Purpose: Cyclists need to measure aerodynamic resistance accurately and reliably, as well as economically. Devices such as Notio Aerostick, an equipment device that includes one pitot tube, have appeared for this purpose. The aim of this study is, therefore, to test the reliability and degree of agreement in the evaluation of the CdA (coefficient of aerodynamic drag), assessed by means of the Notio Aerostick compared to the Virtual Elevation (VE) and Martin mathematical models. Method: Seventeen professional cyclists rode in a 250‐metre‐long velodrome covered with a concrete surface with their own time trial bikes. Each cyclist completed three rides of 15 laps at constant speed for the evaluation of the CdA, each of them in a different position [Baseline (B), Change 1 (C1) and Change 2 (C2)]. Results: The differences in CdA between methods were found for Martin in comparison with VE in all positions (p <.001) and with Notio Aerostick in B and C2 (p>. 05). About differences of CdA for each method, considering between position changes, the results were the same for VE and Martin, but different for Notio Aerostick. Conclusions: Findings suggest that, notwithstanding Notio Aerostick is valid if we compare CdA values with respect to VE, since the direction of their between‐positions CdA changes differs, the results of their aerodynamic evaluation could lead us to recommend different final setups. We need studies that evaluate different units of the Notio Aerostick device as well as the reliability and precision of each sensor that includes Notio Aerostick. Highlights: The CdA calculated by the Notio Aerostick and VE, a mathematical model previously validated, can be interchangeable, however the final position recommended by each method may be different, since the changes in the following position are given by the changes of the CdA in the previous position. None of the three methods allowed elite cyclists to measure statistically significant differences between the proposed setups. Although the CdA differences between positions were not significant, they can be decisive in the final result of a time trial competition.

This study analyzes two methods of calculating drag area (C _D A) in cycling, Notio and Martin, in indoor and outdoor environments, to determine if C _D A is consistent regardless of the testing environment. In addition, we assess the practical utility of both methods in both environments for selecting the most aerodynamic equipment. Twelve trained cyclists rode on an indoor cycling track and an outdoor road with four different settings combining different equipment. Each cyclist performed 4 attempts with each setting, completing a total of 32 segments of 1500 m, 16 segments in each environment. We calculated C _D A using both Notio and Martin methods. We then evaluated the repeatability and reliability of each method in both environments. C _D A comparison revealed significant differences between indoor and outdoor environments for Martin (MD = 0.006 m ² ; SD = 0.009; p < 0.001), but not for Notio (MD = 0.001 m ² ; SD = 0.005; p = 0.569), with indoor C _D A being consistently higher. Standard error of measurement (SEM) was similar across environments: Notio (±0.004 m ² indoor, ± 0.003 m ² outdoor), and Martin (±0.005 m ² indoor, ± 0.006 m ² outdoor). Notably, the 95% confidence interval of the SEM (SEM95), exceeded the C _D A changes observed in all settings relative to the baseline, for both methods and in both environments. Although Notio, unlike Martin, calculates C _D A consistently regardless environment, neither method demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to detect changes in C _D A in either environment, limiting their practical utility for selecting the most aerodynamic equipment.

(1) Background: Notio calculates coefficient of drag area (CDA) considering dynamic pressure data calculated by an integrated Pitot-static tube. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of Pitot-static tube calculations through wind speed (WS) data, against a hot-wire anemometer (HWA). (2) A total of 60 recordings were made, lasting 30 seconds each, in a closed-circuit wind tunnel at 4 different WS (≈30 to ≈60km/h), and at five different yaw angles (0º to 20º). (3) Results: Notio showed WS 6.44% higher than HWA. The calibration process recommended by the Notio manufacturer reduced the differences to a non-significant 0.76%. Comparison of the WS of Notio calibrated and HWA only showed significant differences in the WS group of ≈60 km/h. There were no significant differences in the comparison of yaw angles groups. The reliability of Notio was worse than that of the HWA. (4) Conclusions: Notio calibrated at a speed close to its use, allows reliable and accurate calculation of WS over a wide range of yaw angles under controlled wind tunnel conditions without the presence of a cyclist and bike. However, due to the influence of WS on aerodynamic drag, small errors in WS could translate into considerable values of CDA for cycling performance.

Optimizing aerodynamic efficiency is crucial in competitive cycling, where aerodynamic resistance significantly limits performance. Devices like Notio have emerged to calculate the coefficient of drag area (C_DA) considering dynamic pressure data calculated by an integrated Pitot-static tube. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of Pitot-static tube calculations through wind speed (WS) data against a hot-wire anemometer (HWA). Sixty recordings were made, lasting 30 s each, in a closed-circuit wind tunnel at four different WS (≈30 to ≈60 km/h), and at five different yaw angles (0° to 20°). Initially, Notio showed WS 6.44% higher than HWA. The calibration process recommended by the Notio manufacturer reduced the differences to a non-significant 0.76%. Comparison of the WS of Notio calibrated and HWA only showed significant differences in the WS group of ≈60 km/h. There were no significant differences in the comparison of yaw angles groups. The reliability of Notio was worse than that of the HWA. In conclusion, Notio calibrated at a speed close to its use allows for reliable and accurate calculation of WS over a wide range of yaw angles under controlled wind tunnel conditions without the presence of a cyclist and bicycle. However, due to the influence of WS on aerodynamic drag, small errors in WS could translate into considerable values of C_DA for cycling performance.