Looking closer at the RCs for one of my fantasy dream bikes. So I kind of get the concept from a brief review of their website, and I see the testimonials etc. and I have 2 initial thoughts…
First I thought that, as with all innovations in a free market, if it truly works within a VERY short time significant numbers if not the majority if not all pros/elites would use them, at least for TT-type situations. But maybe there are market imperfections such as exclusive shimano/campy sponsorship, irrational resistance to change, etc.
More fundamentally, looking at the design and concept, and assuming the device is capable of delivering a significant improvement over fixed cranks for at least a significant number of rider types, should this be “legal”/kosher? I am no expert on bike/tri laws, just going on intuition here. For example, take 3 “bikes” - 1) a traditional road bike, 2) obree’s superman bike, and 3) a traditional road bike fitted with RCs. If #1 is our gold standard of “bike-ness”, it seems to me that #2, which is illegal under current bike laws, is a lot more like #1 than #3. Is there a coherent rationale for banning #2 but not #3?
Again, just thinking out loud here, and of course there needs to be room for innovation and change, but to me fixed cranks seem to be fairly central to what a bike is and has been. Of course one can adopt legal advantages like discs and aero helmets, but I guess the judgment call there has to be that discs and helmets do not fundamentally change the “bike-ness” of the bike. Even PCs seem less benign - certainly as a training tool but even if you wanted to race on them at least you are doing what everyone on normal cranks is doing except that the cranks are not fixed.
Consider the more extreme example of a new design that delivered power to the wheels through motion like one of those gym-climbers - opposed up-down motion of the legs (and possibly using arms aswell) - would that be ok?
yeah that is a good analogy - market behavior is never perfect and rarely rational! I conceed the point.
But what about point 2???
Another thought - imagine the TdF prologue TT is won by a rider, previously unknown, who happens to be the only one using RCs. Certainly a complaint by the other riders that the victory “was not fair” is at least understandable on some level?
Again, there are a bunch of innovations and improvements one can make to a traditional bike. But at some fuzzy line surely the “bike” can be so altered that becomes a qualitatively different vehicle. Do RC cranks cross this line? Is it “fair” or “appropriate” to race RC bikes against non-RC bikes? (But there was some opposition to the introduction of freewheel hubs which are now commonplace so again the line between innovation and transgression is far from clear.) This may be less of an issue the less obvious the performance benefit of RCs, but still there is the matter of insisting upon a formal (and maybe even arbitrary) definition of “bike”.
But I have never seen or ridden the RCs, and I am not an expert on the whys and wherefores of cycling/tri laws.
Rotor Cranks are UCI legal and were used in the Olympics (Ana Burgos got 7th last year at Athens) and in the Vuelta a Espana by riders on team Cafe Baque. I have a letter from the UCI allowing them.
They are not magic, there is a tradeoff. More speed = more fatigue. Once the rider has adapted their muscles, the fatigue lessens. This is why I suggest 200 miles of riding prior to any major competition.
They allow additional efficiency that a rider cannot get by using traditional cranks, they eliminate the dead spot and maximize the time a rider spends producing power “pushing down”.
Derailleurs do not produce power, however they allow the rider to ride more efficiently. Same thing with clipless pedals. Rotor Cranks follow this train of thought.
This is a great question. I have always been a slave to keeping up with the Jones’s in regards to bike weight, discs etc. But when it comes to altering the essence of what a bike really is, I concede. If having a crank that alters what a bike actually represents, allows you to beat me, then you can have it. I know I dont want to go to achieve my goals knowing a gizzmo got me there.
p.s However if someone trained on them and raced on regular cranks, game on!
The same argument was made when derailleurs were first introduced decades ago. Funny how technology come full circle. European racers complained that they were an unfair advantage, and scoffed at them.
Then clipless pedals were introduced, and it took the pro peloton 10 years to catch on.
I understand your concern, but Rotor Cranks are simply an evolution of bicycle propulsion.
Well that settles that! Even if the UCI decided to allow them based on the flip of a coin, what the UCI says is the law is the law. Are M-Dot races governed by UCI?
The Rotor System was authorized by the UCI (International Cycling Union) for professional road bike competition in October, 2000. The Rotor System fulfils the criteria presented in the UCI rule:
Art 1.3.010 UCI: “The bicycle should be propelled solely, through a chainset, by the legs moving in a circular movement”.
In Triathlon competition, use of the Rotor System is permitted:
a) Olympic Distance: ITU reference to the decisions of the UCI.
b) Long Distance: There are no types of restrictions on materials used.
