The Bigger You Are The Faster You Go? Weird Cycling Science!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2024
- Sprinters and Time-Triallers tend to be much larger than climbers - why is that? Join Ollie and Alex in an especially nerdy video, as we go through all of the maths to explain it and arrive at one shocking conclusion: Ganna is going to destroy the hour record and win the Paris Roubaix 😱____________________
🚴 With the 2022 road season promising to be one of the most exciting in recent memory, subscribe to GCN+ for live racing all year round, exclusive shows & cycling adventure films: gcn.eu/plus
Download the GCN App 📲 for FREE & be part of the world's largest cycling community: gcn.eu/app
Join thousands of other cycling fans in receiving our free weekly ✉️ newsletter roundup, including news, competitions and discounts: gcn.eu/3K7
Subscribe: gcntech.co/subs...
The GCN Shop: gcn.eu/YearEnd...
#Cycling #GCN #GCNTech #RoadBike
Are you built like a sprinter or a climber? Does your build match the type of cycling you enjoy the most though? Is Ollie’s hot take too spicy? Let us know in the comments!
If you enjoyed this video, make sure to give it a thumbs up and share it with your friends. 👍
Watch more on GCN Tech...
📹 gcn.eu/6OZ
Music - licensed by Epidemic Sound:
ES_Cardio (Instrumental Version) - Superintendent McCupcakes
ES_Douche (Instrumental Version) - DAJANA
ES_Drunks on Bicycles - Martin Landstrom
ES_Electric - Scoobadive
ES_Soul Soleil - Phello
ES_To the Ends of the Earth - Edgar Hopp
ES_Wasn't Even Close (Instrumental Version) - Velveteen
Photos: © Velo Collection (TDW) / Getty Images & © Bettiniphoto / www.bettiniphot...
Brought to you by the world’s biggest cycling channel, the Global Cycling Network (GCN), GCN Tech is the only channel you need for all things bike tech - past, present and future.
Simply put, we’re obsessed with tech: we seek out and showcase the best in bikes, components, tech, accessories, upgrades and more from races and events, tech shows and product launches across the globe to bring you the best in road bike technology.
We’ve also got great maintenance videos to help you get the most from your bike; pro-bike tours from all the biggest races; special features and the weekly GCN Tech Show. We also take a deeper look into the future of cycling, apps, smart tech and virtual riding.
Join us on the channel and the GCN App to submit your content, vote on the latest tech and keep abreast of exciting new trends.
Thanks to our sponsors:
Castelli Clothing: gcn.eu/Castelli
Giro Helmets: gcn.eu/Giro
Pinarello Bikes: gcn.eu/Pinarello
Zipp Wheels: gcn.eu/Zipp
Enervit Nutrition: gcn.eu/Enervit
Topeak Tools: gcn.eu/Topeak
Canyon Bikes: gcn.eu/-Canyon
Pirelli Tyres: gcn.eu/Pirelli
Orbea Bikes: gcn.eu/Orbea
Vision Wheels: gcn.eu/Vision
Wahoo Fitness: gcn.eu/Wahoo-Fi...
Park Tool: gcn.eu/-parktool
Elite Bottles: gcn.eu/EliteBo...
Whoop Fitness: gcn.eu/Whoop
Komoot: gcn.eu/komoot
Selle Italia: gcn.eu/SelleIt...
Zwift: gcn.eu/Zwift
Shimano Wheels: gcn.eu/Shimano
Shadow Stand: gcn.eu/ShadowS...
DMT Shoes: gcn.eu/DMT
Muc-Off: gcn.eu/MucOff
Facebook: gcntech.co/gcnt...
Instagram: gcntech.co/gcnt...
Twitter: gcntech.co/gcnt...
RUclips: gcntech.co/subs...
GCN: gcn.eu/Subscrib...
GCN Japan: gcn.eu/subscri...
