Differences in static and dynamic bike fit with 3d motion capture

Authors

  • M Corbett Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, United Kingdom
  • J Bevins Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester

Abstract

Background: Bicycle fitting is the adjustment of bicycle configuration to suit rider requirements through appropriate placement of contact points; pedals, saddle and handlebars (Burke 1994: Clin Sports Med, 13(1), 1-14). Traditional fitting uses static assessment of parameters such as knee angle through the bottom of the pedal stroke and saddle setback measured by knee over pedal horizontal separation (KOPS) (Holmes et al., 1994: Clinics in Sports Medicine 13(1), 187). Dynamic fitting is now increasingly popular through video analysis or 3d motion capture. However no comparison has been made of differences between static and dynamic measurement or assessment reported of the reliability of motion capture for bicycle fitting.
Purpose: To investigate the repeatability of key bike fitting kinematic parameters and differences between static and dynamic conditions.
Methods: 15 subjects performed repeated motion capture trials over three sessions in both static and dynamic conditions. Markers were applied to anatomical landmarks and kinematics collected using a Vicon 3d motion capture system. 
Results: Typical intra-session errors for angular parameters ranged from 1.7° (4.2°) for dynamic (static) knee flexion to 4.2° (4.9°) for ankle plantarflexion. Typical error for KOPS was 6.6 mm (12 mm). Significant (p<0.001) differences between static and dynamic conditions were observed for all parameters. Knee flexion was 5.4° greater in dynamic conditions (95% CI 3.5°, 7.4°). Corresponding dynamic ankle plantarflexion was 7.8° greater (5.9°, 9.6°) and hip flexion 5.1° greater (3.8°, 6.5°). KOPS  was 7.7 mm further forward in dynamic conditions (3.3, 12.1)  and dynamic ankle plantarflexion at KOPS was 3.6° greater (1.8°, 5.4°).
Discussion: Typical errors showed moderate repeatability indicating the system was fit for purpose but these errors require consideration in the fitting process. Differences between static and dynamic parameters appear to originate at the ankle, with a tendency for riders to drop their heels when stationary. 
Conclusion: Common guidance to fit to a knee angle between 25-35° should be adjusted to 30-40° for dynamic measurement.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

M Corbett, Institute of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Worcester, United Kingdom

Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche.
Spanish Cycling Federation.
Movistar Team, UCI Pro Tour Cycling Team, Pamplona, Spain.

Published

2014-07-12

How to Cite

Corbett, M., & Bevins, J. (2014). Differences in static and dynamic bike fit with 3d motion capture. Journal of Science and Cycling, 3(2), 11. Retrieved from https://jsc-journal.com/index.php/JSC/article/view/94

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2014): Science & Cycling Congress, 2/3 July 2014, Leeds

Section

Book of Abstracts

Copyright (c) 2014 Journal of Science and Cycling

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors contributing to Journal of Science and Cycling agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, for any purpose, even commercially, under the condition that appropriate credit is given, that a link to the license is provided, and that you indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to Cycling Research Center.