Aerodynamics is one reason. But most riders are not in the Tour de France or in any context where it makes a difference. More pragmatically for us mere mortal cyclists, you can massage your muscles, clean off dirt, treat wounds, apply sunscreen, etc without getting tangled up in nasty leg hair. At some point it's just a hygiene thing.
Hair removal is about esthetics, and has nothing to do with hygiene. Hairs in many cases help keep disease at bay and thus are more hygienic. A person mentioned ticks - the common way to miss a tick is to have one on your head, where it's difficult to see from all the hair, but I don't think many people, especially not women, shave their heads because of good hygiene.
You should of course feel free to remove hair if that's your preference, but it's not to be confused with good hygiene.
When you combine an open wound with sunscreen, road grit containing petroleum byproducts, and standing water from farms (all extremely common) you have a very serious hygiene problem if hair prevents you from cleaning it properly in the field.
Seems like an edge case. I normally don't have all of those at once. If I did I would indeed consider shaving around the wound before cleaning, sure. Never happened though.
Yeah, an edge case. Because you've never experienced it, it didn't happen /s. As I said, all extremely common, at least in my experience. Getting sick on "farm backwash", usually by water bottle, happened semi-regularly. Sunscreen dripping into wounds from scraping veg and rocks along a mountain bike trail, that's a special hell that I'd be happy to describe to you. It's very real, especially if you're on a multi day trip without access to services. Which is a thing people do, btw.
Back to the OP, hairy legs makes things harder for long distance cycling. Especially multi-day cycling. The level at which this bothers you is a personal decision of course. I'm an average amateur mountain biker and I don't bother shaving. But I only ride 2 hours at a time! If I was going for longer trips ... yeah definitely, leg hair is a liability.
These articles have been written for such a long time, with usually nothing new to provide.
Tour de France level riders shave their legs for a combination of reasons 1. Aerodynamics gain (albeit small) 2. Reduces the pain of massages on hairy skin 3. Don't have hair sticking to bandages and 4. Looks.
Much like what has already been said, for the majority of us it's likely just for aesthetics and perhaps sunscreen.
>If the data were correct, Thomas could save 70 seconds for every 24.6 miles (or 40 kilometers, a standard time trial distance) he rode on the bike.
Consider me less than impressed. At elite competition levels where winners are determined by <s>doping/transfusion</s> hard work and micro-optimizations, sure. Mortals can worry about anything else.
Edit: According to this random site (https://cyclinglevel.com/cycling-times/40k-times), an elite rider can complete a 40k in 75 minutes. A 70 second reduction would be a savings of ~1.5%. Meanwhile, an intermediate rider should expect to run the same course in 88 minutes (~17% worse than the elite with hairy legs).
A minute over 40k is absolutely huge. This site is... not right. I've done a 40km TT in just under an hour and I'm no pro. Pro times are maybe low 50s.
It‘s more likely about 2.6%, since elite riders would ride 40k in about 45‘ in reality (Tour de France riders have an average speed of up to 54kph during time trials).
Yes, in a standard time trial race. In the tour de france this year there is only 1 individual time trial of 21 stages.
Otherwise most of the riders will rotate through the peloton (group).
Don't get me wrong aerodynamics is important and yes it is of most importance during a time trial, but that's about it. Otherwise they wouldn't shave their legs all year round. There are many other reasons why professional cyclists shave their legs that are just as important.
I don't think the increase is surprising at all, it's been known for a long time.
Cycling teams have been using wind tunnels for over a decade to improve aerodynamics, all the way down to the difference between tucking and untucking their jersey on warmer stages, head tilt, compression socks, wheels, elbow angle.
Shaving legs only seems to be talked about so much because its a main talking point between cyclists and non-cyclists.
Some male tennis players do this, too. I'm not sure of the percentage.
I'm sure that there's no aerodynamic advantage for tennis but when you're out there sweating in the sun, I'm sure you don't want a bunch of water-retaining hair. Also depending on the surface a lot of dust can get kicked up. Not a lot of fun mingling with sweat. Easier for taping/massaging, too, I guess.
