Download PDF
Int J Sports Med 2013; 34(06): 538-543
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1301319
Training & Testing
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Validity and Reliability of the G-Cog BMX Powermeter

W. Bertucci
1   Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Laboratoire d’Analyse des Contraintes Mécaniques (LACM-DTI, EA 4302 LRC-CEA n° DSM0534), Reims, France
,
S. Crequy
1   Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Laboratoire d’Analyse des Contraintes Mécaniques (LACM-DTI, EA 4302 LRC-CEA n° DSM0534), Reims, France
,
X. Chiementin
2   Université de Reims Champagne Ardenne, Groupe de Recherche En Sciences Pour l’Ingénieur (GRESPI, EA4301), Reims, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History



accepted after revision 18 December 2011

Publication Date:
19 December 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test the validity and reliability of the G-Cog which is a new BMX power meter allowing for the measurements of the power output (250 Hz) at the BMX rear wheel during actual cycling and laboratory conditions. Sprints in road cycling (6–8 s) from static start and incremental tests in the laboratory (100–400 W) have been performed to analyse the validity and reliability of the power output values by comparison with 2 devices: The PowerTap and the SRM which are considered as the gold standard. The most important finding of this study is that the G-Cog power output data were not valid and reliable during sprint and standardised laboratory tests compared with the SRM and the PowerTap devices. During the sprint and the laboratory tests the ratio limits of agreement of the power output differences between the SRM and G-Cog were 1.884×÷1.970 (95%CI=0.956–3.711) and 12.126×÷16.281 (95%CI=0.745–197.430), respectively. In conclusion, the G-Cog must be used with caution regarding the power output measurements. Nevertheless, the G-Cog could be used for the first time to analyse the determinants of the BMX performance from the pedalling profile.

Key words

power output - SRM power meter - BMX - accuracy
 

  • References

  • 1 Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Balmer J, Davison RC, Bird SR. Reliability of an air-braked ergometer to record peak power during a maximal cycling test. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 1790-1793
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Balmer J, Davison RC, Coleman DA, Bird SR. The validity of power output recorded during exercise performance tests using a Kingcycle air-braked cycle ergometer when compared with an SRM powermeter. Int J Sports Med 2000; 21: 195-199
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerius V, Pernin JN, Grappe F. Validity and reliability of the PowerTap mobile cycling powermeter when compared with the SRM device. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: 868-873
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bertucci W, Grappe F, Girard A, Betik A, Rouillon JD. Effects on the crank torque profile when changing pedalling cadence in level ground and uphill road cycling. J Biomech 2005; 38: 1003-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bertucci W, Taiar R, Toshev VY, Letellier T. New biomechanical criteria for sprint cycling performance assessment. Int J Sports Sci Eng 2008; 02 (01) 36-46
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerius V, Grappe F. The Axiom cycling ergometer is not a valid device compared with the SRM. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: 59-65
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bertucci W, Hourde C. Laboratory testing and field performance in BMX riders. J Sports Sci Med 2011; 10: 417-419
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bertucci W, Grappe F, Crequy S. Original characteristics of a new cycle ergometer. Sports Eng 2011; 13: 171-179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307-310
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Campillo P, Doremus T, Hespel JM. Pedaling analysis in BMX by telemetric collection of mechanic variables. Braz J Biomotricity 2007; 1: 17-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Coyle EF, Feltner ME, Kautz SA, Hamilton MT, Montain SJ, Baylor AM, Abraham LD, Petrek GW. Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite endurance cycling performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23: 93-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Duc S, Villerius V, Bertucci W, Grappe F. Validity and reproducibility of the Ergomo®Pro powermeter when compared with the SRM and PowerTap powermeters. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2007; 2: 270-281
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gardner AS, Stephens S, Martin DT, Lawton E, Lee H, Jenkins D. Accuracy of SRM and power tap power monitoring systems for bicycling. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004; 36: 1252-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gordon RS, Franklin KL, Davies B, Baker JS. Further mechanical considerations between polar and SRM mobile ergometer systems during laboratory-based high-intensity, intermittent cycling activity. Res Sports Med 2007; 15: 241-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Herman C, McGregor S, Allen H, Bollt E. Power capabilities of elite bicycle motocross (BMX) racers during field testing in preparation for 2008 Olympics. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2009; 41: 306-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hopker J, Myers S, Jobson SA, Bruce W, Passfield L. Validity and reliability of the Wattbike cycle ergometer. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 731-736
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hurst HT, Atkins S. Agreement between polar and SRM mobile ergo­meter systems during laboratory-based high-intensity, intermittent cycling activity. J Sports Sci 2006; 24: 863-868
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jones SM, Passfield L. Dynamic calibration of bicycle power measuring cranks. In: Haake SJ. (eds.). The Engineering of Sport. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1998: 265-274
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Kirkland A, Coleman D, Wiles JD, Hopker J. Validity and reliability of the Ergomopro powermeter. Int J Sports Med 2008; 29: 913-916
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Martin JC, Milliken DL, Cobb JE, McFadden KL, Coggan AR. Validation of a mathematical model for road cycling power. J Appl Biomech 1998; 14: 276-291
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mateo M, Blasco-Lafarga C, Zabala M. Pedaling power and speed production vs. technical factors and track difficulty in bicycle motocross cycling. J Strength Cond Res 2011; 25: 3248-3256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Millet GP, Tronche C, Fuster N, Bentley DJ, Candau R. Validity and reliability of the Polar®S710 mobile cycling powermeter. Int J Sports Med 2003; 24: 156-161
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Nevill A. Why the analysis of performance variables recorded on a ratio scale will invariably benefit from a log transformation. J Sports Sci 1997; 15: 457-458
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Nevill AM, Atkinson G. Assessing agreement between measurements recorded on a ratio scale in sports medicine and sports science. Br J Sports Med 1997; 31: 314-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Peiffer JJ, Losco B. Reliability/validity of the Fortius trainer. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 353-356
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stapelfeldt B, Mornieux G, Oberheim R, Belli A, Gollhofer A. Development and evaluation of a new bicycle instrument for measurements of pedal forces and power output in cycling. Int J Sports Med 2007; 28: 326-332
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Zabala M, Sánchez-Muñoz C, Mateo M. Effects of the administration of feedback on performance of the BMX cycling gate start. J Sports Sci Med 2009; 8: 393-400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar