First Rotorcrank ride, Renn 575

Triathlon Forum
1

Very nice! Excellent workmanship, not hard to install if you read the directions! I only rode them 5 miles on my trainer, but I could not tell the cranks were different from regular cranks, except my speed on the trainer was slightly higher at the same HR as regular cranks (I ran two miles to warm up). Noticeably abscent was the feeling of a “kick” on the rising foot…I’m sure it’s because of all the PowerCrank riding I have done. I’m hoping to put a big ride on them tomorrow to see if issues of muscle fatigue occur due to adaptation issues…but I don’t think there will be…they feel absolutely normal to me. Actually, they felt so normal, I checked them three times to make sure I have the set point correct.

Also got my new Renn 575 today. Those are some mighty slick bearings, and much better graphics…oh, yeah, the wheel is straight as an arrow. Great job, worth the wait.

2

Will be very interested to hear your long term report on the RC’s. Let us know if you experience knee pain.

3

I used to get knee pain prior to PowerCranks…especially if my rpms were lower than 90. Not any more, and my rpm’s are frequently in the low 80’s. But, I’ll be watching for it.

I did notice it’s easier to spin the Rotors than I thought from hearing a few other reports about them. Have to get out on the road to really tell anything…but, I did run a few seconds in 54-11 just to see how it felt…it felt goooood.

4

Your experience, especially as regards knees, and the experiences of others may be completely different unless they have close to two years of PC’ing under their belt as you do.

5

You are likely to adapt much faster than I did.

If you read Mike Plumb’s past post, you will see that he thinks they were worth 45 seconds over the 20k TT course at Dannon Duathlon Miami, and helped him to claim his win and 2nd fastest time of the day.

Coming from Mike, that holds some weight.

I am sure you will see the same positive results, now that you are “Rotorized”.

Let us know how they work out for you.

7

Or that Rotor 63T monstrosity, now that’s a big boy - no messing around

Hey, aint no shame in a 54T!

9

might have been

wonder what the cadence would be on that 90T, like 20 RPM
.

10

Actually it was an ice bike. That chain ring gives extra traction after a freezing rain.

11

Francois wrote: dude, after 2 years on PC and now using RC+PC you have to get a decently sized chainring…like a 56…
keep the 54 for the small one :slight_smile:

The 54 was the small one, I run a 54/63, just didn’t want to burn up my trainer :wink:

Seriously, though, I’m thinking adaptation will be a piece of cake. I remember the weird “kicking” sensation I would sometimes feel on regular cranks after I spent almost all of my time on PowerCranks. After a while (six months? nine months? I don’t really know) I stopped getting that feeling. I expected to get that feeling with Rotorcranks, since the rising pedal is moving faster than the descending pedal, but, nope. Feels fine. I also had no problem spinning them up to higher cadences…I’m not sure why I thought that might be tougher to do, I guess I’ve read something between the lines in some other reports I’ve seen, but, it’s all fine.

I hope to get them out on the road for a real-world test today, including some hills that I normally ride up at 8.3 mph on a decent day. Maybe I’ll have some quad fatigue issues once I’ve ridden for a while on the first few rides, it wouldn’t surprise me, but, it wouldn’t surprise me if I didn’t, because they feel so normal already.

12

"Maybe I’ll have some quad fatigue issues once I’ve ridden for a while on the first few rides, it wouldn’t surprise me, but, it wouldn’t surprise me if I didn’t, because they feel so normal already. "

Coming over from a PC background, I believe that Francois had similar results, minimal (if any) fatigue in his quads.

I however did feel it a little for the first two rides, kind of a deep fatigue, like after a very long week of training - an overall feeling that I put out more effort.

14

Francois do you still use your PCs or have you completely migrated to the RCs?

15

Hid, at the risk of interrupting, I think I can answer the question you asked Francois before he gets back to you. The answer is: If you benefitted from PC’s (at least as much as I have), you don’t quit training on them. PC’s and RC’s are not competitors (except, perhaps for the discretionary dollar). Their benefits to the cyclist are achieved in a dissimilar manner, neither of which adversely interferes with the other. That’s my view. Perhaps I’ll know more in a month or so.

16

Thanks, that’s pretty much the answer I expect to hear but am interested to see how it plays out in the real (lazy) world :smiley:
.

17

Clearly there is not a lot of experience of people using both but this would be my expectation.

1.It appears that a strong PC background minimizes or eliminates any RC transition “problem”.

  1. I would expect that anyone who has a strong PC background that transitioned to RC’s and stopped training on PC’s would, over time, slow down because they would lose their PC abilities. In addition, all triathletes would lose the PC running advantage. I see no advantage for a PC’er to ever train on regular or rotor cranks. What they choose to race on is a different story.

