Effect of height on ability to ride a road bicycle?

In article .com,
says...
Does a person's height affect their ability to ride a road/touring
bicycle?
I know a short guy (about 5' tall) that would enjoy riding with our
group, but he's concerned about his height being a disadvantage. He's
in good physical condition and not overweight.
On one hand a short person has less weight to push. On the other hand,
the world is relatively larger. The constant here is wheel size (27").
Does a person's height affect their riding ability?

5' is not a problem. Just make sure they get a bike that is the right size for
them.
------------
Alex

Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh, poop-poop-ee-doop. I've known more than one "bantam rooster"-type guys
who kick ass on bikes.

Translation: I've known a couple of small, fast guys; therefore, all
small guys must be fast.

Math, watts, VO2s be damned; fit is fit and strong
is strong.

Actually, strong = watts.


OP: tell your friend he'll do fine on group rides.

And maybe he will. But you have no way in the world of knowing that,
since you don't know anything about the group, the rider in question,
or human physiology. All we know, based on the information we have, is
that ON AVERAGE, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a smaller rider will be
at a disadvantage on flat rides. Based on that the OP should be able to
figure out a reasonable approach to bringing his friend on rides to see
how he does. For all we know, he may be one of those people who doesn't
mind getting hammered on a fast flat ride and will just wait for the
moment where he can hammer back on a climb. Or the rides may be slow
enough that the difference isn't significant. OR, maybe he's more fit
than _some_ of the people on the ride who are already the "least common
denominator" of the group's pace. Or the rides may be short enough that
it doesn't matter.

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh, poop-poop-ee-doop. I've known more than one "bantam
rooster"-type guys who kick ass on bikes.

Translation: I've known a couple of small, fast guys; therefore, all
small guys must be fast.

Check your logic at the door...AGAIN?!?

Math, watts, VO2s be damned; fit is fit and strong
is strong.

Actually, strong = watts.


OP: tell your friend he'll do fine on group rides.

And maybe he will. But you have no way in the world of knowing that,
since you don't know anything about the group, the rider in question,
or human physiology. All we know, based on the information we have, is
that ON AVERAGE, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a smaller rider will be
at a disadvantage on flat rides. Based on that the OP should be able
to figure out a reasonable approach to bringing his friend on rides
to see how he does. For all we know, he may be one of those people
who doesn't mind getting hammered on a fast flat ride and will just
wait for the moment where he can hammer back on a climb. Or the rides
may be slow enough that the difference isn't significant. OR, maybe
he's more fit than _some_ of the people on the ride who are already
the "least common denominator" of the group's pace. Or the rides may
be short enough that it doesn't matter.

Talk much?

"Christopher Horner and Laurent Lefevre shared the lowest resting heart
rate, of 35 beats per minute."

Is this really the lowest HR in the Tour? I thought Lance and folks
were down into the high twenties?

Bill Sornson wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh, poop-poop-ee-doop. I've known more than one "bantam
rooster"-type guys who kick ass on bikes.

Translation: I've known a couple of small, fast guys; therefore, all
small guys must be fast.

Check your logic at the door...AGAIN?!?

It's YOUR logic, not mine. Or perhaps you just pointed out that you
knew a couple of small fast guys as a fascinating bit of autobiography,
merely coincidental and unrelated to the discussion that composes the
rest of this thread or your argument in particular.

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh, poop-poop-ee-doop. I've known more than one "bantam rooster"-type guys
who kick ass on bikes.

Translation: I've known a couple of small, fast guys; therefore, all
small guys must be fast.

Math, watts, VO2s be damned; fit is fit and strong
is strong.

Actually, strong = watts.


OP: tell your friend he'll do fine on group rides.

And maybe he will. But you have no way in the world of knowing that,
since you don't know anything about the group, the rider in question,
or human physiology. All we know, based on the information we have, is
that ON AVERAGE, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a smaller rider will be
at a disadvantage on flat rides. Based on that the OP should be able to
figure out a reasonable approach to bringing his friend on rides to see
how he does. For all we know, he may be one of those people who doesn't
mind getting hammered on a fast flat ride and will just wait for the
moment where he can hammer back on a climb. Or the rides may be slow
enough that the difference isn't significant. OR, maybe he's more fit
than _some_ of the people on the ride who are already the "least common
denominator" of the group's pace. Or the rides may be short enough that
it doesn't matter.

