Does anyone know if the RC forum is still operational? It appears to allow new posts but not viewing.
Does anyone know if the RC forum is still operational? It appears to allow new posts but not viewing.
I fear these cranks are going to join biopace list, too
many complications, fitting, servicing, additional
weight etc. for such a small gain and that is only if
you know how to get the most effective results.
Do you really “fear” this?
New software installed to fix corrupted DB, v.4
Back online: http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/forum/phpBB2/
Thanks!
"I fear these cranks are going to join biopace list, too
many complications, fitting, servicing, additional
weight etc. for such a small gain and that is only if
you know how to get the most effective results. "
Fitting: they fit every bicycle I have came across, except the Cheeta with its proprietary BB.
Weight: 380 gms heavier will slow you less than 6 seconds over a hilly 20k course, the benefits of the system far outweight the weight penalty.
“only if you know how to get the most effective results”: Quite simple. You bolt them on, and ride!
I fear these cranks are going to join biopace list, too
many complications, fitting, servicing, additional
weight etc. for such a small gain and that is only if
you know how to get the most effective results.
Well, if they do, it’ll only help my cause. FWIW, I love mine.
jaylew wrote: Well, if they do, it’ll only help my cause. FWIW, I love mine.
Seconded.
I love mine.
Well at least you are satisfied, I hope you feel the
same next year.
Let’s assume you could eliminate the entire dead
spot area 11—1 o’clock with these cranks, you are
effectively pedaling a much higher gear and if you
are not able to increase power output in order to
retain the same cadence that you would be using
with the same gearing without these cranks, you
will not get maximum benefit.
This can be done but not with these cranks while
you continue with your normal pedaling style, it
can even be done with normal cranks.
perfection wrote: Let’s assume you could eliminate the entire dead spot area 11—1 o’clock with these cranks, you are
effectively pedaling a much higher gear and if you
are not able to increase power output in order to
retain the same cadence that you would be using
with the same gearing without these cranks, you
will not get maximum benefit.
Good point. FWIW, my cadence actually has increased while riding Rotors. Perhaps since the downward stroke is slightly slowed, and my mind-body prefers a certain foot-speed during the major force application phase of the pedal stroke, the increased cadence is selected. Since the foot is moving slightly faster on the upstroke (a period of slight, little, or perhaps counter-force application), the overall result is a little faster cadence. It could be that my rpms have increased in order to keep the muscle contraction time short enough to allow adequate blood flow through the muscle.
On regular cranks I get the best constant speed in a 30 minute to an hour race in the low 80 rpm range. On Rotors, I prefer the upper 80 rpms, with about a half-gear higher selected on average…the result is a speed equivalent to 1 larger rear cog, compared to regular cranks, if I were to drop my Rotor cadence to the low 80 rpms. When I first rode Rotors, I rode in the lower 80 rpms, at one gear higher than normal.
However, with all that said, I’m still not completely convinced that the Rotors achieve their benefits for me by “eliminating (or minimizing) the dead-spot”. I believe Rotors achieve a benefit by maximizing the time spent in the most bio-mechanically favorable “sweet-spot” during the maximal power phase of the stroke, somewhere between 2:00 and 5:00. Maximizing the sweet-spot time just might be the key.
Depending upon exactly where a given person’s sweet-spot coincides to the clockface, adjusting the Rotors to take maximal advantage of the individual’s best power-generating area may be why there is a range of acceptable settings among a group of riders. I have no science to back this up, it’s an idea based on personal experience and experimentation. When my lower back is pain-free, I get the best flat-out (10 mile) time trial speed when I sit back in a “slam-type” position and rotate the Rotors to a higher than usual setting…a setting that positions the slowest part of the pedal stroke earlier (as seen on a clock-face from the right side of the bike) in the stroke. I think it is because this takes better advantage of my gluteal and lower back muscles. If I’m in a triathlon, and need to run afterward, or if I’m riding longer distances, I do better much steeper, with the Rotors set on a lower-than-middle setting…i.e., with the slowest point of the crank later in the stroke.
It could be that some people benefit from the dead-spot minimization, others from the sweet-spot maximization, others from both, and, of course, perhaps some people would see no measurable benefits. I don’t really know.
I do know that I personally do better on Rotors.
So whats up with the forum?
perfection wrote: Let’s assume you could eliminate the entire dead spot area 11—1 o’clock with these cranks, you are
effectively pedaling a much higher gear and if you
are not able to increase power output in order to
retain the same cadence that you would be using
with the same gearing without these cranks, you
will not get maximum benefit.
Good point. FWIW, my cadence actually has increased while riding Rotors. Perhaps since the downward stroke is slightly slowed, and my mind-body prefers a certain foot-speed during the major force application phase of the pedal stroke, the increased cadence is selected. Since the foot is moving slightly faster on the upstroke (a period of slight, little, or perhaps counter-force application), the overall result is a little faster cadence. It could be that my rpms have increased in order to keep the muscle contraction time short enough to allow adequate blood flow through the muscle.
On regular cranks I get the best constant speed in a 30 minute to an hour race in the low 80 rpm range. On Rotors, I prefer the upper 80 rpms, with about a half-gear higher selected on average…the result is a speed equivalent to 1 larger rear cog, compared to regular cranks, if I were to drop my Rotor cadence to the low 80 rpms. When I first rode Rotors, I rode in the lower 80 rpms, at one gear higher than normal.
However, with all that said, I’m still not completely convinced that the Rotors achieve their benefits for me by “eliminating (or minimizing) the dead-spot”. I believe Rotors achieve a benefit by maximizing the time spent in the most bio-mechanically favorable “sweet-spot” during the maximal power phase of the stroke, somewhere between 2:00 and 5:00. Maximizing the sweet-spot time just might be the key.
Depending upon exactly where a given person’s sweet-spot coincides to the clockface, adjusting the Rotors to take maximal advantage of the individual’s best power-generating area may be why there is a range of acceptable settings among a group of riders. I have no science to back this up, it’s an idea based on personal experience and experimentation. When my lower back is pain-free, I get the best flat-out (10 mile) time trial speed when I sit back in a “slam-type” position and rotate the Rotors to a higher than usual setting…a setting that positions the slowest part of the pedal stroke earlier (as seen on a clock-face from the right side of the bike) in the stroke. I think it is because this takes better advantage of my gluteal and lower back muscles. If I’m in a triathlon, and need to run afterward, or if I’m riding longer distances, I do better much steeper, with the Rotors set on a lower-than-middle setting…i.e., with the slowest point of the crank later in the stroke.
It could be that some people benefit from the dead-spot minimization, others from the sweet-spot maximization, others from both, and, of course, perhaps some people would see no measurable benefits. I don’t really know.
I do know that I personally do better on Rotors.
I would agree, they don’t eliminate the dead spot
but they enable a person to compensate for some
of the power normally lost in a small portion of that
area.
“So whats up with the forum?”
Its back up and running:
http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2#2
.
I love mine. Me too.
Well at least you are satisfied, I hope you feel the
same next year.
Let’s assume you could eliminate the entire dead
spot area 11—1 o’clock with these cranks, you are
effectively pedaling a much higher gear and if you
are not able to increase power output in order to
retain the same cadence that you would be using
with the same gearing without these cranks, you
will not get maximum benefit.
This can be done but not with these cranks while
you continue with your normal pedaling style, it
can even be done with normal cranks.
I’m having trouble deciphering the “code” that is that last run-on sentence. Help me out here, I’m not trying to be rude, could you re-write that?
FWIW, my experience tells me these things are the weapon of choice for those who wish to ride out of the saddle more often than not, such as pure climbers, or even sprinters who have the soul of a climber 
Perfection, how much time have you put on your Rotorcranks?
This can be done but not with these cranks while
you continue with your normal pedaling style, it
can even be done with normal cranks.
I’m having trouble deciphering the “code” that is that last run-on sentence. Help me out here, I’m not trying to be rude, could you re-write that?
FWIW, my experience tells me these things are the weapon of choice for those who wish to ride out of the saddle more often than not, such as pure climbers, or even sprinters who have the soul of a climber
Perfection, how much time have you put on your Rotorcranks?
I am referring to the total dead spot area and it is
possible to directly eliminate that area by replacing
it with maximum pedal power while at the same time
generating additional pedal power which will prevent
you from having to lower your cadence when meeting
the demands of the increased gearing effect.
I made several attempts to get RC’s but it was in
trying to arrange the fitting of these cranks that I
failed, but it would only have been for experimental
purposes, as you can see I am ahead of the experts, what they are trying to do by mechanical
means can be done naturally with normal cranks
when you know how. Not only can you eliminate
that notorious dead spot area, you can also
eliminate the root cause of even the worst “on the
bike” lower back pain which is the back strain
associated with the normal pedaling style.
I am referring to the total dead spot area and it is possible to directly eliminate that area by replacing it with maximum pedal power while at the same time generating additional pedal power which will prevent you from having to lower your cadence when meeting the demands of the increased gearing effect. OK, but I’m still not following you. You replace the part of the stroke where we already generate the least amount of power with “maximum pedal power” and then top it off with “additional pedal power”. Isn’t that kind of like giving 110%, impossible?
I made several attempts to get RC’s but it was in trying to arrange the fitting of these cranks that I failed (So you’re saying you couldn’t find somebody to install a set of cranks?), but it would only have been for experimental purposes, as you can see I am ahead of the experts (So basically you’d spend $700 to mess with something that you already know how to achieve by the power of your will, or something like that? Something else to keep in mind, if you are ahead of the experts, then you are the expert.), what they are trying to do by mechanical means can be done naturally with normal cranks when you know how (Care to enlighten us?). Not only can you eliminate that notorious dead spot area, you can also eliminate the root cause of even the worst “on the bike” lower back pain which is the back strain associated with the normal pedaling style (What is the “normal pedaling style” anyhow?).
I am referring to the total dead spot area and it is possible to directly eliminate that area by replacing it with maximum pedal power while at the same time generating additional pedal power which will prevent you from having to lower your cadence when meeting the demands of the increased gearing effect. OK, but I’m still not following you. You replace the part of the stroke where we already generate the least amount of power with “maximum pedal power” and then top it off with “additional pedal power”. Isn’t that kind of like giving 110%, impossible?
I made several attempts to get RC’s but it was in trying to arrange the fitting of these cranks that I failed (So you’re saying you couldn’t find somebody to install a set of cranks?), but it would only have been for experimental purposes, as you can see I am ahead of the experts (So basically you’d spend $700 to mess with something that you already know how to achieve by the power of your will, or something like that? Something else to keep in mind, if you are ahead of the experts, then you are the expert.), what they are trying to do by mechanical means can be done naturally with normal cranks when you know how (Care to enlighten us?). Not only can you eliminate that notorious dead spot area, you can also eliminate the root cause of even the worst “on the bike” lower back pain which is the back strain associated with the normal pedaling style (What is the “normal pedaling style” anyhow?).
=====================================
110 % compared to normal pedaling, it’s probably
more. The world’s greatest ever time triallist was able
to sit up into the early hours drinking and card playing and go out next day to humiliate his rivals
in time trials, he used the linear pedaling technique.
Normal pedaling is any of the various styles which use direct downward or vertical pedal pressure as the
main power supplier, it makes impossible the use of
seated maximum arm resistance, has a large dead
spot area and forces the lower back to support most
of the upper body weight in addition to supplying all
the pedaling resistance which is the root cause of
cycling related back pain.
Just as rowers increased their oar power by the
sliding seat and maximum use of leg muscle power,
a cyclist can make suitable changes which make
possible the use of seated maximum arm resistance
and the elimination of the dead area on the pedal
stroke.
Linear pedaling never uses vertical pedal pressure.
When early acceleration is complete, starting at 11 o’c,
power is driven from the hips through the (old style)
cleat/sole to the pedal in a line that feels parallel to
the arm resistance line to the 5 o’c area, the
rotating pedal and crank extend and convert this
line into a semi-circle which with both feet gives continuous maximum power application to the chainwheel. All upper bodyweight is supported by
one of the working arms at all times while all
pedaling resistance is supplied by the hips and arms,
eliminating the root cause of the worst “on the bike”
lower back pain.
An experiment you can try if you can get an office
chair with firm back and castors or mini-wheels.
Sitting facing and close to a wall with shoes/toes
touching the wall at ground level, first with the right
leg press down on floor as you would on the pedal
at the 2 or 3 o’c area, that is normal pedal power.
Then get someone to stand behind the chair and
while keeping your sole of right shoe on the floor,
try forcing the chair backwards against the resistance
of the person behind the chair. That is how linear
pedal power compares to normal pedal power and
that is without the use of arm resistance which is
made possible by the parallel connection between
arm and leg power lines.
I am always experimenting and would be interested
in testing the RC’s with this very different style but
because of the higher gearing that would be used,
the wear and tear of the increased friction might not
be suitable for the RC’s extra mechanism.
This linear technique needs a different bike set-up
and position and special aerodynamic bars and the
more aerodynamic the position, the more powerful
the pedal power will be. This pedaling technique can
be seen on the video of J Anquetil, it’s called “The
mysterious cycling champion”, but now you know his
secret.
perfection wrote: I am always experimenting and would be interested
in testing the RC’s with this very different style but
because of the higher gearing that would be used,
the wear and tear of the increased friction might not
be suitable for the RC’s extra mechanism.
My experience with RC’s shows them to be more stiff than Dura Ace cranks. They are so simple, from a mechanical point of view, that I’ll bet you’ll have no problem with wear. Maybe seeing them in person would show you.
BUT, one thing I’d suggest for you, if you do try them, is you’ll need to rotate the setting to at least the highest recommended mark, if not even higher. I say this because you are apparently applying your maximal force to the pedal much earlier in your pedal stroke than “normal” riders do…so, you’ll want the Rotors to be aligned to give you the most benefit when you are in your biomechanical “sweet spot” sooner in the stroke. Just a thought…
Perfection - send me a PM - we will work on getting you set up with a set of Rotors.
She drew a picture of what you were describing and it made perfect sense.
Any chance you could scan/upload it? I’ve been trying to make sense of this guy for years…
She drew a picture of what you were describing and it made perfect sense.
Any chance you could scan/upload it? I’ve been trying to make sense of this guy for years…
Well, I was speaking metaphorically, but I’ll try to access that again and draw some pictures. I’m not much of a drawer, so you’ll have to bear with me a little.
By the way, would you care to comment on what I’ve said Perfection? Also, did you ever end up having any seminars? I went back and read some of the older perfection posts and there is much talk about seminars in there, though not as much talk of Anquetil.