# Any Correlation Between a Cyclist's Height and Success?



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

In many sports, height gives the participant an advantage. Have any studies been done to correlate height and success in cycling? The heights of most pro cyclists are given on Wikipedia and I’ve noticed quite a range. It would appear that it’s the all-important power-to-weight ratio that matters the most in cycling rather than the rider’s height. Has anyone analyzed this in further detail?


----------



## JustTooBig (Aug 11, 2005)

I'd think it would be nearly impossible to do when considering that even within just road racing, you have grand tours, 1-wk tours, one-day racing, etc..... and someone with an "ideal build" for one may not be a contender in another discipline.

One basic example are two Tour winners in a relatively small time window: Pantani was under 5'8", Indurain was 6'2". 

Johan Vansummeren, who won PR in 2011, was 6'6" or something ridiculous like that.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

I've never seen an analysis, but I strongly suspect that height provides no advantage, but not necessarily any large disadvantage. 

Power-to-weight ratio is only one parameter that's meaningful. It's most important in climbing, but matters less for time-trial specialists, roleurs and sprinters. Absolute power, aerobic efficiency (VO2 max), recovery ability and many other factors matter.

Although there's a range of sizes in the pro peleton, my impression is that pro cyclists are on the small end of average. They are certainly shorter on average than pros in sports where height really matters (baseball, football, even soccer).

The tallest Tour de France winner was Bradley Wiggins at 6'3" last year; tallest previous winner was Miguel Indurain at 6'2". They'd be little guys in many other pro sports. Armstrong is about 5'10", same for Contador, Merckx a hair over 6'.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I was thinking maybe more so in pro mountain biking, but I'd have to research it a bit more. Off hand it seems to me quite a few of the international pros are smaller guys.


----------



## SBard1985 (May 13, 2012)

All my shorter friends are killer climbers. Not sure if that is just coincidence or has any true meaning behind it. Maybe since they're shorter than can theoretically carry less overall weight on them. I'm 6-1, I would take that over being being 5-6, just saying.


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

JCavilia said:


> I've never seen an analysis, but I strongly suspect that height provides no advantage, but not necessarily any large disadvantage.
> 
> Power-to-weight ratio is only one parameter that's meaningful. It's most important in climbing, but matters less for time-trial specialists, roleurs and sprinters. Absolute power, aerobic efficiency (VO2 max), recovery ability and many other factors matter.
> 
> ...


I agree with your thoughts though I wonder if pro cyclists are on the small end of average when compared to men in general. Or were you referring to other professional athletes?

I looked up many pros and the shortest I could find is Levi Leipheimer at 5'6". Most are in the 5'8" to 6'0" range. I would suspect that heights over the 6'3" of Wiggins could potentially start to be a disadvantage. I'm not sure if that would apply on the short end. Most men are over 5'6" so there's not a big pool for a pro cyclist under that height to come from.


----------



## pacific (Feb 20, 2013)

I ride primarily on a very speed-friendly course (a paved 4 mile loop, no climbs, no lights, few cars - not even a sharp turn to slow you down). Everyone there is doing intervals or a pace line or otherwise trying to go very very fast. 

Barring the occasional exception, it's my observation that the fastest guys around that course are the 6'+ giants with hams for thighs.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JasonB176 said:


> I agree with your thoughts though I wonder if pro cyclists are on the small end of average when compared to men in general. Or were you referring to other professional athletes?
> 
> I looked up many pros and the shortest I could find is Levi Leipheimer at 5'6". Most are in the 5'8" to 6'0" range. I would suspect that heights over the 6'3" of Wiggins could potentially start to be a disadvantage. I'm not sure if that would apply on the short end. Most men are over 5'6" so there's not a big pool for a pro cyclist under that height to come from.


given the average male in the us is 5'10" why would most randomly picked not be between 5'8" and 6'0"? 
Height Chart of Men and Women in Different Countries
(funny enough, dutch pros are as far as I can tell taller than spanish pros, in average. fits nicely with national average height).


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

pacific said:


> I ride primarily on a very speed-friendly course (a paved 4 mile loop, no climbs, no lights, few cars - not even a sharp turn to slow you down). Everyone there is doing intervals or a pace line or otherwise trying to go very very fast.
> 
> Barring the occasional exception, it's my observation that the fastest guys around that course are the 6' giants with hams for thighs.


That makes sense for those conditions. I was thinking more of those who compete for the overall general classification in races that have a mixture of terrain.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JasonB176 said:


> That makes sense for those conditions. I was thinking more of those who compete for the overall general classification in races that have a mixture of terrain.


There's some 5 inches and change between Evans and Hejsedal.


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

den bakker said:


> given the average male in the us is 5'10" why would most randomly picked not be between 5'8" and 6'0"?
> Height Chart of Men and Women in Different Countries
> (funny enough, dutch pros are as far as I can tell taller than spanish pros, in average. fits nicely with national average height).


