Accuracy of SRM and Power Tap Power

Monitoring Systems for Bicycling

ANDREW S. GARDNER1,2, SHAUN STEPHENS3, DAVID T. MARTIN1, EVAN LAWTON1,
HAMILTON LEE1, and DAVID JENKINS2
Department of Physiology, Australian Institute of Sport, AUSTRALIA; 2School of Human Movement Studies, The
University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA; and 3Triathlon Program, Queensland Academy of Sport, AUSTRALIA

ABSTRACT
GARDNER, A. S., S. STEPHENS, D. T. MARTIN, E. LAWTON, H. LEE, and D. JENKINS. Accuracy of SRM and Power Tap Power
Monitoring Systems for Bicycling. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 12521258, 2004. Purpose: Although manufacturers
of bicycle power monitoring devices SRM and Power Tap (PT) claim accuracy to within 2.5%, there are limited scientific data available
in support. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the accuracy of SRM and PT under different conditions. Methods: First,
19 SRM were calibrated, raced for 11 months, and retested using a dynamic CALRIG (50 1000 W at 100 rpm). Second, using the same
procedure, five PT were repeat tested on alternate days. Third, the most accurate SRM and PT were tested for the influence of cadence
(60, 80, 100, 120 rpm), temperature (8 and 21C) and time (1 h at 300 W) on accuracy. Finally, the same SRM and PT were
downloaded and compared after random cadence and gear surges using the CALRIG and on a training ride. Results: The mean error
scores for SRM and PT factory calibration over a range of 50 1000 W were 2.3 4.9% and 2.5 0.5%, respectively. A second
set of trials provided stable results for 15 calibrated SRM after 11 months (0.8 1.7%), and follow-up testing of all PT units
confirmed these findings (2.7 0.1%). Accuracy for SRM and PT was not largely influenced by time and cadence; however, power
output readings were noticeably influenced by temperature (5.2% for SRM and 8.4% for PT). During field trials, SRM average and
max power were 4.8% and 7.3% lower, respectively, compared with PT. Conclusions: When operated according to manufacturers
instructions, both SRM and PT offer the coach, athlete, and sport scientist the ability to accurately monitor power output in the lab and
the field. Calibration procedures matching performance tests (duration, power, cadence, and temperature) are, however, advised as the
error associated with each unit may vary. Key Words: CALIBRATION, CYCLING, ERGOMETERS, VALIDITY

ycling power output during training and competition

can be estimated using mathematical models
(13,1517) or measured directly using powermeters
or rear-wheel hubs instrumented with strain gauges. Such
power monitoring devices (e.g., SRM and Power Tap) can
interface with an athletes bicycle, making it possible to
measure power output, cadence, and speed during competition and laboratory testing.
The SRM (Schoberer Rad Messtechnik, Welldorf, Germany) power monitoring system consists of an SRM powermeter (instrumented crank), an SRM powercontrol (data
logger and onboard data display), and a sensor cable (linking data transfer from crank to the onboard powercontrol).
Three different SRM powermeters are currently produced
for use with track, road, and mountain bikes. Although the
mountain bike SRM powermeter is only produced in a four-

strain-gauge model (professional model), there are two track

models (professional: four strain gauges and scientific: eight
strain gauges) and three road models (amateur: two strain
gauges, professional: four strain gauges, and scientific: eight
strain gauges). The manufacturer reports that the accuracy
of these SRM powermeters increases with the number of
strain gauges (amateur 5%; professional 2%;
scientific 0.5%). The more recently introduced Power
Tap (PT) also consists of an onboard data logger, a sensor
cable, and an eight-strain-gauge instrumented rear-wheel hub.
The manufacturers of PT claim an accuracy of 2.5%.
The majority of sports scientists and coaches using power
monitoring technology have not addressed validity issues,
choosing to rely on the manufacturers reported values. For
example, there is no mention as to whether SRM powermeters were calibrated before use by Golich and Broker (6)
or Jeukendrup and Van Diemen (9). In other studies, the
term calibration appears to have been inappropriately
used to describe the process of resetting the zero power
output offset (2,4,5). Finally, in those studies that have
attempted to check SRM powermeter calibration (10,13),
Monark cycle ergometers have been used for comparison,
despite reports that these ergometers underestimate true
power output by up to 8% over a range of 59 353 W
(14,18). Rarely, if at all, is the zero offset drift during a trial
reported or corrected for, and in only a few published
reports do authors indicate the model of SRM powermeter
used (2,3,10).