While I am a (terrible, amateur) male tennis player, I barely have any hair on my legs to begin with, so I can't do my own A/B comparison for science's sake.
As someone who wears a beard, I'd like to remind you and all others that body hair is a natural way to trap air and moisture near the body for a cooling effect. If you're shaving off your body hair, then you're defeating Mother Nature's most effective air conditioning, and you're going to ensure that your sweat slides uselessly down your legs before it can help your body cool down.
It is also a good way to trap contaminants before they can reach the nose, skin and the body, so if one is meticulous about keeping one's body hair clean, one can stay healthier than someone with relatively less of it.
I actually found here in Australia my legs felt cooler when they were shaven. Potentially because my legs have quite dark hair and therefore retain heat.
A very large number of males who are not genetically predisposed to the possession of any body hair and who happen to live in hot, humid, sometimes dusty as well as in extremely cold environments would like to remind you and to other proud owners of bushy beards and the hirsuteness overall that the body hair attributed to or induced «natural air-conditioning», «insulation», «protection from contaminants» is bunk armchair science.
Such naturally body hair devoid males also happen to live statistically significantly longer and healthier lives as well as outnumber the number of the said proudly hirsute males by a significant proportion.
> Such naturally body hair devoid males also happen to live statistically significantly longer and healthier lives as well as outnumber the number of the said proudly hirsute males by a significant proportion.
As though living longer without a beard is somehow a good thing.
A beard is the facial hair, not the body hair. The beard hair is coarser, is longer, and the beard hair growth is regulated by different hormonal pathways. It is possible for an adult male to grow a beard whilst remaining completely body hair free.
I... have a beard and I was explicit about not shaving anything. Thanks for the "reminder," but:
If you're shaving off your body hair, then you're
defeating Mother Nature's most effective air conditioning,
and you're going to ensure that your sweat slides uselessly
down your legs before it can help your body cool down.
Hey sorry, this does not happen.
I've spent many, many hours in the sun (sports, yard work, hiking) including in muggy 95F/35C+ summers over the years. There are days where I have consumed gallons of water just to replace what I've sweated out.
Wouldn't exactly be hard to detect. If it was literally running down my legs with no chance to evaporate then it would be pooling in my socks and shoes or leaving trails of sweat on the tennis court. Never seen this happen to me or anybody else in person or on TV. And certainly you don't see this on televised sports. You don't see leg hair-less people passing out or dripping sweat onto the playing surfaces in basketball, tennis, etc.
One tends not to see much body hair on native equatorial people, either.
Body hair may serve other sorts of cooling purposes. Certainly the hair on our heads (if we're lucky enough to have it) protects us from the sun. And thick enough body hair may do that as well. Really not buying the sweat thing though.
I shaved my legs for years, being a woman because society expects me to. Since I have stopped shaving ( having two full legs of stubble every day is a chore and uncomfortable) I noticed my legs sweat less and are way more comfortable, not to mention no razor burn, no ingrown hair, no prickly missed stubble because I was in a hurry and no more heat rash which I would frequently get on my thighs. Guess we have hair on our legs for a reason, imagine that.
I don't get why their legs are bare in the first place.
If hairless skin is more aerodynamic than their jersey, I'd expect them to show as much skin as the officials allow them to. And if skin is less aerodynamic, I'd expect full body suits. The current jersey seems like it has to be wrong, but I assume I must be missing something.
There are limitations on the clothing imposed by the rules, eg no knee high aero socks, for reasons of tradition. I'm sure there are others. There are even rules about the position you can hold on the bike, no superman and certain tuck positions are banned.
Making a sustained high intensity effort for 4-5 hours is not easy to do when you're in a full body suit that prevents you from cooling off.
The only types of race in which they use something close to what you're suggesting, where the aerodynamic gain of the suit is higher than the danger to overheat the rider, are time-trials, or velodrome races, which have a lower duration (max 1h).
For those of you rushing to shave your legs. Don't do it the night before something important (like a race). Your own legs may trick you into thinking you're feeling someone else's hairless legs in bed with you.
37 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 79.2 ms ] threadYou should of course feel free to remove hair if that's your preference, but it's not to be confused with good hygiene.
Back to the OP, hairy legs makes things harder for long distance cycling. Especially multi-day cycling. The level at which this bothers you is a personal decision of course. I'm an average amateur mountain biker and I don't bother shaving. But I only ride 2 hours at a time! If I was going for longer trips ... yeah definitely, leg hair is a liability.
Tour de France level riders shave their legs for a combination of reasons 1. Aerodynamics gain (albeit small) 2. Reduces the pain of massages on hairy skin 3. Don't have hair sticking to bandages and 4. Looks.
Much like what has already been said, for the majority of us it's likely just for aesthetics and perhaps sunscreen.
Consider me less than impressed. At elite competition levels where winners are determined by <s>doping/transfusion</s> hard work and micro-optimizations, sure. Mortals can worry about anything else.
Edit: According to this random site (https://cyclinglevel.com/cycling-times/40k-times), an elite rider can complete a 40k in 75 minutes. A 70 second reduction would be a savings of ~1.5%. Meanwhile, an intermediate rider should expect to run the same course in 88 minutes (~17% worse than the elite with hairy legs).
Otherwise most of the riders will rotate through the peloton (group).
Don't get me wrong aerodynamics is important and yes it is of most importance during a time trial, but that's about it. Otherwise they wouldn't shave their legs all year round. There are many other reasons why professional cyclists shave their legs that are just as important.
I don't think the increase is surprising at all, it's been known for a long time.
Cycling teams have been using wind tunnels for over a decade to improve aerodynamics, all the way down to the difference between tucking and untucking their jersey on warmer stages, head tilt, compression socks, wheels, elbow angle.
Shaving legs only seems to be talked about so much because its a main talking point between cyclists and non-cyclists.
I'm sure that there's no aerodynamic advantage for tennis but when you're out there sweating in the sun, I'm sure you don't want a bunch of water-retaining hair. Also depending on the surface a lot of dust can get kicked up. Not a lot of fun mingling with sweat. Easier for taping/massaging, too, I guess.
While I am a (terrible, amateur) male tennis player, I barely have any hair on my legs to begin with, so I can't do my own A/B comparison for science's sake.
It is also a good way to trap contaminants before they can reach the nose, skin and the body, so if one is meticulous about keeping one's body hair clean, one can stay healthier than someone with relatively less of it.
Such naturally body hair devoid males also happen to live statistically significantly longer and healthier lives as well as outnumber the number of the said proudly hirsute males by a significant proportion.
As though living longer without a beard is somehow a good thing.
I've spent many, many hours in the sun (sports, yard work, hiking) including in muggy 95F/35C+ summers over the years. There are days where I have consumed gallons of water just to replace what I've sweated out.
Wouldn't exactly be hard to detect. If it was literally running down my legs with no chance to evaporate then it would be pooling in my socks and shoes or leaving trails of sweat on the tennis court. Never seen this happen to me or anybody else in person or on TV. And certainly you don't see this on televised sports. You don't see leg hair-less people passing out or dripping sweat onto the playing surfaces in basketball, tennis, etc.
One tends not to see much body hair on native equatorial people, either.
Body hair may serve other sorts of cooling purposes. Certainly the hair on our heads (if we're lucky enough to have it) protects us from the sun. And thick enough body hair may do that as well. Really not buying the sweat thing though.
Body hair is gross, simple as.
Also, having some hair (and decent hygiene ofc) makes sweat more bearable imho.
As a runner, swimmer, and biker, hair doesn't help sweat wisk off my chest, it holds heat in, and makes going number 2 disgusting.
I have a chest the rivals Austin Powers. It is awful.
Trim it all off and then some. If permanent removal wasn't so painful I'd do it.
If hairless skin is more aerodynamic than their jersey, I'd expect them to show as much skin as the officials allow them to. And if skin is less aerodynamic, I'd expect full body suits. The current jersey seems like it has to be wrong, but I assume I must be missing something.
The only types of race in which they use something close to what you're suggesting, where the aerodynamic gain of the suit is higher than the danger to overheat the rider, are time-trials, or velodrome races, which have a lower duration (max 1h).