Warning: possible PC controversy inside

you are mistaken, or incomplete, in your assessment based on my experience. who said anything about “pulling up power at speed” ? classic straw man argument, you set up something you made up and then knock it down and try to attribute it to the other side.

the cranks give you something both far simpler, and far more subtle than you are speaking of. have i mentioned that if you were to train on them you would know this already? maybe even study people who have ?? what’s that - you have done neither? gosh what a surprise. anyway, it is not a debateable point, for anyboby who has or does use them and you already know that. may as well try to argue that if a fellow does pullups on a bar it is not the bar that makes his upper back stronger - just stupid for anybody who has spent any time on the bar no matter what idiot egghead theory you may have supposedly ‘supporting’ you. funny, really. they simply do what they do and if you ever ride them for any significant period of time you will know it too.

tesla vs edison ??

who are edison?

now, tesla vs whitesnake . . . . . .gotta go with whitesnake. david coverdale - is this love? - slip o the tongue . . . . . i mean c’mon.

Excellent Analogy !

Here’s one user’s comment on both systems:

http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=31&sid=6d0716c274d3ec652b4e145216b8aef7

**Guest**






 ![http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif](http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/icon_minipost.gif)Posted: 06 May 2004 09:55 am    Post subject:  ![http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif](http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif) ![http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_edit.gif](http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_edit.gif) ![http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/icon_delete.gif](http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/icon_delete.gif) ![http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_ip.gif](http://www.rotorcranksusa.com/phpBB2/templates/subSilver/images/lang_english/icon_ip.gif)      I had Rotors first (6 mths earlier). 

I have not noticed a significant jump in my cycling performance from using Power Cranks but have experienced running improvements that I can clearly atribute to PowerCranks.

PowerCranks effects are over the long term so it is difficult to make direct comparisons of speed over such periods, these changes are also largely related to ones efficiency and technique, equally hard to pin-point and actually measure. Personally, I think PowerCranks are a good product and that I have got a benefit from them on the bike, it is just hard to prove it.

Rotor-Cranks on the other hand are directly measurable. Within 2 weeks (quite often on the very first ride) you can see a change in power, HR or speed. This is exactly why I think they are such an essential item - it is verifiable advantage.

I suspect it is probable this person has not seen significant improvement in the bike because he has not used the PC’s enough, being a RC user before getting PC’s. It is unlikely he has gone to exclusive PC use (or he hasn’t had them long enough - he doesn’t specify). Cycling improvement from PC’s comes slowly and requires a certain devotion to them. Running improvement, however, comes relatively “easily”.

If one had a choice (which everyone does) I think it makes more sense to train with PC’s first, then move to RC’s for racing, as the adaption to RC’s is quicker and easier and the PC changes, once learned, should deteriorate slowly and be “easily” regenerated, as others have posted here. The difficulty comes from determining the optimum mix in training.

you are mistaken, or incomplete, in your assessment based on my experience. who said anything about “pulling up power at speed” ? classic straw man argument, you set up something you made up and then knock it down and try to attribute it to the other side.

Frank claims you can produce more power by pulling
up with your leg. Your only objective in seeking more
power on a bike is to go faster in a TT. Now if a
technique or equipment that can produce more
power cannot be used when travelling at speed on
the bike, what is the purpose in wasting time
learning to use it.

[

I think to make full use of Rotor Cranks, you have to do two things…change your timing to take advantage of the potential to lessen the so-called “dead-spot”,

That is what I was trying to get through to Gary and
that in my oppinion is why A Coggan’s test on
ROTOR’s failed, he did not adjust his muscles from their lifetime pedaling habits.

ho hum, responding to: "Frank claims you can produce more power by pulling
up with your leg. Your only objective in seeking more
power on a bike is to go faster in a TT. Now if a
technique or equipment that can produce more
power cannot be used when travelling at speed on
the bike, what is the purpose in wasting time
learning to use it. "

perfection you are not making a lot of sense here, pardner.

