Sports Engineering report FINAL.pdf

871a15ec9075d15744f7db9e26b80fec?s=47 skiadopoulos
August 23, 2012

Sports Engineering report FINAL.pdf

Un informe titulado "Ingeniería Deportiva: ¿Una ventaja injusta" ha sido publicado recientemente por la Institución de Ingenieros Mecánicos (IMechE).

871a15ec9075d15744f7db9e26b80fec?s=128

skiadopoulos

August 23, 2012
Tweet

Transcript

  1. 2.

    This report examines the influence and use of engineering in

    sport, focusing on those featuring in the Olympic Games. It investigates the UK’s role as a world- leading sports engineering research centre and looks at the future technologies which are set to revolutionise sport. This report has been produced in the context of the Institution’s strategic themes of Education, Energy, Environment, Transport and Manufacturing and its vision of ‘Improving the world through engineering’. Published July 2012. Design: teamkaroshi.com From delivering medal wins to shaping the sports kit we buy on the high street, the engineer’s influence is widespread and profound.
  2. 3.

    03 Executive Summary 14 Unfair Advantage? 06 ENGINEERED in Britain

    10 Sports Engineering – A History 21 Technology in Action 26 references contents
  3. 4.

    02 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? Technology is as much

    a part of an athlete’s armoury as nutrition, training and coaching.
  4. 5.

    03 www.imeche.org/manufacturing In October 1996 the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI),

    cycling’s governing body, had had enough. Over the past decade and a half technologically advanced ‘superbikes’ had come to dominate their sport. Advances made in the aerospace and defence industries were filtering into the sport at a rapid pace, from futuristic carbon fibre wheels at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics to Chris Boardman’s ultra-aerodynamic, Lotus-engineered superbike at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. For the UCI, this ‘drift in technical incompliance’, as Technical Adviser Jean Wauthier labelled it[1], came to a head at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. The velodrome was filled with carbon fibre-monocoque superbikes worth tens of thousands of pounds, their riders contorted into a ‘superman’ position to minimise drag. The UCI’s response was the Lugano Charter, an extraordinary document that aimed to reassert the primacy of tradition over technology. The Charter said that the line had been crossed “beyond which technology takes hold of the system and seeks to impose its own logic”. The bicycle was “distancing itself from a reality which can be grasped and understood”[2]. The next four years saw the clock turned back. Many of the technological advances of the past 20 years were banned. The landmark one-hour cycling record could be officially attempted only on bicycles using the same technology as Eddy Merckx’s record-breaker from 1972. The Lugano Charter represents one of the more extreme attempts by traditionalists to stem the tide of technology entering sport. Yet engineering has gone hand in hand with sporting success since the ancient Greeks first turned a lump of stone into a smooth, aerodynamic discus. Technology is as much a part of an athlete’s armoury as nutrition, training and coaching. The sports industry is becoming ever more adept at adapting and exploiting leading-edge technologies from industry to create faster, lighter and more efficient equipment. Precision analysis tools are allowing coaches to fine-tune athletes’ performance better than ever before. This means that in the 2012 Olympic Games technology usually associated with Formula One will be making cyclists faster, composite materials will help pole-vaulters leap higher and 3D mapping will make swimmers’ suits more hydrodynamic. The UK is at the forefront of this technological revolution. World-class sports engineering research is pouring out of British universities, such as Sheffield Hallam, Loughborough and Southampton, while our high-tech manufacturers are turning these ideas into medal-winning equipment. The International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA) – the world’s leading sports engineering industry body – was founded and has its base in Sheffield[3]. The speed of technological progress means that we are heading towards a crossroads. For decades sports regulators have co-opted new technologies into sport without taking away from the dedication and effort of the individual athlete or the spirit of the sport. This delicate task will be made all the more difficult as sports technology becomes ever more powerful. The legal wrangling over Oscar Pistorius’ move from the Paralympics to the Olympics is a sign of things to come. Modern sports engineering can be split into two distinct categories – embedded and enabling technology. Embedded technology covers the behind-the-scenes systems that allow coaches and training programmes to analyse movement and fine-tune performance. Enabling technology covers the equipment that athletes use to compete. Executive Summary Engineering & Sport
  5. 6.

    04 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? In a 2009 paper,

    Professor Steve Haake, one of the world’s leading sports engineers based at the Centre for Sports Engineering Research (CSER) at Sheffield Hallam University, asked the question, “Is there evidence from the performance of athletes in the modern Olympic Games that technology does actually improve performance and what is the magnitude of the technological effect on sport?”[4] Professor Haake’s analysis found the following improvements in overall performance: • 100m sprint: 24% improvement over 108 years • Pole vault: 86% improvement over 94 years • Javelin: 95% improvement over 76 years • 1hr cycling record: 221% improvement over 111 years Haake then measured the effect technology had on these improvements and found a large discrepancy between each sport. While just 4% of the 24% improvement in the 100m sprint could be attributed to changes in equipment (improved clothing design), technological developments in the pole vault and javelin affected the index by about 30%. Cycling has seen the most impressive technological contribution. Haake calculated that 100% of the 221% improvement in the one hour cycling record could be attributed to developments in bicycle aerodynamics. The introduction of new, more advanced equipment can also have effects that manufacturers may not have expected. The introduction of the fibreglass pole to the pole vault revolutionised the sport, not because it enabled longer poles, but because the new, more flexible pole enabled athletes to change their technique – they rotated upside down and went feet first over the bar[5]. After George Davies became the first to break the world record with a fibreglass pole in 1961 the world record was broken 19 times in a single decade, rising from 4.80 metres with the old metal pole to 5.49 metres with the new fibreglass alternative.[6] According to Dr David James – a world-leading specialist in ethical sports engineering at Sheffield Hallam’s CSER – although sports engineering’s influence on performance varies by discipline, it is a significant contributing factor in a general trend of improving athletic performance, and its impact can be transformative. From delivering medal wins to shaping the sports kit we buy on the high street, the engineer’s influence is widespread and profound.[7] In recent years technological improvements in sport have accelerated in number and impact. Over the coming decades the speed of change is likely to multiply further as sports engineers exploit developments in new fields such as nanotechnology, additive manufacturing (known as ‘3D printing’) and biomedical engineering. Biomedical engineering poses serious challenges for those regulating Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) in sport. This relatively young field has already caused sporting controversy with the case of Oscar Pistorius, the South African Paralympian who applied to compete in the 2008 Olympics. His successful application caused some to claim that Pistorius’ Flex-Foot Cheetah leg prostheses gave him an advantage over able-bodied athletes – claims that were swiftly rejected by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF). While current biomedical devices are focused on restoring function, rapid development in this field means we are only years away from devices and prosthetics that can give athletes a competitive advantage over those who do not use them. Sports engineers are undoubtedly pro-technology in sport, but they are also passionate about sport – they do not want to see a technology intervention that undermines the value system of a sport, diminishes the sporting challenge and hinders the growth of the sport. While regulators in some sporting disciplines are well prepared for technological change, employing horizon- scanning engineers to ensure they are not taken by surprise, others can find themselves easily caught out. In 2008 the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), approved Speedo’s LZR Racer swimsuit for the Beijing Olympic Games. After 94% of medals were won by swimmers using the suit, with 15 long-course world records broken, FINA was forced to reverse the decision amid accusations of ‘technological doping’. Engineers need to be embedded in the regulatory process to help predict the consequences of the introduction of a new technology into a sport. They need to be able to defend the use of new technologies in sport, to argue their case based on robust evidence, and to horizon-scan for new emerging technologies that may benefit performance without harming the spirit of the sport. Does engineering determine who wins? The future of sports engineering • Sports Engineering: The research, design and development of sports equipment, aids and measurement systems. • Sports Science: The analysis of the athlete in terms of motion, physiology, biomechanics and psychology.[4]
  6. 7.

