Reproducibility of the Rotor 2INpower Crankset for Monitoring Cycling Power Output: A Comprehensive Analysis in Different Real-Context Situations

in International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year online subscription

USD  $114.00

1 year online subscription

USD  $152.00

Student 2 year online subscription

USD  $217.00

2 year online subscription

USD  $289.00

Purpose: To examine the reproducibility (intradevice and interdevice agreement) of the Rotor 2INpower device under a wide range of cycling conditions. Methods: Twelve highly trained male cyclists and triathletes completed 5 cycling tests, including graded exercise tests at different cadences (70–100 rpm), workloads (100–650 W), pedaling positions (seated and standing), and vibration conditions (20–40 Hz) and an 8-second maximal sprint (>1000 W). An intradevice analysis included a comparison between the power output registered by 3 units of Rotor 2INpower, whereas the power output provided by each one of these units and the gold-standard SRM crankset were compared for the interdevice analysis. Among others, statistical calculations included the standard error of measurement, expressed in absolute (in watts) and relative terms as the coefficient of variation (CV). Results: Except for the graded exercise test seated at 100 rpm/100 W (CV = 10.2%), the intradevice analysis showed an acceptable magnitude of error (CV ≤ 6.9%, standard error of measurement ≤ 12.3 W) between the 3 Rotor 2INpower. Similarly, these 3 units showed an acceptable agreement with the gold standard in all graded exercise test situations (CV ≤ 4.0%, standard error of measurement ≤ 13.1 W). On the other hand, both the intradevice and interdevice agreements proved to be slightly reduced under high cadences (intradevice: CV ≤ 10.2%; interdevice: CV ≤ 4.0%) and vibration (intradevice: CV ≤ 4.0%; interdevice: CV ≤ 3.6%), as well as during standing pedaling (intradevice: CV ≤ 4.1%; interdevice: CV ≤ 2.5%). Although within the limits of an acceptable agreement, measurement errors increased during the sprint tests (CV ≤ 7.4%). Conclusions: Based on these results, the Rotor 2INpower could be considered a reproducible tool to monitor power output in most cycling situations.

The authors are with the Human Performance and Sports Science Laboratory, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain. Rodríguez-Rielves is also with the Exercise Physiology Laboratory, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo, Spain.

Pallarés (jgpallares@um.es) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    Sanders D, Myers T, Akubat I. Training-intensity distribution in road cyclists: objective versus subjective measures. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(9):12321237. PubMed ID: 28253026 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Bouillod A, Pinot J, Soto-Romero G, Bertucci W, Grappe F. Validity, sensitivity, reproducibility, and robustness of the PowerTap, Stages, and Garmin Vector power meters in comparison with the SRM device. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(8):10231030. PubMed ID: 27967278 doi:.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Pallar´s JG, Lillo-Bevia JR. Validity and reliability of the PowerTap P1 pedals power meter. J Sports Sci Med. 2018;17(2):305311. PubMed ID: 29769832

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Passfield L, Hopker JG, Jobson S, Friel D, Zabala M. Knowledge is power: issues of measuring training and performance in cycling. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(14):14261434. PubMed ID: 27686573 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Martínez-Cava A, Hernández-Belmonte A, Courel-Ibáñez J, Morán-Navarro R, González-Badillo JJ, Pallarés JG. Reliability of technologies to measure the barbell velocity: implications for monitoring resistance training. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0232465.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Courel-Ibáñez J, Martínez-Cava A, Morán-Navarro R, et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of five different technologies for bar velocity measurement in resistance training. Ann Biomed Eng. 2019;47(7):15231538. PubMed ID: 30980292 doi:.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Bertucci W, Duc S, Villerius V, Grappe F. Validity and reliability of the Axiom PowerTrain cycle ergometer when compared with an SRM powermeter. Int J Sports Med. 2005;26(1):5965. PubMed ID: 15643536 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Lillo-Bevia JR, Pallarés JG. Validity and reliability of the Cycleops Hammer cycle ergometer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(7):853859. PubMed ID: 29182415 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Hernández-Belmonte A, Buendía-Romero Á, Martínez-Cava A, Courel-Ibáñez J, Mora-Rodríguez R, Pallarés JG. Wingate test, when time and overdue fatigue matter: validity and sensitivity of two time-shortened versions. Appl Sci. 2020;10(22):111.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Lepine J, Champoux Y, Drouet JM. A laboratory excitation technique to test road bike vibration transmission. Exp Tech. 2016;40(1):227234.

  • 11.

    Jones SM, Passfield L. Dynamic calibration of bicycle power measuring cranks. 1998 .

  • 12.

    Storer TW, Davis JA, Caiozzo VJ. Accurate prediction of V ˙ O 2 max in cycle ergometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1990;22(5):704712. PubMed ID: 2233211 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med. 1998;26(4):217238. PubMed ID: 9820922 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Granier C, Hausswirth C, Dorel S, Yann LM. Validity and reliability of the Stages Cycling Power Meter. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;34(12):35543559. doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 690 690 165
Full Text Views 15 15 3
PDF Downloads 15 15 5