The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy among a high number of current mobile cycling power meters used by elite and recreational cyclists against a first principle-based mathematical model of treadmill cycling. 54 power meters from 9 manufacturers used by 32 cyclists were calibrated. While the cyclist coasted downhill on a motorised treadmill, a back-pulling system was adjusted to counter the downhill force. The system was then loaded 3 times with 4 different masses while the cyclist pedalled to keep his position. The mean deviation (trueness) to the model and coefficient of variation (precision) were analysed. The mean deviations of the power meters were –0.9±3.2% (mean±SD) with 6 power meters deviating by more than±5%. The coefficients of variation of the power meters were 1.2±0.9% (mean±SD), with Stages varying more than SRM (p<0.001) and PowerTap (p<0.001). In conclusion, current power meters used by elite and recreational cyclists vary considerably in their trueness; precision is generally high but differs between manufacturers. Calibrating and adjusting the trueness of every power meter against a first principle-based reference is advised for accurate measurements.

Although a low rolling resistance is advantageous in mountain bike cross-country racing, no studies have used the virtual elevation method to compare tyres from different manufacturers as used in international competitions so far. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of this method, to compare the off-road rolling resistance between tyres and to calculate the influence on off-road speed. Nine 29-in. mountain bike cross-country tyres were tested on a course representing typical ground surface conditions 5 or 6 times. The coefficient of rolling resistance was estimated with the virtual elevation method by 3 investigators and corresponding off-road speeds were calculated. The virtual elevation method was highly reliable (typical error = 0.0006, 2.8%; limits of agreement <0.0005, r ≥ 0.98). The mean coefficient of rolling resistance was 0.0219 and differed from 0.0205 to 0.0237 (P < 0.001) between tyres. The calculated differences in off-road speed amounted to 2.9-3.2% (0% slope) and 2.3-2.4% (10% slope) between the slowest and the fastest tyre. The reliability of the method and the differences in rolling resistance between the tyres illustrate the value of testing tyres for important competitions on a representative ground surface using the virtual elevation method.