![goldencheetah computrainer goldencheetah computrainer](https://blog.desdelinux.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/configurable.png)
Finally, there are others considered unreliable power meters, for example, Look Keo Power pedal (Sparks et al., 2015). Nevertheless, there are others whose results are reproducible, but whose validity remains in question, such as Stages (Bouillod et al., 2016 Granier et al., 2017). In addition, even if the cyclist can customize the position of the ergometer’s handlebars, saddle and pedals (not always possible), there would be considerable variations with their own bicycles in some decisive metrics such as the crank width (Q-factor), crank length, and other differences related to the specific geometry of the bicycle itself, which could affect comfort, pedalling performance and might even increase injury incidence (Disley and Li, 2014).Ĭurrently, there are some mobile power meters whose validity and reliability have been confirmed, such as Garmin Vector (Bouillod et al., 2016 Nimmerichter et al., 2017 Novak and Dascombe, 2016), or PowerTap Hub (Bertucci et al., 2005b Bouillod et al., 2016 Gardner et al., 2004). It should be noted that it is not possible to use them for field testing, moreover their size, weight and especially their price, could make difficult their use in laboratories with low financial resources (Peiffer and Losco, 2011). Several valid and reliable laboratory-specialized ergometers and power meters have been developed so far to monitor exercise performance while cycling: Lode (Earnest et al., 2005 Reiser et al., 2000), Ergoline (Maxwell et al., 1998), Monark (MacIntosh et al., 2001 Maxwell et al., 1998), Velotron (Abbiss et al., 2009 Astorino and Cottrell, 2012), Wattbike (Hopker et al., 2010 Wainwright et al., 2017). Therefore, power output is calculated as the product of torque and angular velocity. It consists of a crankset that allows the measurement of torque via strain gauges, located between the crank and the chain rings, and angular velocity from the cadence. The SRM power meter soon became the gold standard of the mobile power meters.
![goldencheetah computrainer goldencheetah computrainer](https://live.staticflickr.com/2372/2389505130_dda86fc65c_b.jpg)
Since then, scientists, coaches and cyclists have been able to measure bicycle power output during cycling training and competition, as traditionally performed in a laboratory setting. Mobile power meters became commercially available in the 1980’s, allowing direct measurement of power output in field conditions (Nimmerichter et al., 2017).
#GOLDENCHEETAH COMPUTRAINER PORTABLE#
This new portable power meter is a valid and reliable device to measure power output in cyclists and triathletes for the assessment, training and competition using their own bicycle, although caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results due to the slight power output underestimation of the PP1 pedals when compared to the SRM system and its dependence on both pedalling cadence and cyclist’s position (standing vs. High absolute reliability values were detected in the PP1 pedals (150–500 W CV = 2.3% SEM < 1.0 W). Bland-Altman analysis revealed that PP1 pedals underestimate the power output data obtained by the SRM device in a directly proportional manner to the cyclist’s cadence (from -2.4 W to -7.3 W, rho = 0.999). The mean error for power output values were 1.2%, 2.7%, 3.5% for 70, 85 and 100 rev Strong Spearman’s correlation coefficients were found between the power output values recorded by both power meters in a seated position, independently from the cadence condition (rho ≥ 0.987), although slightly lower concordance was found for the standing position (rho = 0.927). Significantly lower power output values were detected for the PP1 compared to the SRM for all workloads, cadences, and pedalling conditions (2–10 W, p 0.05). A scientific SRM system and a pair of PP1 pedals continuously recorded cadence and power output data. min -1 cadences, in seated and standing positions.To validate the new PowerTap P1 ® pedals power meter (PP1), thirty-three cyclists performed 12 randomized and counterbalanced graded exercise tests (100–500 W), at 70, 85 and 100 rev