inch = seated climber

The rest is numerically irrelivant.

Originally posted by leona
According to CTS, 2.1lbs/inch = somone who can climb better out of the saddle.
2.5lbs/inch = seated climber

The rest is numerically irrelivant.

Does that mean that someone in the middle should do half the hill standing up and half the hill sitting down? :p And what does CTS say about climbing and power?

Basicall, people in the middle are more influenced but other factors, such as training, muscle composition, terrain, etc. CTS are huge advocates of high RPM (and why not?) so if through conditioning, power generated while seated fits into your climbing equation for the terrain you are reffering to, that is preffered, as seated climing uses less fuel. Obviosly standing climbing has its advantages in certain times and places, so its not quite as black and white.

Originally posted by leona
Basicall, people in the middle are more influenced but other factors, such as training, muscle composition, terrain, etc. CTS are huge advocates of high RPM (and why not?) so if through conditioning, power generated while seated fits into your climbing equation for the terrain you are reffering to, that is preffered, as seated climing uses less fuel. Obviosly standing climbing has its advantages in certain times and places, so its not quite as black and white.

To define climing ability by height/mass, is as 2Lap alluded to is plain daft. To climb a hill or travel on flat ground requires a power output to overcome the resistive forces, which in climbing are mainly gravity, although air drag still plays it part above ~ 20 km/hr.

It is power to mass ratio at low speeds and power to mass^0.67 at higher speeds which predicts climbing ability. To suggest that mass only plays a part is irresponsible.

Thus, to climb well you need to develop a high level of aerobic power (i.e., high power at VO2 max, and LT), and to have a high power to mass ratio.

There are people who climb very well, even though they are heavier than the scale suggested.

Obviously, if you have less mass than someone else you'll require less power to travel at a specific velocity than the heavier person, but you still need to develop that power.

Ric

Speaking with pure anecdotal evidence, with 5'8" 140# as a reference add or subtract 7.5# per inch for avg. hgt to wgt of a professional caliber cyclist at their ideal race weight.

Originally posted by mtcolo
Speaking with pure anecdotal evidence, with 5'8" 140# as a reference add or subtract 7.5# per inch for avg. hgt to wgt of a professional caliber cyclist at their ideal race weight.

Are you sure about this? I'm 6'3" -- the formula suggests that I would weigh 192 lbs in peak shape! I am at 157-160 right now, and when I'm in good shape, weigh under 150. I doubt that David Millar, Jan, Richard Virenque, or any other tall climbers weigh anywhere near 190.

Maybe the formula doesn't work so well as you get farther and farther from 5'8"

Originally posted by ebrunner
Are you sure about this? I'm 6'3" -- the formula suggests that I would weigh 192 lbs in peak shape! I am at 157-160 right now, and when I'm in good shape, weigh under 150. I doubt that David Millar, Jan, Richard Virenque, or any other tall climbers weigh anywhere near 190.

Maybe the formula doesn't work so well as you get farther and farther from 5'8"

May be wrong but less than 150lbs at 6'3" doesn't sound too healthy.

Originally posted by wamara
May be wrong but less than 150lbs at 6'3" doesn't sound too healthy.

Healthy, probably not. But that's when I've performed my best 6'3" is 75;" at 2 lbs/inch that is 150 lbs. I've found that equation to be about right.

However, that is based on running performance. I think that ideal cycling weight may be a bit higher due to the leg muscle needed to power the pedals. However, certainly not 42 lbs higher.