# Are taller riders faster?



## Muaythaibike (Oct 26, 2007)

EVERYTHING else being equal. Is a taller rider faster than short rider. In running I can see how this matters but how about biking?


----------



## Pablo (Jul 7, 2004)

I don't see how.


----------



## Bocephus Jones II (Oct 7, 2004)

Pablo said:


> I don't see how.


power to weight ratio is usually the most important factor. taller riders tend to be heavier so they need to produce more power to maintain the same speed--especially when climbing.


----------



## superflychief (Mar 25, 2008)

I could see a fat person being slower then a skinny person but what the hell would height have to do with speed?


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

I am tall and fat and I am slower than my short fat friends. Does that help?


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

Ask the current World Champion... Paolo Bettini is a small guy and he's pretty quick.
Or how about "Little Robbie Hustle" Robbie McEwen, he's not a tall man and he's more than quick, he's FAST.

I'm just saying...


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

Sprocket - Matt said:


> Ask the current World Champion... Paolo Bettini is a small guy and he's pretty quick.
> Or how about "Little Robbie Hustle" Robbie McEwen, he's not a tall man and he's more than quick, he's FAST.
> 
> I'm just saying...


Not a good comparison, after all Bettini is Specialized


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

*taller is usually "bigger," too*



superflychief said:


> I could see a fat person being slower then a skinny person but what the hell would height have to do with speed?


 i.e., more massive. Even if not fat, the larger rider will usually have a smaller power-to-weight ratio, and therefore have a disadvantage in climbing. The sprinter who weighs 30% more than the tiny climber will produce more power, but not 30% more. On the other hand, some big guys are exceptional time trialists because of that power, and some few of those can climb well enough, if they ride tactically, to win the big tours. Indurain is the classic example, along with Ulrich (when he kept his weight under control).

Some data points:

Lance Armstrong: 5 feet, 9 1/2 inches
Eddy Merckx: 6 feet
Miguel Indurain: 6 feet, 2 inches (tallest rider ever to win the Tour)
Marco Pantani: 5 feet, 7 inches (but only about 126 pounds!) (last "pure climber" to win the Tour)

In many other sports, height is an advantage. Witness the way baseball and football players have gotten taller in recent decades. In cycling, the best riders tend to be average size or smaller, suggesting there's no advantage to height


----------



## Sprocket - Matt (Sep 13, 2005)

Good point Jupiterrn...
And for those not in the loop on that...


----------



## toph17 (Oct 22, 2006)

wouldnt taller riders inherently be able to go faster since they have longer legs, thus allowing them to put more toque on the crank = acceleration = speed? assuming power:weight ratio is equivalant.


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

I'm tall and skinny (6'4" and 200lbs) and I have beaten the heck out of 5'10 135lb riders, but again, 4'10 100lb girls have kicked my butt too....hehehe....I don't think height has anything to do with it. I would think muscle to weight ratio and 'width' would matter more....you use less muscle to push less weight and if you can 'tuck' in more narrow than someone else (without restricting lungs) you would have less wind resistance....but just bite the bullet and upgrade everything to the new 'ceramic' craze and you will beat everyone...hehehhe.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Understanding the concept*



toph17 said:


> wouldnt taller riders inherently be able to go faster since they have longer legs, thus allowing them to put more toque on the crank = acceleration = speed? assuming power:weight ratio is equivalant.


This would be true ONLY if the taller rider produced more power. There is nothing magic about long legs that would result in more power output. Don't confuse force and torque with power. Besides, the OP said "all else equal" so we have to assume equal power. So, in that case, the taller rider would likely have more surface area presented to the wind, and therefore be slower at equal power output.


----------



## 99trek5200 (Jan 26, 2007)

Kerry Irons said:


> This would be true ONLY if the taller rider produced more power. There is nothing magic about long legs that would result in more power output. Don't confuse force and torque with power. Besides, the OP said "all else equal" so we have to assume equal power. So, in that case, the taller rider would likely have more surface area presented to the wind, and therefore be slower at equal power output.


Hey, that's what I was going to say. The torque applied to the crank is more a function of the crank arm length, not leg length.


----------



## Cory (Jan 29, 2004)

*Alarming fact about rider height....*



Muaythaibike said:


> EVERYTHING else being equal. Is a taller rider faster than short rider. In running I can see how this matters but how about biking?


I'm 6'4" and slow, but I don't know if that holds true for all tall riders....
I did a little desultory research on this back when I wanted to be a racer, and one fact I came across was that in the pro peloton, the average rider weighed about two pounds per inch of body height, and none was heavier than one kilogram (2.2 lbs) per inch. To get fast, all I'd have to do is get down to about 160 pounds.
Already lost eight this spring. Only 80 to go....