    05 www.imeche.org/manufacturing Engineering has been used throughout history to develop

    and modernise almost every sport, bringing benefits that many sportsmen and women might take for granted. Yet the rapid advance of technology means that engineers also have a valuable role to play in ensuring that these advances do not lead to accusations that ‘technology doping’ is threatening the spirit or challenge of any individual sport. The UK now boasts a vibrant, world-leading sports engineering industry, creating technological advances which are feeding through into commercial and public health applications. This position as a global sports research hub is partly due to strong investment from organisations such as UK Sport as well as wider industry, which must be vigorously protected. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers therefore recommends that: • Engineers are embedded in each individual sport’s regulatory process. Here, they can horizon-scan, looking for new technological developments that can enhance the sport and also help predict the consequences of a technological intervention. These engineers will advise on the use or misuse of a technology based on robust evidence. • Organisations such as UK Sport, as well as government and industry, continue to invest in sports engineering research after the London 2012 Olympics to maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading sports engineering research hub. • Sporting regulators, as well as governments, start preparing policies and positions now to prepare for the advance of Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) in sports. The UK’s engineering prowess was one of the key catalysts of the revolution that turned sport into a global phenomenon in the late 19th Century. New manufacturing techniques developed during the Industrial Revolution delivered bouncing rubber balls, cheaper standardised sporting equipment and even the lawnmower, which could maintain playing fields on which to use them. More importantly, the social and cultural changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution gave workers more leisure time to spend playing with the new equipment. Today the UK remains at the forefront of technological progress in sport. British universities work with global sports brands including Adidas, Prince, Nike and Speedo on advanced research programmes. For the 2012 Olympics, UK Sport’s Innovation Programme is enlisting British engineering firms to help UK athletes deliver medal-winning performances. As part of this programme P2i is helping Olympic sailors repel water using nanotechnology, McLaren is enabling coaches to track wheelchair basketball players using radio signals and BAE Systems is timing cyclists to within a millionth of a second using laser technology originally developed for the battlefield. Sports engineering research is beginning to foster real economic benefits, as university departments become business units. Three spin-out companies from Loughborough’s Sports Technology Institute have generated a cumulated turnover in excess of £1.5 million.[8] Looking towards the future, a £0.9 million government investment in additive manufacturing techniques specifically for use in sport will help entrepreneurial sports engineers to develop, manufacture and market their own products. The demand for personalised kit, using technology such as additive layer manufacturing, is set to rise dramatically in the coming decade, making this a targeted investment that is likely to bring substantial returns to the UK. British sports engineers are also realising the potential for their innovations to help solve some of the challenging health and well-being issues of developed economies. Technology developed by sports engineers is inspiring young children to get active, reducing falls amongst the elderly and helping in the rehabilitation of accident patients. recommendations engineered in britain
  7. 8.

    06 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? UK Sport is the

    organisation that nurtures performance sport in the UK, investing about £100 million a year in over 1,200 of the country’s best athletes[11]. Established in 1997, the organisation’s core funding comes from the National Lottery and the UK government. Its ‘No Compromise’ strategy sees investment directly targeted at those likely to deliver medal- winning performances at the Olympic Games. UK Sport is often credited as a driving force in Team GB’s vastly improved performance over the past 15 years, in which time Great Britain rose from 36th in the medal table at the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games to 4th at Beijing in 2008. Research and innovation (R&I) is one of the key support services offered to athletes. £7.5 million of National Lottery and government funding has been invested in UK Sport’s R&I programme during the London cycle (2009–2013), and an additional £15 million has been secured in match funding or value-in-kind. Working with over 100 companies and 25 academic groups to develop cutting-edge competition and training technologies in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games, UK Sport has invested in 140 projects covering 25 Olympic and Paralympic sports with an impact on 95% of potential medallists. One of the programme’s key challenges is the exponential growth in the level of research data. Although a relatively young academic discipline, there has been a huge increase in the amount of published sports science and engineering research over the past ten years. One of UK Sport’s key roles is to help manage and filter information through a network of experts, to ensure athletes get the right evidence and guidance to exploit this information to improve performance. In the late 18th Century, the UK became the first industrial and manufacturing power. The cultural, social and technological changes of the Industrial Revolution throughout the next century shaped many of the sports we play today. In the 1840s, Thomas Hancock in the UK and Charles Goodyear in the USA independently patented the vulcanisation of rubber. Goodyear then won a Council Medal at the Great Exhibition of 1851 for his innovations in rubber technology[9] and William Gilbert, a Rugby School bootmaker, won medals for his new rugby balls[10]. Rubber cores rapidly replaced animal bladders in the design of balls, while new manufacturing techniques meant that balls could be made relatively uniformly and cheaply. The earlier invention of the lawnmower gave the new bouncing rubber balls an ideal flat, uniform surface, and by the late 19th Century football and rugby pitches, cricket ovals and lawn tennis courts could be found in almost every town in Britain. With this explosion in the popularity of sports came tournaments, governing bodies and, most importantly, standard rules that were quickly exported across the world. ENGiNeered in Britain The role of British engineering in sports history Elite Support for Elite Sport P2i: Nano-coating technology P2i is a world leader in liquid repellent nano- coating technology headquartered in Abingdon, Oxfordshire. The company was established in 2004 to commercialise liquid-repellent treatments developed by the UK’s Ministry of Defence. The nano-coating dramatically reduces the surface energy of a product, so that when liquids come into contact with it, they form beads and simply run-off. By repelling the uptake of liquids, the nano- coating will ensure that sporting equipment accessories – in particular mountain bike equipment and sailing harnesses that will be used in the London 2012 Olympics – don’t gain any extra weight during the competitions, remaining lightweight and dry.
  8. 9.