GCN Italia: gcn.eu/GCN-Italia
GCN en Español: gcn.eu/Suscribirse
GCN auf Deutsch: gcn.eu/auf-deu...
GCN en Français: gcn.eu/GCNENFR...
GCN Training: gcn.eu/gcntrai...
GCN Racing: gcn.eu/gcn-racing
GMBN: gmbn.eu/subscribe
GMBN Tech: gmbn.tech/subsc...
EMBN: embn.me/subscribe
Leave us a comment below!
Do you have a sprinter or climber build? And, more importantly, do you prefer sprinting or climbing? Is Ollie’s hot take maybe a little too spicy? Let us know…
I’m 2m tall and weigh about 90kg, I’m much faster than anyone around me on the flats, and I can sprint pretty fast, but my speciality is a high average speed over a long distance. I typically try to keep a pace of 24mph over an hour of riding. None of my friends can keep up with me unless we are going up steep hills. I ride an Aeroad if that makes a diff
Naturally climber. Since adding a lot of iron supplements to my training regime some decades ago, more sprinter with excess bodyweight on th eupper body that doesn't do much for cycling at all.
Basically was ery weedy. Started lifting and got bigger all round not just where it helps cycling. Meant I stayed rougnhly the same speed during the change while using the same bike.
Now I have changed bies a few times to better ones. This combined with age related deterioration has meant I am basically the same speed, but there are now more people faster than me.
while im a natural sprinter, the challenges of riding uphill are fun. im currently trying to convert myself into an all arounder. i do 1000 watts up hills at 10%. right now my 20 minute FTP is 500 watts.cutting weight to see if i can increase my watt per kilo.
I'm more of a Gollum build. Climbing in theory if I had any strength.
@@paulm9079 im more of a world's strongest men build
Now THAT'S content! Not an ad for a mega-brand in sight, just Ollie speaking clearly (which fearfully few athletes are able to do) about how to make sense of all that data we're apparently collecting about our watts and weights. I'd be properly pleased to see a lot more science-forward content from GCN in 2022.
Yep....Ollie is a class presenter....a rare clear speaker!
"not an ad in sight", they are only wearing castelli gear... Content is great though
@@felixjansson3139 And the wall of Park Tool behind them inside. I'm FINE with them having sponsors and such, no complaints about ANY product placement...let them make money! But yeah. It's there. :)
It does get tiresome how people complain about free advice and content and the use of ads. Pay for GCN properly and you can lose all this, otherwise it's here to stay. If you don't pay for the product, you are the product. I agree some use of ads have been more heavy, but I'm not paying anything!!! Now, I just hope 'all' staff get a decent salary for the offset of sponsorship.
it's been long since gcn did anything good. this was good. no badly disguised ads, no sponsors. this is why I started to follow you guys
Thanks GCN.
I conducted some in depth testing relating to my power output, size and weight on various terrains.
I established that:
A. I was slow going uphill.
B. I was fast going downhill.
C. I was past caring whilst on the flat.
Conclusion: If you're a lard arse like me, just get out there and enjoy the ride.
Kinda the same to me, but as I know I'm not that fast uphill I compensate on the flat. I might not get an actual KOM, but I've got to try on those flat and false flat segments.
Yeah I'm right in that boat, luckily a lot of the trails by me are flat so me and my 100kg old fat ass can still fly whenever I want
🤣🤣🤣amen. I'm always playing catch-up with the string beans on the group rides
I agree. But work on those descending skills. It's a great deal different at 70 vice 50!
Loving the way comments on every video endlessly troll Ollie for getting dropped…even while he casually presents to camera at 4w/kg without breaking sweat. 99.9% of the commentors would be dying on their arse at this point!!!
However, the difference in strain in their voices just after they put those 4 W/kg down was enjoyable. Not saying that I can put down 4 W/kg myself for more than a few minutes.
@@DiscoveretaPhotoVideo that's your perspective, look outside your bubble and you'll find a very significant percentage of sport cyclists actually do chase speed and nerding out about it is part of enjoying the hobby. GCN isn't exactly aimed at people who prefer to pedal trough the countryside without breaking a drop of sweat
Alex and Ollie together are a dream team imo. They first crack you up with the jokes, thencrack your brain with the science.
Absolutely brilliant. Duly shared with my biology and physics teacher colleagues and hope to hear Alex and Ollie’s voices coming from the classrooms very soon 😀
As a female, this has been a source of frustration on group rides on Zwift that are sorted by w/kg. I either have to go down a category or be resigned to eventually getting dropped on flat courses due to being a literal light weight. I understood the general idea, but It was interesting to hear a clear explanation of the details.
Don't ride flat courses (:
Male vs female physiology is a whole other topic for discussions. Obviously in cycling given similar weight female riders are at a tremendous disadvantage compared to male riders.
wouldn't being light help you if they are sorting by w/kg?
@@finndegraaf2707 No, because although she's the same w/kg as the other riders in her league when considering only her own body mass, the weight of her bike is largely the same as the other riders and the Zwift speed equations ultimately take that into account
On group rides smaller riders are very difficult to draft, while bigger riders are essentially a wall. Obviously this doesn't apply to Zwift, but the difference is so marked that larger riders are almost always the slower riders.
As a smaller rider (60.2KG dry weight) I can climb pretty well. I love smokin' people up the hills, but it's all I've got. When I try to maintain with bigger riders on the flats they kill me and I eventually watch them ride off into the sunset. Thanks for the demo and the science!
When your this light you learn never to wait at the top, but rather let the regroup for you happen at the bottom.
Regarding the container ship analogy, longer ships are faster due to wave making resistance. As the ship moves through the water, it creates a wave at the bow with subsequent crests along the length of the hull. The waves travel at the same speed as the ship. In deep water, the speed of the waves is proportional to the square root of the wave length. If the ship has enough power, it will reach a speed at which the second wave crest is at the stern. In order to increase the speed further, the ship will have to leave the second wave crest behind and climb up on the bow wave. Smaller powerboats often have the power to climb the bow wave, but large ships generally do not. As a consequence, large ships are constrained to travel no faster than a wave that is the length of the hull. This is referred to as "hull speed". The equation that is typically used is V = 1.34 * sqrt(L) where V is the hull speed in knots and L is the length of the hull in feet.
In my three years of cycling pre-pandemic, I gained ~10kg. My times up the local mountain were pretty unchanged (12km, 900m, ~1 hr +- 3min), but for the big annual Fondo (120km, 2000m), my times went from 6h:45m to 5h:00m to 4h:10m
@Simon Dowsett any of my trousers without some stretch in the fabric do not fit any more, and I went up a size in the jeans I wear most of the time.
I've always had somewhat proportionally thicker legs for my general build but a pretty lean upper body, so I think my legs gained more density than bulk, but my upper body is more noticably larger.
You gained weight cycling? That's weird
while I would like to naively presume that it was muscle gain from mostly riding a track bike in a hilly city, my thirties and eating all the carbs were probably big influences.
My FTP in watts per kilo had a small but steady increase along with my weight though, and I didn't really change my non-cycling activity (less long hikes, more yoga).
Haha Ollie mentioning Angewandte Chemie as his favorite journal made me happy
niche reference that i knew at least 1 person would get 😂😉
I bet you, he has a paper in it ;-)
Allometric Aerodynamic Scaling is going to be the new thing in cycling's "marginal gains" phrase book! Great video, massively impressed!
It's hard to apply though. I'd laugh to keep my muscles and still lose 15 kg but that's not gonna happen lol
Great video, Alex and Ollie are a great pair. They actually got the allometric scaling right, and I'm someone who has actually published in the Journal of Applied Physiology!
What confuses me, is i thought watts/kilo were constant. 2 riders going at for example 2 watts per kilo on a flat would be going at the same speed...irregardless of power or watts.
11:58 Awesome 💪! I’m the right height for the Tour de France and the perfect weight for track sprinting! 😃 🤔
"If you wonder why I'm dropping Ollie" where have you been? That's what we do around here 😉
Alex and Ollie are the absolute nerd dream team. Very, very interesting content. Thanks!
The clip of Alex shouting “Bingo” needs to be the new recurring clip used for all things good on GCN
For me the "GCN Does Science" videos used to be a real weakness of the channel, I was almost going to avoid this, but this was actually pretty good. I'd imagine a fair proportion of the audience are already familiar with some of the key concepts eg Surface Area to Volume Ratio and how that changes as size changes. As I understand it SAVR is part of the reason we can't have Godzilla, say. Beyond a certain point the skeleton (squared cross section area of bone) can no longer carry that weight (increasing cubically) - the largest animals live in or underwater to support that extra weight.
It's also why if you grind up chemicals into finer and finer powders you get stronger, faster chemical reactions.
Allometric Scaling all the way :-)
Yep. godzilla is a great example! his heart would beat 1-2 times a minute. 😂
Congratulations Alex you have finally helped make a quality classic GCN video.
UCI should change the bike weigt rule from 6.8 kg to 10% of rider's weight.
This is why Pidcock's sprint and TT is even more impressive
Also why seeing Remco sprinting to win a race probably won’t happen.
Both Remco and Pidcock have different types of power. Remco has incredibly high steady state power whilst Pidcock has explosive power which enables him to punch. You’ll probably find both athletes have world class cda
@@JonReid Yeah, no shit. Pidcock is a classics rider who can outsprint WVA. Remco is a TT rider who can climb too of course.
Thats because there are so many variables with an athlete ,
12:22 beautiful way to close things, and it definitely is the beauty of bicycles.
This has been an interesting one, been a while since it was this good. Cheers this was great work
I think people intuitively understand this. I was riding in the UK, in the early 60s, when it was all about TTs on flat courses. I was a literal flyweight, at 8 stone (112 lbs) clothed. Because I was winning club events, there were some people in the local cycling community who thought I must be cheating somehow. That's difficult to do and get away with in a TT - there's just cutting the course short, getting assistance from a motorized vehicle, and drafting other riders - all easy to spot.
Will have to watch sit again to fully understand it, but one of the best videos I've seen from GCN.
Also, it just reminded me of how Ganna will surely crush the hour record, whenever he has an afternoon free and gets around to it.
the bare science tech videos might not rake in ad revenue but it really narrates on what is truly interesting about the sport
I think they should mention upper and lower body weight is important too. A 'cover' model wouldn't perform as good as a rider with 'thin' upper body but massive developed legs.
I've understood this for some time. The genetic component also comes into play to produce a time trial rider vs sprinter. There are exceptions namely Emma Pooley who could time trial as well as climb. Sean Kelly could climb better than you'd expect. A good analogy is with large vs small ships which would be referred to the law of relativity and similatude. 26% larger in each dimension = double the displacement and 4x the stability. All other factors being equal. Larger is often faster. Connor is more similar to the long container ship!
Pogacar can climb, can TT and can do some good sprint too.
Big Mig and "That Texan" just entered the chat and have brought ridiculously high Vo2 max numbers and a suprizingly large quantity of "supplements" with them.
Thanks! Being 157.5 cm tall, I'd always feared this was the case. I felt like my size became an advantage when I hit a fitness peak but felt the biggest advantage when I got down to 52 ki. I've put on a bit more muscle since then so fingers crossed I can get that back :) thanks for the science, it really does address something that's been a bee in my bonnet for a very long time.
One of the best videos i have seen from GCN for me recently. Thank you Alex and Olie, brilliant...
I'd like to point out this video came out the day after my birthday.
I'm 190cm and ~95kg.
Thanks for the validation, GCN Tech!
Great video. Except, as Ollie should know, ships have to overcome both hydrodynamic drag and aerodynamic drag - unless they are submarines. Aside from that, spot on.
Aerodynamic drag is probably in the rounding error region for vessels of that size and the speeds they travel.
One of the best GCN videos ever. Nerds of the world unite!
This is my big pet peeve with Zwift-they organize ride/race categories by Watts/kg, which makes it very hard for lighter riders to keep up on flat/downhill terrain. I'm sure they understand the physics, so why don't they do something more fair?
I get dropped on descents in Zwift by heavier riders that I smoked up the climbs. Just like real life.
Love the physics (and physiology) of cycling! Great vid. Of course, the reason that the small guys don't get dropped on the flatter stages is that they can draft behind the big guys and at flat stage speeds the draft is huge (esp if riding as part of a team). But small guys can drop the big guys on the climbs and open up race winning gaps.
I love Alex’s surprise at dropping Ollie 🤣🤣
Well done, however: there is another component to this - accumulation.
The heavier rider (normally me at 95kgs) has the power (torque really) but given that rides are rarely 10 minutes long, the extra weight and extra power to move that weight accumulate to show a massive difference in the amount of work completed ( weight moved over distance, especially if calculated by each turn of the pedal) and the impacts of that on the cardio and metabolism systems as I would assume those systems do not scale up equally with the scaling mentioned in the video.
Request: a part two episode that takes the maths from this fine specimen and adds the other pieces to get the full picture.
Please
Keep up the great work!
long story short: on flat terrain, power output of big riders outweighs their aerodynamic drag hence making them faster overall.
@ 5:55 - If you double a persons size, then yes - his mass (as a function of volume) does increase 8 times because each of the terms - length times width times height - become (2)length x (2)width x (2) height, meaning you’re multiplying his initial volume (and corresponding mass) by a factor of 2x2x2 which equals 8. However, muscle mass is also volumetric, our muscles are not linear. They would follow the exact same math, and your muscles would be 8x as large and therefore 8x as strong. So where does the “ only 4x stronger” come from? We’re obviously assuming identical body composition.
@ 7:33 - “The distance covered in 1 hour would increase with increased body mass.” - this is correct, no disagreement. Mass increasing while air resistance is the largest form of drag (during flats or downhills) will definitely result in increased distance covered per time, in other words increased speed. But what I have an issue with is that the data are displayed in such a way where it is claimed at the end that you get a reduction of the absolute value of improvement as you increase in weight class, which is not what the data suggests.
Does the absolute value of distance (speed) gained decrease while going from 90-100 kg, as compared to going from 50 to 60 kg? Yes. But more importantly - does the percentage increase in distance covered match the percentage increase in mass? - yes, it does - nearly exactly, which is a more valid way of looking at this. This means you get the exact same “bang for your buck” going from 50 to 60 kg as you do going from 90 to 100. The inaccuracy is in comparing a person putting on 20% of their own body weight to someone putting on just 11%.
Using the examples you chose - 50 to 60 kg, 1.791 km increase (3.4%). From 70 to 80 kg you get 1.305 km (2.5%), and from 90 to 100 kg you get a 1.027 km increase (1.9%).
So from 50 to 60 kg, you’ve added 20% of the original 50 kg riders size, and you’ve achieved a 3.4% increase in distance / speed. However, when you compare a rider going from 70 to 80 kg, you’re only adding 14.3% of his mass! Not 20%. And when you go from 90 to 100 kg - it’s even worse, you’re only adding 11.1% of the riders size. So you’re actually slowing the rate of mass added - meaning you’re slowing the rate of improvement in momentum / strength, and naturally - slowing the rate of improvement in speed. If you look at things as a comparison of percentage mass added per percentage distance gained, you get = (20%)/(3.4%) = a factor of 5.88, and (14.3%)/(2.5%) = a factor of 5.72, and finally (11.1%)/(1.9%) = a factor of.. you guessed it --> 5.84. Thus they’re all essentially exactly the same.
