Thanks, Kraig.

Here's an even wilder idea -- how 'bout real results, from real, experienced TT racer(s), who've raced the same courses (or stationary setups/"distance" efforts) on both systems, on the same frame, repeated times, over an extended period of time??

Posted some of my own in earlier posts, for what it's worth; also referenced in the Timetrial.org review. As in "the proof of the pudding..." etc.

But then again -- I'm fine that this piece concludes that the advantage conferred by Rotors (23.8 +/- 3.3% vs. 22.1 +/1 3.3%) fails to reach statistical significance.

I'm a "sample of one", I know, but for me, the benefits were very real -- not theoretical -- so sceptics suit yourselves.

I happily buy all my own TT racing equipment, including the Rotors (it's my wife who occasionally cringes at the purchases -- not me). And the fewer competitors I see racing on them, the happier I'll be. :-)

You're right. We can argue forever about why they should or shouldn't work but as you say the "proof is in the pudding". Experienced riders who have been testing themselves on the same course for years know full well when they have improved. And if nothing has changed except their cranks the conclusion is obvious. A 2-3 minute per hour time gain is pretty substantial and can't just be discounted.

http://www.fact-canada.com

How could you do a blind test of Rotor cranks? Blindfold me, and I'm quite positive that I can still feel the difference between normal cranks and Rotors.

Eric wrote: "How could you do a blind test of Rotor cranks? Blindfold me, and I'm quite positive that I can still feel the difference between normal cranks and Rotors."

I am not sure you could. I have ridden them and had to concentrate to feel the effect. You probably could if you knew what you were supposed to feel but not if you were told a cover story. I think inexperienced cyclists could easily be blinded. Now, PowerCranks, that is a different matter.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Kraig,

I agree. Even though anecdotal reports suggest "big" improvements using RC's and PC's, a certain number of individuals will see big improvements every year using conventional techniques. If "studies" do not confirm these anecdotal improvements as "real" then, either, the study technique is flawed or the improvements due to the device are imagined.

Early adopters of new technology are willing to take a chance based on faith or intuition, etc. and sometimes they are right, getting ahead of the curve and sometimes they are wrong and wasted some money. those who want to wait for the proof will either be behind the technology curve or ahead in the pocketbook. Everyone has their own sense of what it takes to convince them to take the leap to new technology.

If the studies do not confirm the anecdotal results then it seems to me that it is up to the adovcates to discover the flaws in the study design and then correct them to prove their case or accept the fact the claims are overrated.

While PC's currently suffer from the same lack of scientific evidence for their claims as RC's this is soon to be changed. I think the independent study I saw will stand up to criticism although studies should always be subject to being "repeatable" before being "proved".

Frank

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I have used PC's for about 15 months now and have really seen an improvement in my biking and running. I have them on my road bike and that is where I always leave them. During the off-season only PC's on the road bike with one ride with a couple of short rides with non-PC road bike on rollers. As the season gets closer I build in the tri bike a couple of times each week. I did get the rotors in early August was very skeptical at first. I rode them for 3 weeks and then did a practice ride up Mt. Washington(average grade: 13%). I was 6 minutes faster than last year- but the big change was that my Hr was 6 beats lower on average. I have also TT them on my local loops where I live and continue to be faster on the rotors than regular cranks at a lower Hr as well. I have 4 clients currently using them as well- (2 who also ride PC's) and they are all seeing speed gains at lower Hr's in their TT's. We can spend time knocking the rotors and/or the PC's but if an athlete is seeing an improvement then go with what works. Look back years ago with road cyclist and aero bars- now they are all using them. As we become more fit we need to change the way we train from year to year- that is what will allow us to get to the next level of fitness. We know the PC's allow you to develop a great pedal stroke. Well the rotors allow you to race and make gains at a lower Hr with an increase in speed. With a 30 day money back deal why would anyone not take a chance?

