Conference PaperPDF Available

Accuracy and reproducibility of the new CycleOps Hammer Direct Drive Trainer

Authors:

Figures

No caption available
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accuracy'and'reproducibility'of'the'new'CycleOps'Hammer'Direct'Drive'Trainer'
!
M.'Frémeaux1,'A.'Bouillod1,2,3,'E.'Brunet2,'G.'Soto-Romero3,4'&'F.'Grappe1,5'
1!EA4660,!C3S!Health!-!Sport!Department,!Sports!University,!Besancon,!France!!
2!French!Cycling!Federation,!Saint!Quentin!en!Yvelines,!France!
3!LAAS-CNRS,!Université!de!Toulouse,!CNRS,!Toulouse,!France!
4!ISIFC,!Université!de!Franche-Comté,!France!
5!Professional!Cycling!Team!FDJ,!Moussy!le!Vieux,!France!
!
Key'words:'power!meter,!cycling,!home!trainer,!!
!
Purpose:!The! measurement!of! power!output! (PO)!is! an!essential! element!in! cycling.!Three!
types!of!tools! can! measure!PO:!ergometers!(e.g.! SRM!Indoortrainer),!mobile! power! meters!
(e.g.!SRM,!Powertap!G3,!Powertap!P1,!Stages,!Garmin!Vector)!and!home-trainers!(e.g.!Wahoo!
KICKR)!(Zadow,! Kitic,!Wu,! Smith,!&! Fell,!2016),! Cyclus!(Rodger,! Plews,!McQuillan,! &! Driller,!
2016),! Lemond! Revolution! (Novak,! Stevens,! &! Dascombe,! 2015),! Velotron! (Abbiss,! Quod,!
Levin,! Martin,! &! Laursen,! 2009),! Axiom! (Bertucci,! Duc,! Villerius,! &! Grappe,! 2005).! The!
CycleOps!Hammer!Direct!Drive!Trainer!(Saris,!Madison,!USA)!is!a!new!home-trainer.!It!use!the!
technology!of!Powertap!G3!hub!(PowerTuned)!for!measuring!PO.!The!aim!of!this!study!was!to!
determine!the!accuracy!and!reproducibility!of!the!Hammer!in!comparison!with!the!Powertap!
P1!pedals.!We!hypothesized!a!lower!POHammer!than!POP1!considering!the!location!of!the!two!
power!meters!on!the!bicycle.!!
!
Methods:! 3! cyclists! (age:! 23!±! 1! years! old,! body! mass:! 65.3! ±!2.5! kg,! height:! 174! ±!3!cm)!
performed!all!testing! sessions!on!their! personal!bicycle!fitted! with!the!Powertap! P1!pedals!
and! fixed! on! a! CycleOps! Hammer! Direct! Drive! Trainer.! To! investigate! the! accuracy! and!
reproducibility,! the! PO! of! the! two! power! meters! was! recorded! during! a! sub-maximal!
incremental!test!(150,!200,!250,!300!and!350!W).!For!each!PO!level!the!cyclists!!exercised! 3!
min!with!3!different!cadences!(60,!80!and!100!rpm)!(Bouillod,!Pinot,!Soto-Romero,!Bertucci,!
&!Grappe,!2016).!The!last!45s!of!each!measurement!was!analyzed.!Also,!the!cyclists!performed!
a!sprint!test!(3!sprints!of!8!s!with!three!different!resistances)!and!a!Wingate!test.!Before!each!
test,!the!power!meters!were!calibrated!according!to!the!manufacturers’!instructions.!!
!
'
Figure' 1.! A:! correlation! between! POP1! and! POHammer,! B:! Bland-Altman! for! the! difference!
between!POHammer!and!POP1!during!the!sub-maximal!incremental!test!and!the!sprint!test.!The!
solid! line! represents! the! bias,! whereas! the! dashed! lines! represent! the! high! and! low! 95%!
confidence!interval!(CI).!
'
Results:'For!all!data,!there!was!a!strong!correlation!between!POP1!and!POHammer!(r!=!0.99,!p!<!
0.001)!(Figure!1A).!The!Bland-Altman!analysis!(Figure!1B)!showed!a!bias!of!17!±!28!W!(95%!CI:!
12! and! 22! W)! for! the! Hammer.! Paired! t-test! have! shown! significant! difference! between!
POHammer!and!POP1!for!the!submaximal!incremental!test!(+0.9%,!p!=!0.008),!sprint!test!(+3.4%!
for!PO1-sec!and!+3.5%!for!PO8-sec!p!<!0.001)!and!Wingate!test!(+1.8%,!p!<!0.001).!!The!coefficient!
of! variation! (CV,! %)! was! 0.4%! for! both! the! Hammer! and! the! P1! during! all! submaximal!
incremental! tests.! For! the! Wingate! and! sprint! tests,! CV! was! the! same! (0.1%)! for! the! two!
systems.!The!reproducibility!was!tested!for!the!submaximal!incremental!test!because!the!PO!
was!fixed!by!the!Hammer.!Both!systems!have!the!same!intraclass!correlation!coefficient!(ICC!
