TY - JOUR
T1 - Agreement of power measures between Garmin Vector and SRM cycle power meters
AU - Novak, Andrew R.
AU - Dascombe, Benjamin J.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - This study aimed to determine if the Garmin Vector (Schaffhausen, Switzerland) power meter produced acceptable measures when compared with the Schoberer Rad Messetechnik (SRM; Julich, Germany) power meter across a range of high-intensity efforts. Twenty-one well-trained cyclists completed power profiles (seven maximal mean efforts between 5 and 600 s) using Vector and SRM power meters. Data were compared using assessments of heteroscedasticity, t tests, linear regression, and typical error of estimate (TEE). The data were heteroscedastic, whereby the Vector pedals increasingly overestimated values at higher power outputs; however, t tests did not identify any significant differences between power meters (p > .05). Using linear regression, Vector data were fit to an SRM equivalent (slope = .99; intercept = -9.87) and TEE produced by this equation was 3.3% (3.0%-3.8%). While the data shows slight heteroscedasticity due to differing strain-gauge placement and resultant torque measurement variance, the Vector appears acceptable for measures of power output across various cycling efforts.
AB - This study aimed to determine if the Garmin Vector (Schaffhausen, Switzerland) power meter produced acceptable measures when compared with the Schoberer Rad Messetechnik (SRM; Julich, Germany) power meter across a range of high-intensity efforts. Twenty-one well-trained cyclists completed power profiles (seven maximal mean efforts between 5 and 600 s) using Vector and SRM power meters. Data were compared using assessments of heteroscedasticity, t tests, linear regression, and typical error of estimate (TEE). The data were heteroscedastic, whereby the Vector pedals increasingly overestimated values at higher power outputs; however, t tests did not identify any significant differences between power meters (p > .05). Using linear regression, Vector data were fit to an SRM equivalent (slope = .99; intercept = -9.87) and TEE produced by this equation was 3.3% (3.0%-3.8%). While the data shows slight heteroscedasticity due to differing strain-gauge placement and resultant torque measurement variance, the Vector appears acceptable for measures of power output across various cycling efforts.
UR - https://hdl.handle.net/1959.7/uws:71608
U2 - 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1191496
DO - 10.1080/1091367X.2016.1191496
M3 - Article
SN - 1091-367X
VL - 20
SP - 167
EP - 172
JO - Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
JF - Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science
IS - 3
ER -