Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for :

  • "total elevation" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Paolo Menaspà, Franco M. Impellizzeri, Eric C. Haakonssen, David T. Martin and Chris R. Abbiss


To determine the consistency of commercially available devices used for measuring elevation gain in outdoor activities and sports.


Two separate observational validation studies were conducted. Garmin (Forerunner 310XT, Edge 500, Edge 750, and Edge 800; with and without elevation correction) and SRM (Power Control 7) devices were used to measure total elevation gain (TEG) over a 15.7-km mountain climb performed on 6 separate occasions (6 devices; study 1) and during a 138-km cycling event (164 devices; study 2).


TEG was significantly different between the Garmin and SRM devices (P < .05). The between-devices variability in TEG was lower when measured with the SRM than with the Garmin devices (study 1: 0.2% and 1.5%, respectively). The use of the Garmin elevation-correction option resulted in a 5–10% increase in the TEG.


While measurements of TEG were relatively consistent within each brand, the measurements differed between the SRM and Garmin devices by as much as 3%. Caution should be taken when comparing elevation-gain data recorded with different settings or with devices of different brands.

Restricted access

Paolo Menaspà, Chris R. Abbiss and David T. Martin

This investigation describes the sprint performances of the highest internationally ranked professional male road sprint cyclist during the 2008–2011 Grand Tours. Sprint stages were classified as won, lost, or dropped from the front bunch before the sprint. Thirty-one stages were video-analyzed for average speed of the last km, sprint duration, position in the bunch, and number of teammates at 60, 30, and 15 s remaining. Race distance, total elevation gain (TEG), and average speed of 45 stages were determined. Head-to-head performances against the 2nd–5th most successful professional sprint cyclists were also reviewed. In the 52 Grand Tour sprint stages the subject started, he won 30 (58%), lost 15 (29%), was dropped in 6 (12%), and had 1 crash. Position in the bunch was closer to the front and the number of team members was significantly higher in won than in lost at 60, 30, and 15 s remaining (P < .05). The sprint duration was not different between won and lost (11.3 ± 1.7 and 10.4 ± 3.2 s). TEG was significantly higher in dropped (1089 ± 465 m) than in won and lost (574 ± 394 and 601 ± 423 m, P < .05). The ability to finish the race with the front bunch was lower (77%) than that of other successful sprinters (89%). However, the subject was highly successful, winning over 60% of contested stages, while his competitors won less than 15%. This investigation explores methodology that can be used to describe important aspects of road sprint cycling and supports the concept that tactical aspects of sprinting can relate to performance outcomes.

Restricted access

Paolo Menaspà, Marco Sias, Gene Bates and Antonio La Torre

total elevation gain. 14 , 15 Race files were uploaded on the TrainingPeaks website by the participants and subsequently downloaded and analyzed with the open-source software GoldenCheetah (version 3.3). Peak power (1 s) and MMP for durations of 5, 10, 20, and 30 seconds, and 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 30, and

Restricted access

Jeremiah J. Peiffer, Chris R. Abbiss, Eric C. Haakonssen and Paolo Menaspà

the official race communication. Raw data for velocity, cadence, elevation, and power output over each entire race file were then exported for further analysis using Microsoft Excel. Mean power output, cadence, and velocity as well as the total elevation gain were calculated for each race. Using the

Restricted access

Theo Ouvrard, Alain Groslambert and Frederic Grappe

experimenters during the entire ITT, warm-up, or previous trainings of the participants. The ITT course included a 1-lap circuit of 49.3 km for 570 m of total elevation gain. The race was part of the UCI official calendar and was used to determine the 2016 French national ITT champion. All of the competitors

Restricted access

Owen Jeffries, Mark Waldron, Stephen D. Patterson and Brook Galna

10.4 km/h (HVD24; Sealey Power Products, Bury St Edmunds, United Kingdom). It did not rain on any outdoor test day. Outdoor tests were conducted on a cycle-specific, traffic-free race circuit. The track measured 1.52 km in distance, 6-m wide, with ∼4-m total elevation gain per lap and 7 shallow

Restricted access

Cyril Granier, Chris R. Abbiss, Anaël Aubry, Yvon Vauchez, Sylvain Dorel, Christophe Hausswirth and Yann Le Meur

) beats·min −1 (91% [2%] HR max ). Table 2 Mechanical and Physiological Measures During XCO-MTB Races Mean (SD) Range Race duration, min 90 (9) 76–108 Race distance, km 28.15 (5.41) 22.64–35.6 Temperature, °C 19.7 (3.6) 14.5–28.2 Total elevation gain, m 1248 (197) 869–1528 Average altitude, m 763 (551