UK and Europe · Public discussion

Ideal cycling physique?

Rick · 2004-03-20T20:02:22+00:00

Everyone goes into the minutiae of a bike's specifications, and whether this part is a couple of grams lighter than that part. But what about the phycical specifications of a rider? How much difference does that make? What *is* the ideal weight and height of a top road cyclist? Now I know that great climbers tend to be small and wiry, and that sprinters are bigger (but how big, I don't know). But what about the top riders in the world like Armstrong, Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be allrounders to a large degree. I was wondering if there was any available info on the heights and weights of such top riders, to see if there is any conclusion to be drawn from that, regarding the ideal cycling physique. Does anyone have such info, or know anything about what kind of physique is best to be a top cyclist (all other things being equal, of course). TIA, and cheers!

Started by Rick · 20 March 2004 · Last activity 25 March 2004 · 54 posts · 2,906 views

← Back to UK and Europe

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postIdeal cycling physique?Rick · 20 Mar 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 3 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #54The Mark · 25 Mar 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: UK and Europe
Published: 20 March 2004
Last activity: 25 March 2004
Original author: Rick
Posts: 54
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 2,906
Views / 30 days: 0
Topics: Aero position Bike lights Wet weather gear

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
Rick
Archived post

20 March 2004, 20:02 UTC #1

Everyone goes into the minutiae of a bike's specifications,
and whether this part is a couple of grams lighter than that
part. But what about the phycical specifications of a rider?
How much difference does that make? What *is* the ideal
weight and height of a top road cyclist?
Now I know that great climbers tend to be small and wiry,
and that sprinters are bigger (but how big, I don't know).
But what about the top riders in the world like Armstrong,
Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be allrounders to a
large degree. I was wondering if there was any available
info on the heights and weights of such top riders, to see
if there is any conclusion to be drawn from that, regarding
the ideal cycling physique.
Does anyone have such info, or know anything about what kind
of physique is best to be a top cyclist (all other things
being equal, of course).
TIA, and cheers!

Report
Simonb
Archived post

20 March 2004, 20:02 UTC #2

Here:
widerworld.co.ukbelleville rendezvous.jpg
Ideal!

Report
Msa
Archived post

20 March 2004, 21:46 UTC #3

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
But what about the top riders in the world like Armstrong,
Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be allrounders to a
large degree.
Lance is around 5ft 11" and weighs in at 75kg on a good day.
Or should I say he used to before he started pigging out on
Krispy Kremes with Sheryl.
--
Mark (MSA) This post is packaged by intellectual weight, not
volume. Some settling of contents may have occurred during
transmission

Report
Rick
Archived post

20 March 2004, 23:32 UTC #4

"Simonb" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Here:
widerworld.co.ukbelleville rendezvous.jpg
Ideal!
ROFL! Hey, that looks just like me, except that the heavy
bits are on the top and the weak spindly bits on the bottom
... But it's a start!

Report
Rick
Archived post

20 March 2004, 23:47 UTC #5

"MSA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
But what about the top riders in the world like
Armstrong, Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be
allrounders

to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
a large degree.
Lance is around 5ft 11" and weighs in at 75kg on a good
day. Or should I say he used to before he started pigging
out on Krispy Kremes with Sheryl.
That's interesting. 75 kg is what I would be if I wasn't 20
kg overweight! Good to see that's he's quite tall, being 6ft
2" myself. (Not that I have aspirations in that direction
myself, being more than a bit over the hill ... ). Are there
any 6ft + top riders, or is Lance's height about the limit?
At any rate, thanks for the info, Mark.

Report
Mseries
Archived post

20 March 2004, 23:47 UTC #6

Rick said:
"MSA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
Quoted message said:
But what about the top riders in the world like
Armstrong, Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be
allrounders to a large degree.
Lance is around 5ft 11" and weighs in at 75kg on a good
day. Or should I say he used to before he started pigging
out on Krispy Kremes with Sheryl.
That's interesting. 75 kg is what I would be if I wasn't
20 kg overweight! Good to see that's he's quite tall,
being 6ft 2" myself. (Not that I have aspirations in that
direction myself, being more than a bit over the hill ...
). Are there any 6ft + top riders, or is Lance's height
about the limit?
At any rate, thanks for the info, Mark.
Indurain was 6ft + I believe. Its whats inside that counts.
Indurain had huge lungs and a slow resting heart rate.
Merckx is about 6'2" tall. I doubt he will have grown since
he was the top dog.
mseries.freeserve.co.ukMEandEDDY.JPG

Report
James Hodson
Archived post

21 March 2004, 02:18 UTC #7

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 21:36:52 -0000, MSA <[email hidden]>
Quoted message said:
Lance is around 5ft 11" and weighs in at 75kg on a
good day.
A short [censored], eh? 6'00" and 75kg sounds preferable to me.
Now, where's me baccy?
James

Report
Steve McGinty
Archived post

21 March 2004, 10:01 UTC #8

MSeries said:
Rick said:
"MSA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> But what about the top riders in the world like
> Armstrong, Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be
> allrounders to a large degree.
>
Lance is around 5ft 11" and weighs in at 75kg on a good
day. Or should I say he used to before he started
pigging out on Krispy Kremes with Sheryl.
That's interesting. 75 kg is what I would be if I wasn't
20 kg overweight! Good to see that's he's quite tall,
being 6ft 2" myself. (Not that I have aspirations in that
direction myself, being more than a bit over the hill ...
). Are there any 6ft + top riders, or is Lance's height
about the limit?
At any rate, thanks for the info, Mark.
Indurain was 6ft + I believe. Its whats inside that counts.
Indurain had huge lungs and a slow resting heart rate.
Merckx is about 6'2" tall. I doubt he will have grown since
he was the top dog.
mseries.freeserve.co.ukMEandEDDY.JPG

Round the middle, maybe...
Regards! Stephen

Report
Mseries
Archived post

21 March 2004, 10:01 UTC #9

Steve McGinty said:
Quoted message said:

Round the middle, maybe...
Definately !

