regardless of your training on other cranks, the Rotor Cranks will help you quite a bit. By eliminating the dead point the make the rider much more efficient. They transfer and manage the power you produce in a much more effective manner. You are able to transfer more power to the rear wheel (through the leverage action of the cams) in comparison to the choppy pedalling found in traditional cranks.

Boing writes: "Can I confirm that training on PC 's would have as much benifit to racing on RC's as to racing on standard cranks i.e. If you believe PC work they will work as well for both(I think they do), if you you don't think they work it will make no difference. Would training on PC's negate some of the benifits you might get from RC's e.g. If training on PC's made you 2mins per 40k quicker and racing on RC's made you 2 mins per 40k quicker, if you trained on PC's and raced RC's would you perhaps just see a 3mins improvement or still only a 2min improvement or would you get the full 4min improvement? "

It would appear that the PC and RC benefits are additive. However, if one were to save 2 minutes on one ande 2 minutes on the other the additive effects are for power, not time so the total benefit will be somewhat less than 4 minutes as the faster one is going the harder it is to take a certain amount of time off. After all, how hard is it to reduce your IM time 10 minutes if you can do 8.25 hours compared to 12.

I have one caveate in my analysis. It appears to me that the main benefit of the RC's is to fool the rider to ride a more efficient, more powerful, lower cadence. It is possible that the PC user may be able to get the RC benefit by just forcing themselves to ride bigger gears and not get so locked into riding at a particular cadence. Just ride at what is fastest for you. I think that may be why Yaqui may be seeing benefit with his Rotors on the flats but not when he is climbing.

Frank

---

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

It appears to me that the main benefit of the RC's is to fool the rider to ride a more efficient, more powerful, lower cadence.

this is incorrect - riders will be able to maintain their normal cadence with Rotor Cranks

It is possible that the PC user may be able to get the RC benefit by just forcing themselves to ride bigger gears and not get so locked into riding at a particular cadence.

again, this is not how Rotor Cranks work, they manage torque production and allow a rider to produce more torque on the downstroke

Just ride at what is fastest for you. I think that may be why Yaqui may be seeing benefit with his Rotors on the flats but not when he is climbing.

actually, most Rotor Cranks riders find that the benefits really stand out with climbing applications

Gary, I don't think you have a clue as to how your product really works. While the users average cadence will be the same the instantaneous cadence is always changing and is the lowest during the power phase. Like I said, it is fooling the rider to ride a more effective cadence, even fools the distributor.

---

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

Let's see.... about ten more minutes and Rip Van Twinkle will be posting his morning diatribe against all the posts from last night. And the world just keeps on turning ........

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

Oh my God!!!! What have I done???? I have just contributed to this monster.



Oh no!!! I’ve done it again. Please! Someone! Stop me! Stop me!! Stop me before I do it again!!!

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

"Gary, I don't think you have a clue as to how your product really works. While the users average cadence will be the same the instantaneous cadence is always changing and is the lowest during the power phase. Like I said, it is fooling the rider to ride a more effective cadence, even fools the distributor."

Cadence = pedal revolutions per minute. What is there not to understand Frank. Why make it complex? I think you are making this up in your mind, trying to conceptualize how Rotor Cranks work, without riding them. It is fairly simple to grasp the concept.

[reply]
"Gary, I don't think you have a clue as to how your product really works. While the users average cadence will be the same the instantaneous cadence is always changing and is the lowest during the power phase. Like I said, it is fooling the rider to ride a more effective cadence, even fools the distributor."

[#0000a0][b]Cadence = pedal revolutions per minute. What is there not to understand Frank. Why make it complex? I think you are making this up in your mind, trying to conceptualize how Rotor Cranks work, without riding them. It is fairly simple to grasp the concept.[/b][/#0000a0] [/reply]




Any advantage that RC's have to offer comes from
only one source, they enable a rider to start using
his main downward pressure stroke earlier than he
could do it on normal cranks and that is where he gains the extra pedaling time. At a cadence of 90,
any slight time gain is multiplied by 10,800 over an
hour of pedaling.

I thought I'd push this thread over 10000 views...

Dude what are you crazy or something!!! You are so off base!!! Lowering the maximum force, that is used has nothing to do with anything. I mean if you can generate the same power to the wheel using a much lower force to the pedals, how on earth would would you think that was even a good thing….. How many times do I have to repeat myself…..Group 1 was more efficient ……….. < total sarcasim mode off >

These are the numbers that I mentioned earlier. Looking at the Coyle study, we have two subjects who demonstrated the same power output of 336 watts (subjects E & K). The important difference is that E used a maximum force of 495N as compared to K with a max of only 320N.

Could this be what you are saying? IF you can produce the same power while reducing the load on the extensors, the point at which they fatigue takes much longer to happen. Subsequently, faster for longer…….

When will they realize that the engines (the subjects) were not the same, and therefore you cannot accurately compare the "cycling economy" numbers as it relates to which pedalling style is more O2 efficient?

I am afraid that I have to apologize to you. I am making the mistake of actually trying to understand this and not just trying to be argumentative, and I am assuming that you are also. So sorry…….

What about Wankel engines any users out there?