You just proved my point. Pro cyclists are not on the small side of average for men but rather right on average.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

JasonB176 said:


> *In many sports, height gives the participant an advantage.* Have any studies been done to correlate height and success in cycling? The heights of most pro cyclists are given on Wikipedia and I’ve noticed quite a range. It would appear that it’s the all-important power-to-weight ratio that matters the most in cycling rather than the rider’s height. Has anyone analyzed this in further detail?


Right, like heading a ball in soccer, rebounding, leverage on a fastball and so on.

But what can you point to in cycling where height, all other things being equal, could be an advantage? If anything it would be a disadvantage I'd think. If a tall and short person had identical weight/power, the shorter person would probably have better aerodynamics and thus be faster.

Taller than average people may tent to have better genetics, bigger lungs or whatever, but it's not the height, per se, that would help or hurt a cyclist.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

pacific said:


> I ride primarily on a very speed-friendly course (a paved 4 mile loop, no climbs, no lights, few cars - not even a sharp turn to slow you down). Everyone there is doing intervals or a pace line or otherwise trying to go very very fast.
> 
> Barring the occasional exception, it's my observation that the fastest guys around that course are the 6'+ giants with hams for thighs.


Roleurs. Muscular guys with great power-to-drag ratio. The biggest pro cyclist I ever heard of, Magnus Backstedt, was 6'4" and 210 pounds. He pulled some trains in his time. But he didn't climb mountains very fast.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

Height can matter in a sport that involves running because one's stride can matter. On a bicycle it's irrelevant. It's a matter of PWR or even more basically the gear ratio combined with the cadence that the rider is pushing.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

JCavilia said:


> Roleurs. Muscular guys with great power-to-drag ratio. The biggest pro cyclist I ever heard of, Magnus Backstedt, was 6'4" and 210 pounds. He pulled some trains in his time. But he didn't climb mountains very fast.


it's still his time, he races in the UK now  
(yeah sure he is not going to win Paris-Roubaix again). 
and to get back on the topic of size differences among the pros. 
Backstedt with de lucas bike
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Right, like heading a ball in soccer, rebounding, leverage on a fastball and so on.
> 
> But what can you point to in cycling where height, all other things being equal, could be an advantage? If anything it would be a disadvantage I'd think. If a tall and short person had identical weight/power, the shorter person would probably have better aerodynamics and thus be faster.
> 
> Taller than average people may tent to have better genetics, bigger lungs or whatever, but it's not the height, per se, that would help or hurt a cyclist.


Interesting. I would think, though, that there would be a cut-off where being too short would start to be some kind of disadvantage. I wonder if shorter female cyclists do as well as female cyclists who are closer to the male average height. Would a 5'0" height translate into a lower power potential?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

JasonB176 said:


> Interesting. *I would think, though, that there would be a cut-off where being too short would start to be some kind of disadvantage*. I wonder if shorter female cyclists do as well as female cyclists who are closer to the male average height. Would a 5'0" height translate into a lower power potential?


But you don't think there would be such a cut-off on the tall end?

Sure, I don't know any good 5'0" cyclist. Don't know of any 7'0" good cyclist either.

Pointing out that real short people don't have good cycling potential doesn't point towards taller people having it.


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> But you don't think there would be such a cut-off on the tall end?
> 
> Sure, I don't know any good 5'0" cyclist. Don't know of any 7'0" good cyclist either.
> 
> Pointing out that real short people don't have good cycling potential doesn't point towards taller people having it.


I already posted above that I thought Wiggins at 6'3" would be at the very top range of height before it would start to be a disadvantage.


----------



## c.rod (Apr 30, 2013)

all i know is i look cooler posing at the coffee shop next to the short guys.... lol (6'3")


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm pretty sure my performance is held back by: (in order of affect)

1.) Being 200 lbs
2.) Having to work for a living
3.) Being 49 years old

Being 6'-3" is down on the list.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I'm 5'6". I've been on the top step of the podium before and both riders are still taller than me. 

Then there's this guy


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

JCavilia said:


> Magnus Backstedt, was 6'4" and 210 pounds


Eros Poli was about that size and he won a Tour stage on Mont Ventoux, didn't he?

(Ridiculously fortunate circumstances though)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Eros Poli was about that size and he won a Tour stage on Mont Ventoux, didn't he?
> 
> (Ridiculously fortunate circumstances though)


I think Backstedt was officially the tallest and Dumoulin the smallest.


----------



## steelbikerider (Feb 7, 2005)

I'm digging hard in the old memory bank but I seem to recall that in The Bernard Hinault or Greg Lemond cycling book from the mid 80's there was a study that compared the femur ratio to the rest of the body or the lower leg. Regardless of the riders' height, the ratio for Merckx, Moser, Lemond, Anquetiel et al came out to 1.2 or something like that.


----------



## kjdhawkhill (Jan 29, 2011)

The Grand Tour GC winners are usually short by my standards... Wiggins gives some hope, Big Mig was an exception with a nick-name to match... 

