This study analyzes two methods of calculating drag area (CDA) in cycling, Notio and Martin, in indoor and outdoor environments, to determine if CDA 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 CDA using both Notio and Martin methods. We then evaluated the repeatability and reliability of each method in both environments. CDA comparison revealed significant differences between indoor and outdoor environments for Martin (MD = 0.006 m2; SD = 0.009; p < 0.001), but not for Notio (MD = 0.001 m2; SD = 0.005; p = 0.569), with indoor CDA being consistently higher. Standard error of measurement (SEM) was similar across environments: Notio (±0.004 m2 indoor, ± 0.003 m2 outdoor), and Martin (±0.005 m2 indoor, ± 0.006 m2 outdoor). Notably, the 95% confidence interval of the SEM (SEM95), exceeded the CDA changes observed in all settings relative to the baseline, for both methods and in both environments. Although Notio, unlike Martin, calculates CDA consistently regardless environment, neither method demonstrated sufficient sensitivity to detect changes in CDA in either environment, limiting their practical utility for selecting the most aerodynamic equipment.
© Copyright 2025 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. SAGE Publications. All rights reserved.