----------



## tjjm36m3 (Mar 4, 2008)

I might think so, but only if the taller rider takes advantage of longer crank arms such as 180mm+ There would be great torque applied to the cranks from longer crank arms versus shorter crank arms if the pedal force are the same in both cases. This is the same as getting higher torque from a longer wrench versus a shorter one with the same force applied.

Now, someone like me (5'11") would not be able to utilize a 180mm as the pedaling cycle or circular motion would feel abnormal. But someone 6'6" or taller would find 180mm cranks a good fit. 

I guess another comparison is if I were to use 160mm crank arms I would probably be a bit slower. At least in my mind, it would. I normally ride with 172.5mm cranks but have tried 170mm before. The 170mm felt much slower.


----------



## DM.Aelis (Jun 19, 2007)

In the example you cited, crank arm length really won't affect speed.

Sure you'll gain leverage, but you'll increase your pedal rotation circumference as well;

power is power, no matter how big or small you are. Big guys need to manage more comparatively on the hills to manage a good power/weight ratio, and little guys need all the help they can get on flats/sprints where weight doesn't matter as much as absolute power.


----------



## NickA (Jun 12, 2007)

*All you shortys get behind!*

yeah all you shortys get bullied. If we were refering to serious racers. See you all short and aero bursting out from the peleton at the last few seconds. Tall cyclists rule the time trials. And all the lightweights tend to climb well but if you're too tall; power to weight ratio will be down. I don't know about giants performing well, they might be too big and heavy for anything except a flat time trial. 

The only thing that works against a tall rider is a riding position with lots of drag. Especially in the crosswinds. 

So if all things are equal like bike and riders maintain 350Watts at threshold. The aerodynamic riding positions of the tall and short riders and wind direction is going to make alot of difference. 

So a tall cyclist with good legs, stripped down of excess weight on the upperbody (skinny) and a large cardio-vascular system that operates well at high output got could possibly be better that a short one. 

But from what I know, if you're good enough to be racing with each other on that level. The race is won in the mind.


----------



## fleck (Mar 25, 2005)

Muaythaibike said:


> EVERYTHING else being equal. Is a taller rider faster than short rider. In running I can see how this matters but how about biking?


if all things are equal, then i'd say no.
same weight, same power output etc.

the taller rider will have more dificulty staying protected.

splitting hairs. Height isn't an issue. Training always is


----------



## toph17 (Oct 22, 2006)

but wouldnt a tall rider with short cranks be slower than a tall rider with longer cranks?


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Actual data*



toph17 said:


> but wouldnt a tall rider with short cranks be slower than a tall rider with longer cranks?


Not based on any quality studies that have been published. Again, you somehow assume that a given crank length will be able to "pull" more power out of a rider. There's no evidence that crank length can cause this to happen. 

Same story for ovalized chain rings and various kinds of cam/lever devices. These things have been introduced into the marketplace at regular intervals for over 100 years and the result is always the same. The fad fades.


----------



## hellofrom510 (May 28, 2008)

I'm a pretty fit 6'3" 210lb rider, but I'm slower than hell. Gravity does have its advantages though.


----------



## averen (Jan 1, 2008)

Assuming they both weigh the same and both have the same power output then they'll have the same acceleration as well as the same velocity...we could split hairs with frontal area causing drag but let's not go there  

Your velocity is determined by your power output and your drag. Weight doesn't really come into play when you're talking about velocity...this would be straight and level sustained speed. Acceleration and climbing/descending are different...power/weight plays a pretty big role in each...however it's more easily felt when climbing...or when some big rider goes bombing down the hill next to you.

Thankfully you can train and increase your power/weight ratio...and assuming your power goes up as will your velocity.

Height means nothing...well, maybe you can see over/under cars better.

Jared


----------



## toph17 (Oct 22, 2006)

im not saying it would pull more power out of a rider, just that it make each pedal stroke more efficient; making the rider more efficient over the long run = faster times. i think we need to clarify what defines "fast." is it pure mph, or is it fastest time over a certain distance, like a 15km course.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Confusing*



toph17 said:


> im not saying it would pull more power out of a rider, just that it make each pedal stroke more efficient; making the rider more efficient over the long run = faster times. i think we need to clarify what defines "fast." is it pure mph, or is it fastest time over a certain distance, like a 15km course.


Last time I checked, higher mph = lower times over a measured course. How else would you define speed? 

The only way to get more power to the rear wheel is to have the rider deliver more power. You are confusing force and torque with power. In order for longer cranks to make a rider faster, the rider has to be able to deliver more power - simple as that. Again, there is NO data to support your claim.


