Impact of pilot and stoker torso angles in tandem para-cycling aerodynamics

Aerodynamics; Computational fluid dynamics; Para-cycling; Tandem; Torso angle; Drag; Stokers; Wind tunnels; Aerodynamic interactions; Key elements; Power out put; Reduced scale; Wind tunnel experiment

Abstract :

[en] The torso angle of a cyclist is a key element to consider when attaining aerodynamic postures. For athletes competing in the tandem para-cycling category as the pilot or stoker, the torso angles are similar to those adopted by able-bodied athletes. However, their aerodynamic interaction is not yet fully understood. To date, there has been no study to identify aerodynamically advantageous torso angles for tandem athletes. In this study, numerical simulations with computational fluid dynamics and reduced-scale wind tunnel experiments were used to study the aerodynamics of tandem cyclists considering 23 different torso angle combinations. The sagittal torso angle combination of the pilot and stoker that yielded the lowest overall drag area of 0.308 m2 (combined pilot, stoker and bicycle) was 25° for the pilot coupled with 20° for the stoker. The results suggest that higher torso angles for the pilot have a lower impact on the overall drag area than equivalent torso angles for the stoker. This study suggests that a slight relaxation of pilot torso angle (which may help increase power output) may not penalise aerodynamics, in low (< 25°) sagittal torso angle ranges. © 2019, The Author(s).

Disciplines :

Aerospace & aeronautics engineering

Author, co-author :

Mannion, P.; Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, Eindhoven, 5600 MB, Netherlands, Informatics Research Unit for Sustainable Engineering (IRUSE), Galway, Ireland

Toparlar, Y.; Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, Eindhoven, 5600 MB, Netherlands

Blocken, B.; Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, Eindhoven, 5600 MB, Netherlands, Department of Civil Engineering, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40-Bus 2447, Leuven, 3001, Belgium

Hajdukiewicz, M.; Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland, Informatics Research Unit for Sustainable Engineering (IRUSE), Galway, Ireland

Andrianne, Thomas ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département d'aérospatiale et mécanique > Interactions Fluide-Structure - Aérodynamique expérimentale

Clifford, E.; Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland, Informatics Research Unit for Sustainable Engineering (IRUSE), Galway, Ireland

Language :

English

Title :

Impact of pilot and stoker torso angles in tandem para-cycling aerodynamics

Publication date :

2019

Journal title :

Sports Engineering

ISSN :

1369-7072

eISSN :

1460-2687

Publisher :

Springer London

Volume :

Issue :

