Reference values and improvement of aerodynamic drag in professional cyclists
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to measure the aerodynamic drag in professional cyclists, to obtain aerodynamic drag reference values in static and effort positions, to improve the cyclists' aerodynamic drag by modifying their position and cycle equipment, and to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of these modifications. The study was performed in a wind tunnel with five professional cyclists. Four positions were assessed with a time-trial bike and one position with a standard racing bike. In all positions, aerodynamic drag and kinematic variables were recorded. The drag area for the time-trial bike was 31% higher in the effort than static position, and lower than for the standard racing bike. Changes in the cyclists' position decreased the aerodynamic drag by 14%. The aero-helmet was not favourable for all cyclists. The reliability of aerodynamic drag measures in the wind tunnel was high (r > 0.96, coefficient of variation < 2%). In conclusion, we measured and improved the aerodynamic drag in professional cyclists. Our results were better than those of other researchers who did not assess aerodynamic drag during effort at race pace and who employed different wheels. The efficiency of the aero-helmet, and the validity, reliability, and sensitivity of the wind tunnel and aerodynamic field testing were addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it