Power output, cadence, and torque are similar between the forward standing and traditional sprint cycling positions.

PURPOSE: Compare power output, cadence, and torque in the seated, standing, and forward standing cycling sprint positions. METHODS: On three separated occasions (ie, one for each position), 11 recreational male road cyclists performed a 14 seconds sprint before and directly after a high-intensity lead-up. Power output, cadence, and torque were measured during each sprint. RESULTS: No significant differences in peak and mean power output were observed between the forward standing (1125.5 ± 48.5 W and 896.0 ± 32.7 W, respectively) and either the seated or standing positions (1042.5 ± 46.8 W and 856.5 ± 29.4 W; 1175.4 ± 44.9 W and 927.5 ± 28.9 W, respectively). Power output was higher in the standing, compared with the seated position. No difference was observed in cadence between positions. At the start of the sprint before the lead-up, peak torque was higher in the standing position vs the forward standing position; and peak torque occurred later in the pedal revolution for both the forward standing and standing positions when compared with the seated position. At the start of the sprint after the lead-up, peak torque occurred later in the forward standing position when compared with both the seated and standing position. At the end of the sprint, no difference in torque was found between the forward standing and standing position either before or after the lead-up. CONCLUSION: Sprinting in the forward standing sprint position does not impair power output, cadence, and torque when compared with the seated and standing sprint positions.

Validity of the Velocomp PowerPod Compared With the Verve Cycling InfoCrank Power Meter.

PURPOSE: To determine the validity of the Velocomp PowerPod power meter in comparison with the Verve Cycling InfoCrank power meter. METHODS: This research involved 2 separate studies. In study 1, 12 recreational male road cyclists completed 7 maximal cycling efforts of a known duration (2 times 5 s and 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 s). In study 2, 4 elite male road cyclists completed 13 outdoor cycling sessions. In both studies, power output of cyclists was continuously measured using both the PowerPod and InfoCrank power meters. Maximal mean power output was calculated for durations of 1, 5, 15, 30, 60, 240, and 600 seconds plus the average power output in study 2. RESULTS: Power output determined by the PowerPod was almost perfectly correlated with the InfoCrank (r > .996; P < .001) in both studies. Using a rolling resistance previously reported, power output was similar between power meters in study 1 (P = .989), but not in study 2 (P = .045). Rolling resistance estimated by the PowerPod was higher than what has been previously reported; this might have occurred because of errors in the subjective device setup. This overestimation of rolling resistance increased the power output readings. CONCLUSION: Accuracy of rolling resistance seems to be very important in determining power output using the PowerPod. When using a rolling resistance based on previous literature, the PowerPod showed high validity when compared with the InfoCrank in a controlled field test (study 1) but less so in a dynamic environment (study 2).

Reducing Aerodynamic Drag by Adopting a Novel Road-Cycling Sprint Position.

PURPOSE: To assess the influence of seated, standing, and forward-standing cycling sprint positions on aerodynamic drag (CdA) and the reproducibility of a field test of CdA calculated in these different positions. METHODS: A total of 11 recreational male road cyclists rode 250 m in 2 directions at around 25, 32, and 40 km·h-1 and in each of the 3 positions, resulting in a total of 18 efforts per participant. Riding velocity, power output, wind direction and velocity, road gradient, temperature, relative humidity, and barometric pressure were measured and used to calculate CdA using regression analysis. RESULTS: A main effect of position showed that the average CdA of the 2 d was lower for the forward-standing position (0.295 [0.059]) compared with both the seated (0.363 [0.071], P = .018) and standing positions (0.372 [0.077], P = .037). Seated and standing positions did not differ from each other. Although no significant difference was observed in CdA between the 2 test days, a poor between-days reliability was observed. CONCLUSION: A novel forward-standing cycling sprint position resulted in 23% and 26% reductions in CdA compared with a seated and standing position, respectively. This decrease in CdA could potentially result in an important increase in cycling sprint velocity of 3.9-4.9 km·h-1, although these results should be interpreted with caution because poor reliability of CdA was observed between days.