[reply]

Good honest report Gary but in fairness to ROTOR
it would take at least 3 months before the brain and
muscles fully adjust to their new technique.
The reason for the higher gear being difficult is
that you are forced to use it in the 1 to 3 o'clock
area while your maximum power application area
is the 2 to 4 o'clock area.
I still cannot understand how by having to use a higher gear you are reducing the risk of injury to
the knees.

http://www.rotorbike.com/...niv_zaragoza_eng.pdf

 

[reply]
Thanks, this is the first time I saw those pages.
They raise more questions than give answers.
Such as, the cranks are acting naturally between
3 and 9 o'clock so I cannot understand how riders
are experiencing different effects. Maybe it is
because when under pressure for all these answers,
you begin to imagine different sensations. As for the
sliding forward at TDC by circular pedaling riders, I
cannot see it causing injury as it is no different
from sliding your shoe backward and forward on the
floor when in a seated position. I would say that
very little if any effective force is applied by that
activity, it is the inertia that mainly carries it
through that area. All of which goes
to prove, if you produce enough documentation, you
can succeed in convincing people. However it does
confirm the greater stress on the knee between 45
and 90 degrees and that was what I was mainly
referring to and where most injury could be caused.

Nice piece, Gary! Good luck at State's -- is it next week?

Special note (only) to timetrialers in New Jersey: do not race on Rotor System cranks -- they are awful, and will only make you go much, much slower. Trust me; I have only your best interests at heart. ;-)

PS: would just like to second Gary's comment that Howie Cohen, Rotor's U.S. distributor, is a great guy to deal with. He even took the trouble of hounding Rotor into producing a 55 ring, and answered every question I had knowledgeably and cheerfully.

Like most of us on this board, I buy all my own equipment, and always will. Such a pleasure to discover great new stuff...

One of the atheltes I coach has started using rotorcranks. Initially I'm can't say we see a lot of difference. On the Computrainer, they definetely produce a higher spinscan number (about 82-86) vs about 74-76, but it's difficult to say whether there has any immediate increase in power, if so it's subtle. I think it may be that since they allow you to push on the cranks for longer (longer power stroke), then there is going to have to be a strength increase (adaptation) to take advantage of that.

We're going to be doing some lactate testing this week, so we'll see if there is any difference, as that's one of the claims.

Joel

www.CompetitionZone.com

[reply]

I would second that advice but that is not the fault of
the ROTOR system, it's the lack of knowledge of the
riders in how to get most from these cranks.
These cranks, if the mechanism proves reliable, are
one of cycling's greatest inventions. Even the
inventors do not know how to get the best results
out of them. They have faults at present such as
I mentioned above in an earlier reply to Gary but
like back pain, these faults are not caused by the
ROTOR system but by the round pedaling style.
When combined with the linear technique of
Anquetil where maximum power application area is
between 1 and 3 o'clock and which can already
directly eliminate the dead spot area, you can defy
the laws of nature and not only eliminate the dead
spot area but also compensate for the power one normally loses there. This done by both eliminating
the dead spot area and also extending your
area of maximum power application to the pedals.
In addition knee problems are not increased but
actually decreased.

[reply]
One of the atheltes I coach has started using rotorcranks. Initially I'm can't say we see a lot of difference. On the Computrainer, they definetely produce a higher spinscan number (about 82-86) vs about 74-76, but it's difficult to say whether there has any immediate increase in power, if so it's subtle. I think it may be that since they allow you to push on the cranks for longer (longer power stroke), then there is going to have to be a strength increase (adaptation) to take advantage of that.


On the subject of strength increase, the linear
pedaling style of Anquetil enables a rider to do
what is impossible with circular pedaling when
riding at speed in the saddle, that is to combine
the maximum resistance of the arms with the
hips/legs when generating the pedal power.
I believe linear pedaling and ROTOR
are the perfect combination. To get maximum gains
in TT's you would be using a version of the "SCOTT"
rake bars. With normal aero bars, you are resting
on what could be one of your best assets in
developing power instead of making maximum use
out of them.

Ankling does not work, it died in the 60's, it is an urban legend:

http://www.faqs.org/...art4/section-26.html

Joel

this is exactly the case, muscular adaptation is required, and a cyclist will find that they may not be able, initially, to make full use of the Rotors

I think it may take around 2 months to adjust totally, possibly more depending on the way the cyclist uses them

however, they work well - from day 1

actually ankling does work...but it works maybe for 20-30'' when you need the extra power to attack up a hill, or take a harder pull at the front.
trying to ankle all the time, and your legs will fry in not time

[reply]
Ankling does not work, it died in the 60's, it is an urban legend:



Of course ankling does not work, it is ok when in
a low cadence during climbing and sitting back on saddle but it would be useless at a higher cadence
in time trials as there would not be time for all
the power application directional changes.
Anquetil used a different ankle motion just as I do
but we are not ankling, I am using the ankle to
steer the power application to the pedal in the
same direction at all times in order to be able to
make the continued use of arm power possible.

I don't know, I have never used RC.
maybe ankling is also possible for extended period of time as well...
I was just pointing out that ankling works at least for a short amount of time...maybe working on continuous ankling can do the trick, but it will fry your legs like when using powercranks for example, for the first time (these I tried...a LOT!)

 
hey chief, you're not making any sense

>My question to you had nothing to do with Rotorcranks.