    07 www.imeche.org/manufacturing Value-in-kind commercial partnerships have secured resources from some

    of the world’s leading engineering firms. For example, UK Sport has a five-year partnership with BAE Systems to deliver expertise to a range of sports in structural and mechanical engineering, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, mathematical modelling and simulation, and materials science. In addition, UK Sport’s R&I team has a number of non-commercial partnerships with companies such as Frazer-Nash Consultancy and McLaren Applied Technologies to assist in the development of world-class sporting equipment. Other notable engineering-led partners include: epm:technology group; Sports Technology Institute, Loughborough University; Centre for Sports Engineering Research, Sheffield Hallam University; TotalSim and the Performance Sports Engineering Laboratory, University of Southampton. McLaren Applied Technologies: Indoor Tracking The accurate electronic tracking of athletes’ movements is now an essential part of performance analysis and is used in many sports to fine-tune training regimes. Currently, however, most tracking systems use GPS so will not work indoors. McLaren Applied Technologies has therefore developed a system that uses radio signals to track movement, generating real-time data that can be fed back to coaches. Originally developed for Formula One, McLaren has been piloting this technology at Loughborough’s Peter Harrison Centre for Disability Sport. One important use is for wheelchair basketball users, for whom the system creates a ‘snail trail’ showing how fast they are going, when they are resting and rapid changes in acceleration. This enables coaches to tailor training programmes more closely to the demands of the event and analyse if the improvement needs to be made in the training of the athlete or the development of the chair. BAE Systems: UK Sport Technology Partnership BAE Systems has a five year partnership with UK Sport, launched in January 2008, to provide expertise in structural and mechanical engineering, aerodynamics, hydrodynamics, mathematical modelling and simulation and materials science to some of Britain’s elite athletes. For example, BAE Systems installed a sophisticated performance monitoring system at the Manchester Velodrome. The laser- timing technology, derived from a battlefield identification system, represents an entirely new approach to monitoring performance in cycling, improving on previous break-beam systems which are unable to differentiate between individual athletes. Up to 30 cyclists can now train simultaneously with the new system which uses a laser to read a personalised code from a retro reflective tag attached to each bicycle. Installed at multiple points around the track, the system gives individual recordings for each cyclist with millisecond accuracy.
  9. 10.

    08 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? While consumer spending on

    sports equipment, clothing and footwear has increased in recent years[12], major sports brands tend not to manufacture in their country of origin. The high costs of marketing and retailing in a highly competitive market has seen manufacturers ship production abroad to take advantage of lower labour costs, and British brands have not been immune to this pressure. The UK’s core strength remains in innovation, in sports engineering as elsewhere. Collaborative research projects remain the bedrock of sports engineering research and evidence has shown that projects initiated by a company have greater success levels. Funded by the UK Government in 1999, the SET Network programme provided financial assistance to promote collaborative R&D with UK sports engineering researchers; 42 companies were involved and the project established 57 collaborative R&D projects. 40% of the companies used the projects to develop new products, 39% delivered new intellectual property and only 21% were considered unsuccessful. There was a 90% success rate for projects initiated by the company that were relevant to its core business[13]. Elite to high street A multi-disciplinary team of researchers at Loughborough University, working at the cutting edge of sports technology, additive manufacturing, industrial design and ergonomics, is breaking new ground to develop high-performance sports footwear optimised for the individual athlete. The technologies being developed will contribute to the UK’s medal-winning prospects in the London 2012 Olympics, with a long-term goal to bring these customised sports shoes to the high street. The project team are also working closely with New Balance and UK Sport, which have invested £1 million in the project, to develop next-generation sprint spikes using pioneering additive manufacturing technologies. Inspired Bicycles After graduating with a degree in Sports Technology from Loughborough University in 2004, Dave Cleaver went on to identify a gap in the market and launch his own venture – Inspired Bicycles. Dave has developed a new generation of bicycles for the niche extreme sport of trials biking, an offshoot of mountain biking that involves stunts and jumps over obstacles, as well as bicycles for street mountain biking, where riders pit their skills against urban steps, ramps and walls. Innovative marketing campaigns, including the most-watched YouTube sports video of all time, featuring Trials Biker Danny MacAskill, have helped boost demand for Inspired Bicycles. THE UK sports engineering industry
  10. 11.

    09 www.imeche.org/manufacturing UK sports engineers are realising the potential for

    their innovations to help solve some of the most important health and well-being issues facing developed economies. Technology originally developed for sport is being used to inspire children to get active in order to prevent obesity, reduce falls amongst the elderly and help in the rehabilitation of accident victims. Sport is also an excellent medium to attract the attention of young people to science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is working with Portia Ltd, an EU-funded NGO, on Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) for Sport, a programme of one-day events aimed at 13/14 year old pupils prior to their selection of subjects to be taken at GCSE. The aim of SET for Sport is to raise awareness and excite young people about the role of engineering, its impact on individuals, society and environment, and to highlight the range of educational and career pathways that the study of STEM subjects can open up for young people. Smart Floor Field Lab Originally developed to track the biomechanics of gymnasts in training, the Smart Floor is an interactive floor connected to a large visual display. Engineers at Sheffield Hallam University are now using the technology to help improve mobility, fitness and learning among schoolchildren. Movement sensors track the user’s motion, which then interacts with several ‘game’ options – Dynamic Balance, Smart Dance and Pong. Added Value
  11. 12.

    1896 The fi rst modern Olympic Games take place in

    Athens, Greece 1916 1/100 of a second mechanical stopwatch. TAG Heuer develops the Mikrograph and Microsplit (can measure two events simultaneously) and becomes the offi cial stopwatch supplier to the 1920, 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games wwI 1900 1910 1920 1930 1890 1898 Coburn Haskell revolutionises golf by inventing the rubber golf ball using a solid rubber core wrapped in rubber thread 1901 Frank Bryan, a London manufacturer, creates the rubber-faced table tennis bat. Players can now spin the ball easily and at pace, turning table tennis from a minor pastime into a genuine athletic sport 1933 Tullio Campagnolo creates the derailleur bicycle gear. Before this invention, cyclists wanting to change gears would have to stop and remove the back wheel 10 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? This timeline shows the dynamic relationship between engineering and sport. Since 1896 and the staging of the first modern Olympic Games, engineers have sought to improve almost every facet of the sporting experience, from the materials used to the surfaces sprinters run on. Sports engineering – A History
  12. 13.