Authorization for use of the Rotor System in Mountain Bike competition was obtained in 1998 and these athletes continue to use the Rotor System with success.
They are NOT revolutuonary in concept or technolgy they are simply another ‘tool’ or ‘toy’ available to athletes that claims to can improve their performance.
There is no simple method to prove any training equipment is the best, simply because there will always be great athletes who will ‘kick ass’ regqardless of what they ride or what they use for thraining aids.
The best method to evaluate a new ‘toy’ is not if the athletes performance increases after using them but to test if the athletes performance decreases after not using the product.
Rotor Cranks are UCI legal and were used in the Olympics (Ana Burgos got 7th last year at Athens) and in the Vuelta a Espana by riders on team Cafe Baque. I have a letter from the UCI allowing them.
That ought to get your attention
Good to know, thanks! I honestly thought the opposite.
I think a case like this is where science just isn’t enough. At some point you have to trust your intuition. Mine tells me that I’m much more fluid out of the saddle on Rotors, and I can produce more power standing no matter what the crankset is, therefore I’m faster climbing hills on Rotors than with traditional cranks.
The best method to evaluate a new ‘toy’ is not if the athletes performance increases after using them but to test if the athletes performance decreases after not using the product.
Actually, this is interesting and a good way of looking at them and/or any ‘toy’.
Over the last few months of recreation post Hawaii, I left the Rotorized Tri-Bike on the shelf and got back riding my Rotor-Free road bike only. My ability to TT and climb certainly decrease when not using Rotor’s.
I had Bjorn Andersen as a house Guest last week and after a few rides hanging on I decided to pull out the Rotorised bike for subsequent rides. Result was an immediate increase in my tempo speed and easier climbing.
It has been a long time since I have not ridden RC’s for such a long period and I was interested to to see if getting back on actually made the same difference as it did originally. After 2.5 years of Rotors I wondered simply if I had become ‘immune’ to the sensation of changeover because my legs just expected the benefits but it is not the case.
Disclaimer >> I do work in the bicycle industry and do sell RotorCranks in the far flung country known as DownUnder.
You have a belief, be it right or wrong, that makes you feel or perform better, wether you do or dont.
Like I said, log your results and “improvements” over a decent period, maybe 2 years, and then switch bact to std cranks for a year or more. If you are correct you will go backwarsd in performance but I doubt it.
You have a belief, be it right or wrong, that makes you feel or perform better, wether you do or dont.
Like I said, log your results and “improvements” over a decent period, maybe 2 years, and then switch bact to std cranks for a year or more. If you are correct you will go backwarsd in performance but I doubt it.
Some would say science is more faith based than intuition, but we don’t need to get into that.
The problem again with the more scientific method you are suggesting, 2 years on, 1 off, is that there are so many factors that effect one’s performance that it’s really impossible to point to just one thing. Unless of course I’ve reached my peak, such as an Armstrong, but that is not the case. That is why I’m suggesting at some point you have to say to hell with science and all of it’s abstractions, because it’s still not proof.
We have a local club race over the same distance every 4-5 weeks and my times are slower without rotors on an otherwise nearly identical bike. On climbs I can usually hold 20kph comfortably on, I struggle a little more (higher HR) to do the same.
I do not want to be pulled into a show-me-proof-of-RC’s debate because the are always other variables that can be brought into play and the most important aspect of any performance is always the athlete, not the mechanical devices they choose.
Regardless of what I think or feel, they work for me on the clock/speedo which is the desired outcome. If they did not, or something came along that was an improvement, I simply would not continue to use them.
I am sorry but thats like saying " I believe" or “I think”, or “I just know” and whatever else you can say.
And the proof is?
You “think” you are faster so people should trust that?
Yes, I’m saying that based upon my neurological ability to have sensations, I just know that I climb out of the saddle better on Rotors. Quite honestly, I could give a shit what science has to say about the matter. I’m a new-age hippie, and I’m taking over the world; deal with it.
I would advise people, in general, that no man can tell another man something they don’t already know, and as such they should be wary of asking for or accepting knowledge they are not already familiar with.
“Yes, I’m saying that based upon my neurological ability to have sensations, I just know that I climb out of the saddle better on Rotors.”
One of the biggest reasons to use modern technology is so that you dont burn out or ride “to hard to soon” when racing or training by “feel”. This is because what you feel, or perceive/think you feel, and what is really happening are very rarely the same.
But heck you are obviously so in tune with nature and your body you know better, so rotor cranks are gods gift to you.
