2006 USA Cycling 2nd Biannual International Cycling Summit, Colorado Springs, CO.

1. Track applications for a
powermeter
Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.
Cardiovascular Imaging Laboratory
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, MO 63021

2. Is a stopwatch enough? (a tale of two pursuits)
TT on 8/8/2002
Km
split
Total
time
Qualifying on 8/27/2002
Lap
#
Lap
split
1
28.3
27.7
2
23.4
23.5
3
24.4
4
25.0
25.0
5
25.4
25.6
6
25.5
7
25.6
26.5
8
26.0
27.0
9
26.1
1:16.1
24.5
1:15.9
1:17.7
Lap
split
26.0
3:49.7
27.5
Km
split
Total
time
1:15.7
1:16.6
1:21.0 3:53.3

3. Is a stopwatch enough? (a tale of two pursuits )
TT on 8/8/2002
Qualifying on 8/27/2002
1000
Power (W)
800
Sometimes the
stopwatch lies!
600
TT average power = 410 W
400
Qualifying average power = 407 W
200
0
0
30
60
90
120
Time (seconds)
150
180
210
240

4. Ways that track cyclists can use a powermeter
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aerodynamic testing
Monitoring/managing training load
Determining race demands
Evaluating physical performance
Evaluating technical performance
Evaluating training methods

5. 1. Field testing to determine aerodynamic drag

6. Timed saved due to 5% change in:
Physical factors
4 km
3 km
Aerodynamic drag
4.1 s (1.5%)
3.1 s (1.4%)
Total mass
0.6 s (0.3%)
0.6 s (0.3%)
Rolling resistance
0.2 s (0.1%)
0.2 s (0.1%)
Efficiency of chain
0.1 s (0.05%)
0.1 s (0.05%)
Aerobic power
3.8 s (1.4%)
3.0 s (1.4%)
Anaerobic capacity
0.9 s (0.3%)
0.7 s (0.3%)
Neuromuscular power
0.3 s (0.1%)
0.2 s (0.1%)
Technical factors
4 km
3 km
Pacing strategy
(potentially large)
(potentially large)
Path on track (20 cm high)
+1.3 s (0.5%)
+1.1 s (0.5%)
Starting technique
(negligible)
(negligible)
Physiological factors

7. Field testing to determine aerodynamic drag
400
Y = 3.67X + 0.1344X3
R2 = 0.998
Power (W)
300
200
CdA = 0.236 +/- 0.004 m2
CRR = 0.0046 +/- 0.0003
100
0
0
5
10
Speed (m/s)
15

8. 2. Monitoring and managing training load
Positive influence
Negative influence
Effect on performance
+
-
Time
Performance

9. Use of powermeter data to manage the training
of an elite track cyclist
Chronic training load
Training stess balance
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
200
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Date
15
9/
18
8/
21
7/
23
6/
26
5/
28
4/
3
3/
31
3
2/
3/
6
1/
12
/9
1
11
/1
4
0
10
/1
CTL or ATL (TSS/d)
180
TSB (TSS/d)
Acute training load

10. 3. Determining demands of specific events

11. Power and cadence during 200 m TT
in world class cyclists
2000
Women (n=4)
1800
Men (n=4)
1600
200 m time (s)
Peak power (W)
11.77±0.27
1182 ± 110
10.45 ± 0.11
2048 ± 263
Power output (W)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Peak cadence
(rpm)
151 ± 1
163 ± 3
0
70
90
110
130
150
170
Pedaling Rate (rpm)
From Martin JC, Gardner AS, Barras M, Martin DT. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 37:S82, 2005

12. Quantifying the neuromuscular demands of
training and racing: AEPF vs. CPV
Average effective pedal force (AEPF) =
(power • 60)/(cadence • 2 • Pi • crank length)
Circumferential pedal velocity (CPV) =
(cadence • 2 • Pi • crank length)/60

13. Quadrant analysis of points race vs. criterium

14. Estimation of the relative contributions of aerobic
and anaerobic metabolism to pursuit
performance
Rider A
900
Total
700
Est. MAOD = 3.36 L
600
Power (W)
3 km time = 3:47.3
400
20%
300
200
Total
700
CdA = 0.214 m2
500
VO2max = 4.20 L/min
800
G.E. = 24.1%
Ave. power = 397 W
600
Power (W)
900
VO2max = 4.47 L/min
800
Rider B
CdA = 0.236 m2
500
3 km time = 3:49.7
400
28%
200
Maximal aerobic
100
Est. MAOD = 5.27 L
Ave. power = 411 W
300
80%
Efficiency = 23.9%
72%
100
0
Maximal aerobic
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
Time (seconds)
180
210
240
0
30
60
90
120
150
Time (seconds)
180
210
240

15. 4. Evaluating physical performance

16. Comparison of performance in 3 km pursuits
performed at altitude vs. sea level
Altitude
Sea level
Total time (s)
230.2
235.9
Average power (W)
360
386
1st lap (s)
30.0
30.0
Time laps 2-9 (s)
200.2
205.9
Average power laps 2-9 (W)
333
358
Air density (g/mL)
0.970
1.159
CdA (m2)
0.232
0.240
Sea level equivalent power (W)
358
358
Sea level equivalent time (s)
233.5
235.9

17. 5. Evaluating technical performance

18. Effect of team pursuit training on power
requirement while drafting (Project 96 data)
Trial #
Power in
position #3 (W)
Power in
position #4 (W)
1
684
649
2
604
621
3
417
461
4
403
445
5
426
427
6
373
386

19. Variation in power in turns and straights
during 3 km pursuit
Less experienced rider
More experienced rider
800
600
600
Power (W)
1000
800
Power (W)
1000
400
400
200
200
0
0
0
30
60
90
120
150
Time (seconds)
180
210
240
0
30
60
90
120
150
Time (seconds)
180
210
240

20. 5. Evaluating training methods

21. Effect of six sessions of standing start training
on AEPF-CPV relationship

22. Effect of six sessions of standing start training
on power-CPV relationship

23. Gearing does not affect AEPF-CPV relationship
during standing starts!

24. Effect of specific interval training on anaerobic
work capacity (Monod model)

25. Conclusions
There are myriad ways in which a
powermeter can be used to improve track
cycling performance. Indeed, given that on the
track the difference between winning and losing
is often extremely small, it can be argued that
track cyclists may benefit from use of a
powermeter to an even greater extent than road
(or off-road) cyclists.