So by increasing the percentage of mass you actually do get an equivalent improvement in the percentage of distance covered (and therefore speed improvement). Whether it’s measured over the course of 20%, or only 11% - you will always get the exact same proportional amount of increase in distance as you do increase in mass. That’s why IMO, this point is misleading. Not faulting you - I’m sure this graph came from the study. But the way it’s explained would attempt to minimize the gains gotten by increasing weight beyond a certain point, and that’s an inaccurate conclusion. The gains don’t decrease as weight increases… 10 kg just decreases as a percentage of weight, as weight increases. Thus it only appears that the gains are decreasing, while they actually correlate perfectly.
Great video! This is GCN at it's best. Good job Alex and Ollie. AAS is the new P/W ratio of the '20s.
Faired tandem recumbent vs Si on a tt bike. Make it happen GCN!
Helps understand the difference between me and my riding buddy when on climbs vs headwind!
As a 1m 85 cm tall slim climber at 70kg, I've suffered for years on the flats when the heavier riders put the power down. Finally the root of the issue has been explained! Nice article, thanks GCN.
Fabulous! One of the best GCN videos I have seen. This is well done and informative. It also helps me feel more confident as a bigger rider. Thanks Ollie and Alex!
The writing and acting on this video are brilliant! Both on the comedy side and on the science side! Very good explanations about a pretty complex topic with very good laughs in there! I loved it!
The return of the "one of my favorite journals" bit, welcome back, old friend.
7:17 do you even Lift, Ollie??? 😂🤙🏼🤙🏼
angewandte chemie is a good journal but I am a fan of JACS and Perkins. 🙂
Brilliant video and the usual great banter 😂👍🏼
Is Ollie’s allometric explanation why we can never actually have a Godzilla or Rodan?
Underrated comment of the day!
absolutely.
I think Zwift, and a lot of Zwift ride leaders, should watch this. Running classifications, and group rides, which are predominantly flat, on a watt per kilo basis, really plays into the hands of bigger riders.
A look at how well the height scaling in Zwift actually match these models, as well as stack up against a couple of real World volonteers would be a neat follow-up.
T-Bar squats, Romanian deadlifts and standard deadlifts are the best way to increase performance on a bicycle. Increasing hamstrings strength can produce a massive improvement in power output.
I was born in the only region in the world where I'm below average height, so I'm often surrounded by people with a >30 Watts higher FTP than me simply becauseof their size. On the other hand, I can usually drop them on a climb
Remarkably interesting video. I liked Alex’s summation towards the end of the video.
@Ollie I would love to see you and Matt Parker from the channel Standupmath do something. Calculating spoke patterns or try to calculate pi with a bike or something similar. :)
The increase in power for larger cyclists is no simply due to having more muscle mass. The important element is having a larger cardio respiratory system. Bigger cyclists have larger lungs, the bigger surface area allows for more rapid gas exchange to sustain a larger aerobic capacity. This cannot be changed by adding mass in the gym.
Err no its not the "The important element" at all, although lung and heart capacity do increase with height its not a equally proportional increase and taller people need that increase because they have more mass that needs to fed with oxygenated blood than someone who has the same BMI but is shorter and has less mass.
Add to this that fact that Lung capacity varies wildly between people of the same height and body mass, heart size hardly varies at all across the entire height spectrum and BMI/Height to weight is not proportional either, its as about as important as eye colour when gauging cycling performance (it can have more of an effect in sports like swimming). That's why we go straight to VO2 max.
That was a great video guys! Well done. Ollie giving us more insight into what all the number mean and how they interact on the road not just the paper. I love when Ollie gets into it like that.