    1936 Jesse Owens uses spiked running shoes, custom-built by Adi

    Dassler (who would later found Adidas), to win four gold medals at the Berlin Olympics, which is also the fi rst to be televised live 1962 John Uelses uses a new fi breglass pole to break the symbolic 16-foot barrier in the pole vault. The world record would be broken nine times in the next two years with the new pole 19 Dunl aeros 200G fi bre) woul win W wwII 1940 1950 1960 1970 19 1942 Ray Greene builds the fi rst composite sailing boat, using fi breglass and polyester resin to produce a daysailer 1936 Fibreglass invented by the Owens-Illinois Glass Co Polyester resin patented by DuPont 1948 The fi rst International Wheelchair Games take place alongside the London Olympic Games, with 16 British ex-servicemen competing in wheelchair archery at Stoke Mandeville Hospital 1958 Carbon fi bre is invented in a Union Carbide laboratory. Carbon fi bres are soon embedded in plastics to create lightweight and strong composite materials, which fi nd their way into sport 1960 The fi rst offi cial Paralympic Games take place in Rome, attracting 400 athletes from 23 countries 1967 OMEGA introduces electronic ‘touch pads’ placed at each end of the pool for timekeeping at swimming events 1968 The Mexico City Olympics are the fi rst to use an all-weather ‘Tartan’ running track, made of polyurethane, for athletics events 1972 At the Munich Olympic Games, 21 of the 22 swimming world records broken are by swimmers wearing Speedo’s new nylon/ elastane swimwear – still the most popular commercial swimwear material today 1 P b p in ro so in www.imeche.org/transport
  13. 14.

    12 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? 980 lop use research

    from their space wing to develop the Max G, one of the fi rst ‘graphite’ (carbon- ) tennis rackets. John McEnroe ld use a custom-built version to Wimbledon three years later 1992 Chris Boardman wins gold and breaks the men’s individual pursuit world record at the Barcelona Olympic Games with an ultra-lightweight full carbon-fi bre ‘superbike’ designed by Lotus 2008 94% of swimming gold medals won at the Beijing Olympics are won by swimmers using Speedo’s LZR Racer 100% polyurethane swimsuit. After polyurethane suits are used to break 29 world records at the following year’s World Championships, the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) introduce an outright ban on non- textile materials 980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1996 After ultra-aerodynamic bicycles sweep the board at the Atlanta Olympics, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) – cycling’s governing body – writes the Lugano Charter, arguing that ‘the bicycle is “distancing itself from a reality which can be grasped and understood”. A new technical adviser introduces strict regulations for the 2000 Sydney Olympics, banning several innovations from the previous decade 1981 Peter Dreissigacker nails his old bike to the fl oor of a barn and pulls on the free end of the chain, nventing the Concept2 indoor ower. These rowing machines oon become standard equipment n gyms across the globe 1988 The Seoul Summer Olympics and Calgary Winter Olympics become the fi rst to use computerised time-keeping 2006 The US Open becomes the fi rst grand slam tennis tournament to allow players to use Hawk-Eye, an advanced ball-tracking system, to challenge the umpire’s decisions 1998 The International Sports Engineering Association (ISEA) is formed in Sheffi eld 2000 The Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) rules that the cycling one-hour record will now be valid only if the cyclist uses technology available in 1972, when the celebrated Belgian cyclist Eddy Merckx set the record 2011 Mark Cavendish uses the McLaren S-Works Venge bicycle, built from a single piece of carbon fi bre and using advanced computational fl uid dynamics and wind tunnel in its design, to win the Tour de France Green Jersey
  14. 15.

    The UK is host to a world-leading sports engineering industry

    and has cemented its place as a global sports research hub.
  15. 16.

    14 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? Dr David James from

    Sheffield Hallam University’s Centre for Sports Engineering Research (CSER) has performed extensive work with the public on the ethical concerns surrounding sports engineering[7]. In a series of meetings with more than 20,000 members of the public he was able to summarise a common set of concerns that applied to most of he groups: • Sports engineering is against the spirit of the sport, meaning that winning performances might be due less to hard work and more due to skilled engineering. • Sports engineering may mean that the best athlete might not necessarily win. • Sports engineering gives the rich an unfair advantage over the poor. • Sports engineering makes sport easier. These are issues which can all apply in varying degrees to each individual sport. Yet, despite these concerns, James noted that a pro-technology majority (between 50–70%) tended to form at each group, with equally powerful arguments in favour of sports engineering: • Excessive regulation curtails the development of new equipment. Without the advances we see today people’s enjoyment of sport would be diminished. • As a society we expect to see progress, so a sport that stagnates can quickly become less popular. The technological evolution of a sport can also lead to the birth of new sports – mountain biking emerged from road cycling and snowboarding from skiing. • We quickly get used to new technology – today the idea of playing tennis with a wooden racket is laughable, yet 35 years ago graphite rackets were hugely controversial. • Sports engineering is only a ‘problem’ for elite, competitive athletes. For the vast majority of amateur sportsmen and women, new technologies, from a titanium golf club to a more advanced running shoe, allow them to enjoy sports more. One of the best ways to accentuate the positive attributes of sports engineering and mitigate against the concerns people may have is to ensure sports regulators are well positioned to judge whether a new technology gives an athlete an advantage over the sport. This means sports engineers need to be embedded in the regulatory process. Engineering has been a fundamental part of sport throughout history, yet the use of new technologies and engineering advances can still cause controversy. Many regulatory bodies, such as the International Tennis Federation, work with engineers to ensure their sports make best use of advances made outside the sporting world without harming the spirit of the sport. Others, such as the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) with its 1996 Lugano Charter, attempt to build a wall around their sport to stop new technologies coming in. This approach is one way to keep the traditions of the sport intact, reducing the potential for new technologies to become detrimental to the sport. However walls built around a sport often spring a leak. Despite the introduction of several new regulations in the late-1990s, modern cycling remains host to a technological arms race that rivals Formula One. The McLaren S-Works Venge bicycle, which has already been used to win the Tour de France and Milan-San Remo, is a hugely advanced piece of engineering that still complies with the UCI’s stringent regulations. The cycling one hour record, meanwhile, was attempted just six times in the decade following the UCI’s decision to award the official record only to riders using technology used by Eddy Merckx in 1972. As Michael Hutchinson, a racing cyclist who has made two unsuccessful hour record attempts, said in his book The Hour: “The hour record used to be a showcase for the most cutting- edge technology. When Merckx set his record, the magazines and newspapers devoted pages to the technological marvel that he was riding. [Now] it’s as though the athletics authorities decreed that the mile [track] record had to be set on a cinder track with leather running shoes.”[14] A sport that does not keep up with technology developments taking place outside of arenas and stadia risks becoming an irrelevance to spectators. Yet the debate surrounding the introduction of new technologies in sport has been raging for decades, and this is just one of the many arguments for and against sports engineering. Unfair Advantage? Technology vs Tradition
  16. 17.

