Height and weight of pro riders
Toni Lund
Anyone know the height and the weight of these professional riders:
Leonardo Piepoli
Valerio Tebaldi
Bart Voskamp
Peter Van Petegem
As for searching the largest and the smallest riders of all time, or at
least of the '90s, Eros Poli and Valerio Tebaldi are certainly large.
Miguel Arroyo is 1,61 m tall and weights 59 kg, one of the smallest.
Anyone remember how tall Nelson Rodrigues was? The lightest is certainly
Marco Pantani, only 56 kg (1,72 m tall).
It's very interesting to compare the weight indexes of the pro riders.
Weight index is height in kg / weight in meters. It is said that the
weight index is one of the key things to be a good climber.
Marco Pantani, 1,72 m, 56 kg, 32.56
Richard Virenque, 1,79 m, 65 kg, 36.31
Tony Rominger, 1,75 m, 65 kg, 37,14 (retired)
Fernardo Escartin, 1,74 m, 74 kg, 42,53
Laurent Dufaux, 1,69 m, 59 kg, 34.91
Alex Zulle, 1,86 m, 72 kg, 38.71
Miguel Indurain, 1,88 m, 79 kg, 42.02 (retired)
Bjarne Riis, 1,84 m, 71 kg, 38.59
Jan Ullrich, 1,83 m, 73 kg, 39.89
Ivan Gotti, 1,73 m, 65 kg, 37.57
Evgueni Berzin, 1,70 m, 64 kg, 37.65
Abraham Olano, 1,82 m, 76 kg, 41.76
Peter Luttenberger, 1,73 m, 60 kg, 34.68
Bo Hamburger, 1,74 m, 58 kg, 33.33
Luc Leblanc, 1,73 m, 62 kg, 35.84
Jean-Philippe Dojwa, 1,73 m, 58 kg, 33.53
Pantani has clearly the best and phenomenal weight index.
Toni (1,74 m, 61 kg, 35.06)
Emilio Castelli
Toni Lund wrote:
>
> It's very interesting to compare the weight indexes of the pro riders.
> Weight index is height in kg / weight in meters. It is said that the
> weight index is one of the key things to be a good climber.
>
Why would height be beneficial to speed uphill?
car...@earthlink.net
Typically, if you are tall, you have pretty long levers (legs). The
latest VN notes that Felice Gimondi's nephew is going to start full time
racing. He is 6'6" and 155 lbs.
peel...@online.no
In article <34BDFC3E...@pultti.ttaol.fi>,
Toni Lund <tol...@pultti.ttaol.fi> wrote:
>
> Anyone know the height and the weight of these professional riders:
>
> Leonardo Piepoli
> Valerio Tebaldi
> Bart Voskamp
> Peter Van Petegem
>
> As for searching the largest and the smallest riders of all time, or at
> least of the '90s, Eros Poli and Valerio Tebaldi are certainly large.
> Miguel Arroyo is 1,61 m tall and weights 59 kg, one of the smallest.
> Anyone remember how tall Nelson Rodrigues was? The lightest is certainly
> Marco Pantani, only 56 kg (1,72 m tall).
>
> Weight index is height in kg / weight in meters. It is said that the
> weight index is one of the key things to be a good climber.
>
> Richard Virenque, 1,79 m, 65 kg, 36.31
> Tony Rominger, 1,75 m, 65 kg, 37,14 (retired)
> Fernardo Escartin, 1,74 m, 74 kg, 42,53
> Laurent Dufaux, 1,69 m, 59 kg, 34.91
> Alex Zulle, 1,86 m, 72 kg, 38.71
> Miguel Indurain, 1,88 m, 79 kg, 42.02 (retired)
> Bjarne Riis, 1,84 m, 71 kg, 38.59
> Jan Ullrich, 1,83 m, 73 kg, 39.89
> Ivan Gotti, 1,73 m, 65 kg, 37.57
> Evgueni Berzin, 1,70 m, 64 kg, 37.65
> Abraham Olano, 1,82 m, 76 kg, 41.76
> Peter Luttenberger, 1,73 m, 60 kg, 34.68
> Bo Hamburger, 1,74 m, 58 kg, 33.33
> Luc Leblanc, 1,73 m, 62 kg, 35.84
> Jean-Philippe Dojwa, 1,73 m, 58 kg, 33.53
>
> Pantani has clearly the best and phenomenal weight index.
>
> Toni (1,74 m, 61 kg, 35.06)
Unfortunately I can't give you any exact numbers. However, I'm quite sure
that Piepoli is ligther than Pantani, probably 52-54 kg. In the most
recent edition of 'Bicisport' Pantani says that on really steep climbs,
i.e. the ones that are never included in the Tour de France but
occasionally are so in the Giro, Piepoli would easily drop a (different
type of) climber like Virenque. They say that Bjarne Riis' weight during
the Tour is close to 68 kg, Andrea Tafi is 188 cm tall and weighs in at
around 70-71 kg. In addition Abraham Olano has clearly dropped a few
kilos since he became world champion. I reckon he is close to 70 kg now.
