weight??

gmccombe804
gmccombe804 Posts: 21
edited October 2013 in Road general
hey just wondering......how heavy can a really good pro cyclist be??, ...i dont mean like fat, but what if they just had alot of muscle,?.
could a muscly person be as good as a tour de france rider, as someone like bradley Wiggins??
«1

Comments

  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    Indurain was a beast...
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    gmccombe804 wrote:
    hey just wondering......how heavy can a really good pro cyclist be??, ...i dont mean like fat, but what if they just had alot of muscle,?.
    could a muscly person be as good as a tour de france rider, as someone like bradley Wiggins??
    There are limits.

    Go too far - and you'll have no hope of dragging your mass over the mountains. But yeah a decently sized bloke can win a Tour but typically you'd expect it to be one where there are plenty of TT miles. Remember that 'big' cyclists are still pretty feeble by the standards of other sports. Stannard is over 80kg but he only looks big because his is surrounded by stick insects and midgets. :mrgreen:
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • diamonddog
    diamonddog Posts: 3,426
    Andre Greipel not exactly Kate Moss build. :)
  • FECES
    FECES Posts: 25
    Someone post a photo of that guy that almost literally has tree trunks for legs. Surprised it hasnt yet.
  • diamonddog
    diamonddog Posts: 3,426
    That would be Andre Greipel. :)
  • Grill
    Grill Posts: 5,610
    diamonddog wrote:
    That would be Andre Greipel. :)

    Yeah right. He's referring to Robert Forstemann.
    Greipel on the left, Forstemann on the right.

    cyclists-thighs.jpg
    English Cycles V3 | Cervelo P5 | Cervelo T4 | Trek Domane Koppenberg
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    From Wenzel Coaching http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/blog/cycl ... ght-chart/

    weight-chart.jpg
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    gmccombe804 wrote:
    hey just wondering......how heavy can a really good pro cyclist be??, ...i dont mean like fat, but what if they just had alot of muscle,?.
    could a muscly person be as good as a tour de france rider, as someone like bradley Wiggins??

    Muscly would suggest you were carrying too much weight - so no. Beyond certain minimal requirements, muscular build and tour rider dont really mix well.
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    philthy3 wrote:
    From Wenzel Coaching http://www.wenzelcoaching.com/blog/cycl ... ght-chart/

    weight-chart.jpg


    Nice find!

    So for my height 183cm you'd expect a range between 63kg and 81kg

    I'm 74kg. So Pro. :mrgreen:
  • phreak
    phreak Posts: 2,938
    Lets be honest though here, if Wiggins was built like a rugby player he'd still beat the vast majority of us here.
  • jordan_217
    jordan_217 Posts: 2,580
    IMO looking at weight alone is meaningless, power:weight ratio would be the only true indicator, would it not?
    “Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”
  • StillGoing
    StillGoing Posts: 5,211
    If I were down to the bottom weight for my height in the chart, I'd look like an advert for famine aid. Whilst less weight is good for climbing (as long as you have the power) I don't want to look like a good gust of wind will blow me over.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • diamonddog
    diamonddog Posts: 3,426
    Grill wrote:
    diamonddog wrote:
    That would be Andre Greipel. :)

    Yeah right. He's referring to Robert Forstemann.
    Greipel on the left, Forstemann on the right.

    cyclists-thighs.jpg

    He's a track cyclist, not what the OP asked about.
  • ju5t1n
    ju5t1n Posts: 2,028
    Magnus Backstedt was 90kg + when he won Paris Roubaix
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    ju5t1n wrote:
    Magnus Backstedt was 90kg + when he won Paris Roubaix

    But he's also 6'4" and Paris Roubaix is mainly flat.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,301
    Is it even thinkable to get quads like that German track rider without taking steroids? Should he not be banned just by looking at him?
    left the forum March 2023
  • phreak
    phreak Posts: 2,938
    Imposter wrote:
    ju5t1n wrote:
    Magnus Backstedt was 90kg + when he won Paris Roubaix

    But he's also 6'4" and Paris Roubaix is mainly flat.

    He'd still beat any of us up any hill we care to mention I suspect.

    Eros Poli was a big fella, yet won over Ventoux in 1994.
  • keef66
    keef66 Posts: 13,123
    Grill wrote:
    diamonddog wrote:
    That would be Andre Greipel. :)

    Yeah right. He's referring to Robert Forstemann.
    Greipel on the left, Forstemann on the right.

    cyclists-thighs.jpg

    Am I the only one to find it slightly disturbing that you can so quickly lay your hands on a picture of the 2 cyclists in question posing in their pants? And what's going on with Greipel's socks?
  • djhermer
    djhermer Posts: 328
    Grill wrote:
    Indurain was on EPO...

    Question is, if there was no EPO, would he have had to lose some of his bulk in order to be as successful? Did the EPO allow him to perform to a level despite his size?
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    phreak wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    ju5t1n wrote:
    Magnus Backstedt was 90kg + when he won Paris Roubaix

    But he's also 6'4" and Paris Roubaix is mainly flat.