    15 www.imeche.org/manufacturing The International Tennis Federation (ITF) Throughout its history

    tennis has successfully embraced the technology of the day, from carbon fibre to hawk-eye line technology. The ITF uses engineers to help it keep pace with technological developments. The establishment of the ITF’s Technical Centre in 1997 has cemented its approach. Considered the world’s most advanced tennis-specific research facility, the Centre undertakes research into tennis balls, rackets and court surfaces and provides support to the Technical Commission, a panel of experts responsible for “protecting the nature of the game by monitoring developments in equipment manufacture”.[15] Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) Speedo launched the LZR Racer polyurethane enhanced suit in 2008. The technology was said to improve oxygen flow to the muscles and hold the body in a more hydrodynamic position, and was immediately approved by FINA. At the Beijing Olympics swimmers wearing the suit broke 15 long-course world records and won 94% of the gold medals, surprising the FINA regulators who had not expected such an impact. Other manufacturers followed with the X-Glide from Adidas and the Jaked 01. As record after record was broken, disquiet grew in the swimming community and the media about ‘technology-doping’. FINA eventually banned the full-body suits in January 2010 but let the records stand. How long a pause this creates before records are broken again remains to be seen.[16] In elite sport, when you spend every minute of every day focused on improving performance, from what and when you eat to how you train, we should not be surprised that athletes are keen to adopt any advances that might deliver a competitive edge. Arguably it is not the technology itself that people are objecting to but the potential it has to diminish the sporting test. If the sporting test is to see how quickly an athlete can, for example, run 100 metres, and this is what inspires and excites us as spectators, then the introduction of jet-propelled trainers would alter that test. We are no longer watching an athlete ‘run’ the 100m race. Sporting regulators have to balance the benefits of new technology with the traditions of the sport and often-ambiguous notions of fairness. The decision to allow or ban a new technology, specifically relating to sports equipment, is the responsibility of each sport’s own governing body. Each federation has its own set of rules, guidelines and approval procedures. If an athlete uses a piece of equipment or technology that has been prohibited by the rule makers, they can be deemed to have an unfair advantage. But the decision-making process for allowing or banning new technology can appear arbitrary and reactive. New technologies that drastically push boundaries can quickly become controversial. While some sports have improved on their capabilities to challenge or incorporate transformative technology, other sports have been caught short. The varying degrees of engineering expertise within sports regulatory bodies can be highlighted by comparing tennis’ International Tennis Federation with swimming’s Fédération Internationale de Natation.
  17. 18.

    16 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? But more significantly, as

    Dr David James noted, “the hypoxic chamber episode created a fundamental shift in the way that HETs are viewed.” From this point on, physical apparatus created by sports engineering would be subject to the same scrutiny as biological & chemical HETs. ‘Technology doping’ was now officially recognised as a threat. The UK Government has yet to fully engage with the range of potential issues the use of HETs will bring to sport. The Science and Technology Select Committee’s 2007 report, ‘Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport’, restricted itself to chemical and biological HET techniques, explicitly omitting the use of equipment[19]. The push and pull between tradition and technology in sport has been going on for over a century. However we are approaching a major crossroads in which the pace of change threatens to cause a new wave of ethical difficulties for sports regulators. Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) cover the broad range of methods that can be used to temporarily or permanently overcome the limitations of the human body, and is one emerging field that could dramatically change sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), established in 1999, has the remit to “promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against doping in sport in all its forms”[17]. For a technology to be considered for prohibition from sport, WADA sets three conditions[18]: 1. Is the technology harmful to health? 2. Is it performance-enhancing? 3. Is it against the spirit of the sport? Historically, WADA has focused on chemical and biological doping rather than technology doping, and its primary responsibility is to stop drug misuse across all sport. But in 2006, WADA initiated a consultation on the use of a HET – hypoxic chambers (also known as altitude chambers). By simply sitting in the chambers for an extended period, athletes can stimulate the production of red blood cells and enzymes that can improve their performance. While the final outcome of the review upheld that the chambers should remain legal, the review had two interesting outcomes. Professor Andy Miah, Chair of Ethics and Emerging Technologies at the University of West Scotland, highlights that the hypoxic chamber case was the first for WADA where the “ethical perspective was seen as being potentially decisive to the overall outcome, since the health risks surrounding hypoxia were unproven”[18]. Chambers were considered “a passive accumulation of skill” – in that the athelete did not have to work to benefit from them – one of the key objections to sports engineering interventions often cited by the public. Sports Engineering and Human enhancement technology
  18. 19.

    17 www.imeche.org/manufacturing There is already some evidence that sports professionals

    are undertaking surgery that is allowed by the governing bodies. In 1999, Tiger Woods had LASIK eye surgery to improve his vision. A large number of baseball players have undergone rehabilitative shoulder surgery nicknamed ‘Tommy John’ surgery, which anecdotal evidence suggests makes the athlete stronger after recovery. The issues that fields such as HETs and biomedical engineering will bring to sport mean that engineers need to be embedded within the regulatory process. As well as horizon-scanning for new technologies, engineers can defend their advocacy of technology in sport based on robust evidence. Sports engineers are undoubtedly pro- technology, but they are also passionate about sport. They do not want to see a technology intervention that subsequently undermines the value system of a sport, diminishes the challenge, and hinders the sport’s growth. In May 2008, Paralympian sprinter Oscar Pistorius took his case to race against able-bodied athletes to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). He had previously been banned from competing by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), based on research conducted in 2007 by Professor Peter Bruggeman at the University of Cologne. Bruggeman concluded that the carbon- fibre blades created a significant performance advantage for Pistorius because he used 25% less energy than able-bodied athletes. But the ban was overturned by IAAF after CAS accepted the conclusion of new research conducted by Peter Weyand from Rice University in Houston and Hugh Herr from MIT, that the amount of energy Pistorius uses was comparable to able-bodied sprinters and therefore his prostheses gave him “no net advantage”[20/21]. The debate continues to rage over whether Pistorius should be permitted to participate in the Olympics. This controversy is only the first of many that are set to hit the sporting world as human prosthetics become more advanced. A group of biomedical engineers from UCL has been working on technology – intraosseous transcutaneous amputation prosthesis (ITAP) – that enables artificial limbs to be directly attached to a human skeleton, pioneering the way for bionic limbs that could be controlled by the central nervous system. Using deer antlers as their inspiration – the antlers grow through the animal’s skin without causing infection – the researchers have been looking at securing a titanium rod directly into the bone[22]. This technology, which has the potential to allow paraplegics to walk again, is likely to quickly move from the medical to the sports engineering field. As improvements are made, and more Paralympian athletes adopt better prosthetics, many more may wish to compete with their able-bodied peers. There will be a point at which engineers are able to advance from restoring normal body functions to enhancing them. This creates the possibility that able-bodied athletes, fearing they are at a technological disadvantage, might argue that they should be able to enhance their body parts. The Bionic Athlete: Fact or Fiction?
  19. 20.