And what about Gotti? Such a skinny guy most certainly doesn't weigh 65
kg. Other reports (that I vaguely remember) told that during the 1995 TdF
the ligthest rider was a Colombian (Buenahora?) with a weight of 52 kg
and that former classics specialist van Hooydonck was 194 cm tall and
weighed a meager 67 kg. During his reign Fausto Coppi - now there's a
skinny bloke - was standing 177 cm tall and was carrying around 72 kg.
For his rival Gino Bartali the figures are 170cm/66 kg. Does anybody
remember the stature and weight of Lucho Herrera during the 1980s?
Roy Ellefsen
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jon Isaacs
>Why would height be beneficial to speed uphill?
I think basically the weight index takes a function weight which should be the
third power of the variable height and says they should be linear. Thus the
the weight index basically selects for short riders.
For someone as tall as Indurain to have the same weight index as Pantani, he
would have to have to have the same "body diameter" (chest measurement, hips,
leg circumferance etc.) as Pantani. This is clearly not optimal for Indurain.
Ilan Vardi
The worst ratio must have belonged to Lance Armstrong who is 5'10 and
weighed 177lb. in 1996 right before getting cancer. I thought that
was a misprint, but he also claimed that he now weighs 170lb. but
has a higher fat percentage.
-ilan
Toni Lund
peel...@online.no wrote:
> Unfortunately I can't give you any exact numbers. However, I'm quite sure
> that Piepoli is ligther than Pantani, probably 52-54 kg.
And he is probably also shorter than Pantani, about 164-168 cm. So it seems
that in fact Piepoli has the best weight index, breaking Pantani's 32.56
clearly.
> In the most
> recent edition of 'Bicisport' Pantani says that on really steep climbs,
> i.e. the ones that are never included in the Tour de France but
> occasionally are so in the Giro, Piepoli would easily drop a (different
> type of) climber like Virenque.
That is probably the problem with climbers like Pantani and Piepoli, that
their capabilities starts to really show only on really steep climbs. L'Alpe
d'Huez and Lourdes Hautacam suits Pantani very well.
Toni
Toni Lund
Emilio Castelli wrote:
> > It's very interesting to compare the weight indexes of the pro riders.
> > Weight index is height in kg / weight in meters. It is said that the
> > weight index is one of the key things to be a good climber.
>
> Why would height be beneficial to speed uphill?
As I wrote, not the height, the height / weight ratio.
Toni
PHB010a
>Anyone know the height and the weight of these professional riders:
>
>Leonardo Piepoli
>Valerio Tebaldi
>Bart Voskamp
>Peter Van Petegem
The Tour site www.letour.fr has a search engine that gives biographies of all
the riders in the 1997 tour. Height and weight are included.
Reg_Burgess%AntiSpamPostfix%
In article <34C460C3...@pultti.ttaol.fi> Toni Lund
> Emilio Castelli wrote:
>
> > > It's very interesting to compare the weight indexes of the pro
riders.
> > > Weight index is height in kg / weight in meters.
Huh ? I'm not exactly inumerate, but these units don't make sense to me.
Somewhere else I stumbled across BMI (body mass index) but failed to
follow up on understanding that too, maybe its best that I don't (-:
regards,
Reg
{kinda short for my weight}
Toni Lund
PHB010a wrote:
Yes, I know, but Piepoli and Tebaldi did not take part in the 1997 Tour. Voskamp
and Van Petegem did but for some reason their height and weight are not included.
Toni
Toni Lund
Toni Lund
Toni Lund
Reg Burgess wrote:
> > > > It's very interesting to compare the weight indexes of the pro
> riders.
> > > > Weight index is height in kg / weight in meters.
>
> Huh ? I'm not exactly inumerate, but these units don't make sense to me.
> Somewhere else I stumbled across BMI (body mass index) but failed to
> follow up on understanding that too, maybe its best that I don't (-:
Duh, there was a typo. Height is of course in meters, weight in kg.
For example, Marco Pantani is 1,72 m tall and weights 56 kg. His weight ratio
is:
56 kg / 1,72 m = 32,56
There is also available some charts for these ratio values. Values under 35
means that the height/weight ratio is great, 35-37 is good, 38-39 is average,
40-41 is bad and over 42 is poor.... as far as climbing is concerned.
