Are tall riders at a disadvantage for GC wins?

[dominikk85]

None of this makes any sense nor is there a different between road and TT.

Why would a long torso matter? It's horizontal.

Why would long arms matter? You just adjust your touch points.

The space from saddle to handlebar is adjustable based on frame size and stem length.

If Ganna hasn't bothered to optimize his position on a road bike and Evenepoel has, that has nothing to do with their heights.

The space from handlebar to saddle is adjustable but UCI rules are putting a limit to this (Saddle position and length of aero Bars are regulated by UCI).

So a taller rider might have to be more upright to fit the UCI rules.

you would be right if there where no UCI rules and you could still use the superman position that boardman used but with the UCI rules a taller rider might be more "crunched" on the bike.

 

[carton]

White Europeans under 40 are more like 180cm on average though. Nordic Europeans like belgium, norway, denmark, Germany or Holland which make up a large chunk of the professional field are even taller and more like over 180 on average in that age group and Demographic (posted a link of young dutch men being 183 on average and probably even a bit taller for white dutch).

According to that link only 12% of dutch men born in 2001 are under 175cm and the cohort of 190+ is actually larger than under 175.

How tall are Dutch people?

In 2020, the average 19-year-old male born in the Netherlands was 182.9 cm tall; females of this age were 169.3 cm on average.

longreads.cbs.nl

Southern European and South American riders might be shorter on average than Danish, Belgian or Dutch riders, but not sure.

As I said a couple of times the average male height in the Netherlands is exceptionally tall, but so are the Dinka, the Tutsi and the Herzogovinians, who are not that relevant to cycling except as contributing to the global averages. In Germany the average male is actually bang on 1.75m in Belgium it's 1.77m and in Denmark and Norway 1.80m. Spain, Italy and Portugal are 1.73m, 1.76m, and 1.71m respectively, though the numbers for Italy are less representative. Here is a handy table from Wikipedia, I'm using the measured and representative studies, the links to the studies are to the right. But the gist of it is that despite the Netherlands being an outlier, I would say that Europe as a whole probably averages somewhere in the 1.76-1.77m range. The Swiss average is 1.75m if you want to use the country smack dab in the center of Europe. But feel free to work out weighted averages for the countries in the World Tour and Pro Tour and post a link. I seriously doubt it will be over 1.76m.

 

[dominikk85]

As I said a couple of times the average male height in the Netherlands is exceptionally tall, but so are the Dinka, the Tutsi and the Herzogovinians, who are not that relevant to cycling except as contributing to the global averages. In Germany the average male is actually bang on 1.75m in Belgium it's 1.77m and in Denmark and Norway 1.80m. Spain, Italy and Portugal are 1.73m, 1.76m, and 1.71m respectively, though the numbers for Italy are less representative. Here is a handy table from Wikipedia, I'm using the measured and representative studies, the links to the studies are to the right. But the gist of it is that despite the Netherlands being an outlier, I would say that Europe as a whole probably averages somewhere in the 1.76-1.77m range. The Swiss average is 1.75m if you want to use the country smack dab in the center of Europe. But feel free to work out weighted averages for the countries in the World Tour and Pro Tour and post a link. I seriously doubt it will be over 1.76m.

You have to consider older people are shorter though, so national averages don't say much, you have to look at under 40 year Olds.

 

[carton]

You have to consider older people are shorter though, so national averages don't say much, you have to look at under 40 year Olds.

So the born-in-1980 cohort you alluded to in that study averages 183.9cm, the average for Dutch men as a whole in the Nature (via Wikipedia) study was 183.8cm. As that, and not incidentally the headlines of both those studies would suggest, height has stabilized in at least the Netherlands. I find no reason why I wouldn't assume that would hold to be generally true for Europe as a whole. Maybe the numbers for the world are still increasing slightly.

Again, you feel free to find those specific data points and do a weighted average, but I would find it pretty unnecessary. 1.75m with a standard deviation of 6cm seems to be pretty spot on, but you can do 1.76m with a standard deviation of 7cm and the numbers won't be all that different. There are plenty of world tour riders 1.9m and above, even GC contenders. They are evidently overrepresented for what should be a 2.5% tail. There is one World Tour rider that I know that is 1.62m or under, and just by name and just today (sorry, Laurens).

And awaiting those uber-specific numbers, my preliminary conclusion would be that there clearly is a height floor and also a slight height advantage for GC riders.

 

[dominikk85]

Heights definitely have stabilized but there are still many people alive that are born in the 40s and 50s.

For example in Germany according to the last data from 21 the average man age 20-25 is 181.4 while the average 60-65 yo is 178.4 with the average being 179.

