If height is a big factor in cycling explain lance Armstrong



mpre53

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2013
1,098
179
48
69
Cape Cod, MA, USA
"Explain Lance Armstrong".

He doped so much he glowed in the dark.

You're the same height as Greg LeMond. And a shitload of other Tour de France winners, and taller than a lot of them. Bernard Hinault was 5'8".So was Fignon.

If taller = faster it would have been George Hincapie winning those 7 Tours, not Lance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gary-trek

gary-trek

New Member
Feb 24, 2014
48
2
0
mpre53 said:
"Explain Lance Armstrong". He doped so much he glowed in the dark. You're the same height as Greg LeMond. And a shitload of other Tour de France winners, and taller than a lot of them. Bernard Hinault was 5'8".So was Fignon. If taller = faster it would have been George Hincapie winning those 7 Tours, not Lance.
you seem to know a lot about cycling because I don't know a single one of them. Just shows how great lance Armstrong was even before doping news
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
Yes, Lance had a classic case of Short Man Syndrome. For that, he was treated with EPO, T, Hgh and steroids. This not only cured his cancer and enabled him to grow to 5' 11-3/4", but it gave his legs the equivalent speed of a person 6' 3" tall.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB
Yes, Lance had a classic case of Short Man Syndrome. For that, he was treated with EPO, T, Hgh and steroids. This not only cured his cancer and enabled him to grow to 5' 11-3/4", but it gave his legs the equivalent speed of a person 6' 3" tall.

Bob I hate to call you out on this but I have it on good authority that it was Viagra that made Lance taller. Contador never took EPO but never Viagra and remained at 5' 9" tall.
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
Originally Posted by CAMPYBOB
Great...

What's the one rule of the Fight Club?
You opened the door. Btw I got in a few road mile yesterday , I am sure you are enjoying the weather right now.
 

CAMPYBOB

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2005
11,945
2,086
113
WARM?!?!?!

It's SIX right now with a low of minus 3° tonight!

Actually, Saturday it hit 47° and I got a 40-mile ride in and did some climbing for the first time in over two months without hitting anything worth calling a hill. Three rides in one week...my body didn't know how to react.

We only got an inch of snow yesterday, but it was enough to re-freeze and screw up the roads.

I just read summer is coming early and it's going to be a hot one...I'll believe it when I see it!

I'm sure Tenn. weather right now is mo' betta than ours!
 

jhuskey

Moderator
Oct 6, 2003
10,606
678
113
It was but not right now. It's nasty outside but starts improving tomorrow and may stay that way for a while. I missed Saturday since I spent the day transporting and installing a spa but it was just about perfect yesterday.
 

gary-trek

New Member
Feb 24, 2014
48
2
0
Taller person = bigger bike = less effort Shorter person = smaller bike = more effort Is this why height = speed?
 

gary-trek

New Member
Feb 24, 2014
48
2
0
Taller person bigger crankset= more road being pedaled Shorter person more pedaling for the same outcome with smaller crank???
 

oldbobcat

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2003
3,233
194
48
70
Originally Posted by gary-trek

Taller person bigger crankset= more road being pedaled
Shorter person more pedaling for the same outcome with smaller crank???
No. Look at it like a merry-go-round. The horses on the outside complete a revolution in the same time as the horses on the inside. They just go faster and cover more distance. So if you want a faster ride on the merry-go-round, choose a horse on the outside.

Height has little to do with it. Lighter riders tend to go up hills faster. Short riders tend to be lighter. More powerful riders power through the wind faster. Heavier (but not fatter) riders tend to be more powerful. Lance Armstrong always exaggerated his height. He's only 5-9 and a half. Any way you cut it, riders who put in the miles go faster than if they didn't put in the miles.
 

mpre53

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2013
1,098
179
48
69
Cape Cod, MA, USA
Originally Posted by gary-trek


you seem to know a lot about cycling because I don't know a single one of them. Just shows how great lance Armstrong was even before doping news
I wouldn't call him great. He was a very good classics/stage rider before dope turned him into someone who could contend for the GC title in one of the grand tours. He had a World Championship to his credit, which is a one day event, before starting on EPO, so he was definitely a world class pro at those types of events, using the standard PEDs of the day that almost everyone else was using. But he wasn't a very good climber until he and the best doping doctor in the business started manipulating his blood values.

You should learn the names of some of the greats from the past. There's a hundred year history of the sport pre-Lance. If you don't learn about anyone else, read up on Eddy Merckx.

Another guy you should read up on is Marco Pantani, especially if you're ever tempted to start playing around with that stuff to get better.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Originally Posted by mpre53

I wouldn't call him great. He was a very good classics/stage rider before dope turned him into someone who could contend for the GC title in one of the grand tours. He had a World Championship to his credit, which is a one day event, before starting on EPO, so he was definitely a world class pro at those types of events, using the standard PEDs of the day that almost everyone else was using. But he wasn't a very good climber until he and the best doping doctor in the business started manipulating his blood values.

You should learn the names of some of the greats from the past. There's a hundred year history of the sport pre-Lance. If you don't learn about anyone else, read up on Eddy Merckx.

Another guy you should read up on is Marco Pantani, especially if you're ever tempted to start playing around with that stuff to get better.
A very good post.

Very few of the multiple grand tour winners were taller than 6ft.
Indurain was 6ft 1inch and I think Merckx was in or around 6ft.
 

jpr95

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2010
870
58
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain

"Big" Mig was(is?) 6'2" and 176 lbs. I'm 6'0" and about 180 lbs, and I get called skinny all the time (should've seen me almost 25 years ago in HS--same height, 40 fewer pounds). I'd be in the 99th percentile, size-wise on a pro tour. When I do group rides, in general, the smaller folks get up the hills faster, many of whom I can paste on the flats, even the ones who are half my age.

I don't think taller or bigger is an advantage at all, but a hindrance.
 

mpre53

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2013
1,098
179
48
69
Cape Cod, MA, USA
Mig had some "advantages", that more than offset his height/weight disadvantages.
cool.png
 

BrianNystrom

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2013
275
68
28
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Indurain
I don't think taller or bigger is an advantage at all, but a hindrance.
Just to be clear, it's not an advantage for Grand Tour riders. I don't think height is any particular advantage for anyone. However, time trialists and classics riders tend to be larger, like Fabian Cancellara, Tony Martin, Tom Boonen, Peter Sagan and Greg Van Avermaet. They're not necessarily much taller than the GT contenders, but they have much more muscular builds. They also tend to do well in the shorter, week-long Tours where they spend less time in the high mountains.