Toni
Jeff Jones
Toni Lund (tol...@pultti.ttaol.fi) wrote:
: For example, Marco Pantani is 1,72 m tall and weights 56 kg. His weight ratio
: is:
: 56 kg / 1,72 m = 32,56
: There is also available some charts for these ratio values. Values under 35
: means that the height/weight ratio is great, 35-37 is good, 38-39 is average,
: 40-41 is bad and over 42 is poor.... as far as climbing is concerned.
There is definitely more to it than that. My weight ratio is 34.7, but I'd
reckon Cippolini would beat me up a hill. I wish I could sprint like him
though.
Jeff
--
***************************************************************
* Dr Jones * __o *
* jon...@chem.usyd.edu.au * _'\<,_/ *
* nutriti...@miningco.com * (Y)/ (Y) *
* http://nutrition.miningco.com * *
* This weeks feature: Superfoods * *
***************************************************************
Eric Harvey
Jeff Jones (jon...@alf.chem.su.oz.au) wrote:
: Toni Lund (tol...@pultti.ttaol.fi) wrote:
: : For example, Marco Pantani is 1,72 m tall and weights 56 kg. His weight ratio
: : is:
: : 56 kg / 1,72 m = 32,56
: : There is also available some charts for these ratio values. Values under 35
: : means that the height/weight ratio is great, 35-37 is good, 38-39 is average,
: : 40-41 is bad and over 42 is poor.... as far as climbing is concerned.
: There is definitely more to it than that. My weight ratio is 34.7, but I'd
: reckon Cippolini would beat me up a hill. I wish I could sprint like him
: though.
There definitely is more to it. Height to weight ratio means relatively
nothing. Power to weight ratio is where it's at for climbing. That's why
a guy like Pantani can fly up hills, even with a considerably lower
maximal and threshold power output than someone like Jan Ullrich. But
Ullrich's absolute power output at threshold allows him to destroy Pantani
on flatish time-trials.
There's no point saying that height-weight ratio means anything. Miguel
Indurain (at race fitness) was 188 cm and 78 kg, for a ratio of 41.5. Was
he a bad climber?? Power....
Eric.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Harvey email: eha...@med.phys.ualberta.ca
Dept. of Medical Physics phone: (403)432-8618
Cross Cancer Institute fax: (403)432-8615
11560 University Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 1Z2
Jeff Jones
Eric Harvey (eha...@phys.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: There definitely is more to it. Height to weight ratio means relatively
: nothing. Power to weight ratio is where it's at for climbing. That's why
: a guy like Pantani can fly up hills, even with a considerably lower
: maximal and threshold power output than someone like Jan Ullrich. But
: Ullrich's absolute power output at threshold allows him to destroy Pantani
: on flatish time-trials.
: There's no point saying that height-weight ratio means anything. Miguel
: Indurain (at race fitness) was 188 cm and 78 kg, for a ratio of 41.5. Was
: he a bad climber?? Power....
Yep - this is the key. But how on earth do you get it??? Race lots? Ride in
big gears up hills? Weights? Illegal substances?
Inquiring minds want to know :-)
Jeff
--
***************************************************************
* Dr Jones * __o *
* jon...@chem.usyd.edu.au * _'\<,_/ *
* nutriti...@miningco.com * (Y)/ (Y) *
* http://nutrition.miningco.com * *
* This weeks feature: Food Allergies * *
***************************************************************
Dan Connelly
Eric Harvey wrote:
>
> Jeff Jones (jon...@alf.chem.su.oz.au) wrote:
> : Toni Lund (tol...@pultti.ttaol.fi) wrote:
>
> : : For example, Marco Pantani is 1,72 m tall and weights 56 kg. His weight ratio
> : : is:
>
> : : 56 kg / 1,72 m = 32,56
> There definitely is more to it. Height to weight ratio means relatively
> nothing. Power to weight ratio is where it's at for climbing.
The original question was on Body Mass Index, which is mass/height^2, as mass
is much more closely correlated to height^2 than height.
However, if the goal is to establish a "climber's" metric based on mass and
height, any simple monotonic function will fail, as one can be too light
as well as too heavy, if the loss in weight results in a disproportionate
power loss. And the mass of importance is total mass, including the bike.
This difference is non-trivial when comparing riders of extreme sizes.
Dan
David N. Welton
jon...@alf.chem.su.oz.au (Jeff Jones) writes:
>
> Eric Harvey (eha...@phys.ualberta.ca) wrote:
> Yep - this is the key. But how on earth do you get it??? Race lots? Ride in
> big gears up hills? Weights? Illegal substances?
All of the above, + genetics:-) I personally find long rides with
lots of hills get me in good climbing shape. And are fun to boot:-)
--
David Welton http://www.efn.org/~davidw
--Debian GNU/Linux--
Gregory White
Has anyone thought of using Sheldon's somatotyping? It has a three dimensional
categorization of body type. Sheldon uses Height over the cube root of weight.