Inertial effects on mechanically braked Wingate power calculations

The standard procedure for determining subject power output from a 30-s Wingate test on a mechanically braked (friction-loaded) ergometer includes only the braking resistance and flywheel velocity in the computations. However, the inertial effects associated with accelerating and decelerating the cr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Medicine and science in sports and exercise 2000-09, Vol.32 (9), p.1660-1664
Main Authors: REISER, Raoul F, BROKER, Jeffrey P, PETERSON, M. L
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Bicycling - physiology
Biological and medical sciences
Biomechanical Phenomena
Calibration
Ergonomics
Exercise Test - methods
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Humans
Male
Models, Theoretical
Physical Fitness
Physical Phenomena
Physics
Space life sciences
Vertebrates: body movement. Posture. Locomotion. Flight. Swimming. Physical exercise. Rest. Sports
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The standard procedure for determining subject power output from a 30-s Wingate test on a mechanically braked (friction-loaded) ergometer includes only the braking resistance and flywheel velocity in the computations. However, the inertial effects associated with accelerating and decelerating the crank and flywheel also require energy and, therefore, represent a component of the subject's power output. The present study was designed to determine the effects of drive-system inertia on power output calculations. Twenty-eight male recreational cyclists completed Wingate tests on a Monark 324E mechanically braked ergometer (resistance: 8.5% body mass (BM), starting cadence: 60 rpm). Power outputs were then compared using both standard (without inertial contribution) and corrected methods (with inertial contribution) of calculating power output. Relative 5-s peak power and 30-s average power for the corrected method (14.8 +/- 1.2 W x kg(-1) BM; 9.9 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM) were 20.3% and 3.1% greater than that of the standard method (12.3 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM; 9.6 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM), respectively. Relative 5-s minimum power for the corrected method (6.8 +/- 0.7 W x kg(-1) BM) was 6.8% less than that of the standard method (7.3 +/- 0.8 W x kg(-1) BM). The combined differences in the peak power and minimum power produced a fatigue index for the corrected method (54 +/- 5%) that was 31.7% greater than that of the standard method (41 +/- 6%). All parameter differences were significant (P < 0.01). The inertial contribution to power output was dominated by the flywheel; however, the contribution from the crank was evident. These results indicate that the inertial components of the ergometer drive system influence the power output characteristics, requiring care when computing, interpreting, and comparing Wingate results, particularly among different ergometer designs and test protocols.
ISSN:0195-9131
1530-0315
DOI:10.1097/00005768-200009000-00022