Inertial effects on mechanically braked Wingate power calculations.

PURPOSE: The standard procedure for determining subject power output from a 30-s Wingate test on a mechanically braked (friction-loaded) ergometer includes only the braking resistance and flywheel velocity in the computations. However, the inertial effects associated with accelerating and decelerating the crank and flywheel also require energy and, therefore, represent a component of the subject's power output. The present study was designed to determine the effects of drive-system inertia on power output calculations. METHODS: Twenty-eight male recreational cyclists completed Wingate tests on a Monark 324E mechanically braked ergometer (resistance: 8.5% body mass (BM), starting cadence: 60 rpm). Power outputs were then compared using both standard (without inertial contribution) and corrected methods (with inertial contribution) of calculating power output. RESULTS: Relative 5-s peak power and 30-s average power for the corrected method (14.8 +/- 1.2 W x kg(-1) BM; 9.9 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM) were 20.3% and 3.1% greater than that of the standard method (12.3 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM; 9.6 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM), respectively. Relative 5-s minimum power for the corrected method (6.8 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM) was 6.8% less than that of the standard method (7.3 +/- 0.8 W x kg(-1) BM). The combined differences in the peak power and minimum power produced a fatigue index for the corrected method (54 +/- 5%) that was 31.7% greater than that of the standard method (41 +/- 6%). All parameter differences were significant (P < 0.01). The inertial contribution to power output was dominated by the flywheel; however, the contribution from the crank was evident. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the inertial components of the ergometer drive system influence the power output characteristics, requiring care when computing, interpreting, and comparing Wingate results, particularly among different ergometer designs and test protocols.

Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996: modeling with empirical data.

PURPOSE: The world hour record in cycling has increased dramatically in recent years. The present study was designed to compare the performances of former/current record holders, after adjusting for differences in aerodynamic equipment and altitude. Additionally, we sought to determine the ideal elevation for future hour record attempts. METHODS: The first step was constructing a mathematical model to predict power requirements of track cycling. The model was based on empirical data from wind-tunnel tests, the relationship of body size to frontal surface area, and field power measurements using a crank dynamometer (SRM). The model agreed reasonably well with actual measurements of power output on elite cyclists. Subsequently, the effects of altitude on maximal aerobic power were estimated from published research studies of elite athletes. This information was combined with the power requirement equation to predict what each cyclist's power output would have been at sea level. This allowed us to estimate the distance that each rider could have covered using state-of-the-art equipment at sea level. According to these calculations, when racing under equivalent conditions, Rominger would be first, Boardman second, Merckx third, and Indurain fourth. In addition, about 60% of the increase in hour record distances since Bracke's record (1967) have come from advances in technology and 40% from physiological improvements. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: To break the current world hour record, field measurements and the model indicate that a cyclist would have to deliver over 440 W for 1 h at sea level, or correspondingly less at altitude. The optimal elevation for future hour record attempts is predicted to be about 2500 m for acclimatized riders and 2000 m for unacclimatized riders.

Racing cyclist power requirements in the 4000-m individual and team pursuits.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is: 1) to present field test data describing the power requirements of internationally competitive individual and team pursuiters, and 2) to develop a theoretical model for pursuit power based upon on these tests. METHODS: In preparing U.S. cycling's pursuit team for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, U.S. team scientists measured cycling power of seven subjects on the Atlanta track using a crank dynamometer (SRM) at speeds from 57 to 60 kph. By using these field data and other tests, mathematical models were devised which predict both individual and team pursuit performance. The field data indicate the power within a pace line at 60 kph averages 607 W in lead position (100%), 430 W in second position (70.8%), 389 W in third position (64.1%), and 389 W in fourth position (64.0%). A team member requires about 75% of the energy necessary for cyclists riding alone at the same speed. These results compare well with field measurements from a British pursuit team, to recent wind tunnel tests, and to earlier bicycle coast down tests. RESULTS: The theoretical models predict performance with reasonable accuracy when the average power potential of an individual or team is known, or they may be used to estimate the power of pursuit competitors knowing race times. The model estimates that Christopher Boardman averaged about 520 W when setting his 1996, 4000-m individual pursuit record of 4 min 11.114 s and the Italian 4000-m pursuit team averaged about 480 W in setting their record of 4:00.958. Both used the "Superman" cycling position. CONCLUSIONS: These records would be very difficult to break using less aerodynamic riding positions, due to the extraordinarily high power requirements.

Mechanical energy management in cycling: source relations and energy expenditure.

Conservation of energy suggests that during cycling the constrained lower extremity is capable of delivering energy to the bicycle without expending energy to move the limbs. The purpose of this study was to characterize the management of mechanical energy during cycling and, specifically, to evaluate the potential for system energetic conservatism. Mechanical energy contributions derived from lower extremity energy sources were computed for 12 experienced male cyclists riding at five combinations of cadence and power output. The knee joint dominated (> 50%) in contributing to system energy and a moderate amount of energy was derived from hip joint reaction forces (> 6%). Energy generations and dissipations at the sources were sensitive to power output and, within the range of conditions studied, insensitive to cadence. Two energy models estimated mechanical energy expenditure under hypothetical single-joint and multijoint muscle operating conditions. When multijoint muscles were incorporated into the energy management analysis, a significant reduction in mechanical work relative to the single-joint muscle operation occurred. Energy savings associated with multijoint muscle energy transfers were enhanced at higher bicycle power levels, suggesting that conservation of mechanical energy is plausible given appropriate actions of two-joint muscles.