Anyone have any experience with Rotor Cranks?
Have you read the review of them on Cyclingnews.com?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=2002/reviews/rotor_cranks. You can also go to the author’s website at www.onlinetriathlon.com for his review.
There was a bit of a debate on cyclingforum about them and the author swears that they improved his times - he had previously not ridden sub 5-hours for an IM and then went sub 5 hours at Kona after training with them.
By getting rid of the dead spot, they claim a 15% improvement, or 2-3 minutes off of a 40k time trial … impressive.
One thing at a time Gary! 
Ride the PCs for a while. I think I’ve turned the corner. Had a very solid 60-minute tempo ride on the Computrainer today with them. The best I’ve felt yet, and back up to my normal power output. HR zones stayed where they belong. I’m not ahead of last year yet, but at least I’m back to par. I “feel” stronger on the bike, but feelings don’t count…power does.
What I’m really not sure of is whether the extra strength I’m feeling is due to the low-cadence (“high tension”) work or the PCs. I’ve been 100% under 65 rpms for three weeks now, pushing the biggest gear I’ve ever ridden. If I do see overall power increases, I believe that I won’t know whether it was due to the new low-cadence training strategy or the PCs.
Oh, well, gonna keep riding and see what happens.
.
I’m not riding PC’s any longer, sent them back, I would see no substaintial gains unless I used them exclusively … I ride multiple bikes so it did not work for me.
By getting rid of the dead spot, they claim a 15% improvement, or 2-3 minutes off of a 40k time trial … impressive.
They do not take 2 to3 mins off time, what they do
is give you an extra 2 to 3 mins of pedaling time in
an hour. This is done by enabling you to compensate
for the pedaling that is lost between 12 and 1 o’clock
in the dead spot area. How you use that pedaling
time is what decides the amount of TT time reduction. The compensation is done by slowing down the crank in the 1 to 3 o’clock area.
That picture at the top of these posts should be
turned round 90 degrees because the cranks are
in alignment when in the 9-3 o’clock positions.
Half of that extra pedaling time has to be used in
the 1 to 2 o’clock area which is not the maximum
power application area.
Good observation, perfection!
Gary, I see no reason why Rotor Cranks shouldn’t help, especially with a rider that doesn’t pick up the recovering foot very well, and especially if all you are doing are time trials. PC’s probably don’t work well if you aren’t riding them exclusively, at least for a while…just like Dr. Day said. For TT’s, Rotor Cranks may be good enough to get done what you want…which is more power to the drivetrain over a given period of time, and they seem to take very little time to get used to…a comforting situation to all of us that are obsessed with speed!
However, if you want to run faster, too, Rotor Cranks don’t seem to offer any benefit. PC’s reportedly offer, perhaps, greater running benefit than biking benefit. I mean, 20 minutes off a marathon time is HUGE! The local coaches that I’m familiar with, have been seeing PR’s broken by everyone they’ve had using PC’s, from 5K running races to marathons. Plus, their biking splits are improved. This is all happening within a year of using PC’s. I’m on my second week, and am just now getting where I can ride an hour…only slightly slower than my usual training speeds. I’m going to stick with them at least for the “free trial of 60 days”. If I’m not seeing REAL improvement, I’ll send them back, just like I did with a Nimble Crosswind wheel I tried out…I’m not about to spend money on something that doesn’t do what it claims to do: the Crosswind didn’t. The PC’s seem like they are working for me already, though.
What I don’t quite get about RCs is this: the website blurb claims 15% less lactic acid, 15% more power - from which I infer that they are more efficient than regular cranks - that is, they produce more power at the wheel per watt of input from the leg.
So, doesn’t that mean you have to race on them to get the advantage in races? As a training tool, I can’t see why they would improve power input: they’ll make you go faster with the same output, but that’s not the same thing. I can’t quite see the benefit if you train on them and race on regular cranks.
When using rotor cranks, your pedals spent less time in the idling area and more time in the power
application area, so any advantage you get from
them is only when you use them. If you switch from
rotor to normal or normal to rotor, you will have to
readjust your pedaling style because rotor has three
different pedal speeds in each revolution of the
crank.
I don’t think they intend for you to train on them and race on regular cranks. I think they intend for you to train AND race on them.
This is not like PC’s, where training on them is most important.
Francois, I returned them because Frank told me that I would not benefit by using the PC’s as he claims if I did not use them exclusively, I explained to him how I intended to use them, he told me I would not see the benefits.
See, PC’s may strengthen the hip flexors, but in cycling these muscles are used very little anyway … even if you had the strongest hip flexors it would matter little if you did not instinctively use them while cycling. PC’s require that the rider “train the brain” to pedal in a PC fashon and use the PC’s exclusively.