Address for correspondence: Andrew Gardner, Department of Physiology,

Australian Institute of Sport, P.O. Box 176, Belconnen, ACT 2616. Australia; E-mail: scott.gardner@ausport.gov.au.
Submitted for publication September 2003.
Accepted for publication March 2004.
0195-9131/04/3607-1252
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE
Copyright 2004 by the American College of Sports Medicine
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000132380.21785.03

1252

The primary purpose of this study was to establish

whether the SRM and PT powermeters accurately measure
power output during simulated high-intensity cycling. In a
series of four experiments, the accuracy of both systems
were assessed using a first principles dynamic CALRIG
(18). Specifically we addressed the following research questions: 1) Are multiple power monitoring units accurate during repeated calibration trials? 2) What is the influence of
cadence on the accuracy of power output? 3) What is the
influence of pretrial instrumentation temperature and
warm-up on power output during prolonged trials of 30 60
min? and 4) What is the relationship between power output,
cadence, and speed in the most accurate SRM and PT units
during a training session in the field and a simulated session
in the laboratory?

METHODS
Experimental design. In the first of four experiments,
the accuracy of power data from 19 SRM and 5 PT powermeters were initially assessed using a dynamic calibration
rig (CALRIG) (Tom Stanef, SASI, Australia) (18). Powermeters were examined between the range of 50 and 1000 W.
After the initial trials, 15 of the SRM powermeters were
retested after 1 yr of use, whereas the five PT hubs were
tested again 2 d later. The second experiment used the most
accurate SRM and PT units (i.e., one of each) to examine the
influence of cadence (60, 80, 100, and 120 rpm) on accuracy
over a range of power outputs (50 1000 W). The third
experiment examined the influence of temperature and equipment warm-up on power output measurements. More specifically, power output was measured simultaneously in both
devices over one continuous hour using a CALRIG. These
trials were repeated on separate days in order to establish
repeatability. The fourth experiment examined the relationship
between power output, cadence, and speed of an SRM and PT
unit during a typical training ride in the field and a simulated
CALRIG session in the laboratory.
Equipment. The CALRIG used in this study was calibrated using four accredited masses up to 11.39 kg. For the
purposes of this study, the most popular professional version
of the SRM powermeters was used (i.e., four strain gauges).
SRM powermeters and PT were mounted to a standard
nine-speed road bicycle (Giant, Taiwan), which was attached to a stationary air-braked trainer (RX-5, Blackburn,
Sydney, Australia) (Fig. 1). The PT were all less than 1 yr
old whereas the SRM were less than 3 yr old with serial
numbers ranging between 235 and 1031.
Standard calibration procedure. After a 10-min
warm-up at a power output of 200 W, the zero offset for
the SRM was set and the PT torque was zeroed; both
procedures were carried out in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. The CALRIG load cell was calibrated with verified precision masses up to 11.39 kg and
dynamic system losses were accommodated for by repeating
unloaded zero offset procedures pre and post each trial.
Unless specified, all testing sessions were performed at 100
rpm and involved shifting through the full range of nine
CALIBRATION OF POWER MONITORING SYSTEMS

FIGURE 1Image of the equipment set up. The equipment includes

the dynamic CALRIG, universal joint arm, standard masses, SRM
powercontrol, SRM powermeter, and the air-braked ergometer.

gears in the rear cluster using both the large and small front
chain rings. Due to technical limitations with the PT and
CALRIG download process, a second-by-second comparison between the CALRIG, PT, and SRM data could not be
made. Therefore, the protocol for recording involved a 40-s
stabilization period in each gear, followed by instantaneous
manual readings of power output from each instrument at
40, 45, 50, and 55-s periods. The four power outputs were
then averaged for further analysis. All trials were run under
standard environmental conditions (21C, 40 55% RH,
695710 mm Hg), and the same rear chain cluster (Durace,
Shimano, Japan) was used for each trial. All bicycle components were in good condition, less than 2 yr old, and the
chain was well lubricated. At least 1 h separated the trials in
order for the instrumentation to cool.
Experiment 1: accuracy and reliability of SRM
and PT data. Using the procedure outlined above, the accuracy of 19 SRM powermeters were initially evaluated
throughout a power range of 501000 W. After this, the
frequency versus torque slopes were adjusted so that the power
reading was within 2% of the CALRIG. The SRM calibration slope can be calculated via the following equation (Schoberer, U. SRM Training System Online Manual. Accessed;
November, 2003 www.srm.de/OnlineManual/index):
SRM Slope SRM Freq Hz SRM Zero offset Hz

* Testing Cadence rpm * 2PI/60/CALRIG W .

