's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Lance - long legs, long torso, or average proportions for(14 posts)

Lance - long legs, long torso, or average proportions forFez
Aug 25, 2003 7:28 AM
his height?

Don't see him much off the saddle and just wondering if he is more leg or more torso.

In Lance's case, would it matter either way?
5'10" on a 58cm bike.-- definitely more legselviento
Aug 25, 2003 7:39 AM
Don't think it makes any difference. Look at Bettini.
5'10" on a 58cm bike.-- definitely more legs03Vortex
Aug 25, 2003 7:55 AM
Since Trek measures their bikes a bit odd (meaning ST is measured from BB to top of seat collar), their 58 is realistically more like a 56.
lets not make this another trek sizing debate...Fez
Aug 25, 2003 8:02 AM
I used to think he had long legs, but when I saw him off the bike but still in USPS shorts, I wasn't so sure.

Of course, the team kits aren't the most flattering outfits.

Any fit science gurus have his cycling measurements, like cycling inseam? Or saddle height?
5'10" on a 58cm bike.-- definitely more legselviento
Aug 25, 2003 8:18 AM
I have owned multiple Treks, so I know their goemitries well, but you can see Heras is on a 52cm Trek, and he is only 2" shorter than Lance. You do the math.
If he's more legs and if he's onFez
Aug 25, 2003 11:12 AM
a 58, does he use a *relatively* short stem?
are you guys sure it's a 58?gtx
Aug 25, 2003 8:40 AM
I'm pretty familiar with OCLVs. I know it's been stated on a Trek website or wherever that Lance rides a 58, but eyeballing it in photos it still looks like a Trek 56 to me...
absolutely a 58elviento
Aug 25, 2003 8:51 AM
Eki rides a 56. Eyeballing can be inaccurate.
absolutely a 58gtx
Aug 25, 2003 9:00 AM
maybe it's the spacers in the hs that throws me off. His bars must be pretty high. Maybe he's been taking Grant Peterson's theory to heart. ;)
absolutely a 58Tom C
Aug 25, 2003 10:03 AM
According to Carmichael's book, Armstrong has a stiff back and needs a more upright position.
Confirmed, it's a 58 (56 c to c)SamDC
Aug 25, 2003 12:05 PM
See under, 'What's Lance Riding?'
don't fall for that propagandaET
Aug 25, 2003 2:12 PM
Lance may be riding a nominal 58 Trek, but a 58 Trek is not 56 c-c. From high school geometry,

(STH-BBH)/STcttt = sin(STA),

where STH is standover height, BBH is bottom bracket height, STcttt is seat tube (as measured) center to top of top tube, and STA is seat tube angle. Plugging in the stats for the size 58 as given on Trek's web site (which have been confirmed by owners to be accurate) and solving gives

STcttt = (80.7-26.9)/sin(73 deg) = 56.3 center-to-top of top tube, not center-to-center. C-C for this size would come out to something more like 55. Looked at another way, a 58 c-ttt with the given seat tube angle could not possibly have such a low standover height.

It is so unfortunate Trek uses such misleading sizing. Fact is, using a uniform measurement for seat tube length, Trek OCLV's true seat tube length is, by industry standards, very short for a given top tube length.
Saw it first hand, and it was a 58torquer
Aug 26, 2003 7:36 AM
I ride a 58cm OCLV, and was surprised at last year's NYC Championship to see LA's frame (which was parked inside a coffee shop window while he did a post-race news conference) was identical to mine.

I was surprised because I'm a fraction above 6'-0", vs. LA's 5'-10"; OTOH I don't have particularly long femurs, which I've always understood to be a natural advantage in cycling.
Long femurs, not necessarily long legs. . .js5280
Aug 25, 2003 3:26 PM
Don't have any stats on how long they are or total leg length, but Lance (and Indurian) are known for long femurs. Throw in a super-human lung capacity, super-efficient lactic acid clearing, and a resting heartrate in the 20's, Lance is a cycling machine with any normal length femurs. He has many physiological characteristics to his advantage!

Interesting article on the advantages of long femurs here: