Search

Riding uphill presents a challenge to competitive and recreational cyclists. Based on only limited evidence, some scientists have reported that tilting the saddle nose down improves uphill-cycling efficiency by as much as 6%. Purpose: here, we investigated if simply tilting the saddle nose down increases efficiency during uphill cycling, which would presumably improve performance. Methods: nineteen healthy, recreational cyclists performed multiple 5 min trials of seated cycling at ~ 3 W kg–1 on a large, custom-built treadmill inclined to 8° under two saddle-tilt angle conditions: parallel to the riding surface and 8° nose down. We measured subjects' rates of oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production using an expired-gas analysis system and then calculated their average metabolic power during the last two min of each 5 min trial. Results: we found that, compared to the parallel-saddle condition, tilting the saddle nose down by 8° improved gross efficiency from 0.205 to 0.208—an average increase of 1.4% ± 0.2%, t = 5.9, p < 0.001, CI95% [0.9 to 1.9], dz = 1.3. Conclusion: our findings are relevant to competitive and recreational cyclists and present an opportunity for innovating new devices and saddle designs that enhance uphill-cycling efficiency. The effect of saddle tilt on other slopes and the mechanism behind the efficiency improvement remain to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental digital content is available in the text. When cyclists ride off the saddle, their center of mass (CoM) appears to go through a rhythmic vertical oscillation during each crank cycle. Just like in walking and running, the pattern of CoM movement may have a significant effect on the mechanical power that needs to be generated and dissipated by muscle. Purpose: To date, neither the CoM movement strategies during nonseated cycling nor the limb mechanics that allow this phenomenon to occur have been quantified. Methods: Here we estimate how much power can be contributed by a rider's CoM at each instant during the crank cycle by combining a kinematic and kinetic approach to measure CoM movement and joint powers of 15 participants riding in a nonseated posture at three individualized power outputs (10%, 30%, and 50% of peak maximal power) and two different cadences (70 and 120 rpm). Results: The peak-to-peak amplitude of vertical CoM displacement increased significantly with power output and with decreasing cadence. Accordingly, the greatest peak-to-peak amplitude of CoM displacement (0.06 ± 0.01 m) and change in total mechanical energy (0.54 ± 0.12 J·kg−1) occurred under the combination of high-power output and low cadence. At the same combination of high-power output and low cadence, we found that the peak rate of CoM energy loss (3.87 ± 0.93 W·kg−1) was equal to 18% of the peak crank power. Conclusion: Consequently, it appears that for a given power output, changes in CoM energy contribute to peak instantaneous power output at the crank, thus reducing the required muscular contribution. These findings suggest that the rise and fall of a rider's CoM acts as a mechanical amplifier during nonseated cycling, which has important implications for both rider and bicycle performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental digital content is available in the text. Cyclists frequently use a nonseated posture when accelerating, climbing steep hills, and sprinting; yet, the biomechanical difference between seated and nonseated cycling remains unclear. Purpose: This study aimed to test the effects of posture (seated and nonseated) and cadence (70 and 120 rpm) on joint power contributions, effective mechanical advantage, and muscle activations within the leg during very-high-power output cycling. Methods: Fifteen male participants rode on an instrumented ergometer at 50% of their individualized instantaneous maximal power (10.74 ± 1.99 W·kg−1; above the reported threshold for seated to nonseated transition) in different postures (seated and nonseated) and at different cadences (70 and 120 rpm) while leg muscle activity, full-body motion capture, and crank radial and tangential forces were recorded. A scaled, full-body model was used to solve inverse kinematics and inverse dynamics to determine joint displacements and net joint moments. Statistical comparisons were made using a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA (posture–cadence). Results: There were significant main effects of posture and cadence on joint power contributions. A key finding was that the nonseated posture increased negative power at the knee, with an associated significant decrease of net power at the knee. The contribution of knee power decreased by 15% at both 70 and 120 rpm (~0.8 W·kg−1) when nonseated compared with seated. Subsequently, hip power and ankle power contributions were significantly higher when nonseated compared with seated at both cadences. In both postures, knee power was 9% lower at 120 rpm compared with 70 rpm (~0.4 W·kg−1). Conclusion: These results evidenced that the contribution of knee joint power to leg power was reduced by switching from a seated to nonseated posture during very-high-power output cycling; however, the size of the reduction is cadence dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Instantaneous crank power does not equal total joint power if a rider's centre of mass (CoM) gains and loses mechanical energy. Thus, estimating CoM motion and the associated energy changes can provide valuable information about the mechanics of cycling. To date, an accurate and precise method for tracking CoM motion during outdoor cycling has not been validated. To assess the suitability of using data from a single inertial measurement unit (IMU) secured to the lower back of the rider for estimating CoM motion during non-seated cycling by comparing vertical displacement derived from the IMU to that of an attached marker cluster and to a full-body kinematic estimate of vertical CoM displacement. IMU and motion capture data were collected synchronously for 10 s while participants (n = 7) cycled on an ergometer in a non-seated posture at six combinations of power output and cadence. A limits-of-agreement analysis, corrected for repeated measures, was performed on the range of vertical displacement between the IMU and the two other measures. A total of 303 crank cycles were analysed. There was excellent agreement between the vertical displacement derived from the IMU and the attached marker cluster (accuracy = 1.6 mm, precision = 3.5 mm). Vertical displacement derived from the IMU systematically overestimated the kinematic estimate of whole-body CoM—with errors increasing linearly with displacement. We interpret these findings as evidence that a single IMU secured to the lower back can provide a suitable approach for deriving a cyclist's CoM displacement when they ride out of the saddle, but only if the linearly increasing overestimation is accounted for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competitive cyclists typically sprint out of the saddle and alternately lean their bikes from side to side, away from the downstroke pedal. Yet, there is no direct evidence as to whether leaning the bicycle or conversely, attempting to minimize lean, affects maximal power output during sprint cycling. Here, we modified a cycling ergometer so that it can lean from side to side but can also be locked to prevent lean. This modified ergometer made it possible to compare maximal 1-s crank power during non-seated, sprint cycling under three different conditions: locked (no lean), ad libitum lean, and minimal lean. We found that leaning the ergometer ad libitum did not enhance maximal 1-s crank power compared to the locked condition. However, trying to minimize ergometer lean decreased maximal 1-s crank power by an average of 5% compared to leaning ad libitum. IMU-derived measures of ergometer lean provided evidence that subjects leaned the ergometer away from the downstroke pedal during the ad-lib condition, as in overground cycling. This finding suggests that our ergometer provides a suitable emulation of bicycle-lean dynamics. Overall, we find that leaning a cycle ergometer ad libitum does not enhance maximal power output, but conversely, trying to minimize lean impairs maximal power output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Triathletes almost universally use two shoe types; one for cycling and one for running. Though equally as efficient as cycling shoes during steady-state cycling, traditional running shoes impair cycling sprint performance. Newly developed running shoes, containing stiff carbon-fibre plates, may allow triathletes to use one pair of shoes for both cycling and running without sacrificing performance. Here, we describe a hybrid running-cycling shoe system, consisting of carbon-plated running shoes with magnetic pedal attachments and test whether it facilitates similar crank power and sprint cycling performance compared to a traditional road cycling shoe-pedal combination. The purpose of the present study was to quantify the possible disadvantage of cycling in running shoes during accelerations, even though accelerations comprise only a small portion of a triathlon cycling leg. Participants completed four standing, all-out, 50 m sprints in both shoe-pedal conditions on an uphill road (4.9% slope). On average, maximum 1 s mechanical power and 50 m mean power decreased by 8.5% (p <.001) and 7.5% (p <.001), respectively, when using the hybrid shoe-pedal combination. The decrease in power translated to only a 2.8% decrease in 50 m mean velocity (p <.001). Some participants expressed apprehension about the novel magnetic shoe-pedal interface which may explain a portion of the decrease in performance. Overall, we find that for triathletes, using hybrid running-cycling shoes would incur little performance disadvantage during accelerations on the bike. Not having to change shoes would allow for a faster bike-to-run transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]