Eleven months later, after a full racing season, the accuracy of 15 of the powermeters was again assessed. After
these trials and using the same calibration procedure, the accuracy of five PT rear-wheel hubs was assessed over a 2-d
period during repeat random trials. As PT calibration cannot be
altered by the user, no adjustment was made between trials.
Experiment 2: effects of cadence on SRM and PT
power data. Power measures from the most accurate
SRM and PT units from the above trials were compared
using the CALRIG as a reference at different cadences (60,
80, 100, and 120 rpm) over a 2-d period. The same equipment calibration, setup, and testing procedures were used as
in experiment 1.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

1253

TABLE 1. Mean percent error, SD, min, and max for SRM and PT when compared with the CALRIG at 100 rpm. Trial 1 and trial 2 for SRM were separated by 11 months (note
SRM calibration slope was adjusted following trial 1). Trial 1 and trial 2 for PT were separated by 1 d (note PT calibration cannot be adjusted). The individual devices with the
lowest errors from these trials were used in the subsequent trials.
Trial 1

SRM
PT

Trial 2

Mean
(%)

SD
(%)

Min
(%)

Max
(%)

19
5

2.3
2.5

4.9
0.5

1.0
2.0

10.4
2.9

Experiment 3: effects of pretrial temperature on

SRM and PT power data. The most accurate SRM powermeter and PT hub were once again tested using the same
equipment as that used in experiments one and two. The
equipment was first tested then retested after 12 h of exposure to 6C (55 65% RH, 695710 mm Hg) and after 10 h
of exposure to 21C (40 55% RH, 695710 mm Hg).
Before testing, the CALRIG was subjected to the same
warm-up and calibration protocol as previously used. The
zero offset for the SRM was set and the PT torque was
zeroed before and after each testing session. In order to
represent a worst-case scenario, the zero offset was initially set without warm-up and then rechecked after the trial
to examine any drift. Each testing session was performed at
a fixed power output (300 W) for 1 h. Data were recorded
at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 min, and then every 5 min until the hour trial
was completed.
After these trials, a further 30-min trial was completed
using the standard 10-min warm-up and zero procedure
outlined in experiment 1 to examine the effect of our standard warm-up in comparison to the cool and standard condition trials on the zero offset and power output drift.
Experiment 4: comparison of SRM and PT data
from the laboratory and field. Powermeters were compared in two ways. First, the most accurate SRM and PT
units were mounted onto a standard road bicycle and attached to the CALRIG. The test involved randomly changing both the cadence (46 122 rpm), and all nine gears in
order to gain fluctuations in the power output (0 550 W).
Power output and cadence were collected for analysis.
In the second comparison, power output, cadence, and speed
data were collected during a consistent shallow-grade 7-min
hill climb using the same bicycle. Before the experiment, both
devices were once again zeroed. Data during the ride were then
recorded and downloaded for further analysis. The same tire

Mean
(%)

SD
(%)

Min
(%)

Max
(%)

15
5

0.8
2.7

1.7
0.1

0.0
1.5

2.1
3.8

circumference was entered into both computers for comparison

of speed.
Data analysis. Modified Bland-Altman plots (1) were
constructed to quantify and display the magnitude of the
error between the SRM, PT, and CALRIG for each of the
experiments performed. The percent error was calculated as
((estimate criterion)/estimate). Data were also summarized
using descriptive statistics, (mean SD, minimum and maximum error values). Because of differences in the downloadable time-base for both instruments (1.0 s for SRM and 1.26 s
for PT), we relied on descriptive statistics to summarize data.
Descriptive statistical procedures were chosen for this series of
experiments with the intention of displaying a direct and practical comparison to the manufacturers reported accuracy while
also providing a simple way of interpreting the error associated
with this technology.