“frank says” ? i am not frank. look man, are you interested in a conversation, or do you just wish to ramble on and on about whatever it is you are rambling about? “cannot be used” ?? i use the skills and muscles that PC’s developed at speed on my bike everyday. your uninformed goofy opinion that a rider “can’t” is just that, a goof-ass uninformed opinion. anyway, why the bizarre obsession over frank, and what he says with you crazy uninformed anti-PC guys? do you rail with equal force against Tide laundry detergent when they claim 40% brighter? i have a can of endurox or cytomax or some shit arounf here someplace i am sure makes the claim it wil improve my oxygen uptake, or lactic acid whaterever too. who gives a crap about these things? use the product and see. this something i have done, francois has done, devashish has done, and you have not. so, do yourself a favour and listen to people who know of what they speak, and then if you wish to keep some sort of goof-ass model of pedalling dynamics in you head for a hobby or some damn thing ADD what we tell you, instead of looking like a dumbass and trying to tell people who know more than you what they already know to be BS. ok? didn’t your mother or dad go over this shit with you?

stay with me now, for one second, if you can. what makes you think some goof-ass personal model you possess about pedalling dynamics is more valid than actual use or at least actual study of these devices, which possess qulities unique to anything before them? honestly, answer that wouldja? we are not talking about quantum theory, or whether or not a star on the far side of the universe is emitting dark particles, here. if you wish to actually know about what PC do or don’t do all you need is a 8 mm allen wrench to put them on a bike. if you wish to just spout off goof-ass B.S. that is fine too - this is slowtwitch after all. sometimes a little clarification is required, and i am happy to provide it.

anyway, they certainly do provide a rider with increased coordination, options of technique, and strength of force and you know, oddly it works going slow, fast, or in between. have i mentioned that for people who have used them this is as obvious as doing chin-ups and observing the results? have i noted that this is no controversy for people that use them, only for people who inexplicably try over and over to put forth goof-ass personal models of things they have no first hand experince with ? thought so.

I think to make full use of Rotor Cranks, you have to do two things…change your timing to take advantage of the potential to lessen the so-called “dead-spot”,

>> Is this speculation on your part? I have not had this experience in my 10,000 miles on my Rotors, nor have I ever heard this before, perhaps you can explain this more.

That is what I was trying to get through to Gary and
that in my oppinion is why A Coggan’s test on
ROTOR’s failed, he did not adjust his muscles from their lifetime pedaling habits.

>> While I have to admit that I have not read this test (is there a copy available?), AC admitted to setting the Rotors up on the max #1 regulation point setting ONLY, which is a no-no for first time use. There is no way I can ride my Rotors on the #1 setting at a normal cadence and get the same improved performance I get with the #3 setting. I know of no rider who uses the #1 setting and we do not reccomend this setting to anyone.

I think to make full use of Rotor Cranks, you have to do two things…change your timing to take advantage of the potential to lessen the so-called “dead-spot”,

>> While I have to admit that I have not read this test (is there a copy available?), AC admitted to setting the Rotors up on the max #1 regulation point setting ONLY, which is a no-no for first time use. There is no way I can ride my Rotors on the #1 setting at a normal cadence and get the same improved performance I get with the #3 setting. I know of no rider who uses the #1 setting and we do not reccomend this setting to anyone.

1. What prevents you from using that setting.

2. Why was this setting put there if it decreases
   the advantages.

Perfection,

When I first developed these I expected one would develop a lot of power by pulling up, although I thought the initial improvements were simply from unweighting the “recovery” leg, which would cause an increase in efficiency.

Now that I have had several years on them (albeit, not in a “training” mode) I still find my pulling forces to be substantially less than my pushing forces, even though they are assuredly bigger than they were several years ago.

While some power will come from the pulling (it has to if there is any positive force) I now believe the majority of the power improvements come from efficiency improvements. Of course, these power improvements can be used when traveling at speed. In the early phases it may involve riding at a lower cadence but this quickly changes. Otherwise, where would all these anecdotal reports of speed improvement come from?

This question was probably asked before, if Lance
trained on these cranks for a period, would he show that same increase in pedal power production.

Frank,

I am a Pose Method of Running student, and have had to defend that against a lot of naysayers. So I feel your pain. I know it works for me, but convincing someone else is hard work… I got slower before I got faster, since I used new muscles. Anyway, that is a bit of a tangent. But it means I have done some research on the biomechanics of cycling after I learned about how much of a role biomechanics plays in running.

Anyway if you look at some of the studies, you can see that you really can’t generate power "pulling up."I am not a biomechanics expert, but essentially, in order to “pull up” with any kind of force, you need to balance out the force required to pull up with your body weight and position in the saddle. If you try to “pull up,” you really end up weighting the pedal, which is what PC’s prevent with the clutch. So PC’s obviously force you to unweight the off-drive foot. If you look at graphs of pedal force, it is so clear that most work goes into “stretching” the cranks, and that even on the backside, riders are “pushing back” rather than pulling up. Even with a skilled cyclist, who claims to be “scraping mud from their shoes” at the bottom, there is very little (if any) back-pull. Part of it comes from the fact that when riding at 100rpm, you have .6 seconds to travel round the circle. That is not a lot of time for “push down, pull back, pull up, push over.”

