Differences in static and dynamic bike fit with 3d motion capture
Journal Title: Journal of Science and Cycling - Year 2014, Vol 3, Issue 2
Abstract
Background: Bicycle fitting is the adjustment of bicycle configuration to suit rider requirements through appropriate placement of contact points; pedals, saddle and handlebars (Burke 1994: Clin Sports Med, 13(1), 1-14). Traditional fitting uses static assessment of parameters such as knee angle through the bottom of the pedal stroke and saddle setback measured by knee over pedal horizontal separation (KOPS) (Holmes et al., 1994: Clinics in Sports Medicine 13(1), 187). Dynamic fitting is now increasingly popular through video analysis or 3d motion capture. However no comparison has been made of differences between static and dynamic measurement or assessment reported of the reliability of motion capture for bicycle fitting. Purpose: To investigate the repeatability of key bike fitting kinematic parameters and differences between static and dynamic conditions. Methods: 15 subjects performed repeated motion capture trials over three sessions in both static and dynamic conditions. Markers were applied to anatomical landmarks and kinematics collected using a Vicon 3d motion capture system. Results: Typical intra-session errors for angular parameters ranged from 1.7° (4.2°) for dynamic (static) knee flexion to 4.2° (4.9°) for ankle plantarflexion. Typical error for KOPS was 6.6 mm (12 mm). Significant (p<0.001) differences between static and dynamic conditions were observed for all parameters. Knee flexion was 5.4° greater in dynamic conditions (95% CI 3.5°, 7.4°). Corresponding dynamic ankle plantarflexion was 7.8° greater (5.9°, 9.6°) and hip flexion 5.1° greater (3.8°, 6.5°). KOPS was 7.7 mm further forward in dynamic conditions (3.3, 12.1) and dynamic ankle plantarflexion at KOPS was 3.6° greater (1.8°, 5.4°). Discussion: Typical errors showed moderate repeatability indicating the system was fit for purpose but these errors require consideration in the fitting process. Differences between static and dynamic parameters appear to originate at the ankle, with a tendency for riders to drop their heels when stationary. Conclusion: Common guidance to fit to a knee angle between 25-35° should be adjusted to 30-40° for dynamic measurement.
Authors and Affiliations
M Corbett| Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, United Kingdom, J Bevins| Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, United Kingdom
Low back pain in cycling: does it matter how you sit?
Low Back Pain (LBP) is a common problem among cyclists, although studies investigating LBP during cycling are scarce. Most studies have focused on LBP and geometric bike-related variables. Until now no cycling field stu...
Cyclo-cross Performance and Physiological/Psychological parameters
The new models of exercise performance consider both physiological and psychological parameters to better understand the performance (Marcora 2008: Eur J Appl Physiol 104: 929-931). Despite this, to our knowledge, no stu...
Modelling the energy metabolism of best performances in professional cycling
It is widely accepted that the muscular energy metabolism is of primary importance for best performances in professional cycling. However the dynamics of the muscular energy metabolism can neither get accessed directly n...
The aspect of nationality in participation and performance at the ‘Powerman Duathlon World Championship’ – The ‘Powerman Zofingen’ from 2002 to 2011
We investigated participation and performance trends in duathletes in the ‘Powerman Duathlon World Championship’ in Zofingen, Switzerland, from 2002 to 2011, regarding the nationality of the finishers. Sex and nationalit...
Estimation of Handgrip Position Based on Force Measurement During Steady Pedaling
There have been many studies on pedaling skills (Bini et al., 2013) to improve cycling efficiency. Riding position of upper body as well as leg motion is very important for cycling because it has a substantial impact on...