    18 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? There are some key

    emerging technologies in development which will have a revolutionary impact on sports engineering, and society as a whole. Here we look at what an Olympic road cyclist could be wearing and using in 10–20 years’ time. Cyclist of the future 1. Spray-on clothing Developments in nanotechnology mean ‘spray on clothing’ could become a reality within a matter of years. A liquid-repellent coating would keep the rider dry, and thus lighter, while a protective coating could make helmets tougher without adding weight. Triathletes could use ‘spray chambers’ to change clothing instantaneously between the swimming, cycling and running events, tailoring their outfit for each event. 2. Performance analysis sensors Sensors are already being built into running shoes to measure speed, distance and energy expended. Military engineers have even developed sensors to monitor physiological and environmental changes that can be swallowed and monitored from inside the body. In the future these sensors could be positioned all over the body during a race, measuring every physiological change and sending the data back to a coach who can then advise the athlete on strategy using an augmented reality headset. The speed and depth of data analysis will have a major influence on the medals table. 3. ‘Phase change’ tyres UK engineers are beginning to develop materials that, using nanotechnology, are able to change shape depending on certain conditions. This could have a transformative impact on sports equipment. Oars could bend as they hit the water to improve their hydrodynamism, ship hulls could naturally bend into corners or bicycle tyres could vary their tread depending on terrain. 1 3 6
  20. 21.

    19 www.imeche.org/manufacturing 5. Composite material frame Carbon fibre is becoming

    increasingly popular among bicycle engineers, particularly those working on triathlon or time-trial bicycles. US firms Zyvex Technologies and Enve Composites have partnered to develop a bicycle rim using a carbon nanotube and graphene engineered composite material. Tough, lightweight and easily moulded into highly aerodynamic shapes, composite materials will become an ever more integral part of racing bicycles over the coming decade. 4. Augmented reality headset Google’s ‘Project Glass’ headset, which could launch as early as 2013, will kick off an augmented reality revolution which is likely to quickly filter into the sports world. Headsets could give instant performance analysis, track competitors and even offer cyclists a rear view mirror. Spectators using the same hardware could get instant statistics on each rider or see the race as the athletes do. 6. Printed shoes Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, is set to revolutionise manufacturing in the coming decades. Sport will be no exception. Engineers could produce virtually any piece of equipment, including shoes, minutes before the event to suit the exact weather conditions or even the athlete’s physical condition, compensating for any injuries they may have. 2 4 5
  21. 22.

    20 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? The Oscar Pistorius controversy

    is only the first of many that are set to hit the sporting world as human prosthetics become more advanced.
  22. 23.

    21 www.imeche.org/manufacturing Equipment One of the most important tasks for

    any sports engineer is to minimise the energy lost during the transfer from athlete to equipment. As a cyclist pedals, all the energy that is being supplied through the athlete’s legs needs to be transferred to the pedals which the convert this energy to the wheels that move the bicycle. Bicycle engineers have spent over a century making these transfers as efficient as possible. There has also been a major shift in the materials used in competitive cycling. The original wooden bicycles of the 18th Century evolved into the steel safety bicycles of the late 19th Century and aluminium racing bicycles. Today, many competitive bicycles are highly aerodynamic machines shaped from a single piece of carbon fibre. These modern superbikes are designed using computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis, as well as wind tunnels to fine-tune the aerodynamics. Cycling helmets, however, are an example of how sports engineers must always deal with the trade off between engineering efficiency and comfort. While helmet materials and design have evolved over the years, engineers have been constricted by the fact that the more aerodynamic the design, the less space available for air vents. During long endurance events the seconds shaved off by a more aerodynamic helmet could easily be lost as the rider suffers from heat exhaustion during the race.[23] Additive manufacturing (sometimes referred to as ‘3D printing’) is becoming an ever more important part of the manufacturing process. Using a range of laser-based techniques to build objects layer by layer, additive manufacturing enables pieces of equipment that are geometrically complex to be built from scratch without incurring prohibitive tooling costs. This method of manufacturing is beginning to prove very popular with sports engineers, as it enables the development of personalised kit. At Loughborough University, one PhD project has investigated how athletes run, looking at both the forces they apply to the surfaces through contact with their feet as well as the style and gait with which they run. Using additive manufacturing techniques, the stiffness and design of the spikes in running shoes have been tailored to improve performance. Modern sports engineering can be split into two distinct categories – embedded and enabling technology. Embedded technology covers the behind-the-scenes systems that allow coaches and training programmes to analyse movement and fine-tune performance. Enabling technology covers the equipment that athletes use to compete. As with all other sectors, engineers who work within the field of sports engineering have preferred tools that aid them in developing a solution for the athlete, coach or team. The toolkit is split into equipment, prototyping, experimentation, analysis and simulation. Technology in Action Enabling technologies
  23. 24.

    22 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? Speedo’s FASTSKIN3 cap, swimsuit

    and goggles, which will be used by swimmers at the London 2012 Olympics, have been designed and engineered to incorporate many world firsts in swimming technology. The equipment has been designed using 3D mapping data to create a 3D avatar of the athlete. This means that hundreds of prototypes can be made to fit the head and face contours exactly, delivering optimum comfort and improved hydrodynamic performance. The development of the FASTSKIN3 has taken more than four years and 55,000 hours of research, prototyping and testing. Prototypes are an engineer’s best guide to what the future of sports equipment might look like. Sports regulators need to work alongside sports engineers to get access to the latest prototypes so they have an opportunity to get that same view of where their sport is heading. Experimentation Experimentation is an important tool that is used by sports engineers to allow athletes to see the benefits of their work and better understand improvements made to their equipment. Rowing, which has only recently been subject to sports engineering analysis, demonstrates how engineers can use experimentation to get to grips with a new sport. By studying in detail every movement of the four phases of rowing – the catch, the drive, the finish and the recovery – engineers have built a complete picture of the sport’s dynamics and have begun to identify the areas which can be improved[27]. The timing of the finish, for example, is crucial to an efficient stroke. Pulling the oar out of the water too late results in water striking the back of the blade, slowing the boat down, while if the blade is extracted too early then the efficiency of the stroke is reduced. With the analysis work done, engineers can begin to optimise the design of rowing equipment. Although rowing equipment is tightly regulated, if engineers are given the opportunity to develop the sport we could see the shape of oars and boats change to become quicker, lighter and more efficient over the next decade. Significant changes in the rowing boat’s shape could even lead to the establishment of new sports, just as engineering developments in sailing have given us the Laser, Star and Finn classes. One field of sports engineering that has become more important in recent years is surface coatings used on materials. Their use has led to performance gains across the sporting world[24], with coatings helping with friction control and protecting equipment from wear. The implications of these technologies can already be seen in the current controversy over the use of silicone spray on tennis rackets, which is used to increase spin. Table 1: The use of surface engineering in sport Function Surface engineering technology Application Friction control Polymer coatings Boats, canoes Self-lubricating coatings Roller skates, golf club heads Ion beam modifications of polymers Skis, grip tapes, surfboats, snowboards Wear protection Nano composite coatings Roller skates, ice skates Thermal oxidation of titanium surfaces Racing car and engine components Oxygen diffusion of titanium Titanium transmission components Prototyping Prototyping is an important part of any product development process as it enables designers to look at suitable materials, work out specific production processes and trial the functionality of the design[25]. Paralympic swimming has been revolutionised in recent years thanks to prototyping. Swimming prosthetics, developed to compensate for amputated limbs, are designed using sophisticated simulation and analysis technologies, after which several prototypes are manufactured. By testing out a variety of materials, designs and masses, the prosthetic can be fine-tuned to be as efficient and comfortable for the athlete as possible[26].
  24. 25.