  2. It is not clear to me that the RC advantage for a PC’er will be particularly great if the person is riding the PC’s optimally. RC’s seem to work by simulating a higher gear at the same cadence. A PC’er might see the same advantage by simply riding a higher gear (or, they might not this needs to be studied). It seems that most people are locked into thinking that higher cadences are better where the data would seem to indicate they are not. The positive effect of the RC’s may simply come from fooling the rider into riding a more muscularly efficient cadence on the downstroke (where most of the power comes from), without changing the overall average “cadence” they ride.

19

1.It appears that a strong PC background minimizes or eliminates any RC transition “problem”.

Likely yes, however adaptation to Rotors is very quick, regardless.

  1. I would expect that anyone who has a strong PC background that transitioned to RC’s and stopped training on PC’s would, over time, slow down because they would lose their PC abilities. In addition, all triathletes would lose the PC running advantage. I see no advantage for a PC’er to ever train on regular or rotor cranks. What they choose to race on is a different story.

Riders should definately train on Rotors, as much as possible. And likely they will, once they see the advantages.

  1. It is not clear to me that the RC advantage for a PC’er will be particularly great if the person is riding the PC’s optimally.

We will see, I am sure Gordo will comment on this, he has been riding Rotors across the US this spring - gRAAM - and uses PC as well

RC’s seem to work by simulating a higher gear at the same cadence. A PC’er might see the same advantage by simply riding a higher gear (or, they might not this needs to be studied).

PC’s do not eliminate the dead point. Rotors do. Nuff said.

It seems that most people are locked into thinking that higher cadences are better where the data would seem to indicate they are not. The positive effect of the RC’s may simply come from fooling the rider into riding a more muscularly efficient cadence on the downstroke (where most of the power comes from), without changing the overall average “cadence” they ride.

The benefits come from making the cranks more efficient, pedalling more efficient.

20

Gary,

I am afraid Gordo is not one to comment on this. I think he hardly uses his PC’s. No one, not even Gordo, would claim he is well adapted, i.e., able to go out and ride them hard for 4-5 hours at “ordinary” cadences. Yaqui and Francois are much better candidates to comment on this as they are both fully adapted endurance wise, although I have some issues with Francois and the aero position. For instance, if Francois cannot ride the PC’s in his racing aero position for very long or without bothering his hep flexor then I submit that his racing aero position is too extreme and when he does race in that position, whether on RC’s or regular cranks, he cannot sustain a “proper” pedal stroke and will be forced to be less efficient and lose power. I suspect he is losing more in power than he gains in aerodynamics but, who knows as most people don’t have the ability to actually measure this. Francois not training on PC’s in the aero position is a big mistake in my opinion. The only people who would benefit from training on RC’s are those who have not trained on PC’s or have given up on them.

Let us not get into this “RC’s eliminate the dead point argument” You folks define “dead point” one way to serve your end. RC’s do not change the way people apply force to the pedals, other than it encourages mashing. Put Rotors on a CT spinscan and see if there is a “dead point” and compare it to regular cranks or PC’s. Show me some spinscan data that RC’s “eliminate the dead point” compared to regular cranks or PC’s and I will believe it. Otherwise, it is just marketing hype. If anything “eliminates the dead point” it would have to be PC’s as trained PC’ers frequently can get their spin scaan numbers into the mid 90’s when trying.

22

Francois,

Unless you have done some controlled comparison time trials you are really only guessing as to the aero benefit you are gaining (you should be able to measure the power losses as you have a PowerTap). There are lots of very powerful (and fast) bikers who ride less than “optimum aero” position. How do you know that those positions are not “optimum” for them on this power/aero trade-off. It sounds like Brent Pederson did this testing and rode a very fast bike at Collegiate Nationals despite less than “optimum” position.

Further, your energy analysis is somewhat flawed as the effort you expend is not measured by the watts at the wheel but by your HR. Improve your efficiency and you generate more wattage at the wheel for the same effort.

If you can’t ride PC’s in the aero position you race in for any sustained period in then you are forced to go back to the old pedaling habits, especially the last half of the race and much of the PC advantage is being lost. It sounds to me that you have made your race position even more extreme this year than in years past although the rational for that escapes me since you couldn’t ride the old position with the PC’s, apparently. It does have a certain “wow” factor when people see the bike but this doesn’t mean it makes you optimally fast. If you insist this is the best racing position for you then it seems to me that your time in the PC’s should be dedicated to trying to improve your PC aeroness and not riding upright for endurance. Seems to me you should be working on your “weaknesses” and not developing strength that you won’t be able to fully utilize because of your chosen race position. Otherwise, it seems all that work is really only helping the run.

23

First real ride. Temperature is 87 and it’s breezy. I have a nagging cough and a fever of 99.3, but, I’ll just take it easy and see how it goes. Three Endurolytes and lots of water and I’m out the door. Rotors just feel, well, normal on the warm-up. I stop to make sure they haven’t “slipped” from the middle setting…all looks fine.

Resume the ride after this position check and being warmed up a little, and my internal conversation went something like this. Oops, I spun up to 105 fairly quickly…gotta keep those rpms down or I’ll be toast, so I click a couple of gears and settle in just under 90. Hmmm, I usually have to gear down going up this slight hill…must have less of a headwind than usual. Hmmm. I’m usually climbing this hill in a 23 cog, and I’m in one less gear. Hmmm. I’m just not having to shift gears as much. Well, it feels fine cruising along comfortably on the flat, and, why not wait just a second before shifting to go up this rise like usual…I don’t have to shift down? Is the wind changing direction? The whole ride went similar to that conversation, interspersed with boughts of coughing up small bits of lung tissue. I wore my HR monitor to make sure I wasn’t working too hard, and kept my HR below 150, just like a usual ride on this route.

The tendency to shift less was obvious. I would spin along comfortably in the low 90’s trying my best to think “pick your foot up over that log” (like I do when I don’t have PowerCranks for feedback as to whether I am pulling up enough), and I would just put the power down as my rpms dropped to the lower 80’s to go over hills instead of shifting down one gear and STILL dropping to the 80’s. I simply went up hills a little faster. It seemed that Rotors were worth about the equivalent of one rear cog in speed.

When I finished (it was only a 26 mile loop, I was coughing too much to be sane about continuing), I had averaged 0.4 mph higher than I usually do for a normal ride around this loop. My legs don’t feel different than usual, but, I didn’t try and run off the bike. I probably shouldn’t have even ridden…but, I wanted to try the Rotors. I think I’ve adapted. I think PowerCranks really made a giant difference in allowing me to adapt so quickly…because since I’m already pulling up, I don’t feel the “kick” so many non-PC’ers report to feel.

My plan is to ride Rotors any time I am working on high-end power and speed, and to race on them. PC’s will be used for all other riding (including recovery rides), especially for form rides, and in place of a lot of the running that some people do. I don’t think you can beat what PowerCranks do for some aspects of the pedal stroke, and especially for running. But, I already seem to be faster on Rotorcranks, even on a hot day, even when I’m sick, even on my first ride, even at my same heartrate as usual, and Rotorcranks are what I’ll have on my racing hound.

24

It seems that most people are locked into thinking that higher cadences are better where the data would seem to indicate they are not.

Further, your energy analysis is somewhat flawed as the effort you expend is not measured by the watts at the wheel but by your HR. Improve your efficiency and you generate more wattage at the wheel for the same effort.

There are studies that support:

  1. Higher cadences are in fact “better”.

  2. Minimization of HR (essentially proportional to O2 consumption) is not indicative of optimum cycling cadence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12436285

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7805670

25

Let’s see. From my view, you give two conflicting references. From the abstracts: One suggests that 90-110 rpm is optimum using the “energy cost of cycling” (how they separated that from oxygen consumption associated with cycling seems a mystery - as if energy cost is dissassociated from oxygen consumpton) and another that suggests 70 rpm is optimum (although it supports your view because 70 resulted in less fatique than 40 rpm, so lower wasn’t better in this instance, but even I don’t suggest that 40 is an optimum cadence). So, is 70 RPM optimum or 90-110 and does it matter if one is 90 or 110? Which of these two studies takes precedence to point us towards an optimum cadence in your view?

Just because there are “studies” that set out to show why riders like to ride at cadences above what has generally been shown to be most efficient doesn’t “prove” that “higher” cadences are optimum (higher than what?). Perhaps riders have less fatigue at higher cadences because that is how they train (following the eriudite advice of the “experts”). Would they show the same if they trained at lower cadences?

In addition, I would agree that minimization of HR (for the same power) may not be optimal for all types of cycling such as sprinting, etc. where the cyclist is anaerobic so HR doesn’t really matter anyhow, but it surely must be a consideration for time-trialing, one would think, where getting the maximum amount of power to the wheel within our cardiovascular limits is the goal and also for triathlon where the cyclist has to get off the bike and run so, it would seem, he/she might like to have a little energy left after cycling.

Frank