Huh..uhhuhuhuhuhhh huh huh huh (best dumbass butthead laugh) you said "Wankel"

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

Oh, the irony...

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

TooSlow wrote: Could this be what you are saying? IF you can produce the same power while reducing the load on the extensors, the point at which they fatigue takes much longer to happen. Subsequently, faster for longer…….

Yep, that's almost what I'm saying...I'm saying if PEAK extensor force can be reduced, while still achieving the same power per the entire pedal stroke, the point at which the extensors fatigue will take longer to happen...because glycogen will have been conserved. Subsequently, longer at the same speed as before Peak extensor force was reduced, OR, slightly higher speed for the same length of time, if one chose to increase the peak extensor force back up to the original level.

Make sense? I'm not saying it's proven to be true, but, doesn't it make sense?

---

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

TooSlow wrote: When will they realize that the engines (the subjects) were not the same, and therefore you cannot accurately compare the "cycling economy" numbers as it relates to which pedalling style is more O2 efficient?


Oops. I forgot to address this...I think this is a common mistake many "scientists" used to make (maybe some still do) about cycling. "Most O2 efficient" isn't what produces the best cycling results, expecially in endurance cycling.

For example, it is more O2 efficient to pedal at 50-60 rpms...problem is, glycogen is depleted too fast, if by pedalling at these rpms you are generating enough power to be going at a relatively fast pace...let's say 25 mph. Pedalling at 90 rpms at 25 mph uses more oxygen (is less O2 efficient), but, it consumes less glycogen, because the peak forces required on each pedal stroke are less than going 25 mph at 55 rpms.

SO, the less oxygen efficient, higher rpm choice will give the cyclist better performance in an event that lasts longer than the glycogen will hold out at 55 rpm. The key is to find out where an individual's physiological charateristics dictate the best rpm/peak force for the task at hand...and, to train the individual's power production/oxygen delivery/fuel availability systems to their optimal levels based upon the task.

Like I've said so many times, this isn't a PC/RC battle, it's a thread about physiology and effects different training/racing tools may address. I think we'll all learn more if it is kept in this light....

---

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

It makes perfectly good sense to me. But who am I? I've been accused of being an engineer type anyway.

....I'm saying if PEAK extensor force can be reduced, while still achieving the same power per the entire pedal stroke...... The numbers from this study clearly show this to be possible.

Try this little experiment.... Try pedalling a tandem or a triplet with kids. See how long you last stabbing at the pedals. The interia of one of those bike is slightly more than a single. If you employ a practice of stabbing at the pedals, I assure you that you will not last.

Lower peak forces and a smoother torque curve.

I like where you are going with this. Now if we can keep the discussion focused on this concept we really can gain some informative insight into this whole thing. I will cross my fingers but I won't hold my breath:)

RVP wrote: Coyle used to think so. Then he got funding from the USOC, studied a slew of cyclists while they pedaled with and without toeclips and while they were running on a treadmill set at 10% grade, used instrumented force pedals to measure the actual forces being produced, etc., etc., etc., and finally convinced himself that this "spreading the work around" hypothesis was dead-ass wrong.

Interesting. I'd have to read this study for myself to see if he used two different physiologically different classes of athletes again. I mean, if he used a group that had higher capillary density AND higher fast-twitch muscle fibers, and this group outperformed a group with more slow-twitch fibers and less capillary density, then it will not have proven that higher-peak forces are better.

Now, if this study you are referring to took a group of athletes producing first higher peak forces, then took the same group and had them re-run the experiment by producing lower peak forces, and comparing the results of each athlete to his high-peak and low-peak performances, and across the board the higher peak force is a better strategy, AND if this was for a period of time that mimics a long race...not something requiring a near-VO2 max effort....well, I'd change my mind. Without even reading the study, I'll bet he didn't do it this way, did he?

---

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

You are correct.

I would also add one other item for consideration. System power losses. The power output is taken at the rear wheel. The O2 is taken at the mouth. There is an interface between the riders and the bike. A highly O2 efficient person who is very strong but pedals sloppily will "score" higher than some one who is less O2 efficient but pedals very effectively.

This fails to account for waste within the overall system. We can place Lance of a bike barefoot on platform pedals and I bet he will score a higher cycling economy numbers than I. This does not mean that with proper pedals and shoes his numbers wouldn't rise further.

I agree also it isn't about PC/RC's. It is about why can things be improved, and not how a particular product achieves this.

TooSlow wrote: I agree also it isn't about PC/RC's. It is about why can things be improved, and not how a particular product achieves this.

Oh, you're no fun ;)

---

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

Mr Day wrote:

"I mean do you see ANY VALUE to the athlete worrying about form? In your opinion, are all the coaches, who counsel their clients to worry about pedaling form, nuts?

And Dr. (insert real name here) replied:

Not nuts, just misguided and insufficiently trained in critical thinking."



That's because of stuff like this that exercise physiologists make lousy coaches. Just as coaches make lousy exercise physiologists. Their work is, or should be, to complement each others knowledge, since their expertize regard the same phenomenon but are not the same thing.



Paulo

---

-
"Yeah, no one likes a smartass, but we all like stars" - Thom Yorke


smartasscoach.tri-oeiras.com