So we can overall probably add like 2 centimeters to the average for the cycling relevant age cohort (under 30 mostly)

I don't think 162 really is the equivalent to 190 for western European riders, as I posted in Holland there are more young men taller than 190 than shorter than 175.

162 is very short for western European men, if you use Holland that is probably more comparable to 200cm.

 

[carton]

Heights definitely have stabilized but there are still many people alive that are born in the 40s and 50s.

For example in Germany according to the last data from 21 the average man age 20-25 is 181.4 while the average 60-65 yo is 178.4 with the average being 179.

Again, given the trends, I think taking the national average is a decent estimate. If you look at the Netherlands data is averages actually even slightly decreasing. If you take the latest cohort in that study you should actually take off a centimeter from the national average. Germany might also be a bit of an outlier as it recently reunified and living standards in the East have been rising in the last few decades. If you want to adjust for the younger cohorts I think you would have to do that for several countries and average out a difference. Also, if you're using the same 2021 study it is self-reported, the 2009 representative measured sample listed in the linked table had an average height of 1.75m for Germany.

I don't think 162 really is the equivalent to 190 for western European riders, as I posted in Holland there are more young men taller than 190 than shorter than 175.

162 is very short for western European men, if you use Holland that is probably more comparable to 200cm.

Assuming a normal distribution from a 1.84m average, yep, you would expect to find the same number of men that are 1.62m or below as actually 2.06m or above in the Netherlands. Again, the Netherlands and the region of Herzegovina are huge outliers compared to the rest of Europe. On the flip side Spain, which has almost three times the population of the Netherlands, has an average height of 1.73m. So the average height of a man from Spain and the Netherlands together would be pretty much bang on 1.76m. This is why you would need to weigh the averages. You might end up with a slightly higher standard deviation, though that would get much closer to the world average as you ad the entire 750 million population of Europe. This is why I'm saying you could go as far as using a 1.76m average with a 7cm standard deviation for Europe. But then again if you add Australia, Colombia, the US and so on you probably get far closer to the worldwide estimators.

And as I was alluding to earlier, the fact that we recently had GT winners born in Kenya, Ecuador, Kazakstan, and Slovenia makes me think GC contenders come from a worldwide talent pool anyway and not just the top WT countries.

 

[Danskebjerge]

I would venture that graph stacks up with average male height increasing over time to the current 1.75m.

Yeah, an extra graph showing the height of the other riders would make the statistics more useful. I agree that it's otherwise just a demonstration of how the average height of people has increased in that same time span.

 

[proffate]

So you gonna tell me that Ganna, while targeting some of the fastest race in the calendar like San Remo and Roubaix, decided to not optimize is aero position and waste precious watts?

And to the bolded, yes you can, but there are rules that limit how far back and forward you can push the saddle and the handlebar respectively.

Yes, I am telling you that Ganna spent more time in the wind tunnel on his TT bike optimizing for aerodynamics. On the road bike, given that the majority of the racing is behind another rider, he probably considered other things such as comfort and control. Only a few riders go all out on aerodynamics on the road bike (van Schipp and van der Hoorn as the primary examples). If Ganna had to use a road bike for a TT I assure you his position would be different.

 

[EddyMazzoleni]

Yes, I am telling you that Ganna spent more time in the wind tunnel on his TT bike optimizing for aerodynamics. On the road bike, given that the majority of the racing is behind another rider, he probably considered other things such as comfort and control. Only a few riders go all out on aerodynamics on the road bike (van Schipp and van der Hoorn as the primary examples). If Ganna had to use a road bike for a TT I assure you his position would be different.

Do you know him personally or do you work for Ineos?

 

[proffate]

So going over this again, given a standard deviation of 6cm and an average height of 1.75cm, you should find that 95% of riders should be between 1.63m and 1.87m. Given that there are at least over a dozen current WT riders over 1.87 and none that I can think of under 1.63cm, what you really find is that cycling's current rule structure is clearly biased towards taller-than-average riders, that is, taller riders are at an advantage.

1.75m is not the right average to use. In Europe the average male height is 1.8m.

And this thread is specifically about GC riders, not all current WT riders.

 

[proffate]

This has some more interesting stats: https://www.cyclistshub.com/cycling-grand-tours-statistics/#riders-height-weight-and-bmi-over-time

I don't think the upward slope on the TDF winners' height over time has much statistical power. Overall it looks like GT winner height is staying constant over time. What's more interesting is that weight and BMI are dropping substantially. This could be due to lighter bikes or better nutritionists I guess.

 

[carton]

1.75m is not the right average to use. In Europe the average male height is 1.8m.

