Originally Posted by
ofajen
On the whole, being large and tall is a disadvantage in cycling. For similar level of training, W/kg scales with an exponent of about 0.7. The work against gravity when climbing obviously scales with an exponent of 1.0. That’s why smaller, lighter riders tend to be the ones who are the fastest climbers.
Larger riders have a smaller relative advantage on level ground, since the increase in frontal surface area scales with an exponent a slight bit less than 0.7.Otto
Sure, in whatever world cycling is all done uphill large riders are at a disadvantage. And only in long road races that involve hills will the large rider be at a disadvantage. Most cycle racing is not done at a pro level, and are short TT style races that are relatively level. I can leave my house and ride east or west for hundreds of miles and the ride will be near level, if I go north it will be downhill until I hit the great-lakes, if I ride south it will be uphill for a bit until I get to the watershed then it will level out. So saying a rider is at a disadvantage because of their size means nothing unless you are talking about pros, which make up a small fraction of one-percent of the cycling public. When you have something to say that applies to a large part of the cycling public, then you might be worth listening to.