Weight question

Dewey B said:

Why do people always say that Jan is too heavy when he is about 5'9"
and weighs 161, and no one ever says lance is heavy when he is 5'10"
and weighs 170? Isn't that heavy for a climber? But Lance can
obviously climb.

Where's your data from? Published rider weights are often unreliable.
NFW does Lance weigh 170 lb. Maybe if he carries his bike onto the
scale. Also, Ullrich is usually listed at 183 cm, which is 6'0".

The last figure I heard for Armstrong was 73kg which is about 160lbs,
I'm not sure how many stones that is.

-ilan

Dewey B a écrit :

Quoted message said:

Why do people always say that Jan is too heavy when he is about 5'9"
and weighs 161, and no one ever says lance is heavy when he is 5'10"
and weighs 170? Isn't that heavy for a climber? But Lance can
obviously climb.

I got Lance's weight from the Discovery Channel site. I was surprised
because I thought I'd seen his weight usually listed as 160, at least
in previous years. I got Jan's stats from the T-Mobile site, but I
didn't calculate the height conversion correctly, oops.

I think the knock on Ullrich's weight is that he gains a lot of it in
the winter and then races it off. Not that he's necessarily too heavy
to be a good climber.

Clay T. said:

I think the knock on Ullrich's weight is that he gains a lot of it in
the winter and then races it off. Not that he's necessarily too heavy
to be a good climber.

It was said here best. Jan thinks the race is won in July. Armstrong
realizes it's won in April and May.

jj

I am not sure what Lances ideal weight should be. But weight does
matter: In 1985 Hinault conducted a study on weight and it's
relationship to climbing with Paul Kocheli. Their results showed that
for each additional kilogram a rider can lose up to 6 kph.

Jet said:

Clay T. said:

I think the knock on Ullrich's weight is that he gains a lot of it in
the winter and then races it off. Not that he's necessarily too heavy
to be a good climber.

It was said here best. Jan thinks the race is won in July. Armstrong
realizes it's won in April and May.

jj

Now damnit. You better start giving credit when you use my dumbass
remarks. Most of my [censored] isn't worth repeating so when there is
something good I want everyone to know it!

;-)

On the subject. Armstrong is not 170. Jan should be not be more than
155lbs if he wants to climb.

What I'd really like to know is what is his weight after Christmas.
I'm thinking the guy goes to 200lbs.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what Lances ideal weight should be. But weight does
matter: In 1985 Hinault conducted a study on weight and it's
relationship to climbing with Paul Kocheli. Their results showed that
for each additional kilogram a rider can lose up to 6 kph.

Those numbers seem way off to me. I thought it was more like 10lbs gives
you not quite 1 mph on a 9% grade.

Lance's ideal winning body weight is 159 lbs, +/- 20 oz.

Dewey B said:

Why do people always say that Jan is too heavy when he is about 5'9"
and weighs 161, and no one ever says lance is heavy when he is 5'10"
and weighs 170? Isn't that heavy for a climber? But Lance can
obviously climb.

I think Lance races the TdF at about 158 lbs. You can convert that to
stones, if you want.

That's why I was surprised that his own site and the OLN pop-up stats
on TV list his weight at 170. In any event, he always looks painfully
thin by the end of the tour and whatever he's doing works for him. I
remember last year he said during the OLN interview that it was tough
for someone as small as Heras to ride with a panicky peloton during the
first week of the tour.

k.papai says...

Quoted message said:

Lance's ideal winning body weight is 159 lbs, +/- 20 oz.

In one of the newer Lance Chronicles, the narrator said he was at about 158 in
race shape (post cancer that is - he was around 170 pre-cancer). When he was
interviewed after the '05 Tour of Georgia, he said he was 5 lb over ideal
weight, but didn't say what that was. 5 pounds is certainly sufficient to slow
down a 158 pound racer on a big hill, but is it the extra mass or is it the
lifestyle that put those 5 pounds on?

170 lbs is Lance's beer-drinking, rock star, Cheryl Crow arm candy,
Hollywood "Vince Vaughn" weight.

One of Armstrong's projects is to star in Dodgeball II,
with a cameo appearance by Vince Vaughn.

-ilan

k.papai a écrit :

Quoted message said:

170 lbs is Lance's beer-drinking, rock star, Cheryl Crow arm candy,
Hollywood "Vince Vaughn" weight.

Secret Cameo, since Lance's Cameo in DB1 was secret! Spoiler Warning
might've been appropos here Elan.

"Dewey B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I got Lance's weight from the Discovery Channel site. I was surprised
because I thought I'd seen his weight usually listed as 160, at least
in previous years. I got Jan's stats from the T-Mobile site, but I
didn't calculate the height conversion correctly, oops.

That's OK have another beer while we come up with some better insults......

"Dewey B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's why I was surprised that his own site and the OLN pop-up stats
on TV list his weight at 170. In any event, he always looks painfully
thin by the end of the tour and whatever he's doing works for him. I
remember last year he said during the OLN interview that it was tough
for someone as small as Heras to ride with a panicky peloton during the
first week of the tour.

Lance only has one stone but I swear it must be the size of Gibralter.

Quoted message said:

The last figure I heard for Armstrong was 73kg which is about 160lbs,
I'm not sure how many stones that is.

-ilan

A stone is about 15 lbs, so that would make 160 = about ten and a half
stone.

Fred said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what Lances ideal weight should be. But weight does
matter: In 1985 Hinault conducted a study on weight and it's
relationship to climbing with Paul Kocheli. Their results showed that
for each additional kilogram a rider can lose up to 6 kph.

Those numbers seem way off to me. I thought it was more like 10lbs gives
you not quite 1 mph on a 9% grade.

According to my calculations, with no wind, a 9% grade, a 15 lb bike,
and a 400W power output:

Rider +Clothing Weight (lb) Speed (mph)

170 10.24
160 10.71
150 11.22

.... or about 0.48% per pound... or 10 lbs gets you less than 0.5 mph.

Still pretty significant on a long climb. If it takes 30 minutes for
the 170 lb guy, then the 160 lb rider will be 1:19 ahead, and the 150
lb rider will be 2:37 ahead.

A quick way to look at this, is that you'll never do better than the
ratio of the total weights... even on a climb so steep that all other
effects go to zero.