## 4 Results
### Statistical Analysis
#### 4.2.2 Riding Experience  
According to the conducted Kruskal-Wallis tests, riding experience differed significantly between rider types in the downhill section (\(\textit{Chisquare}(3)=13.19,p<0.001\)), the steep uphill section (\(\textit{Chisquare}(3)=22.60,p<0.001\)), the moderate uphill section (\(\textit{Chisquare}(3)=18.81,p<0.001\)) and the hilly section (\(\textit{Chisquare}(3)=18.47,p<0.001\)). The performed Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed a significantly higher riding experience for RT4 in the steep uphill section (\(p=0.04\), \(p<0.001\)), the moderate uphill section (\(p=0.08,p<0.001\)) and the hilly section (\(p=0.03,p<0.001\)). The riding experience of RT2 and RT3 did not differ significantly in any section (\(p>0.05\)). RT1's riding experience differed from RT2's and RT3's in the downhill section (\(p=0.01\)), from RT4's in the steep and moderate uphill sections (\(p=0.08,p<0.01\)) and from RT2's in the hilly section (\(p<0.01\)). Figure 4a gives a graphical overview.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Rider Type**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **RT1** & **RT2** & **RT3** & **RT4** \\ \hline N & 15 (30\%) & 10.00 (20\%) & 15 (30\%) & 10 (20\%) \\ Females nf & 7 (47\%) & 0 (0\%) & 4 (27\%) & 2 (20\%) \\ Age mean (SD) & 33.6 (13.1) & 34.7 (13.1) & 38.9 (11.8) & 39.3 (14.6) \\ Riding style & & & & \\ Comfortable & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) & 0 (0\%) \\ Rather comfortable & 1 (7\%) & 1 (10\%) & 2 (13\%) & 1 (10\%) \\ Rather sportive & 12 (80\%) & 5 (50\%) & 11 (73\%) & 4 (40\%) \\ Sporttive & 2 (13\%) & 4 (40\%) & 2 (13\%) & 5 (50\%) \\ Objective parameters & & & & \\ Rider cadence mean (SD) [rpm] & 72.49 (8.09) & 77.78 (15.03) & 74.18 (8.21) & 79.18 (8.35) \\ Rider torque mean (SD) [Nm] & 15.62 (3.56) & 20.94 (4.01) & 18.72 (3.78) & 19.28 (4.18) \\ Heart rate mean (SD) [ppm] & 135.69 (19.60) & 143.77 (19.06) & 138.90 (16.04) & 134.83 (16.26) \\ Speed mean (SD) [km/h] & 20.98 (2.56) & 23.56 (3.61) & 22.22 (1.80) & 22.82 (2.08) \\ Acceleration mean (SD) [m/s\({}^{2}\)] & 0.31 (0.05) & 0.35 (0.04) & 0.32 (0.04) & 0.34 (0.03) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. The given percentages always refer to the rider type (with the exception of N). Objective parameters were averaged per participant over all test rides.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Rider and rider behaviour characteristics.  
The correlation of riding experience and objective data differed between rider types. According to [PERSON] [69], RT1's riding experience was characterised by a strong negative correlation to rider power and a strong positive correlation to speed and riding experience. Motor power, however, did not directly impact RT1's riding experience. RT2's riding experience was distinguished by a moderate negative correlation to both rider power and motor power and a strong positive correlation to bicycle speed. RT3's riding experience was moderately negatively correlated to rider power, moderately to strongly positively correlated to speed and weakly positively correlated to motor power. For RT4, rider power and bicycle speed had no direct impact on riding experience, while motor power correlated moderately positively with riding experience. The boxplots in Figure 4b visualise the observations.