No abstract

When cycling on level ground at a speed greater than 14 m/s, aerodynamic drag is the most important resistive force. About 90% of the total mechanical power output is necessary to overcome it. Aerodynamic drag is mainly affected by the effective frontal area which is the product of the projected frontal area and the coefficient of drag. The effective frontal area represents the position of the cyclist on the bicycle and the aerodynamics of the cyclist-bicycle system in this position. In order to optimise performance, estimation of these parameters is necessary. The aim of this study is to describe and comment on the methods used during the last 30 years for the evaluation of the effective frontal area and the projected frontal area in cycling, in both laboratory and actual conditions. Most of the field methods are not expensive and can be realised with few materials, providing valid results in comparison with the reference method in aerodynamics, the wind tunnel. Finally, knowledge of these parameters can be useful in practice or to create theoretical models of cycling performance.

The SRM power measuring crank system is nowadays a popular device for cycling power output (PO) measurements in the field and in laboratories. The PowerTap (CycleOps, Madison, USA) is a more recent and less well-known device that allows mobile PO measurements of cycling via the rear wheel hub. The aim of this study is to test the validity and reliability of the PowerTap by comparing it with the most accurate (i.e. the scientific model) of the SRM system. The validity of the PowerTap is tested during i) sub-maximal incremental intensities (ranging from 100 to 420 W) on a treadmill with different pedalling cadences (45 to 120 rpm) and cycling positions (standing and seated) on different grades, ii) a continuous sub-maximal intensity lasting 30 min, iii) a maximal intensity (8-s sprint), and iiii) real road cycling. The reliability is assessed by repeating ten times the sub-maximal incremental and continuous tests. The results show a good validity of the PowerTap during sub-maximal intensities between 100 and 450 W (mean PO difference -1.2 +/- 1.3 %) when it is compared to the scientific SRM model, but less validity for the maximal PO during sprint exercise, where the validity appears to depend on the gear ratio. The reliability of the PowerTap during the sub-maximal intensities is similar to the scientific SRM model (the coefficient of variation is respectively 0.9 to 2.9 % and 0.7 to 2.1 % for PowerTap and SRM). The PowerTap must be considered as a suitable device for PO measurements during sub-maximal real road cycling and in sub-maximal laboratory tests.

The PWT, STG, and VCT systems appear to be reproducible, but the validity, sensitivity, and robustness of the STG and VCT systems should be treated with some caution according to the conditions of measurement.