Solid video, I have gone round and round with someone I know who is also one of the fastest cyclists in the area. Who will swear up and down w/kg does not matter ever. Including on a climb I have tried to explain w/kg is essentially a climbing metric, he said no if we are both putting out 4 w/kg up a hill he will be significantly faster because of his higher wattage.....
Within reason he’s right because while drag is less important in a climb it is still a marginal factor.
Nope watts per kilo still come into play ,
Quite excellent work, and a nice touch to match Ollie and Alex so very well in terms of everything but weight. Even their positions on their bikes matched very well.
One of the best GCN vids I've seen in a while. Kudos for the work that went into this and explaining fairly difficult concepts in such an easy to understand and entertaining way
GCN Tech comes out swinging in the new year with some boffin science stuff! Like it...
As a bigger rider myself I know all too well getting dropped on a climb, but then being able to make it up on the flats. It would also be interesting to know the benefits of the extra weight on a long descent. Because I usually fly by the lighter riders on almost any descent. Probably a mix of physics and cycling with some overly cautious riders in the group....
Difference should be minimal between a light and heavy rider maybe a kmph or two( based on almost asleep brain)
Another major performance component: energy intake. Being able to produce more power implies you need to take in more food, which becomes very restrictive on long efforts. This is partly why a 90+ kg rider doesn't win paris-roubaix: their intestine cannot replenish the expended energy fast enough. On a time trial effort this doesn't matter as much: it's too short.
Fantastic video guys. I’ve wondered about this for decades & thanks to you I finally have the answers. And it was entertaining too! Well done 👍
Pretty cool to see the math validate my experience. When I was a 6'5" 180lbs Cat 2, I could absolutely leave everyone on the flats. People literally fought for my wheel. But here's the thing - I was a flat course Cat2. I was a climbing Cat5. I ended up choosing only races that suited me. Not something a pro could do.
Unf. I’m on the small side and i’ve always thought this. My analogy is that an elephant has much less surface area per unit volume than a mouse (the mouse gets cold quickly). In cycling, the smaller cyclist has a proportionately greater surface area and therefore drag. But as a triathlete, a smaller build is definitely an advantage on the run.
That's the concept in a nutshell. It's surface area per unit volume.
Great video guys as always! I don't mind the ones that have flagrant ads for products, as some have mentioned on here. We don't pay for them to make this stuff, they have to get their kit and money somewhere! They make it entertaining when they do - so if you struggle to cope with advertising during their shows, either pay them....... or learn that they don't do this job for free.
Top work guys!!!!!!
I often buy the products they are advertising and find them to be ad described on the show 👌
Glad you mentioned the faired the recumbent ;)
leg length is probably a critical factor also how fit your cardio vascular system are important and there is probably an optimal leg length0 and muscle mass for a cycling event
Love it! Great job on making math and physics meaningful for cycling! There’s so much bad science journalism out there, thanks for getting it right.
This is so interesting! As a big guy I always excelled on flats and didn't really understand why.
I thought that was common knowledge big riders were faster on the flats. I guessed correctly why.
0:29 Alex: "Weight" up!
I was really confused until I realised that Alex was the bigger rider. For some reason I just thought he was the lighter of the two!
Ahh fuck yeah, Angewandte! Full of thrills that one.
Very interesting nerdy stuff! Congratulations on how you make fractional exponents understandable by everyone!
I have to agree with Ollie. Angewandte Chemie is definitely a very nice journal 👌
This is THE BEST I’ve ever seen this explained. Absolute legends. Thank you!
Now I know why my friends wants to ride uphill constantly, when they are riding with me, who is a 90+ kg guy. Those skinny whip legs gives them the advantage, until we turn around. Then I turn into a bulldozer on the loose!
I am around 110 kg + Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra Steelframe (11Sp. Shimano 105/Ultegra Mix) about 10.5 kg and i ride an average of +32 kmh at 100-200 km rides. Training is everything ;)
Dr Ollie working his magic... fantastic! HAHAHA
Yep, getting dropped for science 😅
One advantage of being tall is that you can still buy stuff. The only things in the store are XL and XXL. Or, XXS.
Loved the vid Dr. Bridgestone. Did anyone else have a Star Trek flashback due to the kit at 2:48?
Although it has less to do with size/body mass vs power output, it always amazed me that a 4:10/4:15, world class specialized pursuiter like Wiggins could climb well enough to win the TdF, at times even beating pure specialized climbers to the summits.
Even MORE amazing yet was that Thomas was able to do the very same while being much more massive, and a pure TEAM pursuiter, which is basically a kilo rider.
Albeit neither are pure fast twitch Match Sprinters/Olympic Sprints, or Kierin riders like Hoy, they most definitely had different muscle cell types (much closer to fast twitch types) than pure climbers
5:14 Ollie shitting on my hopes.
Hahaha! Informative and hilarious. Brilliant video guys!
The UCI should make the bike weight limit 10% of the riders weight (e.g. a 60Kg rider could have a bike that weighs 6Kg)
One huge rider glided past me once yet I was moving at 48km/h on a flat...... When we reached an incline about 2% gradient for 3km I passed him gracefully... the moment we hit the flat or decent, he passes me🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️.... I used to think maybe it's because I use 50/34 chain ring and he's looks like a 52 or 53 big ring.....
What a great name for a band: "Dropping Ollie"
its amazing how GCN pumps out interesting content day over day. Its like classic TOP GEAR chemistry over the cycling. Excellent stuff.
The greatest channel ... in the world!
Being light, 66kg, I am reasonable up the climbs, and can drop people. On the flats I struggle and fall back. Bring on the climbs.
as my experience. I am 183 height and averege weight is about 65kg. When i was 18y.o. after 'winter gym training' I was about 68-70 kg, and whats weight is comfortble for sprint. in middle of season i was always lose to 65-67kg witch is I still can sprint but it feels alot harder, but climing hills starting more easier, and this type of weight for me is best for TT. Best weight for climbing for me is 62-64 what is climbing most perfomance. But sprint is the price. Less when 62 was only one time after big stress, and its for me weight of health problem or overlossing weight. And ofcorce this worked only when you stabil 5-6 times per week training. Now im 28, still riding when i have time after work, good weather and mood thats is not like was training in rain/snow/storm everyday and now is weight less important when phisical condition) But i miss what time)
around 6 months ago I stopped riding and racing as consistently, which meant I gained a good bit of weight, but my FTP (in terms of watts/kg) stayed around the same as I'd still go out and smash it + do some efforts on occasion. I was amazed to see myself still setting **uphill** PRs despite my increased body weight. Even on 20 min climbs, provided the gradient isn't crazy (the examples I'm thinking of are around 4% avg)
What WAS a big difference was how hard steeper (7%+) climbs became. But, on the flat and rolling terrain, I'm undoubtedly faster than I was before. super weird but interesting imo.
This was such an awesome video!
Really nice work
The vast majority of Tour winners have been 5'8 to 5'10" and 135 to 155 lbs.
Great video Ollie and Alex. This video deserves 100k+ views
As a 100+ kg man, I am left by those 65kg guys going uphill. I manage to pass them going downhill because those same advantages for the flat apply in the downhill. Now if I could just spend hours at 4w/kg at the age of 56+
Remco then was massively handicapped against Ganna in the TT world Champioship
That’s a lot of science to explain away why Ollie got dropped 🤣
Allometric discrimination 😂
If RUclips had Oscars this would sweep them all.
Pro tip for tall people: use an aero tuck position because it does everything and let's you focus on your super genetically powerful legs
Epic content boys. So, has Zwift got it right? Today I went out on Tour de Zwift stage 6. There were Muppets pulling 7wkg at the start and finishing miles ahead. I feel that for a heavier rider, there is no way we get proper benefit on the flat, but great completely owned on climbs. Ask Connor what he thinks.