Mileage Posted April 21, 2010 Share The rowers in the pictures average 185cm. The guy in the Danish 4- second from right is actually closer to 190cm Anthropometric normative data for Olympic rowers and paddlersT. Ackland*1, D. Kerr2, P. Hume3, K. Norton4, B. Ridge5, S. Clark6, E. Broad7 & W.Ross8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ the Expat Posted April 21, 2010 Share My 2c worth:I am 1.83 and weigh about 87kg. My fat % is less than 10%. At Sabie I got my ass handed to me on those climbs - but give me a fairly flat course, and I am way more competitive! It's not that I can't climb - Climbs are fine as long as the don't last for a million kilometers! So, I don't wanna look like a matchstick! I'd rather just pick my races better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minion Posted April 21, 2010 Share But those guys(rowers) are like 5ft tall. Im 1.76 and 70-72kgs' date=' and i feel a bit thin.[/quote']Actually, the shortest guy there is one of the Danes at 1.82m. The rest are around 1.84m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tieffels Posted April 21, 2010 Share Ironically Im 1.86m and weigh exactly 77kg. What are you saying?Yeah' date=' I'm 1.89m and weigh just under 74kg .[/quote'] That is crazy, I just about cannot picture that. I'm a touch under 90kg and 1.84m and I consider myself quite a strong climber (mtbing where I think the weight penalty is less severe due to more brute power), but at those weights you guys must float up hills. But at my weight I know weight off the bike makes no difference and I laugh at those guys sweating over every last gram. If I had to lose say 2hg the difference would be from the extra training to lose it, not the weight itself. It's all mental.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ84 Posted April 21, 2010 Share Then that photo does them justice, the dudes flexed arm girth is 32cm's, not to be funny, but thats pretty thin. Which guy is the spec's from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blockhouse Posted April 21, 2010 Share Reading Conan Doyles book Tour De Force, the well known Docter Ferrari said the magical figure of 6.7 watts per a kg was required to win the tour. So I guess the secret is to lose weight without losing power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Posted April 21, 2010 Share Some data from cyclists Think its from the 88 Olympics but not disimilar to the rowers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdeJongh Posted April 21, 2010 Share Ironically Im 1.86m and weigh exactly 77kg. What are you saying? you must look like a stick. I'm 1.8 and between 77 and 78 and I think I'm starting to get to the too thin side. Already had to buy a whole new wardrobe after dropping from 85kg since the beginning of the year. Ja pretty skinny, but not falling through my own butt. Started 2009 at 90kg, started 2010 at 78kg. Cycling is awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potato Posted April 21, 2010 Share I'm 1,87 and weigh 78 kg. When I was racing I was a kilo or 2 less but that's marginal. The biggest difference will be in the weight of the wheels. It's been estimated that loosing weight on the wheels, espcially the rim and tyre counts for twice as much weight as lost elsewhere hence the risk the top riders take by running non tubeless tyres. IMO weight lost anywhere else is pretty much the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugheaddave Posted April 21, 2010 Share I am 186, and weigh about 83kg. I wonder if there would be a huge difference if I could get down to 77, but keep the same power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeofstorms Posted April 21, 2010 Share There would be. Better power to mass ratio will help your climbing. But would this weight suit you? When last did you weigh 77kg. My point is, surely as cyclist there must be a fine balance in terms of weight we would like to be (considering our age) and what is a healthy norm. Without dissing Fundacious, I mean 64kg@ 1.84m!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Posted April 21, 2010 Share My family has started trying to fatten me up, they are all getting worried.I'm 1.67 and 63kg's, so Fun must look skraal. Last year I was racing surfski's and bulking my upperbody, so the change may be the cause of concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regard Posted April 21, 2010 Share Ha-Ha! I am 1.87 and weigh 93kg and you know what?........I am sure I will kick most asses on climbs and on a bench press!! I can actualy walk on the beach without a shirt and feel proud and nobody is trying to fatten me up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeofstorms Posted April 21, 2010 Share I've posted this before on the hub. Check it out https://www.bikehub.co.za/forum_posts.asp?TID=70346 Surley we not professional cyclist (but avid ones), hence our weight should reflect what is considered to be healthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeTurbo Posted April 21, 2010 Share Well! I'm 1,75m, weigh 60kg's, ride a 30+ year old steel bike that needs a small pick-up truck to get to races, and I'm generally as slow as sh*t. BUT I can take a hill like it's a little speedbump. It's all in the gearing, me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighter-Lights Posted April 21, 2010 Share It depends... Taking 2kg off a 11kg bike will make a noticeable diff, but a huge diff if most of the weight is shed from the wheelset and tyres. Most of the diff. however, will be felt while riding fast, climbing fast on drags etc. But on climbs of 15+ gradient it won't make you feel much different. An example is me riding up a 3.5km climb with average gradient 17% and max 24%. Jeeptrack that climbs 500m in 3.5km. With my 9kg hardtail and race outfit at a controlled effort (not at race pace, but steady HR) I go about 6 to 7km/h... some places quicker... with a 10kg backpack I ride up the same pass 5km/h +- that's a 70kg rider loaded with 10kg... not MUCH slower than without the extra weight... and in both cases I ride in 22/32 aka granny... So when going up gradients that's VERY steep at low speed, bike weight doesn't play as big a role as trying to keep your front wheel down plays... but at speed on a gravel road with 10% or 5% climbs, the 70kg Jo will smash the 70kg+10kg backpacked Jo... but the 72kg Jo will keep up with the 70kg Jo... change the wheelset from a std 1.8kg to 1.5kg and save 200g per tyre, that Jo will do 2 to 3km/h quicker at 30 to 35km/h on a flat gravel road... If a rider has a good power to weight ratio to start with, the biggest difference will be felt when shaving weight off the bike - more so the wheelset... If a rider is so so to begin with, saving weight on the bike will hardly be noticeably to him, unless he takes 1kg off his wheels and tyre weight...!! Body weight plays a role... but 2kg won't be noticeable at all... I'm 5kg heavier than in 2005 and I'm faster, I've got better endurance, but I have to work harder on the climbs, but I'm still faster than when I was 65kg... Take a 2L camelbak and ride with it, and then without it and get the idea of how a 2kg body weight saving will feel like - barely noticeable at 2kg! 2kg off an Anthem X which is already 11kg? Will cost lotsa bucks to get a Anthem X to 9kg... a 11kg bike can be pretty fast as long as the wheels are light... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now