Advertisement

Sports Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 171–179 | Cite as

Original characteristics of a new cycle ergometer

  • William M. BertucciEmail author
  • Frederic Grappe
  • Samuel Crequy
Original Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe and validate a new cycling ergometer with original characteristics that allow the measurement of biomechanical variables with position and crank inertial load used by the cyclist in field condition. The braking pedalling force, that permitted the simulation of the resistance to the cyclist in the field, is performed with a brushless electric motor. The validity and the reproducibility of the power output measurements were compared with the widely accepted SRM powermeter. The results indicate that taking into account a systematic error, the measurements are valid compared with the SRM, and the reproducibility of the power output measurements is similar to the SRM. In conclusion, this ergometer is the only one that allows at the same time for (1) valid and reproducible power output measurements at submaximal intensity, (2) utilisation of the personal bicycle of the cyclist, and (3) simulation of the inertial characteristics of the road cycling.

Keywords

Power output Powermeter Reproducibility Crank inertial load Cycling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Claude Imberdis (Institut Universitaire de Technologie de Chartres, France), Jean Noel Pernin, Camille Garcin, and Betty Baudinot (Laboratoire FEMTO-ST, UMR CNRS 6174, Besançon, France), the French Cycling Federation (FFC) and Vincent Villerius (coach of the Cofidis professional team).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Hopkins WG, Schabort EJ, Hawley JA (2001) Reliability of power in physical performance tests. Sports Med 31:211–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerius V, Pernin JN, Grappe F (2005) Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM device. Int J Sports Med 26:868–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gardner AS, Stephens S, Martin DT, Lawton E, Lee H, Jenkins D (2004) Accuracy of SRM and power tap power monitoring systems for bicycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36:1252–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones SM, Passfield L (1998) Dynamic calibration of bicycle power measuring cranks. In: Haake SJ (ed) The engineering of sport. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp 265–274Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hurst HT, Atkins S (2006) Agreement between polar and SRM mobile ergometer systems during laboratory-based high-intensity, intermittent cycling activity. J Sports Sci 24:863–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Millet GP, Tronche C, Fuster N, Bentley DJ, Candau R (2003) Validity and reliability of the Polar®S710 mobile cycling powermeter. Int J Sports Med 24:156–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordon RS, Franklin KL, Davies B, Baker JS (2007) Further mechanical considerations between polar and SRM mobile ergometer systems during laboratory-based high-intensity, intermittent cycling activity. Res Sports Med 15:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duc S, Villerius V, Bertucci W, Grappe F (2007) Validity and reproducibility of the Ergomo®Pro powermeter when compared with the SRM and Powertap powermeters. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2:270–281Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kirkland A, Coleman D, Wiles JD, Hopker J (2008) Validity and reliability of the Ergomopro powermeter. Int J Sports Med 29:913–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carpes FP, Rossato M, Faria IE, Bolli Mota C (2007) Bilateral pedaling asymmetry during a simulated 40-km cycling time-trial. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 47:51–57Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerius V, Grappe F (2005) The Axiom cycling ergometer is not a valid device compared with the SRM. Int J Sports Med 26:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Earnest CP, Wharton RP, Church TS, Lucia A (2005) Reliability of the Lode Excalibur Sport Ergometer and applicability to Computrainer electromagnetically braked cycling training device. J Strength Cond Res 19:344–348Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reiser M, Meyer T, Kindermann W, Daugs R (2000) Transferability of workload measurements between three different types of ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol 82:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balmer J, Davison RC, Bird SR (2000) Reliability of an air-braked ergometer to record peak power during a maximal cycling test. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32:1790–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Balmer J, Davison RC, Coleman DA, Bird SR (2000) The validity of power output recorded during exercise performance tests using a Kingcycle air-braked cycle ergometer when compared with an SRM powermeter. Int J Sports Med 21:195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finn JP, Maxwell R, Withers RT (2000) Air-bracked cycle ergometers: validity of the correction factor for barometric pressure. Int J Sports Med 21:488–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Attaway R, Bartoli WP, Pate RR, Davis JM (1992) Physiologic and perceptual responses to exercise on a new cycle ergometer. Can J Sport Sci 17:56–59Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Martin JC, Milliken DL, Cobb JE, McFadden KL, Coggan AR (1998) Validation of a mathematical model for road cycling power. J Appl Biomech 14:276–291Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maxwell BF, Withers RT, Ilsley AH, Wakim MJ, Woods GF, Day L (1998) Dynamic calibration of mechanically, air- and electromagnetically braked cycle ergometers. Eur J Appl Physiol 78:346–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martin JC, Wagner BM, Coyle EF (1997) Inertial-load method determines maximal cycling power in a single exercise bout. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:1505–1512Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Praagh E, Bedu M, Roddier P, Coudert J (1992) A simple calibration method for mechanically braked cycle ergometers. Int J Sports Med 13:27–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patterson R, Moreno M (1990) Bicycle pedalling forces as a function of pedalling rate and power output. Med Sci Sports Exerc 22:512–516Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edwards LM, Jobson SA, George SR, Day ST, Nevill AM (2007) The effect of crank inertial load on the physiological and biomechanical responses of trained cyclists. J Sports Sci 25:1195–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fregly BJ, Zajac FE, Dairaghi CA (1996) Crank inertial load has little effect on steady-state pedalling coordination. J Biomech 29:1559–1567Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bertucci W, Grappe F, Groslambert A (2007) Laboratory vs outdoor cycling conditions: differences in pedalling biomechanics. J Appl Biomech 23:87–92Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hansen EA, Jorgensen LV, Jensen K, Fregly BJ, Sjogaard G (2002) Crank inertial load affects freely chosen pedal rate during cycling. J Biomech 35:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Voigt B, Kiparski R (1989) The influence of the rotational energy of a flywheel on load pulse sum during pedalling on a cycle ergometer. Eur J Appl Physiol 58:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lucia A, Hoyos J, Chicharro JL (2001) Physiology of professional road cycling. Sports Med 31:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fregly BJ, Zajac FE, Dairaghi CA (2000) Bicycle drive system dynamics: theory and experimental validation. J Biomech Eng 122:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hansen EA, Jorgensen LV, Jensen K, Fregly BJ, Sjogaard G (2002) Erratum to: crank inertial load affects freely chosen pedal rate during cycling. J Biomech 35:1521 (J Biomech 2002: 35: 277–285)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atkinson G, Nevill AM (1998) Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 26:217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nevill A (1997) Why the analysis of performance variables recorded on a ratio scale will invariably benefit from a log transformation. J Sports Sci 15:457–458Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nevill AM, Atkinson G (1997) Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science. Br J Sports Med 31:314–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bertucci W, Grappe F, Girard A, Betik A, Rouillon JD (2005) Effects on the crank torque profile when changing pedalling cadence in level ground and uphill road cycling. J Biomech 38:1003–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Sports Engineering Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • William M. Bertucci
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frederic Grappe
    • 2
  • Samuel Crequy
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Analyse des Contraintes Mécaniques (LACM-DTI, EA 4302 LRC-CEA n° DSM0534), UFR STAPSUniversité de Reims-Champagne-ArdenneReims Cedex 2France
  2. 2.Département de Recherche en Prévention, Innovation et Veille Technico-Sportive (EA4267 2SBP)UFR STAPS/Médecine et PharmacieBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations