Does anybody else believe that these crank systems such as RC’s and PC’s along with asymetric chainrings have crossed the line between improving equipment and changing it.
It seems that through some pretty cool engineering, we have drastically altered the most basic skill associated with becoming a cyclist, the efficient pedal stroke. I can see these things being used for training aids, or other such things, but it seems that racing such a system should be in a “non-stock” class.
I have to admit that I haven’t ridden any of the altered systems…
I disagree. While the wheels may reduce drag, they do not alter the basic principle/skill set of cycling. Pedaling smoothly and efficiently is a skill. A rear wheel being more efficient has nothing to do with skill, it just reduces drag.
don’t get me wrong, I like new innovations and have Rotorcranks on my Tri bike myself. But I don’t think you can say that those cranks are no different than race wheels. You are faster with race wheels for one simple reason, they are more aerodynamic. I love my Rotorcranks and know that they are legal, but they allow you to be faster due to changes in the cyclic pattern. Yes, you are still rotating the pedals in a circle, but it changes the relative amount of time you spend at various degrees.
Wheels don’t change the efficiency of you working. There’s less aerodynamic drag and therefore you get more velocity for your watts. RC allow you to produce more watts while not lowering your aerodynamic drag, therefore you have more power to overcome the drag force and as a result ride faster. In the end, yes both “tools” allow you to ride faster, but that’s about it they have in common.
While i agree that pedaling smoothly is a skill, I do believe that acquiring and refining such skill is a awfully time-consuming process.
I am a recreational cyclist who participate in a few amateur races (we call them “cyclosportives” in France) I also find myelf rather time-constrained.
I only train one hour per day from 5:30 AM to 6:00 AM on the turbo trainer, and manages to weave in a few outdoor rides every other WE (my global outdoor “milage” was only 3000 km last year).
I compete against French civil servants or teachers who work 35 hours a week (as a lawyer, I work 70 hours weeks more often than not). It may be cynical but I have had no qualms using osymetric chainrings ;-). Besides, other cyclists have kept laughing at my ugly chainrings and I have never come across someone who seemed ready to believe that they were a performance advantage (I do!).
Perhaps – but it has yet to be proven that it makes anyone faster. I have not seen a special jersey at the TDF for “smoothest pedaller.”
But, I have seen some really smooth pedalers finishing a few hours behind Lance and the other big boys.
“Pedaling efficiency” is an enticing concept. Just because it “seems like” it should be true doesn’t mean it is. If it is in fact a skill, I would suggest that it is a pointless one.
For that reason (and others) I could care less what sorts of cranks and rings people bolt to their bikes.
I never claimed that they were illegal. I am sure that they are legal. Just because they are legal, doesn’t mean that they are good for the sport. Maybe “cheating” was the wrong word.
I am of the opinion that sport should be decided on the basis of strength/skill/preparation/etc. When someone can use special equipment to reduce the strength/skill/preparation necessary, I believe that that is bad for sport.
I feel the same way about the “long” putter in golf. It violates the principle of a golf swing. However, it is legal and people can use it. To me, it’s yet another example of “dumbing down” the world so that everyone feels special.
I’d venture to guess that anybody riding and finishing the same race as Lance, regardless of the time difference, is a very efficient cyclist. No, there are no awards for efficient pedaling, other than you used to need that skill in order to become a more efficient cyclist. Now, you might just need to do a bit more shopping instead of riding…
I am not saying they provide the same type of performance benefit of aero wheels. I am just saying they are another tool that some feel enhance cycling performace.
Long story short, I do not think it is cheating. Just like I don’t think aero wheels are cheating. Sorry for the confusion.
While i agree that pedaling smoothly is a skill, I do believe that acquiring and refining such skill is a awfully time-consuming process.
Heaven forbid that it should take time, practice, and effort to become good at something… You’re using altered equipment to make up for lack of skill. That’s bad for the sport in my opinion. It’s changing the nature of the game.
How about some cranks that you can turn (maybe backwards) while coasting downhill which store up energy in a spring mechanism to be released later when you need it? It’s still your own energy. Or, a gizmo like a grip exerciser that lets you pump energy into drivetrain with your hands? Crankarm length which you can adjust on the fly, that would be pretty sweet… in the same vein as a seatshifter, or a seatback brace (UCI illegal now I think)? How different is too different? At what point does a sophisticated crank mechanism become like hand paddles or fins (mechanical advantage), vs. static aids like aero wheels, wetsuits, aerobars? Just askin’…
I dont think PC’s could be cheating as they are a tool to help you perform better on REAL cranks. Same could be said for weight training. If RC’s do make for a better performance then they are cheating in my book. Not cheating in the sense of the rules, but cheating in the sense that I wouldnt recognize anyone as being faster than me if they were using them. I love the aspect of this sport that hard work is rewarded. I wish more people felt the same way.
other than you used to need that skill in order to become a more efficient cyclist.
Again, you are leaping to a conclusion here. Back up. You are assuming that there is such a thing as pedalling “more efficiently” than some other cyclist. What is that? How does it work? Explain it to me. (And don’t give me the old line about “back-pressure” on the pedals…please.) Pedaling in “circles?” Why? How does that generate more power, exactly? How does it save energy, exactly?