I think that all things being equal in terms of fitness, smaller riders
have a distinct advantage over larger riders in the real world of
non-elite riders. Most terrain has at least some hills, and here the
smaller (and thus often lighter) riders can ride away from larger
riders or at least put them in a world of hurt by pushing the pace. As
the lower speeds of climbing diminish the effects of drafting the
larger folks struggling to hang on have no option but to suffer.

On flat sections, small riders get a very beneficial draft from larger
riders, and themselves offer little benefit to larger riders drafting
behind them. So this means in the real world, it is almost impossible
for a larger rider of the same level of fitness to ride away from a
smaller rider on the flats, unless they purposely does some sort of
maneuver to deprive the smaller person of a draft, while the same
smaller person would probably be able to ride away from the larger
person on a climb with no problems.

There a plenty of smaller riders in our club that I can clobber in a
flat time-trial who I could never drop by just pouring on the coals on
a group ride, but they can drop me at a moments notice on any climb
that lasts more than a minute or so.

Joseph

On 7 Nov 2005 01:11:35 -0800, "Bruce W.1" wrote:

Does a person's height affect their ability to ride a road/touring
bicycle?

I know a short guy (about 5' tall) that would enjoy riding with our
group, but he's concerned about his height being a disadvantage.

Disadvantage to what? Is he competing against other people. If not,
he should just get on the bike and ride.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:08:00 +0000 (UTC), (C) wrote:

There's big difference between height (the original question) and weight.
For example certain tall skinny Tour de France racers are fantastic climbers,
but terrible on the flats and downhills.

No racer in the Tour de France is *terrible* at any sort of road
riding -- climbing, descending, flats, whatever. Almost surely better
at all these things than 99% of the public or perhaps even people in
this group.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
Oh, poop-poop-ee-doop. I've known more than one "bantam
rooster"-type guys who kick ass on bikes.

Translation: I've known a couple of small, fast guys; therefore, all
small guys must be fast.

Math, watts, VO2s be damned; fit is fit and strong
is strong.

Actually, strong = watts.


OP: tell your friend he'll do fine on group rides.

And maybe he will. But you have no way in the world of knowing that,
since you don't know anything about the group, the rider in question,
or human physiology. All we know, based on the information we have, is
that ON AVERAGE, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a smaller rider will be
at a disadvantage on flat rides. Based on that the OP should be able
to figure out a reasonable approach to bringing his friend on rides
to see how he does. For all we know, he may be one of those people
who doesn't mind getting hammered on a fast flat ride and will just
wait for the moment where he can hammer back on a climb. Or the rides
may be slow enough that the difference isn't significant. OR, maybe
he's more fit than _some_ of the people on the ride who are already
the "least common denominator" of the group's pace. Or the rides may
be short enough that it doesn't matter.

Yah, totally dude! I'm 5'5" and I can't keep up with the Cat 1 riders.
Damn my abbreviated-height-heritage!
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

The problem with a small light rider is that their bicycle weight is
a much higher percentage of the overall weight of rider and bike..
About the only way you can reduce the weight of the bike for a
smaller rider is the frame and wheels, as everything else is the
same. I weigh 185lbs, and we can only get her bike less than a pound
lighter than mine. You can obviously use the lightest frame and
wheels you can find as small light rider can't hurt them no matter
how they ride.

Yes, yes, yes!!! Finally somebody understands how difficult it is to ride
my 32-lb MTB up a hill, whereas the 18-lber MTB is a rocket uphill! A bike
that is 25 percent of your own body weight, versus ~13%, makes a huge, huge
difference.

The aluminum beercan MTB frame I had welded back together is holding okay,
but it has begun to generate a crack on one small portion. Gonna get it
welded again and ride it another couple hundred miles! Not bad for two
races and a couple of training rides...

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training