ORIGINAL PAPER
A comparison of static and dynamic measures of lower limb joint angles in cycling: application to bicycle fitting
1
School of Physical Education of the Army, Center for Physical Training of the Army, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2
Sport Performance Research Institute New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Online publication date: 2018-04-04
Hum Mov. 2016;17(1):36-42
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Configuration of bicycle components to the cyclist (bicycle fitting) commonly uses static poses of the cyclist on the bicycle at the 6 o’clock crank position to represent dynamic cycling positions. However, the validity of this approach and the potential use of the different crank position (e.g. 3 o’clock) have not been fully explored. Therefore, this study compared lower limb joint angles of cyclists in static poses (3 and 6 o’clock) compared to dynamic cycling.
Methods:
Using a digital camera, right sagittal plane images were taken of thirty cyclists seated on their own bicycles mounted on a stationary trainer with the crank at 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions. Video was then recorded during pedalling at a self-selected gear ratio and pedalling cadence. Sagittal plane hip, knee and ankle angles were digitised.
Results:
Differences between static and dynamic angles were large at the 6 o’clock crank position with greater mean hip angle (4.9 ± 3°), smaller knee angle (8.2 ± 5°) and smaller ankle angle (8.2 ± 5.3°) for static angles. Differences between static and dynamic angles (< 1.4°) were trivial to small for the 3 o’clock crank position.
Conclusions:
To perform bicycle fitting, joint angles should be measured dynamically or with the cyclist in a static pose at the 3 o’clock crank position.
Configuration of bicycle components to the cyclist (bicycle fitting) commonly uses static poses of the cyclist on the bicycle at the 6 o’clock crank position to represent dynamic cycling positions. However, the validity of this approach and the potential use of the different crank position (e.g. 3 o’clock) have not been fully explored. Therefore, this study compared lower limb joint angles of cyclists in static poses (3 and 6 o’clock) compared to dynamic cycling.
Methods:
Using a digital camera, right sagittal plane images were taken of thirty cyclists seated on their own bicycles mounted on a stationary trainer with the crank at 3 o’clock and 6 o’clock positions. Video was then recorded during pedalling at a self-selected gear ratio and pedalling cadence. Sagittal plane hip, knee and ankle angles were digitised.
Results:
Differences between static and dynamic angles were large at the 6 o’clock crank position with greater mean hip angle (4.9 ± 3°), smaller knee angle (8.2 ± 5°) and smaller ankle angle (8.2 ± 5.3°) for static angles. Differences between static and dynamic angles (< 1.4°) were trivial to small for the 3 o’clock crank position.
Conclusions:
To perform bicycle fitting, joint angles should be measured dynamically or with the cyclist in a static pose at the 3 o’clock crank position.
| eISSN: | 1899-1955 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
