Rotor Cranks? What Else Is There?

"NYC XYZ" wrote: (and just how did it come to be

Quoted message said:

called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of usage?)(clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Toe clips, in the good old days, referred to the cages/straps which secured
the shoes to the platform pedals. The addition of a latch between the pedal
and the shoe allowed the clip to be discarded--hence, "clipless." I hate
that "I could care less" usage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip)For this price, they should throw in a girl!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They usually come with tandems. For recumbent riders it's an extra price
option often available on many street corners.

BTW, this is not a "clipless" post.

Quoted message said:

On 21 Feb 2006 07:55:52 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all...it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks?

Because they're generally recognized as a waste of money. The
limiting factor in performance is cardiovascular capacity, not the
number of muscle groups that can be brought to bear on the task.
Though the Rotor cranks might seem logical and might permit a slightly
higher speed for a rider whose muscular development is inadequate or
poorly adapted to cycling, they offer no benefit whatsoever to the
cyclist whose conditioning is optimized to the task, and they add
weight to the bike and inefficiency to the drivetrain. I will also
note that they appear to have once again reinvented the wheel by
introducing an elliptical sprocket to add another layer of gimmickry
to their device. (EPrevious versions of elliptical sprockets have
been the subject of much debate, with both sides claiming that the
evidence supports their conclusions; one side saying they reduce knee
fatigue and increase power output, the other side saying that they
increase knee fatigue and do nothing important for power output. I
have a set on one of my bikes. I can't really tell that they do
anything more than pull on the chain when I mash on the cranks, the
same as any other sprocket.)

Quoted message said:

...(and just how did it come to be
called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of usage?)

Before the advent of clipless shoes and pedals, there were pedals with
toe clips. These were a cage or cage-and-strap contraption that isn't
seen much anymore. They had their own set of problems. When the
cleated shoes with clamping pedals came out, they were differentiated
from the others by the fact that the pedals had no toe clip, and
therefore they are "clipless".

Quoted message said:

What else is there to this 'bent business?

Recumbent bikes have certain advantages, as you have been discovering.
They also tend to weigh more than a conventional bike, they don't
always work as well in every situation, and their relatively low
production numbers tend to keep their prices high. If your needs for
a bike are well met by a 'bent, and you've got the money to spend,
there's no reason not to go that route. Not everyone would be better
off on a 'bent than a regular bike, however, and a 'bent is an
expensive mistake if it doesn't work out.

Quoted message said:

Sheesh, it's getting more
expensive by the day! For this price, they should throw in a girl!

If the manufacturers had that option, do you think they would hesitate
to do so? Beware of the increased maintenance costs if you find one
that offers such a feature.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all...it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks? Just about all
the arguments being made for clips (and just how did it come to be
called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of usage?)
apply to cranks.

Clipless pedals have real benefits to them with virtually no drawbacks.

Quoted message said:

What else is there to this 'bent business? Sheesh, it's getting more
expensive by the day! For this price, they should throw in a girl!

Don't worry, once you are out on your 'bent, all the girls will throw
themselves at you.
--------------
Alex

Someone said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all... it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

Quoted message said:

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks? Just about
all the arguments being made for clips (and just how did it come to
be called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of
usage?) apply to cranks...

Well that isn't what pedal attachment is about. It is there to keep
the foot properly placed on the pedal and to offer extra torque by
pulling up in sprints and sudden steep spots in climbing hills. They
do not generate more power, that being a function of aerobics,
cardiovascular capacity and stored energy available in the rider's
body.

The Rotor Cranks concept assumes that bicycling is limited by a
mechanical hurdle to get more muscular action to the rear wheel, when
in fact there is no extra muscular power available. The proponents of
"round pedaling" fit the Rotor Crank model and always have. Their
belief that engaging more muscles in propulsion will increase output
(speed) is misplaced. Performance is limited by the body, not the
mechanical interface with the rear wheel, as it has been for about a
century.

There are always inventors who believe that something significant was
overlooked and that their invention will revolutionize bicycling.
None of them have done so. Mechanical improvements come along but
they have not improved performance other than allow easier gear
changes, better braking, reduced bicycle weight and streamlining.
None of these has changed the continuous power (watts) a rider can
deliver to the rear wheel.

Don't forget Alenax! The wave of the future.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/alenax.html

Jobst Brandt

On 21 Feb 2006 07:55:52 -0800, "NYC XYZ" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all...it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks?

