Optimal cycling time trial position models: aerodynamics versus power output and metabolic energy

Making History in 1 h: How Sex, Aging, Technology, and Elevation Affect the Cycling Hour Record

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article was to analyze more than a century of cycling hour records (CHR) to examine the effects of sex, age, and altitude on cycling performance. Our hypotheses were that men's performance (distance) would exceed those of women by more than 10% but would decline at similar rates with aging and that altitude would have a small benefit, which might reach a maximum.

METHODS

Data were cultivated from the Facebook World Hour Record Discussion Group's crowd-sourced database of more than 600-known-hour records and verified through extensive online research and/or personal communication. Regression and statistical modeling were produced using STATA v15.0. R2 values were used to ascertain model quality, with four distinct models being produced for comparisons. Alpha was set at 0.05 significance for all tests.

RESULTS

R2 values ranged from 65% to 74.9%. Women's distances were 10.8% shorter ( P < 0.001) than those of men, but the difference was narrower than either the historical elite women's difference of 14.2% or the 2022 record difference of 13.3%. Age-related decline modeling indicates performance declines significantly past age 40 yr at a rate of 1.08% per year. Altitude had a significant ( P < 0.001) marginal improvement up to 1000 m before declining. The marginal benefits of altitude were small, but this is consistent with the finding benefits reach a maximum at a moderate altitude with "benefits" becoming ambiguous starting at ~1000 m. Technological advancement was estimated to be a small but significant ( P < 0.001) improvement of ~0.18% per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Across decades of CHR data in well-trained endurance cyclists, men are only ~11% faster, and this difference remains stable until at least age 80 yr. CHR attempts greater than 500 m likely offer at best a small advantage. Despite small year-on-year improvements, the CHR has likely improved more than 10 km because of technological advancements.

Variability of the Center of Mass in Trained Triathletes in Running After Cycling: A Preliminary Study Conducted in a Real-Life Setting

While the sport of short-distance (Sprint) triathlon provides an opportunity to research the effect of the center of mass (CoM) when cycling and running, much remains to be done. The literature has failed to consistently or adequately report how changes to hand position influence subsequent running as inferred by the magnitude of CoM acceleration. The demands of cycle training in a drops and aerodynamic position followed by running remain unquantified in Sprint Distance triathlon. Thus, far data collected indicate that the cycle to run transition (T2) is important for overall race success. While many age-groupers participate in Sprint Distance triathlon, the lack of T2 based research make comparisons between cycle hand position and ensuing running difficult. The motion of the human body when cycling and running in triathlon can be described by the motion of its CoM in a local coordinate system. Unobtrusive wearable sensors have proven to be an informative resource to monitor the magnitude of CoM accelerations in running. However, the extent to which they are used in cycling is unclear. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to analyse the temporal magnitudes of CoM acceleration when cycling position and cadence is changed and to analyse these effects on running after cycling. Ten recreational triathletes completed two 20 km cycling trials at varied cadence in a drops position (parts of the handlebars that curve outward, CycleDrops) and an aerodynamic position (arms bent, forearms parallel to the ground, CycleAero) immediately followed by a 5 km run at self-selected pace. Torso kinematics by way of CoM acceleration magnitude were captured in a typical training setting using a triaxial accelerometer. CoM acceleration was quantified in m/s2 and variability was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) and root mean square (RMS). Results from CycleAero indicated that acceleration of the CoM in longitudinal (CV = 1%) and mediolateral directions (CV = 3%) was significantly reduced (p &lt; 0.001) compared to CycleDrops. As for rate of perceived exertion (RPE), a significant difference was observed with triathletes reporting higher values in CycleAero alongside a greater CoM acceleration magnitude in the anteroposterior direction. The CoM varied significantly from RunAero with less longitudinal (CV = 0.2, p &lt; 0.001) and mediolateral acceleration observed (CV = 7.5%, p &lt; 0.001) compared to RunDrops. Although greater longitudinal acceleration was observed in the initial 1 km epoch of RunAero, triathletes then seemingly adjusted their CoM trajectory to record lower magnitudes until completion of the 5 km run, completing the run quicker compared to RunDrops (22.56 min1 ± 0.2, 23.34 min1 ± 0.5, p &lt; 0.001, CV = 1.3%). Coaches may look to use triaxial accelerometers to monitor performance in both cycling and running after cycling.

Using Field Based Data to Model Sprint Track Cycling Performance

Cycling performance models are used to study rider and sport characteristics to better understand performance determinants and optimise competition outcomes. Performance requirements cover the demands of competition a cyclist may encounter, whilst rider attributes are physical, technical and psychological characteristics contributing to performance. Several current models of endurance-cycling enhance understanding of performance in road cycling and track endurance, relying on a supply and demand perspective. However, they have yet to be developed for sprint-cycling, with current athlete preparation, instead relying on measures of peak-power, speed and strength to assess performance and guide training. Peak-power models do not adequately explain the demands of actual competition in events over 15-60 s, let alone, in World-Championship sprint cycling events comprising several rounds to medal finals. Whilst there are no descriptive studies of track-sprint cycling events, we present data from physiological interventions using track cycling and repeated sprint exercise research in multiple sports, to elucidate the demands of performance requiring several maximal sprints over a competition. This review will show physiological and power meter data, illustrating the role of all energy pathways in sprint performance. This understanding highlights the need to focus on the capacity required for a given race and over an event, and therefore the recovery needed for each subsequent race, within and between races, and how optimal pacing can be used to enhance performance. We propose a shift in sprint-cyclist preparation away from training just for peak power, to a more comprehensive model of the actual event demands.

The Effect of Upper-Body Positioning on the Aerodynamic–Physiological Economy of Time-Trial Cycling

Purpose: Cycling time trials (TTs) are characterized by riders’ adopting aerodynamic positions to lessen the impact of aerodynamic drag on velocity. The optimal performance requirements for TTs likely exist on a continuum of rider aerodynamics versus physiological optimization, yet there is little empirical evidence to inform riders and coaches. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between aerodynamic optimization, energy expenditure, heat production, and performance. Methods: Eleven trained cyclists completed 5 submaximal exercise tests followed by a TT. Trials were completed at hip angles of 12° (more horizontal), 16°, 20°, 24° (more vertical), and their self-selected control position. Results: The largest decrease in power output at anaerobic threshold compared with control occurred at 12° (−16 [20] W, P = .03; effect size [ES] = 0.8). There was a linear relationship between upper-body position and heat production (R2 = .414, P = .04) but no change in mean body temperature, suggesting that, as upper-body position and hip angle increase, convective and evaporative cooling also rise. The highest aerodynamic–physiological economy occurred at 12° (384 [53] W·CdA−1·L−1·min−1, ES = 0.4), and the lowest occurred at 24° (338 [28] W·CdA−1·L−1·min−1, ES = 0.7), versus control (367 [41] W·CdA−1·L−1·min−1). Conclusion: These data suggest that the physiological cost of reducing hip angle is outweighed by the aerodynamic benefit and that riders should favor aerodynamic optimization for shorter TT events. The impact on thermoregulation and performance in the field requires further investigation.

Aerodynamic benefits for a cyclist by drafting behind a motorcycle

Motorcycles are present in cycling races for reasons including television broadcasting. During parts of the race, these motorcycles ride in front of individual or groups of cyclists. Concerns have been expressed in the professional cycling community that these motorcycles can provide aerodynamic benefits in terms of drag reduction for the cyclists drafting behind them. However, to the best of our knowledge, no information about the extent of these benefits is present in the scientific literature. Therefore, this paper analyses the potential drag reduction for a cyclist by drafting behind a motorcycle. Wind tunnel measurements and numerical simulations with computational fluid dynamics were performed. It was shown that drafting at separation distances d = 2.64, 10, 30 and 50 m can reduce the drag of the cyclist down to 52, 77, 88 and 93% of that of an isolated cyclist, respectively. A cyclist power model is used to convert these drag reductions into potential time gains. For a non-drafting cyclist at a speed of 54 km/h on level road in calm weather, the time gains by drafting at d = 2.64, 10, 30 and 50 m are 12.7, 5.4, 2.7 and 1.6 s per km, respectively. These time differences can influence the outcome of cycling races. The current rules of the International Cycling Union do not prevent these aerodynamic benefits from occurring in races.

Neiva H, Barbosa TM, Marinho DA. The Drag Crisis Phenomenon on an Elite Road Cyclist-A Preliminary Numerical Simulations Analysis in the Aero Position at Different Speeds

The drag crisis phenomenon is the drop of drag coefficient (C_d) with increasing Reynolds number (Re) or speed. The aim of this study was to assess the hypothetical drag crisis phenomenon in a sports setting, assessing it in a bicycle–cyclist system. A male elite-level cyclist was recruited for this research and his competition bicycle, helmet, suit, and shoes were used. A three-dimensional (3D) geometry was obtained with a 3D scan with the subject in a static aero position. A domain with 7 m of length, 2.5 m of width and 2.5 m of height was created around the cyclist. The domain was meshed with 42 million elements. Numerical simulations by computer fluid dynamics (CFD) fluent numerical code were conducted at speeds between 1 m/s and 22 m/s, with increments of 1 m/s. The drag coefficient ranged between 0.60 and 0.95 across different speeds and Re. The highest value was observed at 2 m/s (C_d = 0.95) and Re of 3.21 × 10⁵, whereas the lower C_d was noted at 9 m/s (C_d = 0.60) and 9.63 × 10⁵. A drag crisis was noted between 3 m/s and 9 m/s. Pressure C_d ranged from 0.35 to 0.52 and the lowest value was observed at 3 m/s and the highest at 2 m/s. The viscous drag coefficient ranged between 0.15 and 0.43 and presented a trend decreasing from 4 m/s to 22 m/s. Coaches, cyclists, researchers, and support staff must consider that C_d varies with speed and Re, and the bicycle–cyclist dimensions, shape, or form may affect drag and performance estimations. As a conclusion, this preliminary work noted a drag crisis between 3 m/s and 9 m/s in a cyclist in the aero position.

Cycling Biomechanics and Its Relationship to Performance

State-of-the-art biomechanical laboratories provide a range of tools that allow precise measurements of kinematic, kinetic, motor and physiologic characteristics. Force sensors, motion capture devices and electromyographic recording measure the forces exerted at the pedal, saddle, and handlebar and the joint torques created by muscle activity. These techniques make it possible to obtain a detailed biomechanical analysis of cycling movements. However, despite the reasonable accuracy of such measures, cycling performance remains difficult to fully explain. There is an increasing demand by professionals and amateurs for various biomechanical assessment services. Most of the difficulties in understanding the link between biomechanics and performance arise because of the constraints imposed by the bicycle, human physiology and musculo-skeletal system. Recent studies have also pointed out the importance of evaluating not only output parameters, such as power output, but also intrinsic factors, such as the cyclist coordination. In this narrative review, we present various techniques allowing the assessment of a cyclist at a biomechanical level, together with elements of interpretation, and we show that it is not easy to determine whether a certain technique is optimal or not.

Vibrotactile feedback for correcting aerodynamic position of a cyclist

Guidance to maintain an optimal aerodynamic position is currently unavailable during cycling. This study used real-time vibrotactile feedback to guide cyclists to a reference position with minimal projected frontal area as an indicator of aerodynamic drag, by optimizing torso, shoulder, head and elbow position without compromising comfort when sitting still on the bike. The difference in recapturing the aerodynamic reference position during cycling after predefined deviations from the reference position at different intensities was analysed for 14 participants between three interventions, consisting of 1) vibrotactile feedback with a margin of error of 1.5% above the calibrated reference projected frontal area, 2) vibrotactile feedback with a margin of 3%, and 3) no feedback. The reference position is significantly more accurately achieved using vibrotactile feedback compared to no feedback (p < 0.001), but there is no significant difference between the 1.5% and 3% margin (p = 0.11) in terms of relative projected frontal area during cycling compared to the calibrated reference position (1.5% margin -0.46 ± 1.76%, 3% margin -0.01 ± 2.01%, no feedback 2.59 ± 3.29%). The results demonstrate that vibrotactile feedback can have an added value in assisting and correcting cyclists in recapturing their aerodynamic reference position.

Cycling as the Best Sub-8-Hour Performance Predictor in Full Distance Triathlon

For any triathlon distance (short, Olympic, half-distance and full-distance), competitors spend more time cycling than swimming or running, but running has emerged as the discipline with the greatest influence on overall performance at the Olympic distance. However, there is a lack of evidence on which discipline has the greatest influence on performance in the overall full-distance triathlon (3.8 km swimming/180 km cycling/42.195 km running), especially for the fastest performing athletes of all time. The total race times of 51 fastest triathletes (sub-8-hour) were studied, while for the split times, a sample of 44 participants was considered. The discipline that seemed to better predict total race time was cycling (coefficient = 0.828; p < 0.001), followed by running (coefficient = 0.726; p < 0.001) and swimming (coefficient = 0.476; p < 0.001). Furthermore, cycling was the discipline with the highest performance improvement over the years, whereas running had a slightly decrease. In conclusion, cycling seems to be the discipline with greater influence in final result for the full-distance triathlon.

Considerations on the Assessment and Use of Cycling Performance Metrics and their Integration in the Athlete's Biological Passport

Over the past few decades the possibility to capture real-time data from road cyclists has drastically improved. Given the increasing pressure for improved transparency and openness, there has been an increase in publication of cyclists' physiological and performance data. Recently, it has been suggested that the use of such performance biometrics may be used to strengthen the sensitivity and applicability of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) and aid in the fight against doping. This is an interesting concept which has merit, although there are several important factors that need to be considered. These factors include accuracy of the data collected and validity (and reliability) of the subsequent performance modeling. In order to guarantee high quality standards, the implementation of well-structured Quality-Systems within sporting organizations should be considered, and external certifications may be required. Various modeling techniques have been developed, many of which are based on fundamental intensity/time relationships. These models have increased our understanding of performance but are currently limited in their application, for example due to the largely unaccounted effects of environmental factors such as, heat and altitude. In conclusion, in order to use power data as a performance biometric to be integrated in the biological passport, a number of actions must be taken to ensure accuracy of the data and better understand road cycling performance in the field. This article aims to outline considerations in the quantification of cycling performance, also presenting an alternative method (i.e., monitoring race results) to allow for determination of unusual performance improvements.

Respiratory Mechanical and Cardiorespiratory Consequences of Cycling with Aerobars

PURPOSE

Aerobars place a cyclist in a position where the trunk is flexed forward and the elbows are close to the midline of the body. This position is known to improve cycling aerodynamics and time trial race performance compared with upright cycling positions. However, the aggressive nature of this position may have important cardiorespiratory and metabolic consequences. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the respiratory mechanical, ventilatory, metabolic, and sensory consequences of cycling while using aerobars during laboratory-based cycling.

METHODS

Eleven endurance-trained male cyclists (age, 26 ± 9 yr; V˙O2peak, 55 ± 5 mL·kg·min) were recruited. Visit 1 consisted of an incremental cycling test to determine peak power output. Visit 2 consisted of 6-min bouts of constant load cycling at 70% of peak incremental power output in the aerobar position, drop position, and upright position while grasping the brake hoods. Metabolic and ventilatory responses were measured using a commercially available metabolic cart, and respiratory pressures were measured using an esophageal catheter.

RESULTS

Cycling in the aerobar position significantly increased the work of breathing (Wb), power of breathing (Pb), minute ventilation, ventilatory equivalent for oxygen and carbon dioxide, and transdiaphragmatic pressure compared with the upright position. Increases in the Wb and Pb in the aerobars relative to the upright position were strongly correlated with the degree of thoracic restriction, measured as the shoulder-to-aerobar width ratio (Wb: r = 0.80, P = 0.01; Pb: r = 0.69, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Aerobars significantly increase the mechanical cost of breathing and leads to greater ventilatory inefficiency compared with upright cycling. Future work is needed to optimize aerobar width to minimize the respiratory mechanical consequences while optimizing aerodynamics.

Effect of bike-fit in the perception of comfort, fatigue and pain

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of different bike positions on the perception of fatigue, pain and comfort. Twenty cyclists underwent three tests that involved cycling for 45 min at their individual 50% peak aerobic power output while adopting different positions on the bike. Participants performed the cycling tests adopting three positions defined by two parameters (knee flexion angle [20°, 30°, 40°] and trunk flexion angle [35°, 45°, 55°]) in random order. Angles were measured using a 2D motion analysis system during cycling and applying Fonda's correction factor. Perceptions of comfort, fatigue and pain were reported before the end of each test. The combination of 40° knee flexion and 35° trunk flexion was perceived as the most uncomfortable position. Moreover, greater knee flexion had a negative effect on trunk comfort, accompanied by greater levels of fatigue and pain perception in the anterior part of the thigh and knee. In conclusion, cyclists perceived the most comfortable position to be when the saddle height was within the recommended knee angle (30° calculated from the offset position or 40 ± 4.0° of absolute value). Upright trunk was found to be the most comfortable position for recreational cyclists, where aerodynamics is not so important. Cyclists' bike perceptions should be taken into account when it comes to choosing the most beneficial position, since this can play a role in injury prevention and enhance cycling performance.

Effect of different aerodynamic time trial cycling positions on muscle activation and crank torque

To reduce air resistance, time trial cyclists and triathletes lower their torso angle. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of lowering time trial torso angle positions on muscle activation patterns and crank torque coordination. It was hypothesized that small torso angles yield a forward shift of the muscle activation timing and crank torque. Twenty-one trained cyclists performed three exercise bouts at 70% maximal aerobic power in a time trial position at three different torso angles (0°, 8°, and 16°) at a fixed cadence of 85 rpm. Measurements included surface electromyography, crank torques and gas exchange. A significant increase in crank torque range and forward shift in peak torque timing was found at smaller torso angles. This relates closely with the later onset and duration of the muscle activation found in the gluteus maximus muscle. Torso angle effects were only observed in proximal monoarticular muscles. Moreover, all measured physiological variables (oxygen consumption, breathing frequency, minute ventilation) were significantly increased with lowering torso angle and hence decreased the gross efficiency. The findings provide support for the notion that at a cycling intensity of 70% maximal aerobic power, the aerodynamic gains outweigh the physiological/biomechanical disadvantages in trained cyclists.

The effect of time trial cycling position on physiological and aerodynamic variables

To reduce aerodynamic resistance cyclists lower their torso angle, concurrently reducing Peak Power Output (PPO). However, realistic torso angle changes in the range used by time trial cyclists have not yet been examined. Therefore the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of torso angle on physiological parameters and frontal area in different commonly used time trial positions. Nineteen well-trained male cyclists performed incremental tests on a cycle ergometer at five different torso angles: their preferred torso angle and at 0, 8, 16 and 24°. Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide expiration, minute ventilation, gross efficiency, PPO, heart rate, cadence and frontal area were recorded. The frontal area provides an estimate of the aerodynamic drag. Overall, results showed that lower torso angles attenuated performance. Maximal values of all variables, attained in the incremental test, decreased with lower torso angles (P < 0.001). The 0° torso angle position significantly affected the metabolic and physiological variables compared to all other investigated positions. At constant submaximal intensities of 60, 70 and 80% PPO, all variables significantly increased with increasing intensity (P < 0.0001) and decreasing torso angle (P < 0.005). This study shows that for trained cyclists there should be a trade-off between the aerodynamic drag and physiological functioning.