=!1).!
!
Conclusions:'The!main!findings!show!that!the!PO!provided!by!the!Hammer!must!be!treated!
with!some!caution!concerning!the!accuracy!whereas!the!Hammer!has!a!good!reproducibility.!
The! over-estimation! of! the! Hammer! can! be! explained! by! the! difference! of! measurement!
processes.!Theoretically,!the!Hammer!should!underestimate!PO!due!to!drive!train!frictional!
losses.!!Coaches!and!scientists!should!use!the!Hammer!with!some!caution!because!the!system!
overestimates! PO!when! it! increases.! One! the! other! hand,! the! reproducibility! is! good.! This!
point!is!valuable!when!coaches!compare!athletes!with!the!same!system.!Future!studies!should!
evaluate! the! accuracy! and! reproducibility! of! the! Hammer! in! comparison! with! a! dynamic!
calibration!rig!to!confirm!our!findings.!
!
References'
Abbiss,!C.!R.,!Quod,!M.!J.,!Levin,!G.,!Martin,!D.!T.,!&!Laursen,!P.!B.!(2009).!Accuracy!of!the!velotron!
ergometer!and!SRM!power!meter.!International*Journal*of*Sports*Medicine,!30(2),!107112.!
http://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1103285!
Bertucci,!W.,!Duc,!S.,!Villerius,!V.,!&!Grappe,!F.!(2005).!Validity!and!reliability!of!the!Axiom!Powertrain!
cycle!ergometer!when!compared!with!an!SRM!powermeter.!International*Journal*of*Sports*
Medicine,!26(1),!5965.!http://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-817855!
Bouillod,!A.,!Pinot,!J.,!Soto-Romero,!G.,!Bertucci,!W.,!&!Grappe,!F.!(2016).!Validity,!Sensitivity,!
Reproducibility!and!Robustness!of!the!Powertap,!Stages!and!Garmin!Vector!Power!Meters!in!
Comparison!With!the!SRM!Device!Authors:!International*Journal*of*Sports*Physiology*and*
Performance.!http://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2015-0012!
Novak,!A.!R.,!Stevens,!C.!J.,!&!Dascombe,!B.!J.!(2015).!Agreement!between!LeMond!Revolution!cycle!
ergometer!and!SRM!power!meter!during!power!profile!and!ramp!protocol!assessments.!Journal*
of*Science*and*Cycling,!4(3),!3743.!Retrieved!from!http://www.jsc-
journal.com/ojs/index.php?journal=JSC&page=article&op=view&path%5B%5D=181!
Rodger,!S.!M.,!Plews,!D.!J.,!McQuillan,!J.,!&!Driller,!M.!W.!(2016).!Evaluation!of!the!Cyclus!cycle!
ergometer!and!the!Stages!power!meter!for!measurement!of!power!output!in!cycling!Evaluation!
of!the!Cyclus!ergometer!and!the!Stages!power!meter!against!the!SRM!crankset!for!
measurement!of!power!output!in!cycling.!Journal*of*Science*and*Cycling,!5(December),!1622.!
Zadow,!E.!K.,!Kitic,!C.!M.,!Wu,!S.!S.,!Smith,!S.!T.,!&!Fell,!J.!W.!(2016).!Validity!of!Power!Settings!of!the!
Wahoo!KICKR!Power!Trainer.!International*Journal*of*Sports*Physiology*and*Performance,!
(May).!http://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2015-0733!
!
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate two commercially available power meters: the Cyclus ergometer (CYC) and the Stages power meter (STA) in comparison to a highly-validated power meter (SRM). Ten trained cyclists (mean ± SD; age 24 ± 8 y, body mass 69.7 ± 7.3 kg) performed an incremental exercise test to exhaustion (GXT), 2 x 10 sec sprints (10ST) and a 1-min test (1minTT) on a bicycle attached to a cycle ergometer (CYC). The bicycle was also fitted with the SRM cranks and the STA power meter. Power output (W) for the CYC and STA for each test was compared to the SRM to determine the validity of the devices. The coefficient of variation (CV) for the STA vs SRM during the GXT was 2.4 ±1.1% (±90% CL) and 2.3 ±0.9% for the CYC vs SRM. For the 1minTT, the STA vs SRM had a CV of 3.4 ±1.6% and 3.0% ±1.6% for CYC vs SRM. Comparison between power meters during the 10ST showed a CV of 18.2 ±1.6% for STA vs SRM and 13.7 ±1.6% for CYC vs SRM. In summary, both the CYC and STA are practical, easy to use devices and exhibit an acceptable level of agreement during low (< ~500W), but not high (> ~650W) power outputs.