Because they're generally recognized as a waste of money. I will also
note that they appear to have once again reinvented the wheel by
introducing an elliptical sprocket. (Previous versions of elliptical
sprockets have been the subject of much debate, with both sides
claiming that the evidence supports their conclusions; one side saying
they reduce knee fatigue and increase power output, the other side
saying that they increase knee fatigue and do nothing important for
power output. I have a set of a different type of elliptical sprocket
on one of my bikes. I can't really tell that they do anything more
than pull on the chain when I mash on the cranks, the same as any
other sprocket.)

Quoted message said:

...(and just how did it come to be
called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of usage?)

Before the advent of clipless shoes and pedals, there were pedals with
toe clips. These were a cage or cage-and-strap contraption that isn't
seen much anymore. They had their own set of problems. When the
cleated shoes with clamping pedals came out, they were differentiated
from the others by the fact that the pedals had no toe clip, and
therefore they are "clipless".

Quoted message said:

What else is there to this 'bent business?

Recumbent bikes have certain advantages, as you have been discovering.
They also tend to weigh more than a conventional bike, they don't
always work as well in every situation, and their relatively low
production numbers tend to keep their prices high. If your needs for
a bike are well met by a 'bent, and you've got the money to spend,
there's no reason not to go that route. Not everyone would be better
off on a 'bent than a regular bike, however, and a 'bent is an
expensive mistake if it doesn't work out.

Quoted message said:

Sheesh, it's getting more
expensive by the day! For this price, they should throw in a girl!

If the manufacturers had that option, do you think they would hesitate
to do so? Beware of the increased maintenance costs if you find one
that offers such a feature.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all...it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks? Just about
all the arguments being made for clips (and just how did it come to
be called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of
usage?) apply to cranks.

Clipless pedals have real benefits to them with virtually no
drawbacks.

Except for the really stupid looking shoes. Most of them look like
shoes from Barnum & Bailey's Bowlarama.

NYC XYZ said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all...it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks?

Rotorcranks are pretty cool and feel really weeeeird. The first thing one
notices is that the downstroke is normal, but when the crank reaches 5 o
clock or whatever position, the crank feels like it's been shortened by 20
or 30mm, shooting back up the back side of the crank stroke. It also messed
me up when I wanted to push down at what I thought was 12 o clock on the
ascending crank, but it actually was still at 11 o clock. There was no
perceived energy conversion difference, but I only gave it a test ride
around the block.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Tim McNamara said:

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Okay, so clipless may be the thing to do, after all...it all sounds
logical, even if I've never felt a need for it on a regular bike.

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks? Just about
all the arguments being made for clips (and just how did it come to
be called clipless? Is this a could/couldn't-care-less kind of
usage?) apply to cranks.

Clipless pedals have real benefits to them with virtually no
drawbacks.

Except for the really stupid looking shoes. Most of them look like
shoes from Barnum & Bailey's Bowlarama.

Don't look now, but over at Payless this past week, I saw
newly-arrived styles that looked like any number of cycling shoes.
Right down to the impossibly narrow heel and paper-thin sole. All
they needed was a little more sole stiffness, and cleat mounting
holes.

They were still just as fugly, too.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Alex Rodriguez said:

Don't worry, once you are out on your 'bent, all the girls will throw
themselves at you.

If you're relying on your choice of transportation to help you get
girls you'll have a lot more luck riding *in* a Benz than *on* a 'bent.
Just FYI. ;-)

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Tim McNamara said:

Except for the really stupid looking shoes. Most of them look like
shoes from Barnum & Bailey's Bowlarama.

For some values of "most"... It's quite easy to find very normal
shoe-like cycling shoes as long as you're not after really high
performance racing kit. My favourite cycling footware are Shimano SD-60
SPuD sandals, they look just like a pair of Tevas or similar.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

NYC XYZ said:

But then why aren't y'all clamoring for Rotor cranks? Just about all
the arguments being made for clips ... apply to cranks....

Not really: there's a weight penalty, there's a very significantly
greater cost penalty, and there is some degree of debate as to how
effective they really are. Clipless pedals are proven in action by
thousands and thousands of cyclists doing millions of miles, just as
clips and straps before them were proven, Rotors aren't.

Quoted message said:

What else is there to this 'bent business?

Not particularly more than there is to the upright cycling business.
You're better off with clipless pedals on a DF if you're interested in
performance, you're better off with panniers rather than a backpack on a
DF if you're lugging loads any sort of distance, and so on, and so on.
Aside from the seat on a 'bent, pretty much anything you can get for
them is available for upright bikes too.