RESULTS
Table 1 shows mean percent error, SD, min, and max for
SRM and PT data when compared with the CALRIG at 100
rpm. During the first trial of experiment 1, the range in the
error scores for the 19 SRM powermeters was 10.4 to
1.0% compared with a range of 2.9 to 2.0% error observed for the 5 PT. Despite the range variations, the mean
percent error from all trials was similar. The best SRM
showed greater accuracy than the best PT over the range of
power outputs tested (1.0% for SRM vs 2.0% for PT). The
5 PT were, however, more consistently accurate. Furthermore, the results from the second experiment showed that
once corrected to within 0.0 2.1% accuracy, 14 of the 15
SRM powermeters retested after the 11 months period of use
stayed within that range. It was also observed that although
PT calibration cannot be altered by the user, it appears to
remain similar over a 2-d period.

FIGURE 2Modified Bland-Altman plot of percent error from the CALRIG for the most accurate SRM and PT during repeat trials at 100 rpm.
The mean percent error for SRM was 0.1 1.1 and 0.9 0.7 for T1 and T2, respectively. The mean percent error for PT was 2.1 1.3 and
1.5 0.6 for T1 and T2, respectively.

1254

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

http://www.acsm-msse.org

FIGURE 3Modified Bland-Altman plot of percent error from the CALRIG for the most accurate SRM and PT during four trials at different
cadences (60, 80, 100, and 120 rpm). The mean errors for the SRM and PT units were 0.1 1.0% and 1.9 0.8% at 60 rpm, 1.0 0.4%
and 2.0 0.7% at 80 rpm, 0.9 0.7% and 2.1 1.3% at 100 rpm, and 1.3 0.4% and 1.2 0.4% at 120 rpm, respectively.

Figure 2 presents modified Bland-Altman plots of percent

error from the CALRIG for the most accurate SRM and PT
during the repeat trials at 100 rpm. All data points collected
throughout the range of power outputs for both the SRM
powermeters and the PT hub are represented. The mean
errors for SRM were 0.1 1.1% for T1 and 0.9 0.7%
for T2. The mean percent errors for PT were 2.1 1.3%
for T1 and 1.5 0.6% for T2. During the initial trials (T1)
we observed that the most accurate SRM available to us
produced a range of percent error scores from 0% at 100 W
to 3% at 800 W. In contrast, the most accurate of the five
PT produced a range of error scores from 3.5% at 100 W
to 0.5% at 600 W.
Figure 3 shows modified Bland-Altman plots of percent
error from the CALRIG for the influence of cadence on the
accuracy of the most accurate SRM and PT. The mean percent
errors for the SRM and the PT units were 0.1 1.0% and
1.9 0.8% at 60 rpm, 1.0 0.4% and 2.0 0.7% at
80 rpm, 0.9 0.7% and 2.1 1.3% at 100 rpm, and 1.3
0.4% and 1.2 0.4% at 120 rpm, respectively.
Figure 4 presents modified Bland-Altman plots of percent
error from the CALRIG showing the response to warm-up
and drift during four 1 h and one 30 min constant power
output and cadence (300 W and 100 rpm) trials. When
zeroed in cool conditions, the PT required up to 15 min of
steady-state activity to stabilize. A common finding with
both devices was that when zeroed after exposure to cool
conditions, they gave a positive error (3.7 0.4% for SRM
and 5.5 2.4% for PT) as opposed to a negative error when

zeroed in standard lab conditions (1.5 0.4% for SRM

and 3.2 0.2% for PT). Therefore, when used by an
inexperienced operator who may not take into consideration
the environmental conditions, mean percent difference in
power output values between standard lab and cool conditions may be as large as 5.2% for SRM and 8.4% for PT.
This was also observed when recording the drift in both zero
offset measurements. The zero offset of the SRM was set at
584 Hz before the initial (T1 cool) cool room trial and
drifted to 615 Hz posttrial (31 Hz). Similarly, in the second
cool room trial (T2 cool), the zero offset drifted 18 Hz for
the SRM. During both PT trials, the zero drifted 7 W pre- to
posttrial. During the standard condition trials the zero drift
was not as large, with 4 and 1 Hz versus 3 and 2 W
difference observed for SRM and PT units, respectively,
during T1 and T2 standard.
The power profile for the direct comparison between
SRM and PT during dynamic CALRIG trials is presented in
Figure 5a. The average power output recorded from the
SRM and PT during these trials was 245 88 W and 251
88 W, respectively. Although average power output was
similar, maximum power output was 73 W higher using the
SRM compared with PT (547 W for SRM and 474 W for
PT). During the trial, the PT signal often dropped out
causing the phase delay seen when trials were overlaid (Fig.
5a). Figure 5b shows the cadence recorded for both units
during the CALRIG trial. It can be seen that because the PT
hub relies on an indirect estimation of cadence, the device
cannot be calibrated when torque is applied throughout the

