Dynamic calibration of mechanically, air- and electromagnetically braked cycle ergometers

Abstract

In this study we measured the accuracy of the following types of cycle ergometer against the criterion of a dynamic calibration rig (DCR): 35 friction-braked (Monark), 5 research-grade air-braked (Repco) and 5 electromagnetically braked (2 Siemens, 1 Elema-Schonander, 1 Ergoline, l Warren E. Collins). Monark ergometer power outputs over the range 58.9–353.2 W significantly (P < 0.001) underestimated those registered by the DCR with mean accuracies of 91.7–97.8%. The least accurate individual reading for each of the six up-scale (0–353.2 W) power outputs ranged from 81.6␣to␣91.6%; corresponding down-scale (353.2–0 W) accuracies were 85.1–92.5%. A hysteresis effect was furthermore evident for this ergometer in that up-scale measurements were significantly (P < 0.05) greater than down-scale ones. In addition, when the oldest [mean (SD): 11.3 (2.3) years old] and newest [1.4 (0.8) years old] eight ergometers were compared, the latter were significantly (P < 0.05) more accurate over the range 117.7–294.3 W. Apart from the two lowest power outputs of 47␣W (62.2–96.0% accuracy) and 127 W (88.0–97.7% accuracy), the individual up-scale and down-scale accuracies of the Repco ergometers ranged from 98.0 to 104.2% for power outputs of 272.7–1137.8 W and the means were not significantly different from those of the DCR. There was also no evidence of hysteresis. Except for the initial power output of 50 W (40 rev/min: 83.8–99.2% accuracy; 60 rev/min: 93.2–122.6% accuracy), the␣individual accuracies of the electromagnetically braked ergometers ranged from 89.3 to 101.4% over the up-scale range of 100–400 W, and none of the means were significantly different from those of the DCR. The variability of individual errors for the preceding data emphasises that all cycle ergometers should be validated against the criterion of a DCR if accurate power outputs are required.