Source? It would seem to contradict all of the published studies, so I'm intrigued.

And this thread is specifically about GC riders, not all current WT riders.

So first, almost half of the podium places in Grand Tours over the last 10 years have been filled by guys born outside of Europe. So there's even less of a reason to quibble about what you think the average height of the volk should be. And second, the shortest rider on that list was Purito Rodriguez at 1.64m, who is well within 95% range for a Spaniard and the tallest Hugh Carthy at 1.93m who is well outside it for a Brit.

So, if you take the 1.79m you cited then the average GC rider is slightly taller than the average man, however you want to calculate the GC talent pool. And, again, the height floor would seem to be harder than what a normal distribution would entail.

 

[Cookster15]

This has some more interesting stats: https://www.cyclistshub.com/cycling-grand-tours-statistics/#riders-height-weight-and-bmi-over-time

I don't think the upward slope on the TDF winners' height over time has much statistical power. Overall it looks like GT winner height is staying constant over time. What's more interesting is that weight and BMI are dropping substantially. This could be due to lighter bikes or better nutritionists I guess.

Thanks for the link. But why do you think BMI has anything to do with lighter bikes? The bike weight is not considered in BMI calculations.

 

[proffate]

Source? It would seem to contradict all of the published studies, so I'm intrigued.

What published studies?

My source is the source that the majority of online collators reference: https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410
The actual data for that paper no longer seems to be directly available.

So first, almost half of the podium places in Grand Tours over the last 10 years have been filled by guys born outside of Europe. So there's even less of a reason to quibble about what you think the average height of the volk should be. And second, the shortest rider on that list was Purito Rodriguez at 1.64m, who is well within 95% range for a Spaniard and the tallest Hugh Carthy at 1.93m who is well outside it for a Brit.
So, if you take the 1.79m you cited then the average GC rider is slightly taller than the average man, however you want to calculate the GC talent pool. And, again, the height floor would seem to be harder than what a normal distribution would entail.

I don't think anecdata means much, if it does, Purito is 10x the GC rider that Hugh Carthy is, so this is not a comparison among apples. Nor is the question at hand about the tails of this distribution, it's specifically about the right tail as compared to the middle. So comparing the tallest and the shortest isn't useful. If a 160cm rider can never win the tour that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it's "better" to be 175cm or 195cm.

edit: I suppose the original post is rather off-base about what constitutes "tiny" since apparently it indicates sub 5'10". I do not think objectively tiny riders like Jose Rujano are at an advantage. To be clear I think average to slightly below average size people have an advantage, which would make sense because sustainable power-to-weight ratio seems like a core survival metric for early man, so human evolution should converge on the form that optimizes for that. Being a 6'6" 100kg warrior might be nice whenever you have to swing an axe but most of the time you're trying to find your next meal before you starve.

 

[proffate]

Thanks for the link. But why do you think BMI has anything to do with lighter bikes? The bike weight is not considered in BMI calculations.

Lighter riders benefit more from lighter bikes (and other equipment).

 

[Cookster15]

Lighter riders benefit more from lighter bikes (and other equipment).

Yes but the BMI trend has nothing to do with bikes. Simple sports science. A lighter rider (lower BMI) has greater potential watts per kilo and accumulates less fatigue over a three week grand tour. In recent years (since Sky led the trend), riders have lost weight and this explains the BMI trend - not bikes.

In any case, bike weight has been largely static for well over a decade now since the UCI introduced the 6.84Kg limit.

 

[proffate]

Yes but the BMI trend has nothing to do with bikes. Simple sports science. A lighter rider (lower BMI) has greater potential watts per kilo and accumulates less fatigue over a three week grand tour. In recent years (since Sky led the trend), riders have lost weight and this explains the BMI trend - not bikes.

In any case, bike weight has been largely static for well over a decade now since the UCI introduced the 6.84Kg limit.

If you assume the watts are held steady then obviously lower BMI is better. But lower BMI probably correlates to lower power. Whether the lost weight makes up for the lost power depends in part on how much other weight you have to lug around.

Correct on the latter point. We don't have enough data to see how long this trend continues. Helmets, shoes, etc. do not have UCI weight limits as far as I'm aware. But I was mainly thinking of 1970 vs 2020.

 

[carton]

What published studies?

My source is the source that the majority of online collators reference: https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410
The actual data for that paper no longer seems to be directly available.


I don't think anecdata means much, if it does, Purito is 10x the GC rider that Hugh Carthy is, so this is not a comparison among apples. Nor is the question at hand about the tails of this distribution, it's specifically about the right tail as compared to the middle. So comparing the tallest and the shortest isn't useful. If a 160cm rider can never win the tour that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it's "better" to be 175cm or 195cm.

edit: I suppose the original post is rather off-base about what constitutes "tiny" since apparently it indicates sub 5'10". I do not think objectively tiny riders like Jose Rujano are at an advantage. To be clear I think average to slightly below average size people have an advantage, which would make sense because sustainable power-to-weight ratio seems like a core survival metric for early man, so human evolution should converge on the form that optimizes for that. Being a 6'6" 100kg warrior might be nice whenever you have to swing an axe but most of the time you're trying to find your next meal before you starve.

I can't find an European average in that link. So if you skipped over my previous posts, looking at the latest measured representative studies:

In Germany the average male is actually bang on 1.75m in Belgium it's 1.77m and in Denmark and Norway 1.80m. Spain, Italy and Portugal are 1.73m, 1.76m, and 1.71m respectively, though the numbers for Italy are less representative. Here is a handy table from Wikipedia, I'm using the measured and representative studies, the links to the studies are to the right. But the gist of it is that despite the Netherlands being an outlier, I would say that Europe as a whole probably averages somewhere in the 1.76-1.77m range. The Swiss average is 1.75m if you want to use the country smack dab in the center of Europe.

Having gone back and forth on this before best guess for Europe is actually around 1.76m, when you look at measured heights, but I haven't done the proper maths. More importantly, I think the average for the World Tour GC talent pool would be closer to the worldwide average of 1.75m.

Other than that I'm cherry picking data because I can't be bothered to do the maths. But then again the OP was also just listing the heights of a few GC winners and skipping over others like Froome, Nibali, Wiggins, TGH et alia. I doubt anyone here is about to publish a paper on this, as someone said before me, there are only 24 hours in the day.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, in that it is not better to be 1.75 than 1.93 to be a GC contender. It's just that it's much more likely that if you're a genetic freak in terms of having very high muscle efficiency, lung capacity and blood hematocrit you're also statistically more likely to be around 1.75 than 1.93 given a normal distribution, just because 99.8% of men worldwide are under 1.93. The fact that you still have Hugh Carthy and Thymen Arensmann competing for GC is to me pretty suggestive that if anything height is an not insignificant advantage to GC performance. It is just less so than Axe Swinging or Tennis or many other sporting endevours.

 

[proffate]

I can't find an European average in that link. So if you skipped over my previous posts, looking at the latest measured representative studies:

Have you linked to sources? The post you're referencing now has none that I can see. edit: so your source is Wikipedia which actually has 4 rows for Germany and you picked the shortest one... that row links to this source which confirms my suspicion that you're counting old men. This 16 year old data actually shows the average height to be 1.79m for men 18-39, but we probably care about peak height, which is reached after 18 and starts dropping before 39.

As I mentioned, the data associated with the report I linked is further collated into interesting summaries such as "average European height" by outside services.

Back to the primary. NCD-RisC provides tables. These data were published in the Lancet in 2020. Here is one row of interest which directly contradicts whatever your source is.

Country​

Sex​

Year​

Age group​

Mean height​

Mean height lower 95% uncertainty interval​

Mean height upper 95% uncertainty interval​

Mean height standard error​

Germany​

Boys​

2019​

19​

180.2812073​

178.6276809​

181.9095587​

0.829083083​

So the sampled 19 year old German men in 2019 were 180cm on average. Your mystery data seem to be very far from mine. Perhaps your source is measuring an older population. People start shrinking after 30.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way, in that it is not better to be 1.75 than 1.93 to be a GC contender. It's just that it's much more likely that if you're a genetic freak in terms of having very high muscle efficiency, lung capacity and blood hematocrit you're also statistically more likely to be around 1.75 than 1.93 given a normal distribution, just because 99.8% of men worldwide are under 1.93. The fact that you still have Hugh Carthy and Thymen Arensmann competing for GC is to me pretty suggestive that if anything height is an not insignificant advantage to GC performance. It is just less so than Axe Swinging or Tennis or many other sporting endevours.

It is difficult to determine causation. At the end of the day, your body is your body, and your body has a certain proficiency at biking up hills or across cobbles. Are you good at it "because" of your height or "despite" your height? Would you be faster if you jumped off more roofs as a child or had otherwise stunted the growth of your bones? It's not clear. But if your claim is that height is a significant advantage (unrolling your double negatives there), then why would the advantage not increase with height? Why would extremely tall humans not be extremely good cyclists? And why is this different for distance runners, who are clearly most proficient at ~5'7"? All these nordic skiers and rowers should really start riding the tour in the lengthy break between Olympic competitions.