FIGURE 4 Modified Bland-Altman plot of percent error from the CALRIG for the most accurate SRM and PT units during four 1-h and one
30-min steady-state trials (300 W). Repeated measurements were taken at 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and then every 5 min until the 1-h mark after 6 h at standard
Lab conditions (21C, 40 55% RH) or Cool conditions (6C, 60% RH). One trial was also completed after the standard warm-up (10 min at
200 W). Note that for the 1-h trials, the zero offset of both the PT and SRM was set prior without warm-up; only the CALRIG was prewarmed for
these trials.
CALIBRATION OF POWER MONITORING SYSTEMS

Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

1255

FIGURE 5Direct comparison between power (W) and cadence (rpm) for SRM and PT during dynamic CALRIG trials.

whole pedal stroke. The average cadence recorded for

the SRM during this trial was 94 13 rpm compared with
54 30 rpm for the PT hub.
Figure 6a shows a graph of the fluctuations in power
throughout the hill climb field trial; again there was a phase
delay for PT. The average power output was 411 63 W for
SRM and 432 79 W for PT (Fig. 6a); however, in contrast
to the CALRIG trials, maximum power output was 51 W
lower for SRM compared with PT (651 W for SRM and 702
W for PT). In Figure 6b, the cadence profiles of the ride
were compared. Although not as pronounced as those shown
in Figure 5, one can observe that relying on indirect estimation of cadence sometimes causes false peaks and
troughs. The average cadence recorded for SRM was 87
9 rpm compared with 84 14 rpm for PT, whereas maximum cadence was 105 rpm for the SRM compared with 112
rpm for the PT. Even with signal drop-out, average speed

was similar, with 27.6 3.5 kmh1 for SRM and 27.7
4.1 kmh1 for PT (Fig. 6c).

DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to establish
whether the SRM powermeter and PT hub accurately measure power output during simulated high-intensity cycling
under a variety of conditions. The present data show that
using average data, both SRM and PT are usually within
their manufacturers specifications. However, when the data
are expressed using modified Bland-Altman plots, there is a
considerable scatter around the mean percent error. Acknowledging the range of scatter has important implications
when trying to interpret laboratory intertrial reliability or
technical error data using this type of power monitoring
system. The present data also show that during trial 1 (with

FIGURE 6 Direct comparison of power (W), cadence (rpm), and speed (kmh1) for SRM and PT during a training ride.

1256

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

http://www.acsm-msse.org

factory calibration) the most accurate SRM unit was more

accurate than the best PT unit; however, the least accurate
SRM was less accurate than the worst PT. It appears that
once adjusted, the calibration of SRM is stable throughout
an 11-month racing season. These results need to be considered in light of the low numbers of available PT (N 5
for T1 and T2) as opposed to the number of SRM units
evaluated (N 19 for T1 and N 15 for T2). The other
main finding from the present study is that both the SRM
and PT units are sensitive to differences in ambient temperature. Finally, our data suggest that comparing power data
between SRM and PT from a training ride may not be
accurate unless both devices have been calibrated via the
same procedure previously.
It is important for coaches and sport scientists involved
with cycling to be confident that the power monitoring
device they are using is accurate. At present, however, it is
difficult to interpret some of the published observations
regarding power output demands of cycling. For instance,
there is an extremely large range of power outputs associated with a track cycling speed of 60 kmh1 (5), and it has
also been reported that the Kingcycle ergometer provides a
less reproducible (2) and valid (3) measure of peak power
output when compared with an SRM powermeter. More
recently, mountain bike SRM data were published evaluating the technical aspects of mountain bikes (12), and the
authors reported similar oxygen uptake values for significantly different power outputs. It is possible that all these
findings were simply the result of instrumentation drift and
inappropriate calibration methodology.
Although a few validation trials on SRM powermeters
have been published (10,13), no attention has been directed
toward also validating the commonly used PT. To establish
a best-case scenario, we ran a number of experiments
using the most accurate SRM and PT units available to us at
the time. In the present study SRM and PT data were
compared with power output data generated by a dynamic
CALRIG at the crank, thus allowing a comparison of power
data with an ecologically valid reference point based on first
principles (15). It should be noted when interpreting the data
that PT measures power at the rear hub and may display
approximately 2% lower values than the CALRIG because
of transmission losses in chain and sprocket drive mechanism (11). Although very important to account for when
modeling performance, the purpose of these trials was to
focus on the accuracy of the two powermeters when a
known amount of power was produced at the bottom
bracket. Most users of these systems will be monitoring
power in order to reflect fitness and changes in fitness. It is
not clear whether Power Tap tries to account for transmission losses and attempts to reflect power produced at the
bottom bracket or whether the displayed power is the actual
power produced at the rear hub. In elite athletes, the detectable change in performance from an ergogenic or training
intervention is usually of a magnitude less than 2% (7,8).
Thus, researchers require a high degree of precision in the
power output monitoring equipment.
CALIBRATION OF POWER MONITORING SYSTEMS