Quoted message said:

Sheesh, it's getting more expensive by the day!

You've spent $$$s on a really nice bike as a basis so it makes sense to
go the full way. There's no point buying a Bentley and putting on
remoulds and vinyl seat covers, same applies here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tim McNamara said:

Alex Rodriguez <[email hidden]> writes:
...

Quoted message said:

Clipless pedals have real benefits to them with virtually no
drawbacks.

Except for the really stupid looking shoes. Most of them look like
shoes from Barnum & Bailey's Bowlarama.

On a high BB recumbent, plain, dark colored shoes are preferable, since
the rider's feet will be in his/her line of vision.

--
Tom Sherman

aka Jobst Brandt said:

...
There are always inventors who believe that something significant was
overlooked and that their invention will revolutionize bicycling.
None of them have done so....

Pedal drive to the wheels?

Hand operated brakes?

Chain drive instead of direct drive?

Multiple gear ratios?

None of these are recent inventions, but things have progressed
significantly since Karl Drais von Sauerbronn's "Laufmaschine".

--
Tom Sherman

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob said:

Alex Rodriguez said:

Don't worry, once you are out on your 'bent, all the girls will throw
themselves at you.

If you're relying on your choice of transportation to help you get
girls you'll have a lot more luck riding *in* a Benz than *on* a 'bent.
Just FYI. ;-)

A lot of that depends on your local cycling culture. I get plenty
of opportunities for socializing with women riders, especially on
the more cyclist-frequented streets here. And the women are often
the conversation initiators.

It helps that they can usually catch up to me.

Women cyclists are lovely; the world is graced by their presence.

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Peter Clinch said:

Not really: there's a weight penalty, there's a very significantly
greater cost penalty, and there is some degree of debate as to how
effective they really are. Clipless pedals are proven in action by
thousands and thousands of cyclists doing millions of miles, just as
clips and straps before them were proven, Rotors aren't.

Ah, well I didn't know about the cost factor being "very
significant"...but Velovision, in that issue with the Hase Ti-Pino
reader review, tested Rotor cranks and found them to be a very modest
~5% increase in speed, and noticeably more comfortable, though nothing
life-changing or revolutionary.

Quoted message said:

<SNIP>

Tom Keats said:

Women cyclists are lovely; the world is graced by their presence.

Isn't that the truth. They're all great, but I'm incredibly fortunate to
have ridden with a particularly attractive one for almost 30 years now.

Peter Clinch said:

Tim McNamara said:

Except for the really stupid looking shoes. Most of them look like
shoes from Barnum & Bailey's Bowlarama.

For some values of "most"... It's quite easy to find very normal
shoe-like cycling shoes as long as you're not after really high
performance racing kit. My favourite cycling footware are Shimano SD-60
SPuD sandals, they look just like a pair of Tevas or similar.

I adopted clipless pedals (PD-M737) for a span of years, then left them
behind for a few years. I tried to take them up again (Time ATAC), but
couldn't make peace with them. Both times, the shoes were the part
that broke the deal for me.

Clipless shoes in large sizes are scarce and expensive. Clipless shoes
in _any_ size are uncomfortable for use off the bike. And all of them
look like [censored], whether they look like non-bike shoes or not. Would it
kill a manufacturer to make _one_ model of cilpless shoe that looked
like... y'know, a shoe some reasonably discriminating person would wear
anyway?

E.g. one of these:
http://web.ivenue.com/chetsshoestore/images/4070.jpg

I'd be all over that-- if it came in size 15, anyway.

Chalo Colina

Bob said:

Alex Rodriguez said:

Don't worry, once you are out on your 'bent, all the girls will throw
themselves at you.

If you're relying on your choice of transportation to help you get
girls you'll have a lot more luck riding *in* a Benz than *on* a 'bent.
Just FYI. ;-)

Actually, a 'bent should be about the same in that regard as a
rusted-out 300TD wagon with mismatched quarter panels, bike rack, and a
"powered by waste vegetable oil" sticker.

Chalo

Chalo said:

Clipless shoes in large sizes are scarce and expensive. Clipless shoes
in _any_ size are uncomfortable for use off the bike.

Oh. Nobody seems to have told my feet... I'm quite comfortable
walking about in SD-60s, my old Specialized Rockhoppers or the
Diadora shoes I recently replaced them with. On a week's summer
tour in 2004 the SD-60s were the only footwear I took with me, and
no regrets.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/