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 20 April 2021

Statistics

Number of views

37 (2 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

1 (1 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Haake SJ (2009) The impact of technology on sporting performance in Olympic sports. J Sports Sci 27:1421–1431. 10.1080/02640410903062019
Blocken B, Toparlar Y, Andrianne T (2016) Aerodynamic benefit for a cyclist by a following motorcycle. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 155:1–10. 10.1016/j.jweia.2016.04.008
Blocken B, van Druenen T, Toparlar Y, Malizia F, Mannion P, Andrianne T, Marchal T, Maas G-J, Diepens J (2018) Aerodynamic drag in cycling pelotons: new insights by CFD simulation and wind tunnel testing. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 179:319–337. 10.1016/J.JWEIA.2018.06.011
Lukes RA, Chin SB, Haake SJ (2005) The understanding and development of cycling aerodynamics. Sports Eng 8:59–74. 10.1007/BF02844004
Fintelman DM, Hemida H, Sterling M, Li F-X (2015) CFD simulations of the flow around a cyclist subjected to crosswinds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 144:31–41. 10.1016/j.jweia.2015.05.009
Barry N, Burton D, Sheridan J, Thompson M, Brown NAT (2016) Flow field interactions between two tandem cyclists. Exp Fluids 57:1–14. 10.1007/s00348-016-2273-y
Blocken B, Toparlar Y (2015) A following car influences cyclist drag: CFD simulations and wind tunnel measurements. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 145:178–186. 10.1016/j.jweia.2015.06.015
Crouch TN, Burton D, LaBry ZA, Blair KB (2017) Riding against the wind: a review of competition cycling aerodynamics. Sports Eng 20:81–110. 10.1007/s12283-017-0234-1
Crouch TN, Burton D, Brown NaT, Thompson MC, Sheridan J (2014) Flow topology in the wake of a cyclist and its effect on aerodynamic drag. J Fluid Mech 748:5–35. 10.1017/jfm.2013.678
Griffith MD, Crouch T, Thompson MC, Burton D, Sheridan J (2014) Computational fluid dynamics study of the effect of leg position on cyclist aerodynamic drag. Am Soc Mech Eng J Fluids Eng 136:101105. 10.1115/1.4027428
Defraeye T, Blocken B, Koninckx E, Hespel P, Carmeliet J (2010) Computational fluid dynamics analysis of cyclist aerodynamics: performance of different turbulence-modelling and boundary-layer modelling approaches. J Biomech 43:2281–2287. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.04.038
Oggiano L, Leirdal S, Sætran L, Ettema G (2008) Aerodynamic optimization and energy saving of cycling postures for international elite level cyclists. Eng Sport 7:597–604. 10.1007/978-2-287-09411-8_70
García-López J, Rodríguez-Marroyo JA, Juneau C-E, Peleteiro J, Martínez AC, Villa JG (2008) Reference values and improvement of aerodynamic drag in professional cyclists. J Sports Sci 26:277–286. 10.1080/02640410701501697
UCI (2017) Cycling regulations, part 16 para-cycling, version on 01/02/2017. http://www.uci.ch/mm/Document/News/Rulesandregulation/16/26/73/16-PAR-20170201-E_English.PDF
Fintelman DM, Sterling M, Hemida H, Li F-X (2015) The effect of time trial cycling position on physiological and aerodynamic variables. J Sports Sci 0414:1–8. 10.1080/02640414.2015.1009936
Fintelman DM, Sterling M, Hemida H, Li FX (2016) Effect of different aerodynamic time trial cycling positions on muscle activation and crank torque. Scand J Med Sci Sport 26:528–534. 10.1111/sms.12479
Grappe F, Candau R, Belli A, Rouillon JD (1997) Aerodynamic drag in field cycling with special reference to the Obree’s position. Ergonomics 40:1299–1311. 10.1080/001401397187388
Heil DP, Derrick TR, Whittlesey S (1997) The relationship between preferred and optimal positioning during subsmaximal cycle ergometry. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 75:160–165. 10.1007/s004210050141
Underwood L, Jermy M (2013) Optimal handlebar position for track cyclists. Sports Eng 16:81–90. 10.1007/s12283-013-0111-5
Mannion P, Toparlar Y, Blocken B, Hajdukiewicz M, Andrianne T, Clifford E (2018) Improving CFD prediction of drag on paralympic tandem athletes: Influence of grid resolution and turbulence model. Sports Eng 21:123–135. 10.1007/s12283-017-0258-6
Mannion P, Toparlar Y, Blocken B, Clifford E, Andrianne T, Hajdukiewicz M (2018) Aerodynamic drag in competitive tandem para-cycling: road race versus time-trial positions. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 179:92–101. 10.1016/j.jweia.2018.05.011
Underwood L, Schumacher J, Burette-Pommay J, Jermy M (2011) Aerodynamic drag and biomechanical power of a track cyclist as a function of shoulder and torso angles. Sports Eng 14:147–154. 10.1007/s12283-011-0078-z
Barry N, Burton D, Sheridan J, Thompson M, Brown NAT (2015) Aerodynamic performance and riding posture in road cycling and triathlon. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part P J Sports Eng Technol 229:28–38. 10.1177/1754337114549876
Defraeye T, Blocken B, Koninckx E, Hespel P, Carmeliet J (2010) Aerodynamic study of different cyclist positions: CFD analysis and full-scale wind-tunnel tests. J Biomech 43:1262–1268. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.01.025
Blocken B, Defraeye T, Koninckx E, Carmeliet J, Hespel P (2013) CFD simulations of the aerodynamic drag of two drafting cyclists. Comput Fluids 71:435–445. 10.1016/j.compfluid.2012.11.012
Franke J, Hellsten A, Schlünzen H, Carissimo B (2007) Best practice guideline for the CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment. COST Action 732. In: Qual. Assur. Improv. Microscale Meteorol. Model, pp 1–52
Tominaga Y, Mochida A, Yoshie R, Kataoka H, Nozu T, Yoshikawa M, Shirasawa T (2008) AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 96:1749–1761. 10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.058
Blocken B (2015) Computational fluid dynamics for urban physics: importance, scales, possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and reliable simulations. Build Environ 91:219–245. 10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.02.015
ANSYS Fluent (2017) ANSYS fluent theory guide, release 18.2 documentation. ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg, PA
Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32:1598–1605. 10.2514/3.12149
Fintelman DM, Sterling M, Hemida H, Li F-X (2014) Optimal cycling time trial position models: Aerodynamics versus power output and metabolic energy. J Biomech 47:1894–1898. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.02.029
Mannion P, Toparlar Y, Clifford E, Hajdukiewicz M, Blocken B (2019) On the effects of crosswinds in tandem aerodynamics: an experimental and computational study. Eur J Mech B Fluids 74:68–80. 10.1016/j.euromechflu.2018.11.001