Not that I'm looking for excuses for my poor riding, cryin but I'll take the built in excuses where they naturally exist. But coming from a running (longer than 10k) background where Ryan Hall is an ogre at 5-10, I am aware of these tendencies. 

I know that when I ride in small groups of 3-5, I have to work harder than my shorter friends (when at the front), and I'm not that huge at 6-3.


----------



## Burnette (Mar 25, 2013)

*The Big And Small Of It*

As others have touched on, the shear amount of variables are not to be ignored. Baseball, Track and Field, Tennis all have variables too, but Cycling has more.
Let me explain, the added variables of the dynamics of group riding with drafting, weather (hot temps, rain, etc...) long hours and diet during the event is more daunting when juxtaposed against something like Cricket.
Most sports have well defined boundries. First base is so many feet, the basket is so many inches high where as a bike race, the metrics can vary wildly. Cycling attacks, steep mountain passes, heat and cold, support crew, mechanics, equipment, it goes on and on.
Where cycling is like other sports, i.e. where it has more defined boundries is Track racing. You could do a search on their average size and get a read on what type of rider fits that discipline best, but road racing is another animal all together.


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

And if someone did find a skew of 'successful professional riders' that are shorter than their national average....it may just be that those of less height (but great ability) have lesser opportunity in other sports and fall back to cycling. You could be a heck of a basketball player, but at 5'5", you're not going to get much look at by scouts. So if you can turn your athletic ability into powering up mountains....

Otherwise, "success" at cycling is just too varied to compare across the board. Different "types" do well on certain courses. (But it's just as much about who else shows up also...the riders make the race more than the course)


----------



## tom93r1 (Jul 19, 2009)

At 6'6" my excuses for being slower than my 5'8" friend is that I have an extra 70lbs to haul around and my aerodynamics is nowhere near as good. 

Weight doesn't help on the hills, but all around aero is definitely a factor, when doing big event rides I find that people like to get behind me and stay there. Always get comments about how it's like drafting a train, etc. I think that while power to weight ratio is ultimately king, height does have some penalty.


----------



## JasonB176 (Aug 18, 2011)

mmoose said:


> And if someone did find a skew of 'successful professional riders' that are shorter than their national average....it may just be that those of less height (but great ability) have lesser opportunity in other sports and fall back to cycling. You could be a heck of a basketball player, but at 5'5", you're not going to get much look at by scouts. So if you can turn your athletic ability into powering up mountains....
> 
> Otherwise, "success" at cycling is just too varied to compare across the board. Different "types" do well on certain courses. (But it's just as much about who else shows up also...the riders make the race more than the course)


So, you're saying that *tom93r1* at 6'6" isn't at any disadvantage? I agree about the variables to a certain extent but I definitely think very tall riders are most likely at some kind of disadvantage than their smaller counterparts. 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, where exactly the tall and short points are where there could be significant penalties is an open question.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 9, 2010)

steelbikerider said:


> I'm digging hard in the old memory bank but I seem to recall that in The Bernard Hinault or Greg Lemond cycling book from the mid 80's there was a study that compared the femur ratio to the rest of the body or the lower leg. Regardless of the riders' height, the ratio for Merckx, Moser, Lemond, Anquetiel et al came out to 1.2 or something like that.



I have seen that concept referenced several places, but it is the ratio of femur length to tibia length. I have also seen it as the femur lent compared to the entire leg.


----------



## tee-bone (Apr 27, 2011)

mmoose said:


> And if someone did find a skew of 'successful professional riders' that are shorter than their national average....it may just be that those of less height (but great ability) have lesser opportunity in other sports and fall back to cycling. You could be a heck of a basketball player, but at 5'5", you're not going to get much look at by scouts. So if you can turn your athletic ability into powering up mountains....
> 
> Otherwise, "success" at cycling is just too varied to compare across the board. Different "types" do well on certain courses. (But it's just as much about who else shows up also...the riders make the race more than the course)


^^ this

Any sport where a certain physical trait confers an advantage is going to have a greater than average percentage of participants with that trait. Since focus on that sport generally means less time (and thus less success potential) in other sports, the other sports can be expected to have fewer participants with that trait.


----------



## Ladric (Jul 26, 2013)

*Few road bikes for tall riders*

One reason that you may not see tall road riders is that very few companies make bikes for tall riders.








61cm and 62cm is about as bike as most frames get. When you find a 63cm it may not be that big (TT 59 or 60) and jsut have a tall ST.


----------



## DonDenver (May 30, 2007)

spade2you said:


> I'm 5'6". I've been on the top step of the podium before and both riders are still taller than me.


FIFY; 6'5", you got your numbers reversed, easy mistake


----------



## mrbull (Jun 14, 2005)

I"ve always felt my size is somewhat of a disadvantage, although less on the bike than running.

A couple of years ago, the only guy to pass me on the bike leg of a triathlon came up after the race and told me I should work on my aero position. He came up to my ribcage.


----------