----------



## toph17 (Oct 22, 2006)

im saying a rider that has a crank length that makes him efficient will make him faster. higher AVERAGE mph = faster times. sure someone can be crazy fast for the first 20 miles than slow down for the remaining portion because the crank length is causing a drop in efficiency. someone with an efficient crank length would be able to maintain a higher speed for longer periods of time, making them faster. example: put lance on a bike with a 50mm crank on a 20 mile course than put him on a bike with a 170mm crank on the same course. which one do you think he'll be faster on? according to you the times would equal.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*The big "if"*



toph17 said:


> im saying a rider that has a crank length that makes him efficient will make him faster.
> 
> example: put lance on a bike with a 50mm crank on a 20 mile course than put him on a bike with a 170mm crank on the same course. which one do you think he'll be faster on? according to you the times would equal.


Of course a crank that makes you more efficient will make you faster (duh!). And of course your reductum ad absurbum case of a 50 mm vs a 170 mm crank, the shorter crank would be less efficient. 

However, actual DATA show that in the range of commercially available cranks, there is no correlation between crank length and rider leg length and efficiency. So, IF a crank made you more efficient, it would make you faster, but cranks don't make you more efficient. Any questions?


----------



## toph17 (Oct 22, 2006)

yep i do. i tried googling "crank length efficiency" and guess what i found! studies have proven that crank length does effect efficiency. 

http://www.racersready.com/science_and_technology.htm > "The results of the study demonstrated that crank arm length did affect economy"

http://www2.bsn.de/Cycling/cranks.html > "the longer cranks appear beneficial from the the perspective of effective force"

and pretty much the rest of the first 10 results say the same thing.

and i would bet any pro cyclist could feel a major difference in performance/efficiencybetween a 165mm and a 180mm crank (all commercially available).


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*The other studies*



toph17 said:


> yep i do. i tried googling "crank length efficiency" and guess what i found! studies have proven that crank length does effect efficiency.


I guess I wasn't precise/clear enough. Yes, there are studies that show different crank lengths improve efficiency. What you miss was all the studies that DON'T show that effect. For example, a recently widely publicized 2008 study by Jim Martin, Ph.D., from the University of Utah shows zero correlation between crank length and any performance factors. I've been seening various studies for decades, and the sum of all of them is inconclusive. Any time you see this in the literature, you have to conclude that 1) there is no effect, 2) the effect is too small to measure, 3) we haven't figured out how to conduct a conclusive study. When the effects cannot be reproduced from study to study, the logical conclusion has to be that it can't be proved one way or the other.


----------



## STARNUT (Jun 19, 2005)

Kerry Irons said:


> I guess I wasn't precise/clear enough. Yes, there are studies that show different crank lengths improve efficiency. What you miss was all the studies that DON'T show that effect. For example, a recently widely publicized 2008 study by Jim Martin, Ph.D., from the University of Utah shows zero correlation between crank length and any performance factors. I've been seening various studies for decades, and the sum of all of them is inconclusive. Any time you see this in the literature, you have to conclude that 1) there is no effect, 2) the effect is too small to measure, 3) we haven't figured out how to conduct a conclusive study. When the effects cannot be reproduced from study to study, the logical conclusion has to be that it can't be proved one way or the other.



Your right.......... I would just like to add a few things.



If you read the Martin study carefully there is more to the story. Crank length has 0 to do with actual power production. The 1st you lean with a power meter is that power is simply force x velocity. Its how hard you push _*AND*_ how fast you push. If your 5'7" and can spin a 175...... kuddos. Martin set out to debunk the "longer crank = more power" argument. He concluded that one should buy cranks based on injury prevention, aerodynamics, and ground clearance. There is a reason that the highest ever recorded in-competition wattage was set on a set of 165 mm cranks. Force _*AND*_ speed are essential for power.


Crank length is not a magic wand.

Specifically to the efficiency argument, talk, section, whatever. How are we using "efficiency" here? If were are still talking about crank length and the magic efficiency of going from one to the other? Well crank length has nadda to do with that as well. The McDaniel, Durstine, Hand, and Martin (JAP 2002) paper found that:

Power Output and Pedal Speed account for 98% of the varaibility in metabolic cost in a group of 9 well trained cyclists. Which, accounted for 99% of the variablity for each individual. Of the remaining 2% variability, crank length and pedaling rate each accounted for 1% or 0.02% of total. So...... not much.

The conclusion is that crank length and pedaling rate influence metabolic cost and efficiency only by influencng pedal speed (1/2 of the power formula.)

Run what ever crank length you want.

Starnut


----------