Steve

ESTS Coaching

[reply][/reply][reply]
I have used PC's for about 15 months now and have really seen an improvement in my biking and running. I have them on my road bike and that is where I always leave them. During the off-season only PC's on the road bike with one ride with a couple of short rides with non-PC road bike on rollers. As the season gets closer I build in the tri bike a couple of times each week. I did get the rotors in early August was very skeptical at first. I rode them for 3 weeks and then did a practice ride up Mt. Washington(average grade: 13%). I was 6 minutes faster than last year- but the big change was that my Hr was 6 beats lower on average. I have also TT them on my local loops where I live and continue to be faster on the rotors than regular cranks at a lower Hr as well. I have 4 clients currently using them as well- (2 who also ride PC's) and they are all seeing speed gains at lower Hr's in their TT's. We can spend time knocking the rotors and/or the PC's but if an athlete is seeing an improvement then go with what works. Look back years ago with road cyclist and aero bars- now they are all using them. As we become more fit we need to change the way we train from year to year- that is what will allow us to get to the next level of fitness. We know the PC's allow you to develop a great pedal stroke. Well the rotors allow you to race and make gains at a lower Hr with an increase in speed. With a 30 day money back deal why would anyone not take a chance?

Steve

ESTS Coaching [/reply]


If RC's were being used correctly, you should be
having a higher HR. They give you extra pedaling
time per hour (2 to 3 mins) , it's what you do with
this extra pedaling time that decides what gain you will have in time trials. Big disadvantage with the
RC's is that you have to use this extra pedaling time
in an area where you are already applying pedal
power. This you do by turning a higher gear between
1 and 3 o'clock and this requires greater power in
this area than would normally be required for the
cadence you are using.
When you directly eliminate the dead spot area,
you are applying power to the pedal between 11
and 1 o'clock and this gives five+ mins of extra
pedaling time per hour and a smooth constant gear
at all times. Rotor is only compensating for less
than half of that area but even then it can offer time
gains in time trials.

That all may be true- but with me and many others that I know who use the rotors we have all seen a lower Hr in the TT's that we have completed in training and racing. Am I completely sold on these- not yet! I still am completing a number of tests and switching the regulation point around to see what that does to the results.

 

[reply]
That all may be true- but with me and many others that I know who use the rotors we have all seen a lower Hr in the TT's that we have completed in training and racing. Am I completely sold on these- not yet! I still am completing a number of tests and switching the regulation point around to see what that does to the results. [/reply]
[reply]

What does switching the regulation point mean,
what is the maximum change that takes place if
you the extreme opposite settings.

Hey guys, the lower HR comes from lower extensor speed. Dr. Day mentioned this somewhere in one of these threads...

If your rpms are 90 on RC's, your big oxygen-demanding pushing muscles are moving slightly slower than 90 rpm; obviously, your rising leg is moving a bit faster. Lower rpms of your big oxygen-demanding extensors equal lower HR. Get on regular cranks and see what happens to your HR when pedalling at a constant speed but varying the gearing one step. At a lower rpm, your HR drops while maintaining the same speed...OR you speed up just a tad in the lower rpm/bigger gear while maintaining your HR. (This is how I TT...I alternate across the HR/leg fatigue line...slightly decreasing my HR by selecting a bigger gear/lower rpm, or slightly decreasing my leg fatigue by selecting a smaller gear/higher rpm.)

The reason you have a lower HR on RC's at the same old rpm as on regular cranks is that your pushing muscles are essentially "feeling" a slightly bigger gear while on RC's...but, as the muscles develop, you may be able to get back to your normal LTHR at your same perceived leg fatigue level...if and until that happens, you will have a lower HR at the same rpm on RCs...just as if you were on regular cranks when selecting one higher gear. (The effect of RC's may be only 1/2 a gear, not a whole gear, I don't know...but, the idea is clear, I hope.)

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

OK, I surrender.

Since I'm identified as an 'advocate', and these studies -- in which I haven't discovered 'flaws' -- indicate no benefit, I hereby renounce:

• my PRs this year,
• my '03 age group course record (and 2nd overall out of 181 racers) at the Sandy Hook TT in very poor cold/windy/wet conditions,
• my 5th consecutive state TT age group title (raced, prior to flatting, at by far the fastest ave. speed through 1st 24km I've ever done); also horrible conditions,

etc. All of this was placebo effect. :-)

Think I read somewhere that scientific testing also proves it's impossible for bumblebees to fly -- still trying to figure out how to inform them of this grim news.

On a far higher plane of competition, also hoping Guido G. (who posted on the other thread) will write in soon to renounce the following:

=========================================================================================

Gosselink wins first silver with ROTOR, at European Championships

Past 11th August, five weeks after winning the Dutch Triathlon title on the Long Distance in Stein, rotorized triathlete Guido Gosselink improved himself to win a historical first silver medal at the European Championships in Denmark.

Gosselink finished second behind Gerrit Schellens from Belgium, but in this race Gosselink created a large gap on the bike to try to put up the fast running Schellens with an impossible task to catch Gosselink. Danish pre-race favorite Torbjorn Sindballe only gave 45 seconds away on Gosselink on the bike and was able to pass him in the first of four laps on the run. Gosselink then held on to the second place

First the people analysing the data should only see a before and after data stream for each subject and nothing else until the study is over and results if any are in. It seems in most studies the experimenters were not separated from the actual testing and knew which one to expect better results from. Not surprising some would be found.

For the subjects themselves I think the easiest way would be to increase crank length by 2.5mm over the riders' standard for the test cranks and the controls and tell controls you are testing increased crank length effects. At least both groups could feel a difference and gain psychological benefits.

Psychological effects can be quite large - look at Vinokourov post Kivilev, Isidro Nozal in the yellow jersey, LA winning the stage shortly after Casartelli's death, etc. Easily enough difference to overwhelm the object of testing.

The studies all have ridiculously small sample sizes as well. With 8 subjects like the one test, the results could be entirely random noise in the sample.

I really don't think that any number of scientific studies will convince the doubters, no matter how valid the studies. The only thing that will convince the majority of the doubters is if a major team or a "Lance Armstrong" adopts the cranks and uses them to win a Tour de France. This is very unscientific but it works extremely well. We just need to look back at the development of the "Look" clipless pedals. They didn't take off till Bernard Hinault won the Tour using them.

Herb

Ditto for LeMond's Scott clip-on aerobars in the '99 TdF. They were also used in another TT earlier in that race, but Fignon -- who actually had a set of aerobars himself -- balked at using them in the final TT because he felt they were 'unproven'.

Funny -- I watched Laurent F. race the Tour DuPont prologue a few years later, and by then he somehow seemed to be convinced of their utility. A little later than would have been optimal for him.

On the earlier, fully agree that it is also possible for some individuals to "see big improvements every year using conventional techniques", so that "improvements due to the device (could thus be) imagined".

In my case, though, I have been racing TT's for about a dozen years (and nothing but TTs for the past six), and am now the fastest I've ever been. period. Given that I was born at the tail end of the Truman Administration, I think we can safely discard the hypothesis than this is simply due to natural training progresion. :-)

I guess I am a bit confused with this new line of reasoning, Herb - are you a scientist, or a marketer? <seinfeld mode> Not that there is anything wrong with that...</seinfeld mode>



This is clearly not a "line of reasoning", merely a comment on human nature. Let's take equipment weight as another example. It seems intuitive that shaving weight off one's bike will improve performance, but where is the actual scientific proof? Just how big is the performance increase per ounce of weight saving? Has this been scientifically studied? Performance oriented cyclists seem quite willing to lay down thousands of $ to save a few ounces without checking into the studies simply because this is what the elite level racers are using.
[/reply]

Very funny clip! (seriously).

Sadly, you are onto us. By deliberately spreading disinformation on the Web about Rotors -- which are actually crap -- I cunningly accomplish the simultaneous goals of

• making my competitors slower, and
• undermining America's balance of payments by inducing others to ship countless Greenbacks north of the border to my alien co-conspirator at http://www.fact-canada.com

Herb kicks back a small portion to me in 'blue money'. Fiendishly simple and effective, but now we are undone.

"Who do you think would be dumb enough to believe anecdotal evidence?" -- Dilbert