Just because you can say that pedaling efficiency matters doesn’t mean it’s true!
Cycling faster is about power generation, period. Sure, it is possible to, under certain conditions, generate power more efficiently, but so what? If your power doesn’t go up, all the efficiency in the world won’t do you a damn bit of good. Cycling isn’t about the total-energy-in versus total-energy-out equation. It is about the rate at which energy is applied to a task.
A Prius does a better job than a Porsche of performing the most amount of work from of a gallon of fuel. But, the Porsche can burn through a gallon of fuel a heck of a lot faster than a Prius. It is the rate at which the fuel can be burned that determines winners.
So again – tell me how “pedaling efficiency” can raise power output over a given race duration, IOW, how can it help us burn up calories faster, or, produce more power from the same calories.
I see your point on the PC’s. They offer performance enhancement through better technique learned by using them. They are a training tool, not a mechanical advantage. Maybe I should edit the original message to take PC’s out of the firing line…
Skip said it better than I did, mechanical aid is what I believe the O-symetric rings and Rotor Cranks to be. Hand paddles and fins being a good analogy in the swimming world. Thanks Skip.
I also feel that a performance with these mechanical aids might carry an (*) to designate altered mechanical advantage played a part. I agree that if someone were to beat me with RC’s or the special rings, I would feel as if they hadn’t really beaten me on “real” equipment.
How about some cranks that you can turn (maybe backwards) while coasting downhill which store up energy in a spring mechanism to be released later when you need it? At what point does a sophisticated crank mechanism become like hand paddles or fins (mechanical advantage), vs. static aids like aero wheels, wetsuits, aerobars? Just askin’…
Your example is actually specifically forbidden in cycling rules. Anything that can store and re-release energy in propelling the bike is banned, whether it springs or batteries or whatever.
I also feel that a performance with these mechanical aids might carry an (*) to designate altered mechanical advantage played a part. I agree that if someone were to beat me with RC’s or the special rings, I would feel as if they hadn’t really beaten me on “real” equipment.
I understand what you’re saying. For example, I feel that anyone weighing less than 170 lbs or more than 185 who was born before 4/18/1957 or after 4/20/1957 should carry an asterisk next to their name and I don’t consider them as having really beaten me. Unfortunately we compete in a sport with a govening body(ies) and fixed set of rules so every competitor doesn’t get to make up the rules for themself as they go along.
Heaven forbid that it should take time, practice, and effort to become good at something… You’re using altered equipment to make up for lack of skill. That’s bad for the sport in my opinion. It’s changing the nature of the game.
Lehmkuhler
I agree with you to a point: i am using optimized equipement to make up for lack of time.
But this only make up for lack of training time because my fellow cyclists do not believe in the osymetric solution. I would be in the same position at the start of a time trial if I were the only one to recognize that aero wheels are better than box-section rims.
What i mean is this does not change the rules of the game as long as anybody may use the same equipment: you are free to use osymetric chainrings or not, just as Bobby Julich and… yours truly.
how about triathlon/tt frames? Completely different from the normal racing bike…totally alters the riders position to improve aerodynamics. Buying free speed here as well. Same goes for bars. Regular drop bars have been the norm in bike racing forever…why bother bolting something on to your bike just to gain an advantage. Some will say we’re comparing apples and oranges on this one…and hey…maybe they’re partly right. But if you think changing rings or using RCs is cheating then why wouldn’t you think an trispecific frame or aerodynamic bars are not doing the same thing? One compensates for personal flexibility (okay I’m reaching on this one…you get the point) and the other compensates for poor genetic aerodynamics. I see your point here I just don’t think it’s cheating. Drafting…is cheating.
other than you used to need that skill in order to become a more efficient cyclist.
Again, you are leaping to a conclusion here. Back up. You are assuming that there is such a thing as pedalling “more efficiently” than some other cyclist. What is that? How does it work? Explain it to me. (And don’t give me the old line about “back-pressure” on the pedals…please.) Pedaling in “circles?” Why? How does that generate more power, exactly? How does it save energy, exactly?
Just because you can say that pedaling efficiency matters doesn’t mean it’s true!
I may be jumping to a conclusion, but it’s a pretty safe jump. I, and most of the cycling world, including the elite have made this jump.
I’m sure that Lance works on pedaling so much purely for the style points that are so vital in the outcome of his major races… Yeah, that’s it…
Surely you can see that if you produce 300 watts and waste 50, you’re not going to do as well as if you produce 275 and waste 15. Also, efficient pedaling spreads the metabolic cost of power production to more musculature.
I have to admit that I pointed this thread in a slightly erroneous direction. Implements used to improve skill, and therefore efficiency aren’t really what I was getting at. I threw PC’s in a group where they didn’t belong. Sorry about that. RC’s and O-symetric cranks still (at least through claims and the evidence I have seen) offer a mechanical advantage over traditional rings and go too far IMHO in changing the sport.