I ride regular cranks, but focus on trying to push from 1 o’clock or so to about 4 o’clock or so, other than that, I focus on unweighting and shifting my weight to my drive leg. I have seen good improvements in power output, and I am convinced that I would see even more from PC’s. I hope to get a set and train on them this winter and report back with positive news. Even if I don’t get a chance, you have a believer. Given my limited knowledge of biomechanics and cycling inefficiencies, it is clear that PC’s should work. The human leg is not designed to apply power in a “perfect circle,” so why try? Efficiency in pedaling comes from effective weight transfer and power application and the unweighting of the pedal when it can’t do work. PC’s train your muscles to do this, they have to based on the way they work.

There will always be fast riders who don’t ride PC’s, but that isn’t proof they don’t work. The best runner isn’t the fastest. The best runner is the guy, like Frank Shorter, who maximizes his physiological potential and is able to race well because he isn’t injured. Khalid Khannouchi held the world marathon record, but missed the Olympics with multiple injuries. Yet people say “run like him.” Jan Ullrich, by Lance’s own estimation, is a physiologically superior cyclist. But he rides low cadence and his knees are injured (you make the connection). Lance was a masher, who turned into a spinner, yet there are still critics who say “some people just can’t spin.” Some people just aren’t willing to try, because they might initially suffer and because it requires a lot of work. How quickly people forget that they rode with training wheels. Cervelo makes a huge deal about Bjorn Andersson’s fastest bike split of the day at Disney. But did he win the race? Nope. He is comfortable riding 58-11, but that doesn’t make it right. Most people are comfortable doing the doggie paddle as well. I’m sorry that PC’s take so many knocks, yet TI and other techniques are triathlon “golden rules.” Maybe one day…

I wrote: I think to make full use of Rotor Cranks, you have to do two things…change your timing to take advantage of the potential to lessen the so-called “dead-spot”,…

Gary asked:
>> Is this speculation on your part? I have not had this experience in my 10,000 miles on my Rotors, nor have I ever heard this before, perhaps you can explain this more.

Yep, pure speculation on my part. I don’t feel a change in timing, but, it makes sense that the muscles must fire with just a little different timing for maximum benefit, because the pedals no longer have the “normal” relationship to one another, i.e., the top pedal is over the top before the bottom pedal is at the very bottom. Again, I don’t FEEL this, just speculate that a slight timing change may be “learned”, and it may be learned very quickly, or it may take a while for some people…I don’t know.

Another way to put it is: in order to **not **have a “dead spot” at the top of the pedal stroke, the rider must be providing power to the top pedal before power stops being provided from the bottom pedal, right? (Assuming a circular pedal stroke, ala PC-style, isn’t being performed.) If, with Rotorcranks, the top foot is over the top more quickly compared to normal cranks, the rider CAN push with the top foot a little earlier compared to normal cranks. The key word is CAN. Just because Rotors make that more easily possible, doesn’t mean that it is being performed…that sounds like different timing to me.

I’m sure there will be people that say, “OK, I begin pushing over the top soon enough with regular cranks so that I don’t have a true “dead spot” in the first place, so Rotors aren’t eliminating something that I don’t have.” I’d say, this kind of pedalling is probably possible, but, if you learn to time your push-down just a tad bit sooner like Rotors enable you to do, the Rotors will help you get into a more powerful pushing-down position just a little sooner than you could with normal cranks.

However, a change in timing may not be required. In which case, the benefits of Rotors may be more from taking advantage of the increased “dwell time” of the extensors in the power phase of the downstroke, and not the elimination of the “dead spot”.

Again, just speculation on my part.

Whatever the reason(s), I’m now faster (since I had my recent hill-climb break-through) on Rotors than anything else on real-world courses…especially the flats…it’s like having one higher gear on the rear cog at the same perceived effort.

Oh, and to stay on topic, PC’s are wonderful for training to run better…at the very least! (I think they do more than help my run, though, I think they help my biking, too.)

Perfection wrote: " This question was probably asked before, if Lance
trained on these cranks for a period, would he show that same increase in pedal power production."

