Background: Maximal force-velocity (F/v) profiles for track cyclists are commonly derived from ergometer sprints using an isovelocity or isoinertial approach. Previously, an attempt was made to derive maximal F/v profiles from a single maximal 65-m sprint on the cycling track. Hypothesising that this approach may not accurately reflect the fatigue-free F/v profile, we propose an alternative procedure and compare it to the previous method. Moreover, we test for the impact of gear ratio on diagnostic results. Methods: Twelve elite track cyclists completed a high-cadence low-resistance pedalling test on a freestanding roller (motoric test) and two series of three maximal 65-m sprints on a cycling track with different gear ratios. F/v profiles were calculated based on the measured crank force and cadence either during the first 6–7 revolutions (≤6 s) on the track (model I) or were derived from the first 3–4 revolutions (≤3 s) on the track combined with 1 or 2 fatigue-free cycles at cadences above 160 rpm from the motoric test (model II). Results: Although both models exhibit high-to-excellent linearity between force and velocity, the extrapolated isometric force was higher (1507.51 ± 257.60 N and 1384.35 ± 276.84 N; p < 0.002; d = 2.555) and the slope steeper (−6.78 ± 1.17 and −5.24 ± 1.11; p < 0.003, d = −2.401) with model I. An ICC of 1.00 indicates excellent model consistency when comparing the F/v profiles (model II) derived from the different geared sprints. Conclusions: Assuring fatigue-free measurements and including high-cadence data points in the calculations provide valid maximal F/v and P/v profiles from a single acceleration-sprint independent of gear ratio.

Sprint races in track cycling are characterised by maximal power requirements and high-power output over 15 to 75 s. As competition rules limit the athlete to a single gear, the choice of gear ratio has considerable impact on performance. Traditionally, a gear favouring short start times and rapid acceleration, i.e., lower transmission ratios, was chosen. In recent years, track cyclists tended to choose higher gear ratios instead. Based on a review of the relevant literature, we aimed to provide an explanation for that increase in the gear ratio chosen and apply this to a 1000 m time trial. Race data with continuous measurements of crank force and velocity of an elite track cyclist were analysed retrospectively regarding the influence of the selected gear on power, cadence and resulting speed. For this purpose, time-dependent maximal force-velocity (F/v) profiles were used to describe changes in performance with increasing fatigue. By applying these profiles to a physical model of track cycling, theoretical power output, cadence and resulting speed were calculated for different scenarios. Based on previous research results, we assume a systematic and predictable decline in optimal cadence with increasing fatigue. The choice of higher gear ratios seems to be explained physiologically by the successive reduction in optimal cadence as fatigue sets in. Our approach indicates that average power output can be significantly increased by selecting a gear ratio that minimises the difference between the realised cadence and the time-dependent dynamic optimum. In view of the additional effects of the gear selection on acceleration and speed, gear selection should optimally meet the various requirements of the respective sprint event.

Background: During maximal cycling sprints, efficiency (η) is determined by the fiber composition of the muscles activated and cadence-dependent power output. To date, due to methodological limitations, it has only been possible to calculate gross efficiency (i.e., the ratio of total mechanical to total metabolic work) in vivo without assessing the impact of cadence and changes during exercise. Eliminating the impact of cadence provides optimal efficiency (η_opt), which can be modeled as a function of time. Here, we explain this concept, demonstrate its calculation, and compare the values obtained to actual data. Furthermore, we hypothesize that the time course of maximal power output (P_max) reflects time-dependent changes in η_opt. Methods: Twelve elite track cyclists performed four maximal sprints (3, 8, 12, 60 s) and a maximal-pedaling test on a cycle ergometer. Crank force and cadence were monitored continuously to determine fatigue-free force-velocity profiles (F/v) and fatigue-induced changes in P_max. Respiratory gases were measured during and for 30 min post-exercise. Prior to and following each sprint, lactate in capillary blood was determined to calculate net blood lactate accumulation (ΔBLC). Lactic and alactic energy production were estimated from ΔBLC and the fast component of excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. Aerobic energy production was determined from oxygen uptake during exercise. Metabolic power (MP) was derived from total metabolic energy (W_TOT). η_opt was calculated as P_max divided by MP. Temporal changes in P_max, W_TOT, and η_opt were analyzed by non-linear regression. Results: All models showed excellent quality (R² > 0.982) and allowed accurate recalculation of time-specific power output and gross efficiency (R² > 0.986). The time-constant for P_max(t) (τ_P) was closely correlated with that of η_opt (τ_η; r = 0.998, p < 0.001). Estimating efficiency using τ_P for τ_η led to a 0.88 ± 0.35% error. Conclusions: Although efficiency depends on pedal force and cadence, the latter influence can be eliminated by η_opt(t) using a mono-exponential equation whose time constant can be estimated from P_max(t).