Although a low rolling resistance is advantageous in mountain bike cross-country racing, no studies have used the virtual elevation method to compare tyres from different manufacturers as used in international competitions so far. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of this method, to compare the off-road rolling resistance between tyres and to calculate the influence on off-road speed. Nine 29-in. mountain bike cross-country tyres were tested on a course representing typical ground surface conditions 5 or 6 times. The coefficient of rolling resistance was estimated with the virtual elevation method by 3 investigators and corresponding off-road speeds were calculated. The virtual elevation method was highly reliable (typical error = 0.0006, 2.8%; limits of agreement
The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy among a high number of current mobile cycling power meters used by elite and recreational cyclists against a first principle-based mathematical model of treadmill cycling. 54 power meters from 9 manufacturers used by 32 cyclists were calibrated. While the cyclist coasted downhill on a motorised treadmill, a back-pulling system was adjusted to counter the downhill force. The system was then loaded 3 times with 4 different masses while the cyclist pedalled to keep his position. The mean deviation (trueness) to the model and coefficient of variation (precision) were analysed. The mean deviations of the power meters were -0.9±3.2% (mean±SD) with 6 power meters deviating by more than±5%. The coefficients of variation of the power meters were 1.2±0.9% (mean±SD), with Stages varying more than SRM (p
The purpose of this study was to analyse the effect of bike type – the 26-inch-wheel bike (26” bike) and the 29-inch-wheel bike (29” bike) - on performance in elite mountain bikers. Ten Swiss National Team athletes (7 male, 3 female) completed 6 trials with individual start on a simulated cross-country course with 35 minutes of active recovery between trials (3 trials on a 26” bike and 3 trials on a 29” bike, alternate order, randomised start-bike). The course consisted of two separate sections expected to favour either the 29” bike (section A) or the 26” bike (section B). For each trial performance, power output, cadence and heart rate were recorded and athletes’ experiences were documented. Mean overall performance (time: 304 ± 27 s vs. 311 ± 29 s; p < 0.01) as well as performance in section A (p < 0.001) and B (p < 0.05) were better when using the 29” bike. No significant differences were observed for power output, cadence or heart rate. Athletes rated the 29” bike as better for performance in general, passing obstacles and traction. The 29” bike supports superior performance for elite mountain bikers, even on sections supposed to favour the 26” bike.