    23 www.imeche.org/manufacturing Human movement analysis uses motion capture and analysis

    equipment to help athletes, coaches and engineers visualise and understand the thousands of tiny biomechanical movements that the body can make during a sporting event. A movement analysis system is used by Team GB diving coaches as a training tool at their base at Sheffield’s Ponds Forge International Swimming Centre. The system uses a network of machine vision video cameras operating at 100 frames per second to record the motion of the diver in real- time, allowing the coach to review each dive in slow motion and compare it with previous dives. Developments in analysis technology over the past 10–15 years mean that sports engineers are now flooded with data, so much so that the issue for engineers today is in using this wealth of information as efficiently as possible to achieve the best results. The full arsenal of monitoring equipment a sports engineer has at their disposal is listed in Table 2, taking swimming as an example. Analysis The engineering work that is done behind closed doors on the training ground and, increasingly, IT laboratories, can have as profound an effect on an athlete’s performance as the enabling technologies that are visible for all to see. Monitoring and performance analysis of elite athletes during training and competition is an area of constant improvement and development. Monitoring systems which can provide real-time feedback to the athlete, coach and sports engineer regarding the performance and physiological capabilities of an athlete are critical for the development of personal training plans. These can ensure continuous improvement, enhancing the ability to win major competitions[28]. Modelled analysis, which uses theoretical modelling to analyse the athlete’s movement, has also undergone a revolution in the past decade due to the use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and finite element analysis (FEA). Sports engineers are now using CFD to understand everything from the aerodynamic behaviour of a cyclist, the hydrodynamic performance of a yacht or the heat transfer through an athlete’s helmet[29]. For example, the British Bob Skeleton Association (BBSKA) worked with Sheffield Hallam’s Centre for Sports Engineering Research (CSER) on CFD models to optimise the aerodynamics on British bobsleighs. The new design helped Amy Williams win Great Britain’s first ever gold medal in the event at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games. Embedded technologies Why do sports engineers use Finite Element Analysis (FEA)? Finite element analysis (FEA) is a powerful structural analysis tool used to understand how objects deform when subjected to an applied force. FEA can be used to understand the deformation of objects, such as tennis balls, upon impact. It can also be used to determine if a bicycle frame is structurally strong enough or analyse stress concentrations in an ice skate blade. FEA can increase the efficiency of the product research and development process, as design concepts can be tested without the requirement of producing numerous prototypes.
  25. 26.

    24 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? Table 2: Performance analysis

    in swimming[28] Category of analysis Remote There is no sensor put on the athlete and results are often viewed in an alternative location Techniques Available Coaches and athletes analyse film footage looking at performance and/or technique once the session is over Tools to use • Qualitative • Quintic • Vircon • Dartfish • Poseidon • Glide to win (EPSRC) • SWUM Direct Sensors are attached directly to the athlete to monitor how they are performing. The results are obtained as they happen Physiological analysis The athlete’s physiological changes are monitored in real-time • Heart rate monitor • Weight • Body fat • Fitness testing Pressure/Force analysis The pressure or balance of athletes is monitored. During tumble turns in a swimming pool these devices can measure whether the swimmer is getting an even force when they push off on the return stroke • Pressure sensors in research • Commercial pressure sensors • Force sensors in research • Force sensors instrumented in pools Velocity/Acceleration analysis The athlete can measure where they are losing speed to help them improve. It can also help control their acceleration rates at either the start or end of the event • Velocity – commercial tethered system • Velocity – tethered system in research • Acceleration measurement in research • Commercial acceleration measurement Modelled The analysis takes place away from the training centre using advanced computer software Ergometer analysis These help the athlete concentrate on their style – ergonomic aspects out of the sports environment • Ergometer use in research • Commercial ergometer products (Vasa, Weba) Theoretical analysis Computer based analysis tools, such as CFD or FEA, model parameters such as aerodynamics and stress • Forces, lift and drag on hand models • Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation Simulation allows sports engineers to analyse the movement of the athletes, using data collected to create a virtual model. This simulation can then be used to help both coaches and athletes to see where improvements can be made to routines and performance. Simulation is an engineering tool that has been adopted in the sport of figure skating. The motion of the skater is recorded with two panning, tilt- table digital cameras of variable focal length. The skater has 22 marker points on joints or specific points of the body surface which are analysed and used to create an inertial reference frame. This is then used to create a precise 3D simulation of the motion of the inner joint angles of the skater’s body[30]. Results from this simulation can show take-off velocity, jump height and length, the linear and angular momentum of the skater, joint angles and angular velocities. The animation of the motion can be shown in different views with fixed or moving cameras[30].
  26. 27.

    25 www.imeche.org/manufacturing Tools used in wheelchair basketball Wheelchair basketball is

    one of the most popular Paralympic events, and for wheelchair athletes the mobility and weight of the wheelchair are crucial. Sports engineers have been working with the UK Paralympic Basketball team to help improve the design and functionality of their wheelchairs. The work they are doing can be split into four key steps: • Experimentation: The team performed a number of dynamic and static tests to learn more about the loads of wheelchairs. • Prototyping: Using prototyping techniques an adjustable measurement wheelchair was developed that could adjust seating position, allowing engineers to calculate the best option. • Analysis & simulation: The data obtained from the previous two steps was used to create a 3D model of the chair using computer-aided construction. • Equipment: Finally, the new, lightweight wheelchair was manufactured using lightweight materials of carbon fibre- reinforced plastic (CFRP), aluminium and titan. The formed components were manufactured by blow-moulded process and the tubular components by filament winding or wrapping processes. Planar structures, like the fenders, were manufactured through vacuum forming techniques[31]. These new, more mobile wheelchairs will allow athletes to move faster around the court while expending less energy to use them. This technology is also beginning to flow from the sports engineering laboratory to the wider wheelchair industry, meaning all wheelchair users can benefit from these sporting developments.[31] conclusion For centuries, engineering has played a vital role in the evolution and progression of sport. From the bouncing rubber tennis balls of the late 19th Century to the carbon-fibre bicycles set to dominate the velodrome at the London 2012 Olympics, new technologies have helped to keep traditional sports exciting and accessible as well as help create entirely new sports. Today, advanced sports engineering is as important to elite athletes as good nutrition, coaching or training, enabling them to reach their full potential on the global stage. The technology developed for this elite is also filtering through to the high street and helping to solve some of the biggest health problems we face as a society. The UK is host to a world-leading sports engineering industry and has cemented its place as a global sports research hub. Universities such as Sheffield Hallam and Loughborough are forging links with our advanced engineering firms to create new technologies that have the potential to both revolutionise sport and create significant returns for the UK economy. Yet the rapid advance of technology means the ethical debates that have surrounded sports engineering for decades are set to intensify in the coming years. Sporting regulators need to be prepared for these forthcoming technological revolutions. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers therefore recommends that: • Engineers are embedded in each individual sport’s regulatory process. Here, they can horizon-scan, looking for new technological developments that can enhance the sport and also help predict the consequences of a technological intervention. These engineers will advise on the use or misuse of a technology based on robust evidence. • Organisations such as UK Sport, as well as government and industry, continue to invest in sports engineering research after the London 2012 Olympics to maintain the UK’s position as a world-leading sports engineering research hub. • Sporting regulators, as well as governments, start preparing policies and positions now to prepare for the advance of Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) in sports.
  27. 28.