Your first question to him was, "How is this different from the effects of Rotor cranks?"

Why do you think your question has nothing to do with rotorcranks?


And now you ask:
>why do you dismiss [ankling]

In response to Francois saying, "I was just pointing out that ankling works at least for a short amount of time...maybe working on continuous ankling can do the trick"

So Francois has said that ankling works, but he doesn't do it all the time because it fries his legs, but maybe it's something that could be worked on for all-the-time use.

Why do you think that's being dismissive?

My anterior tibialis' are much more developed since I started training on PCs. They protrude anteriorly much more than they used to, because I have used them as part of the adaptation to PCs. It may be that my ant.tib. is used just to fix my ankle joint instead of actually flex the ankle during the upstroke phase, that would be an acceptable adaptation of a musculoskeletal system that isn't able to match the power of another system. But, the anterior tibialis is not capable of anywhere near the power of the hip flexors, at least due to their relative sizes, but probably also due to their respective effective leverage arm lengths. This can be demonstrated fairly easily in any gym.

Rotorcranks seem to me to be a very good answer to an obvious desire...how to best utilize the muscles that are normally used to push down on the crankarm. If you can use them more effectively, you should be able to increase power to the chain. That doesn't negate the benefit of being able to use the hip flexors to at least not detract, and perhaps even contribute to the pushing down action by the extensors.

Rotorcranks attempt to maximize the use to the extensors. Powercranks force one to use hip flexors to at least the point that the work done by the extensors isn't wasted to lift the rising pedal-foot-leg, and at best to actually use the hip flexors to add power to the chain. I see no reason that both wouldn't be desireable...a person trained on PCs and riding Rotorcranks should deliver more power to the chain than if they had not adapted to PCs.

I like the idea of Rotorcranks. Here's another idea that is good, if it could be worked out mechanically. Lengthening the lever-arm on the downstroke while shortening the lever-arm (and therefore the distance required to move the rising foot) on the upstroke. It could have a sort of sliding motion, like a old fashioned steam freight-train drive. This would allow the mashing muscles a long lever for more power delivery and the hip flexing muscles would have a shorter distance to move the recovering side. This would maximize the maximum cycling power muscle's abilities while minimizing the work the weaker accessory muscles would be doing. Best of both worlds.

---

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

you are interpreting what I said (twice)...

I said: ankling works. but not for long (at least for me)..it fries my leg (was just an answer to Gary).
Can you improve it? maybe, I have no idea, I haven't tried.
Am I dismissing it? not really...right now I work on PC. if I plateau with PC, then I'll see...

funny how sometimes people want to read something else than what's written.

Ankling schmankling. :-) At least as far as timetrialing goes:

• Train on the biggest gear you can effectively stay on top for the time/distance/event you want to master. If you can't do it in training, forget about doing it on race day.

• On the Rotors, this is effectively mash/stomp, with no dead spot, and no pulling involved. Might be ugly to purist "spinners", but it's efficient as hell. As Gary notes, also demanding on the muscles until you adapt and they adjust -- like one long set of "hack" leg squats, with no dead recovery point at the end of each effort. But once they do...

• Learn to suffer -- and like it -- so you can out-effort your competition. It's surprising how little suffering actually "hurts" once you're in peak form. Base efforts in poor form are actually far more unpleasant.

• Pay attention to giving yourself adequate sleep/recovery, and dose your efforts to avoid overtraining as you approach form.

• Set your peaks for key race points -- off-season is just that, and calls for a mixture of recovery and maintenance.

• No cheating -- i.e., performance enhancing substances, drafting, etc., etc. (what's the point -- guess who you're cheating?).

Strip everything else away, and it's about that simple. And about that bloody difficult, too -- every race, and every season, is a fresh, nasty challenge to try to get this stuff even close to right. Isn't that what's so intriguing about it?

Have fun!

could not have said it better. TT'ing is all about 'out suffering' your competition (for those of you who race against others, not just try to set PR's).

Rotors help to get you on a bigger gear with the same cadence, the trade off is that you will now have to come up with the 'juice' to push that gear.

So yes, there is a break in period, and it hurts, but once you are past the break in period you will be going faster.

 

Rotors help to get you on a bigger gear with the same cadence, the trade off is that you will now have to come up with the 'juice' to push that gear.
[reply]

True and that is where a stronger pedal power
generating technique and the ability to use arm
resistance at all times enable a rider to get maximum benefit from these ROTOR cranks.

 

I like the idea of Rotorcranks. Here's another idea that is good, if it could be worked out mechanically. Lengthening the lever-arm on the downstroke while shortening the lever-arm (and therefore the distance required to move the rising foot) on the upstroke. It could have a sort of sliding motion, like a old fashioned steam freight-train drive. This would allow the mashing muscles a long lever for more power delivery and the hip flexing muscles would have a shorter distance to move the recovering side. This would maximize the maximum cycling power muscle's abilities while minimizing the work the weaker accessory muscles would be doing. Best of both worlds. [/reply]


That is exactly what Anquetil's technique does
mentally by making completely different use of
all the muscles and ankle. Instead of a longer
lever, extending the power stroke back into the
dead spot area gives the same effect, increasing
power for turning a higher gear.