>>1354720I guess I didn't state my point clearly enough.
The 200 pound persons (especially the ones in the 3 pics above) aren't going to have a 'constant power-to-weight ratio (W/kg)' to a 140 pound rider. They're all obese or morbidly obese and will be weaker. Furthermore their cardiovascular health is going to be compromised by their obesity so they won't have the endurance of the 140 pound rider.
Oh and by the way none of those 3 are 200 pounds, they're all at least 300 pounds.
The theoretical 140 pound cyclist would drop all 3 of them very quickly and outdistance them, continuing on long after they'd all run short of breath and either quit or slowed down to a walking speed.
Furthermore performance on the flat is only one small aspect of being a cyclist. If you can't climb or sprint then you're not a very good cyclist at all, and those 3 gentlemen won't be able to climb mountains or hit a 40mph sprint even if you pointed a gun at them.
Finally, since it's clear that I'm not being direct enough about calling bullshit on the entire premise of OP's thread:
>OP states the obvious, logically speaking, but he's not being intellectually honest or *factual* since the vast majority of 200 pound cyclists aren't going to have the same power-to-weight ratio as a 140 pound cyclist.>Furthermore as previously stated the 3 pics above are at least 300 pound men not 200 pound men and their power-to-weight ratio will be a small fraction of the theoretical 140 pound cyclists'.Basically, this thread is utter, useless, pointless bullshit. I've already wasted too much time on it.