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to evaluate the agreement in cycling power output measurements between the LeMond Revolution cycle ergometer and SRM power meter. The LeMond Revolution measures power output via removal of the rear bicycle wheel and attaching it using a quick-release system, estimating power output through a head-unit that processes drive-train resistance and atmospheric conditions. Fourteen well-trained cyclists completed incremental protocols and power profile assessments on a bicycle fitted with SRM scientific power meter and attached to a LeMond Revolution cycle ergometer. Power output was measured by both devices at 1 Hz. Data from each device were compared using Pearson's correlations, paired t-tests, assessments of heteroscedasticity, Bland-Altman plots and 95% limits of agreement. During incremental tests, errors in power measurement of the LeMond Revolution progressively increased at greater power outputs when compared with SRM (bias: 2-34 W; CV 1.5-6.7%). During power profile assessments, errors in mean power measurement of the LeMond Revolution were also slightly overestimated for all efforts from a rolling start (+3 ± 8%; CV = 5.1%). Conversely, the LeMond Revolution underestimated peak power output during five second sprint efforts and the greatest error was observed between measurements for mean power output during a five second sprint from a stationary start (-7 ± 24%; CV = 10.6%). Overall, the LeMond Revolution is a practical, cost-effective alternative to more expensive ergometers for detecting large changes in mean power output. However, high level of error during high-intensity sprint efforts from a stationary start is a limitation for well-trained sprint cyclists.
Article
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of power output settings of the Wahoo KICKR Power Trainer (KICKR) using a dynamic calibration rig (CALRIG) over a range of power outputs and cadences. Methods: Using the KICKR to set power outputs, powers of 100-999W were assessed at cadences (controlled by the CALRIG) of 80, 90, 100, 110 and 120rpm. Results: The KICKR displayed accurate measurements of power between 250-700W at cadences of 80-120rpm with a bias of -1.1% (95%LoA: -3.6-1.4%). A larger mean bias in power were observed across the full range of power tested, 100-999W 4.2% (95%LoA: -20.1-28.6%), due to larger biases between 100-200W and 750-999W (4.5%, 95%LoA:-2.3-11.3% and 13.0%, 95%LoA: -24.4-50.3%), respectively. Conclusion: When compared to a CALRIG, the Wahoo KICKR Power Trainer has acceptable accuracy reporting a small mean bias and narrow limits of agreement in the measurement of power output between 250-700W at cadences of 80-120rpm. Caution should be applied by coaches and sports scientists when using the KICKR at power outputs of <200W and >750W due to the greater variability in recorded power.
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Velotron cycle ergometer and the SRM power meter using a dynamic calibration rig over a range of exercise protocols commonly applied in laboratory settings. These trials included two sustained constant power trials (250 W and 414 W), two incremental power trials and three high-intensity interval power trials. To further compare the two systems, 15 subjects performed three dynamic 30 km performance time trials. The Velotron and SRM displayed accurate measurements of power during both constant power trials (<1% error). However, during high-intensity interval trials the Velotron and SRM were found to be less accurate (3.0%, CI=1.6-4.5% and -2.6%, CI=-3.2--2.0% error, respectively). During the dynamic 30 km time trials, power measured by the Velotron was 3.7+/-1.9% (CI=2.9-4.8%) greater than that measured by the SRM. In conclusion, the accuracy of the Velotron cycle ergometer and the SRM power meter appears to be dependent on the type of test being performed. Furthermore, as each power monitoring system measures power at various positions (i.e. bottom bracket vs. rear wheel), caution should be taken when comparing power across the two systems, particularly when power is variable.
Article
The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and the reliability of a stationary electromagnetically-braked cycle ergometer (Axiom PowerTrain) against the SRM power measuring crankset. Nineteen male competitive cyclists completed four tests on their bicycle equipped with a 20-strain gauges SRM crankset: a maximal aerobic power (MAP) test and three 10-min time trials (TTs) with three different simulated slopes (0, 3, and 6 %). The Axiom ergometer overestimated (p <0.05) the SRM power output during the last stage of the MAP test and during TTs, by 5 % and 12 %, respectively. Power output (PO) of the Axiom ergometer drifted significantly (p <0.05) with the time during TT. These findings indicate that the Axiom ergometer does not provide a valid measure of PO compared with SRM. However, the small coefficient of variation (2.2 %) during the MAP test indicates that the Axiom provides a reliable PO and that it can be used e.g. for relative PO comparisons with competitive cyclists during a race season.
Validity, Sensitivity, Reproducibility and Robustness of the Powertap, Stages and Garmin Vector Power Meters in Comparison With the SRM Device Authors
  • A Bouillod
  • J Pinot
  • G Soto-Romero
  • W Bertucci
  • F Grappe
Bouillod, A., Pinot, J., Soto-Romero, G., Bertucci, W., & Grappe, F. (2016). Validity, Sensitivity, Reproducibility and Robustness of the Powertap, Stages and Garmin Vector Power Meters in Comparison With the SRM Device Authors: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. http://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2015-0012