Would he show the same increase? As whom? A 20 mph cyclist? NO! As others of his ilk, like Bettini, Hincapie, Leipehimer, Museeuw etc. etc., Yes! As a matter of fact, about 20 people have told us that Lance has/does train on them. About 2 weeks before the tour a friend of Andrew’s called from Spain and said he saw Lance out on the cranks training. We said, GET A PICTURE! None was forthcoming. A month or so ago we got an order from someone who said there was a very brief glimpse of Lance training on the PC’s on one of the OLN shows, which convinced her to go forward. We didn’t see it nor have we found it. It really doesn’t matter as all the riders listed above (and many others at that level) have them, use them, and like them. If we can impress them, I suspect we would impress Lance, if he didn’t use them now.

If we only gave these exceptional athletes a 1% improvement in power over what they could do without them, they would be grateful. I suspect we could and do do substantially more but I don’t have proof. There is some data at the Mapei Center in Italy where many of these athletes have been tested but I haven’t seen it.

The only problem at looking at the pedaling force studies is these were all done before PC’s when it was essentially impossible to effectively train the backstroke.

Until pressure plate studies are done in well adapted PC athletes we will only be guessing as to what percentage of the force CAN be generated on the backstroke. My sense (read, guess) is it will be in the 10-15% range, perhaps as high as 25% in the very well adapted.

What about 1-leg drills? Cyclists have always been able to use those.

Have there been studies done on any of the PC (physically challenged) athletes that cycle with only one leg? What does their pedal stroke look like? Of course, you can’t just multiply their stroke by 2, since they are always focusing entirely on the one leg, but it still might be interesting.

Rappstar wrote: "What about 1-leg drills? Cyclists have always been able to use those.

Have there been studies done on any of the PC (physically challenged) athletes that cycle with only one leg? What does their pedal stroke look like? Of course, you can’t just multiply their stroke by 2, since they are always focusing entirely on the one leg, but it still might be interesting."

One legged drills have two defects. they do not work on the two legged coordination and they are not done long enough to effect any serious change in the muscles.

I am not sure if any studies have been done on amputees. that would be a good group to be able to look at this potential.

Frank

Another thought, have you ever thought about having SRM or somebody like that make a PC version with built in strain gauges. That way you could look at a real-time display of the power output.

I was a rower in college, and this company called Row Perfect (http://www.durhamboat.com/RP.HTM) made a ergometer that hooked up to a laptop that showed your your power curve (like a Computrainer, only it shows you each individual millisecond, rather than an average). http://www.durhamboat.com/RPPC.JPG is a picture of a one-stroke graph. Sorry I can’t post it, but I am fighting the MS power by using FireFox. Great product by the way…

If you could make a product that could drive software like that (as I think the SRM does), it could do a lot to validate your product…

Rappstar wrote: Have there been studies done on any of the PC (physically challenged) athletes that cycle with only one leg?

I posed this question last year, tried to get people to at least consider the one-legged cyclist as a model. If a one-legged cyclist doesn’t get the crank over the top by inertia, pulling back, picking up, shoving over, etc., he pedals only one stroke. I don’t understand why a one-legged cyclist’s pedal stroke isn’t a fairly good model for half of a two-legged cyclist’s pedal stroke, with the obvious exception of one-legged cyclists sitting on the saddle in a manner other than straight-on…and some one-legged cyclists do contort their sitting position somewhat.

One person continually stated that since the extensors were more efficient than the hip flexors, it doesn’t matter if you use some fo the power from the extensors to lift the rising foot, because the extensors get the job done more efficiently than the hip flexors to do the same job. I say that in sub-maximal intensity efforts limited by glycogen/glucose/fuel availability (not cardiac output/oxygen delivery/Hemoglobin content/PaO2 limited efforts, i.e., VO2 max efforts), it’s OK to use less efficient flexors to raise the pedal…doing so doesn’t subtract from the extensors contracting like they usually do…and now, none of the extensor power is used to lift the pedal…leaving that power free to go to the chain.

It’s a major difference in opinion. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I’m still faster climbing on PC’s than regular cranks. I’m still faster on RC’s on real courses than on regular cranks or PC’s.

I say that Rotorcranks more fully utilize the extensor’s already more efficient power (by increasing dwell time on the downward stroke), and PC’s train the hip flexors to at least NOT WASTE this extensor-generated power. Put the two together, and I think you have about as good a pedalling system as is available.