The Effects of Rear-Wheel Camber on Maximal Effort Mobility Performance in Wheelchair Athletes

Abstract

This study examined the effect of rear-wheel camber on maximal effort wheelchair mobility performance. 14 highly trained wheelchair court sport athletes performed a battery of field tests in 4 standardised camber settings (15°, 18°, 20°, 24°) with performance analysed using a velocometer. 20 m sprint times reduced in 18° (5.89±0.47 s, P=0.011) and 20° camber (5.93±0.47 s, P=0.030) compared with 24° (6.05±0.45 s). Large effect sizes revealed that 18° camber enabled greater acceleration over the first 2 (r=0.53, 95% CI=0.004 to 0.239) and 3 (r=0.59, 95% CI=0.017 to 0.170) pushes compared with 24°. Linear mobility times significantly improved (P≤0.05) in 15° (16.08±0.84 s), 18° (16.06±0.97 s) and 20° (16.22±0.84 s) camber compared with 24° (16.62±1.10 s). Although no statistically significant main effect of camber was revealed, large effect sizes (r=0.72, 95% CI=0.066 to 0.250) demonstrated that 18° camber reduced times taken to perform the manoeuvrability drill compared with 15°. It was concluded that 18° camber was the best performing setting investigated given its superior performance for both linear and non-linear aspects of mobility, whereas 24° camber impaired linear performance. This was likely to be due to the greater drag forces experienced. Subsequently, athletes would be recommended to avoid 24° camber and young or inexperienced athletes in particular may benefit from selecting 18° as a starting point due to its favourable performance for all aspects of mobility performance in the current study.

Key words

wheelchair configuration - sports performance - wheelchair propulsion - field tests

• References

• 1 Ardigo LP, Goosey-Tolfrey VL, Minetti AE. Biomechanics and energetics of basketball wheelchairs evolution. Int J Sports Med 2005; 26: 388-396
• 2 Buckley SM, Bhambhani YN. The effects of wheelchair camber on physiological and perceptual responses in younger and older men. Adapt Phys Activ Q 1998; 15: 15-24
• 3 Brasile FM, Hedrick BN. The relationship of skills of elite wheelchair basketball competitors to the international functional classification system. Ther Rec J 1996; 30: 137-148
• 4 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112: 155-159
• 5 Cooper RA. Wheelchair Selection and Configuration. New York: Demos Medical Publishing; 1998
• 6 Faupin A, Campillo P, Weissland T, Micallef JP. The effect of the wheel camber of a wheelchair on the linear speed and on the speed of turning of the basketball player. Cinesiologie 2002; 201: 4-6
• 7 Faupin A, Campillo P, Weissland T, Gorce P, Thevenon A. The effects of rear wheel camber on the mechanical parameters during the wheelchair sprinting of handibasketball athletes. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004; 41: 421-428
• 8 Frank TG, Abel EW. Drag forces in wheelchairs. In: van der Woude LHV, Meijs PJM, van der Grinten BA, de Boer YA. (eds.) Ergonomics of Manual Wheelchair Propulsion: State of the Art. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1993: 255-267
• 9 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Update – Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 819-821
• 10 Hopkins WG, Hawley JA, Burke LM. Design and analysis of research on sport performance enhancement. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 472-485
• 11 Higgs C. An analysis of racing wheelchairs used at the 1980 Olympic games for the disabled. Res Q Exerc Sport 1983; 54: 229-233
• 12 LaMere TJ, Labanowich S. The history of sports wheelchairs – part I: The development of the basketball wheelchair. Sports ‘n Spokes 1984; 9: 10-11
• 13 Linden AL, Holland GJ, Loy SF, Vincent WJ. A physiological comparison of forward vs reverse wheelchair ergometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: 1265-1268
• 14 Mason BS, van der Woude LHV, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. The influence of glove type on mobility performance for wheelchair rugby players. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88: 559-570
• 15 Mason BS, Porcellato L, van der Woude LHV, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. A qualitative examination of wheelchair configuration for optimal mobility performance in wheelchair sports: a pilot study. J Rehabil Med 2010; 42: 141-149
• 16 Mason BS, van der Woude LHV, de Groot S, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. The effects of camber on the ergonomics of propulsion in wheelchair athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2011; 43: 319-326
• 17 Moss AD, Fowler NE, Tolfrey VL. A telemetry-based velocometer to measure wheelchair velocity. J Biomech 36: 253-257
• 18 Perdios A, Sawatzky BJ, Sheel AW. Effects of camber on wheeling efficiency in the experienced and inexperienced wheelchair user. J Rehabil Res Dev 2007; 44: 459-466
• 19 Sarro KJ, Misuta MS, Burkett B, Malone LA, Barros RML. Tracking of wheelchair rugby players in the 2008 Demolition Derby final. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 193-200
• 20 Speed HD, Andersen MB. What exercise and sport scientists don’t understand. J Sci Med Sport 2000; 3: 84-92
• 21 Salvi FJ, Hoffman MD, Sabharwal S, Clifford PS. Physiologic comparison of forward and reverse wheelchair propulsion. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 79: 36-40
• 22 Trudel G, Kirby RL, Bell AC. Mechanical effects of rear wheel camber on wheelchairs. Assist Technol 1995; 7: 79-86
• 23 Trudel G, Kirby RL, Ackroyd-Stolarz SA, Kirkland S. Effects of rear-wheel camber on wheelchair stability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78: 78-81
• 24 van der Woude LHV, Veeger HEJ, Dallmeijer AJ, Janssen TW, Rozendaal LA. Biomechanics and physiology in active manual wheelchair propulsion. Med Eng Phys 2001; 23: 713-733
• 25 Vanlandewijck Y, Theisen D, Daly D. Wheelchair propulsion biomechanics: implications for wheelchair sports. Sports Med 2001; 31: 339-367
• 26 Veeger D, van der Woude LHV, Rozendal RH. The effect of rear wheel camber in manual wheelchair propulsion. J Rehabil Res Dev 1989; 26: 37-46
• 27 Yilla AB. Anatomy of the sports wheelchair. Athlet Ther Today 2004; 9: 33-35