As expected, our results revealed the overall accuracy to

differ between SRM and PT units. Thus, not all SRM and
PT units are equally accurate. Based on their initial factory
calibration, the SRM powermeters ranged from 10.4 to
1.0% average error, whereas the PT hubs were within a
range of 2.9 to 2.0% average error. It is important for
readers to be aware that 8 of the 19 SRM units tested were
outside the manufacturers reported accuracy on first calibration; however, when adjusted and retested after a full
racing season, 14 of the 15 were still within 2.0% average
error. It is concerning then that the evaluations of power
monitoring systems are being published based on a comparison with SRM powermeters without any reported calibration as though it is the new gold standard in power
measurement. The present data impress the need to evaluate
SRM cranks using first principles and correct each unit to
minimize the average error. During the first calibration, one
of the five PT units assessed was outside of the manufacturers accuracy claims. Unfortunately, there is no way for
the user to change the calibration if poor accuracy is present
during calibration. In addition, none of the PT units assessed
here were retested after an extensive period of use; therefore, more research may be needed in order to assess the
accuracy of PT after a racing season.
We were particularly interested in determining whether
accuracy of the most accurate SRM and PT units varied
across different power outputs and over different cadences.
The present data show that accuracy can vary from low to
high power outputs and at different cadences for the same
power output. This raises the need for a specific powercadence band calibration. For example, it may be important
for power monitoring devices to be calibrated to the specific
power-cadence range adopted during the event of interest
(track sprint vs road time trial).
The finding that both the SRM and PT units are sensitive
to temperature has implications to both athletes and sports
scientists. We found that SRM and PT warm-up is important
before setting the zero offset on both devices. We also found
that when zeroed in cool conditions (6C) after 12 h of
exposure, both units produced dissimilar average error after
each testing occasion at room temperature (21C). Interestingly, when zeroed at room temperature, little to no
warm-up of the crank components (primarily strain gauges)
was necessary. This finding suggests that in order to gain
accurate data when starting on a ride in cool conditions and
when temperature changes during the trial are expected, the
zero offset should be reset at regular intervals.
As another point of note, the SRM produced three
positive outlier error scores during the cadence trials at
80 rpm despite a mean percent error of 1.0 0.4%.
These positive error values occurred after the high power
output produced on the small chain ring was switched to
low powers on the large chain ring (highlighting a possible hysteresis in some units). When the power changed
from high to low, such as from a small chain ring (39
15) to a large chain ring (52 21), deformation of the
strain gauge strips may have resulted in hysteresis. This
has implications for all cycling disciplines where high
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

1257

power is randomly interspersed with lower power. More

work is needed to determine whether hysteresis is also
observed in other SRM powermeters and in what situation it is most likely to occur.
Along with the observed hysteresis, differences observed in
maximum power readings between the SRM powermeter and
PT hub during the dynamic trials raises concern with respect to
interpretation of data. There is a clear need for dynamic calibration at high power outputs especially if the monitoring
devices are used to analyze high-intensity sprints. Also observed during the laboratory and field dynamic trials was the
drop-out and the erratic nature of cadence measurement by the
PT, especially when run on the CALRIG at a constant torque.
Recently, a new model of PT has been produced that uses a
traditional magnet sensor for cadence. All of these issues highlight the need for caution when interpreting average data from
both devices. It should also be noted for scientific studies
where power or cadence data are expressed as average values