    He'd still beat any of us up any hill we care to mention I suspect.

    Eros Poli was a big fella, yet won over Ventoux in 1994.

    I don't think anyone said he couldn't. As for Poli - being tall does not exclude you from being a good climber.
  • phreak
    phreak Posts: 2,938
    Wasn't Greipel the German hill climb champion as a youngster as well?
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,470
    You do see differences in leg muscle development between sprinters and climbers / all rounders, but basically road cycling is an endurance sport (with some specialities within it), so at the very top level carrying large muscle masses is going to be a disadvantage (big muscles usually indicate a large proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres, which are larger volume), and you basically never see pro cyclists with very muscled upper bodies. Of course for amateurs it's less of an issue, the slight disadvantage of carrying extra muscle weight needn't stop you being a decent cyclist.

    It's a bit like asking "could you have a really heavy muscled marathon runner", to which the answer of course is that plenty well-built people run marathons, but the most competitive long-distance runners are all skinny.
  • rpherts
    rpherts Posts: 207
    philthy3 wrote:
    If I were down to the bottom weight for my height in the chart, I'd look like an advert for famine aid.

    Just about the right size for Italian cycling jerseys then
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    jordan_217 wrote:
    IMO looking at weight alone is meaningless, power:weight ratio would be the only true indicator, would it not?
    Not only power to weight. You have to remember that regardless of your power to weight, more work is still required to be done by a heavier rider going up hill.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • frisbee
    frisbee Posts: 691
    Imposter wrote:
    phreak wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    ju5t1n wrote:
    Magnus Backstedt was 90kg + when he won Paris Roubaix

    But he's also 6'4" and Paris Roubaix is mainly flat.

    He'd still beat any of us up any hill we care to mention I suspect.

    Eros Poli was a big fella, yet won over Ventoux in 1994.

    I don't think anyone said he couldn't. As for Poli - being tall does not exclude you from being a good climber.

    He had a 25 minute head start on a 20km climb and lost all but a few minutes. I think he would be the first to admit he wasn't a good climber but won the stage by tactics.
  • hatch87
    hatch87 Posts: 352
    I recently googled riders weights (not sure how accurate it was) and was surprised how heavy they were. Froome weighs 71KG and Cav even being a smaller rider weighs 69kg. Wiggins was a whopping 77KG. In comparison I've still got a few pounds to loose around the middle and I weigh 67KG and I realistically should be able to get down below 64KG

    I suppose it depends on what counts as being heavy, but riders weight isn't all that important, I guess being down to muscle rather than fat makes the difference.
    http://app.strava.com/athletes/686217
    Come on! You call this a storm? Blow, you son of a bitch! Blow! It's time for a showdown! You and me! I'm right here! Come and get me!
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    hatch87 wrote:
    I recently googled riders weights (not sure how accurate it was) and was surprised how heavy they were. Froome weighs 71KG and Cav even being a smaller rider weighs 69kg. Wiggins was a whopping 77KG. In comparison I've still got a few pounds to loose around the middle and I weigh 67KG and I realistically should be able to get down below 64KG

    I suppose it depends on what counts as being heavy, but riders weight isn't all that important, I guess being down to muscle rather than fat makes the difference.

    Froome was almost certainly sub-70kg when he won the tour, and Wiggins was supposed to be around 68kg when he won.

    Its really hard to get accurate rider weights though.
  • hatch87
    hatch87 Posts: 352
    Google has failed me then :cry: Not sure if I can trust the internet anymore
    http://app.strava.com/athletes/686217
    Come on! You call this a storm? Blow, you son of a bitch! Blow! It's time for a showdown! You and me! I'm right here! Come and get me!
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    ALIHISGREAT wrote:
    ...Wiggins was supposed to be around 68kg when he won.

    Sounds about right. In 2009 Wiggins said "I was climbing fairly well in the 2007 Tour, but I've lost seven kilos since then: 78 to 71". So, if he dropped a couple more kg for the 2012 Tour then recent comments about putting on 8 kg in the run up to the WC would put his current weight at 77kg, fat bstard. He'll never be a good cyclist at that weight :wink:
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    hatch87 wrote:
    I recently googled riders weights (not sure how accurate it was) and was surprised how heavy they were. Froome weighs 71KG and Cav even being a smaller rider weighs 69kg. Wiggins was a whopping 77KG. In comparison I've still got a few pounds to loose around the middle and I weigh 67KG and I realistically should be able to get down below 64KG

    I suppose it depends on what counts as being heavy, but riders weight isn't all that important, I guess being down to muscle rather than fat makes the difference.
    Wiggo's TdF winning weight was about 68kg. Being under 11 stone is very very skinny for a man who is 6'3".

    Wiggo's track weight was about 83kg so he has a way to go yet on the road to Rio.
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.

Categories