Being skinny vs not

[GlockG4]

I weigh 77kg, and my housemate 99kg. We had a bit of a debate. He says he is at a huge disadvantage in terms of climbing because of his extra 22kg. He is not over wieght but not a lot, my opinion is that because his legs are MUCH stronger than mine (more that 22kg's worth) he can not tell me that I am a better climber because of my weight. What are your opinions about this? Not talking about someone very over weight with no power, someone heavier and about 7kg over weight.

[V12man]

It's all in the genetics. ..

 

Given equal genetics, skinny will take it every time.

[DJR]

The top pure climbers are all as skinny as a starved anorexic.

The big muscular guys are track stars.

 

 ........it should tell you something

[floatfox]

Weight on climbing makes a huge difference, you will hardly ever see a sprinter finishing with the top guys in the climbing stages of any major race. In general bigger riders have more power, but they usually make better sprinters.

[Berry]

Power to weight ratio is your answer. Cancellara vs Andy Shleck

[Guest DieBees]

Skinny always wins on climbs.Imagine a truck with a LARGE engine vs a small Uno with a 1100 engine... The Uno will always win up a hill

[Guest DieBees]

Skinny always wins ons climbs.Imagine a truck with a LARGE engine vs a small Uno with a 1100 engine... The Uno will always win up a hill

[Guest DieBees]

Another comparison. On small hills the heavier ride might benefit from his weight with gathered momentum and larger watt output over a very small distance. But the minute that is taken out of the oqausion, it is man for man and then weight counts all the way.

[Brian Fantana]

Skinny always wins on climbs.Imagine a truck with a LARGE engine vs a small Uno with a 1100 engine... The Uno will always win up a hill

Only if the Uno driver remembers to switch the aircon off.

[Yusran]

A bit of a story of my own but for comparison for the OP:

 

I weigh in at 88kg's and I am pretty short relative to my weight at 1.78m tall, and I am about 8-10kgs over my goal weight.

 

My best mate weighs in at 60kgs, and is pure muscle on a small, well-built frame.

 

On short hills I can leave him behind by a long ways with momentum built and giving it stick on the climb, however as soon as that hill becomes longer than I can manage... my buddy will come by and be chilling at the top counting the minutes.

 

In summary, all the small hills, flats and rollers belong to me and all the long climbs are his by a long ways (not for long though will be dropping the kg's this December!!!)

 

To throw a spanner in the works, my other buddy is a head taller than I am and weighs the same too but - he has super long legs. He kills all of us on the climbs and the sprints...

[Butterbean]

It's neither absolute power nor absolute weight. Cycling is power to weight ratio.

 

 

The uni gets the truck because the power to weight ratio is likely much better. Neither absolute power of weight is the winner here. But the ratio is what wins.

 

 

Hills however bring in the effect of gravity. Which means that mass of an object affects his weight. A heavier rider will need a significantly higher ratio to beat a lightweight rider up a hill. However, you must also take into consideration the human contraints, ie fatigue, and the inability to produce the exact same power output for a long time. So just like yusran says, the long hill, you lightweight bastards will always smile, the effects are nowhere near what the heavy guys feel.

 

I weigh 100kgs and am 1.8m. My legs have plenty of power and flats are my strong point. But my weight certainly kills any and all hope of flying uphill.

[javadude]

Drugs are a huge equaliser. Thats why guys like Lance and Ulrich with a 15kg weight disadvantage could keep up with Pantani up the hills. Of course, then you had 80kg freaks like Big Mig who only consumed bread and water(tee hee hee).

[Mopkop]

I weigh 71kg after a big lunch and I always tell the guys I cycle with, the 90kg+ ouens "Dont hate the player, Hate the game"   as they like giving me grief about 20 kgs lighter

[Pulse]

 

Muscle force production = the muscles cross sectional area (X x Y)

 

Muscle weight = muscle volume (X x Z x Y)

 

Muscle force therefor increases only by weight ^ (2/3) of the increase in weight of that muscle

 

To express average relative power as 'power:weight ratio' is only really applicable to the average person. The heavier guy is at more of a disadvantage than the ratio predicts, and the lighter guy is better of.

 

The lighter (muscular) one will always be better on the hills

[Bicycle Supply Chain]

power to weight ratio is all that counts.

 

he with the higher p/w ratio will win, irrispective of body weight or aerodymanic etc. 

 

I am talking FTP power on long climbs

 

Mike

[BarHugger]

The analysis of this generally accepted phenomenon that a lighter rider is a better climber is much more complicated than just having a look at muscle anatomy. Except for a few other body composition, anthropometry, equipment, environmental and scientific principles to consider, the general rule will be that the relative average power to bodyweight that can be developed for a sustained period of time is a good indicator of climbing ability.

 

 

However, if you see the following and the subject in this pictha get smaller and smaller, questions can be asked about your ability......especially if your have equal bodyweight.

 

 

 

Personally, because of my BUFFALONESS, will compliment on the good performance, temporarily appreciate the scenery, and HTFU for the suffer fest.