I am looking at Rotor Cranks, they are available at my shop at around $500. My shop owner has tested them and says they really do work and they remove the dead spot from the pedal stroke thus allowing consistant propulsion and downstroke to the pedals. 15% increase in speed due to improved efficiency.
perfection wrote: "This is done by enabling you to compensate
for the pedaling that is lost between 12 and 1 o’clock
in the dead spot area. How you use that pedaling
time is what decides the amount of TT time reduction. The compensation is done by slowing down the crank in the 1 to 3 o’clock area. "
With all due respect, this is quite wrong. The cranks move out of 180 alignment NOT by “slowing” the downward-moving crank (which is how you would do this with Powercranks), but rather by accelerating the lagging crank over the 12-to-1 o’clock cycle. Just as your power stroke reaches its bottom, the lagging leg is “pulled over” the top. The power leg provides the energy for the acceleration of the lagging leg when the power leg is moving through about the 4-to-6 o’clock cycle. One leg doesn’t slow down and wait for the other one; the other one is pulled through the deadspot by an eccentric gearing mechanism.
.
Rotor Cranks have the potential for a quick fix power increase because they try to minimize the inefficiencies in most peoples pedal stroke. However, their potentia for improvement is less than for PC’s which eliminate the inefficiencies that Rotor Cranks try to minimize. but PC’s are not quick and easy but require time and patience.
Most likely, if they ever come into widespread use I suspect the UCI will ban them. Even if they ban PC’s (unlikely) it will make little difference because they caan’t ban them in training, which is when all the benefits occur.
You turned them back because we had a communicaation problem. You offered to document your use of the cranks for a reduced price. I agreed not realizing that you were not intending to use them exclusively in training. I was concerned that your results would be disappointing and people would see the cranks as hype, when it would really be technique. I do believe people can improve using them part-time except I see the results under these circumstances as being less “obvious” and impressive. If you had paid full price for the cranks I would have expected you to be able to use them however you saw was best for you.
When I asked you to use them exclusively in training, you couldn’t bring yourself to do so and decided to send them back.
Rotor Cranks have the potential for a quick fix power increase because they try to minimize the inefficiencies in most peoples pedal stroke. However, their potentia for improvement is less than for PC’s which eliminate the inefficiencies that Rotor Cranks try to minimize. but PC’s are not quick and easy but require time and patience.
Do PC’s eliminate the dead spot area between 11
and 1 o’clock, which is what the main objective of
the inventors of the rotor system is about.
If with additional equipment the advantages of the
rotor could be doubled, they would be on a winner
because then you would only have to change the
crank speed twice per revolution and the speeding
up of the idling pedal would coinside with the offloading of weight off the pedal. The upper pedal
would be at 1 o’clock when the lower pedal is only
at 5 o’clock. If this were then used with the Anquetil’s
pedaling which starts maximum power input at 1 o’ clock and which can use combined arm/leg power, you would have the ultimate in pedaling equipment,
power and technique.
i agree with mr day entirely:
even the most positive reviews of RC’s have noted that the positive results are best seen in “lazy” pedallers. the benefits are reduced for “good” pedallars - i offer that they would be negligable for PC style riders.
i also think if RC’s see increased visibility in the pro ranks the uci will ban them. there is ample precedent for this. as RC is a euro company/product a uci ban would equal death - see “spinachi’s”.
and, looking at all those links/bushings a fella has to wonder. . . . . .creak, creak, creak. 
and is it just me, or did i miss the RC 60 day guarantee ???
Do PC’s eliminate the dead spot area between 11
and 1 o’clock, which is what the main objective of
the inventors of the rotor system is about.
Yes. there is no dead spot anywhere with PC’s. It is impossible.
Frank
Do PC’s eliminate the dead spot area between 11
and 1 o’clock, which is what the main objective of
the inventors of the rotor system is about.
Yes. there is no dead spot anywhere with PC’s. It is impossible.
Frank
Do PC’s eliminate the dead spot area between 11
and 1 o’clock, which is what the main objective of
the inventors of the rotor system is about.
Yes. there is no dead spot anywhere with PC’s. It is impossible.
Frank
I don’t see why the UCI would ban them, as they are primarily training aids. They do not change the mechanical efficiency of the bike: human power input can theoretically be done the same on any cranks, so the difference is in the rider and not the cranks. Rotorcranks, on the other hand – I’m surprised they are legal, because they give a power application advantage such that the playing field (set of equipment used) is no longer level. I would rather see RCs outlawed and PCs accepted. But I’m not the UCI.
Most likely, if they ever come into widespread use I suspect the UCI will ban them.