that the exported time base (1.26 s) for the PT hub is much less
flexible than the SRM.
In conclusion, both SRM and PT are valuable instruments
for the monitoring of power output during cycling. However, researchers and scientists should be aware of the
limitations in both models of SRM and PT tested here when
trying to detect performance changes of less than 2%, common among elite athletes (7,8). Researchers should also note
that setting the zero offset does not substitute for a standardized calibration. In summary, accuracy may be different
between and within SRM and PT units and both units are
affected by temperature. It is possible that with continual
refinements by the manufacturers, improvements will, and
may have already been made to both devices.
The authors would like to extend gratitude to Prof. Allan Hahn and
the staff of the Physiology Department at the Australian Institute of
Sport for providing facilities and support in order to make this
project possible. Thanks must also go to Dr. Inigo Mujika for his
advice and critique of the manuscript.

REFERENCES
1. ALTMAN, D. G., and J. M. BLAND. Measurement in medicine: the
analysis of method comparison studies. Stat. 32:307317, 1983.
2. BALMER, J., R. C. DAVISON, and S. R. BIRD. Reliability of an
air-braked ergometer to record peak power during a maximal
cycling test. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1790 1793, 2000.
3. BALMER, J., R. C. DAVISON, D. A. COLEMAN, and S. R. BIRD. The
validity of power output recorded during exercise performance tests
using a Kingcycle air-braked cycle ergometer when compared with
an SRM powermeter. Int J. Sports Med. 21:195199, 2000.
4. BASSETT, D. R., JR., C. R. KYLE, L. PASSFIELD, J. P. BROKER, and
E. R. BURKE. Comparing cycling world hour records, 19671996:
modeling with empirical data. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:1665
1676, 1999.
5. BROKER, J. P., C. R. KYLE, and E. R. BURKE. Racing cyclist power
requirements in the 4000-m individual and team pursuits. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:16771685, 1999.
6. GOLICH, D., and J. BROKER. SRM bicycle instrumentation and the
power output of elite male cyclists during the 1994 Tour Dupont.
Performance Conditioning for Cycling 2:2, 1996.
7. HOPKINS, W., H. J. A. HAWLEY, and L. M. BURKE. Design and
analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 31:472 485, 1999.
8. HOPKINS, W. G., E. J. SCHABORT, and J. A. HAWLEY. Reliability of
power in physical performance tests. Sports Med. 31:211234, 2001.
9. JEUKENDRUP, A., and A. VAN DIEMEN. Heart-rate monitoring during
training and competition in cyclists. J. Sports Sci. 16:S91S99, 1998.

1258

Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine

10. JONES, S. M., and L. PASSFIELD. The dynamic calibration of bicycle

power measuring cranks. In: The Engineering of Sport, S. J. Haake
(Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd, 1998, pp. 265274.
11. KYLE, C. R. Chain friction, windy hills and other quick calculations. Cycling Sci. 2:2326, 1990.
12. MACRAE, H. S. H., K. J. HISE, and P. J. ALLEN. Effects of front and
dual suspension mountain bike systems on uphill cycling performance. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 32:1276 1280, 2000.
13. MARTIN, J. C., D. L. Millikin, J. E. COBB, K. L. MCFADDEN, and
A. R. COGGAN. Validation of a mathematical model for road
cycling power. J. Appl. Biomech. 14:276 291, 1998.
14. MAXWELL, B. F., R. T. WITHERS, A. H. ILSLEY, M. J. WAKIM, G. F.
WOODS, and L. DAY. Dynamic calibration of mechanically, air- and
electromagnetically braked cycle ergometers. Eur. J. Appl Physiol.
Occup. Physiol. 78:346 352, 1998.
15. OLDS, T. Modelling human locomotion: applications to cycling.
Sports Med. 31:497509, 2001.
16. OLDS, T., K. NORTON, N. CRAIG, S. OLIVE, and E. LOWE. The limits
of the possible: models of power supply and demand in cycling.
Aust. J. Sci. Med. Sport 27:29 33, 1995.
17. OLDS, T. S., K. I. NORTON, and N. P. CRAIG. Mathematical model
of cycling performance. J. Appl. Physiol. 75:730 737, 1993.
18. WOODS, G. F., L. DAY, R. T. WITHERS, A. H. ILSLEY, and B. F.
MAXWELL. The dynamic calibration of cycle ergometers. Int.
J. Sports Med. 15:168 171, 1994.

http://www.acsm-msse.org