    26 Sports Engineering: An Unfair Advantage? The Institution of Mechanical

    Engineers would like to thank the following people for their assistance in developing this report: • Haj Bhania • David Carnell CEng FIMechE • Anna Coppell AMIMechE MEng PhD • Nicky Evans • Professor Stephen Haake EPSRC, Senior Media Fellow • Dr Ben Halkon AMIMechE • Dr David James, Royal Academy of Engineering Public Engagement Fellow • Sue Lancashire CEng FIMechE • Hannah Latham AMIMechE • Christopher Lowther CEng FIMechE • Philippa Oldham CEng MIMechE • Anna Seddon • Sian Slawson BSc • James Speedy AMIMechE • Dr Gavin Williams • Andrea Vinet MEng With special thanks to: • Centre for Sports Engineering Research, Sheffield Hallam University • Sports Technology Institute, Loughborough University • Frazer Nash Consultancy • McLaren Applied Technologies • Team GB Women Wheelchair Basketball Squad • UK Sport CONTRIBUTORS Image Credits Cover image: Courtesy of Sheffield Hallam University’s Centre for Sports Engineering Research (CSER); page 2: Andrew Weekes; pages 10–12: Bob Thomas/Warwick Kent/Getty Images/Associated Press/Tag Heuer; page 13: Jan Kruger/Getty Images; page 20 Getty Images/Michael Steele
  28. 29.

    1 Jean Wauthier interview, Bike Radar, 19 June 2010 www.bikeradar.com/gear/article/interview-jean-wauthier-

    uci-technical-advisor-26424/ 2 The UCI Lugano Charter (2006) www.uci.ch/Modules/ BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&typ e=FILE&id=MzQxMDc&LangId=1 3 Introduction to the ISEA www.sportsengineering.co.uk 4 SJ Haake, 2009, The impact of technology on sporting performance in Olympic Sports, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol 27 (13), pp1421–1431 5 SJ Haake, 2000, The development of sports engineering around the world, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Engineering of Sport, Research, Development and Innovation, (Eds AJ Subic & SJ Haake), pp11–18, ISBN 0-632-055693-4 6 Pole Vault, Introduction, IAAF, www.iaaf.org 7 DM James, 2010, The ethics of using engineering to enhance athletic performance, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Engineering of Sport – Engineering Emotion, (Eds A Sabo, S Litzenberger, P Kafka & C Sabo), Vol 2, pp3405–3410 8 http://sti.lboro.ac.uk/spinoutcompanies.aspx 9 SJ Haake, 2005, Sports Engineering: Technology, Economics and Tradition, Journal of the Japanese Society of Experimental Mechanics, Vol 5 (4), pp327–334 10 First in 1823… Foremost Ever Since. Rugby, www.gilbertrugby.com/history 11 www.uksport.gov.uk/ 12 SGMA, Press Release: SGMA Reveals Sports Industry Is ‘On The ‘Rebound’, 19 May 2011 13 DT Curtis & SJ Haake, 2004, Academia-Industry collaboration: a catalyst for sports product innovation in the UK, The Engineering of Sport 5, pp602–608 14 Michael Hutchinson, The Hour: Sporting Immortality the Hard Way, Yellow Jersey Press, 2006 15 www.itftennis.com/technical 16 Scott-Elliot, Robin, “Swimming: Second wave seek a fitting stage”, The Independent 4 March 2012 17 www.wada-ama.org/en/Footer-Links/FAQ 18 A Miah, Rethinking Enhancement in Sport. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 2006, 1093 pp301–320 19 The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Human Enhancement Technologies in Sport, 2007, www. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/ cmsctech/67/67.pdf 20 D James, The Trouble with Oscar, Engineering Sport Blog: The Centre for Sports Engineering Research, 7 October 2011, www.engineeringsport.co.uk/2011/10/07/the-trouble- with-oscar 21 Short List, Oscar Pistorius: A life under scrutiny, 2012, www. shortlist.com/entertainment/sport/oscar-pistorius-a-life- under-scrutiny 22 BBC News, ‘Bionic’ limb breakthrough, (3 July 2006) 23 Foam protection in sport, 2.4, Cycle Helmets, NJ Mills; Materials in Sports Equipment, Mike Jenkins 24 Future applications of surface engineering in sport – Surface Engineering H Dong; Materials in Sports Equipment, Mike Jenkins 25 Innovation in Sports Equipment, particularities in process and organisation, EF Moritz, The engineering of sport 4, 2002 26 Development of swimming prosthetic for physically disabled (optimal design for one side of above-elbow amputation), K Yoneyama and Motomu Nakashima, The Engineering of Sport 6, Vol 1, Development for Sports 27 N Caplan, A Coppel & T Gardner, Jan 2009, A review of propulsive mechanisms in rowing, Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 224 (1), pp. 1-8. ISSN 1754-3371 28 Enabling technologies for robust performance monitoring, L Justham, S Slawson, A West, P Conway, M Caine, R Harrison, The Engineering of Sport 7, Vol 1 (Eds M Estivalet and P Brisson) 29 Winning Sports Flow Solutions with CFD, Fluent 30 Methods of simulation and manipulation for the evaluation of figure skating jumps, T Hartel, F Hildebrand, K Knoll; The Engineering of Sport 6, Vol 2, Developments for disciplines, (Eds E Fozzy Moritz and SJ Haake) 31 Design and construction of custom-made lightweight carbon fibre wheelchair, M Siebert, The Engineering of Sport Vol 7 References
  29. 30.

    Institution of Mechanical Engineers 1 Birdcage Walk Westminster London SW1H

    9JJ T +44 (0)20 7304 6862 F +44 (0)20 7222 8553 manufacturing@imeche.org www.imeche.org