Report
Simonb
Archived post

21 March 2004, 10:45 UTC #10

MSeries said:
mseries.freeserve.co.ukMEandEDDY.JPG
Where'd you meet him?

Report
Rick
Archived post

21 March 2004, 12:16 UTC #11

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Rick said:
"MSA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> But what about the top riders in the world like
> Armstrong, Ullrich, etc, who I suppose have to be
> allrounders to a large degree.
>
Lance is around 5ft 11" and weighs in at 75kg on a good
day. Or should I say he used to before he started
pigging out on Krispy Kremes with Sheryl.
That's interesting. 75 kg is what I would be if I wasn't
20 kg overweight! Good to see that's he's quite tall,
being 6ft 2" myself. (Not that I have aspirations in
that direction myself, being more than a bit over the
hill ... ). Are there any 6ft + top riders, or is
Lance's height about the limit?
At any rate, thanks for the info, Mark.
Indurain was 6ft + I believe. Its whats inside that
counts. Indurain had huge lungs and a slow resting
heart rate.
Merckx is about 6'2" tall. I doubt he will have grown
since he was the top dog.
mseries.freeserve.co.ukMEandEDDY.JPG
However, from your picture he does indeed appear to have
grown, but in a different direction!
Anyway, thanks for the inspiring info for us tall chaps.
That means I can't use my height as an excuse anymore for
being so slow!

Report
Mseries
Archived post

21 March 2004, 13:02 UTC #12

Simonb said:
MSeries said:
mseries.freeserve.co.ukMEandEDDY.JPG
Where'd you meet him?
That photo was taken in 1999 at the airport in Verona. I had
just flown in from Gatwick for the Worlds, Merckx was
waiting the arrival of some Belgian riders. I couldn't
believe it was him. My quest now is to meet him again to get
a print signed.

Report
Mseries
Archived post

21 March 2004, 13:02 UTC #13

Rick said:

However, from your picture he does indeed appear to have
grown, but in a different direction!
Anyway, thanks for the inspiring info for us tall chaps.
That means I can't use my height as an excuse anymore for
being so slow!
Your beer belly if you have one can be explained away by
saying your lungs are so big that they push your stomach
down and it falls out of the front. That was Indurains
excuse - I tend to believe him !

Report
Pete White
Archived post

21 March 2004, 16:16 UTC #14

"MSeries" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Rick said:

However, from your picture he does indeed appear to have
grown, but in a different direction!
Anyway, thanks for the inspiring info for us tall chaps.
That means I can't use my height as an excuse anymore
for being so slow!
Your beer belly if you have one can be explained away by
saying your lungs are so big that they push your stomach
down and it falls out of the front. That was Indurains
excuse - I tend to believe him !

I LIKE that! It makes me feel better about going T-total
for a month!
Pete White

Report
Just Zis Guy
Archived post

21 March 2004, 17:18 UTC #15

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:00:28 +0000, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
A short [censored], eh? 6'00" and 75kg sounds preferable to me.
Midget.
(6'1"😉
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Report
david
Archived post

21 March 2004, 20:48 UTC #16

Just zis Guy said:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 02:00:28 +0000, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:
A short [censored], eh? 6'00" and 75kg sounds preferable to me.
Midget.
(6'1"😉
Excuse me, could we have a little bit of quiet down there?
David (6'3"😉

Report
Jon Senior
Archived post

21 March 2004, 21:02 UTC #17

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
David (6'3"😉
You must love Giant (And others) with their undersized
frames.
Jon

Report
Tony Raven
Archived post

21 March 2004, 21:19 UTC #18

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:

Excuse me, could we have a little bit of quiet down there?
David (6'3"😉
Too far away for me to hear them ;-)
Tony (6'6"😉

Report
david
Archived post

21 March 2004, 21:19 UTC #19

Jon Senior' jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk said:
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
David (6'3"😉
You must love Giant (And others) with their
undersized frames.
Jon
Mmmm. Not sure about this... Actually, I'm about to start
looking at a new bike. I've got an 18 year old Harry
Hall tourer which I think is a 25" frame. The seat
post is as far up as it can go as is the handlebar
stem, even though there's only about 1" clearance when
I straddle the top tube. I've been looking at Thorn
[Brevet, Club Tour] and Dawes [Sardar, Galaxy], but
three out of the four seem to have sloping top tubes.
Isn't this going to mean getting an even taller seat
post and won't that be a problem?
David

Report
Jon Senior
Archived post

21 March 2004, 21:48 UTC #20

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jon Senior" <jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> writes:
Mmmm. Not sure about this... Actually, I'm about to start
looking at a new bike. I've got an 18 year old Harry
Hall tourer which I think is a 25" frame. The seat
post is as far up as it can go as is the handlebar
stem, even though there's only about 1" clearance
when I straddle the top tube. I've been looking at
Thorn [Brevet, Club Tour] and Dawes [Sardar,
Galaxy], but three out of the four seem to have
sloping top tubes. Isn't this going to mean getting
an even taller seat post and won't that be a
problem?
It may well be. Giant claim that they can cater for all
sizes, but the compromise of a smaller frame is naturally
going to be taller rides. With MTB seat posts often being
enormous, and with the variety of ajustment possible with
the Ahead stems, it should be possible to set up a bike, but
it may require a friendly LBS and some adjustment.
I haven't looked recently, but I presume that most
manufacturers are still doing a variety of frame sizes.
Giant's range consists of S, M, L, and some long posts.
Jon

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread