Bicycle Set-Up Dimensions and Cycling Kinematics: A Consensus Statement Using Delphi Methodology.

Bicycle set-up dimensions and cycling kinematic data are important components of bicycle fitting and cyclist testing protocols. However, there are no guidelines on how bicycles should be measured and how kinematic data should be collected to increase the reliability of outcomes. This article proposes a consensus regarding bicycle set-up dimensions and recommendations for collecting cycling-related kinematic data. Four core members recruited panellists, prepared the document to review in each round for panellists, analysed the scores and comments of the expert panellists, reported the decisions and communicated with panellists. Fourteen experts with experience in research involving cycling kinematics and/or bicycle fitting agreed to participate as panellists. An initial list of 17 statements was proposed, rated using a five-point Likert scale and commented on by panellists in three rounds of anonymous surveys following a Delphi procedure. The consensus was agreed upon when more than 80% of the panellists scored the statement with values of 4 and 5 (moderately and strongly agree) with an interquartile range of less than or equal to 1. A consensus was achieved for eight statements addressing bicycle set-up dimensions (e.g. saddle height, saddle setback, etc.) and nine statements for cycling kinematic assessment (e.g. kinematic method, two-dimensional methodology, etc.). This consensus statement provides a list of recommendations about how bicycle set-up dimensions should be measured and the best practices for collecting cycling kinematic data. These recommendations should improve the transparency, reproducibility, standardisation and interpretation of bicycle measurements and cycling kinematic data for researchers, bicycle fitters and cycling related practitioners.

Comparison of two static methods of saddle height adjustment for cyclists of different morphologies.

Methods based on inseam length (IL) for saddle height adjustment in cycling are frequently employed. However, these methods were designed for medium-sized people. The aim of this study was to evaluate knee angle during pedalling by 2D video analysis and perceived comfort using a subjective scale under three saddle height conditions: (1) self-selected saddle height, (2) Genzling method (0.885 × IL) and (3) Hamley method (1.09 × IL minus crank arm length). Twenty-six cyclists of heterogeneous morphology were recruited. Three groups were determined based on IL: Short (IL < 0.8 m), Medium (0.8 m < IL< 0.88 m) and Long (IL > 0.88 m). The results showed that Medium and Long IL groups usually rode with saddle heights allowing knee angles consistent with those previously shown to prevent injuries (30°-40°). However, Short IL group, who were all children, self-selected a too low saddle height (knee angle was too large). Genzling and Hamley methods gave identical results for Medium IL group, permitting knee angles in the range of 30°-40°. However, both methods caused important differences between Short and Long IL groups. Hamley method was more suitable for short ILs, while Genzling method was more suitable for long ILs.

Physiological, biomechanical, and subjective effects of medio-lateral distance between the feet during pedalling for cyclists of different morphologies.

Improper medio-lateral distance between the feet in cycling can increase the risk of injuries and decrease performance due to hip/knee/ankle misalignment in the frontal plane. The objective of this study was to measure the impact of pedal spacing changes during pedalling on the biomechanical, physiological, and subjective variables of people with different morphologies. Twenty-two cyclists were divided into two groups according to their pelvis width (narrow and wide). They performed four submaximal pedalling tests with different pedal spindle lengths (+20 mm, +40 mm, and +60 mm compared to the pedal spindle lengths of standard road bikes). EMG activity, 3D joint kinematics of the lower limbs, comfort, and perceived exertion were measured during each test. Moreover, gas exchange data were collected to measure gross mechanical efficiency and cycling economy. No significant differences in muscular activity or joint kinematics were observed among the four experimental conditions. However, gross mechanical efficiency, cycling economy, and perceived comfort significantly improved while perceived exertion significantly reduced with the narrowest pedal spacing for the whole population, as well as for the narrow and wide pelvis groups. Therefore, the lowest medio-lateral distance between the feet seems more suitable for comfort and performance improvement, irrespective of the individual's morphology.

Comparison of static and dynamic methods based on knee kinematics to determine optimal saddle height in cycling.

PURPOSE: Bike-fitting methods based on knee kinematics have been proposed to determine optimal saddle height. The Holmes method recommends that knee angle be between 25° and 35° when the pedal is at bottom dead centre in static. Other authors advocate knee angle of 30-40° during maximum knee extension while pedalling. Although knee angle would be 5-10° greater at bottom dead centre during pedalling, no study has reported reference values in this condition. The purpose of this study was to compare these three methodologies on knee, hip, and ankle angles and to develop new dynamic reference range at bottom dead centre. METHODS: Twenty-six cyclists volunteered for this experiment and performed a pedalling test on their personal road or mountain bike. Knee, hip, and ankle angles were assessed by two-dimensional video analysis. RESULTS: Dynamic knee angle was 8° significantly greater than static knee angle when the pedal was at bottom dead centre. Moreover, dynamic knee angle with the pedal at bottom dead centre was 3° significantly greater than dynamic knee angle during maximum knee extension. The chosen methodology also significantly impacted hip and ankle angles under most conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The results allow us to suggest a new range of 33-43° when the pedal is at bottom dead centre during pedalling. Thus, this study defines clearly the different ranges to determine optimal saddle height in cycling according to the condition of measurement. These findings are important for researchers and bike-fitting professionals to avoid saddle height adjustment errors that can affect cyclists' health and performance.