Rotor Cranks? What Else Is There?

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....

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!

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

NYC XYZ wrote:
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....

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!

(Un-cross-posted.)

Rotor Cranks have their proponents, and they're rather rabidly
evangelical. (Kind of like recumbent folk.) I'm comfortable enough with
my pedaling style to be uncomfortable with spending $1400+ on two sets
of cranks (one for me, one so the wife can keep up).

I think you should stop obsessing about how to put your bike together.
Buy it, ride it, do the adjustments to fit your body and riding style.
When things start to wear out, that's when you should start buying
upgraded parts.

BTW: riding a recumbent got me the girl. When we were dating, I put her
on my Lightning (which I had bought only a couple weeks earlier). She
immediately said "get me one!". So I did, and we rode them for a year
before getting married. After 12½ years of marriage, we're still
happily riding together.

Jeff

On 21 Feb 2006 07:55:52 -0800, "NYC XYZ"
wrote:


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.)

...(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".

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.

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 .com,
says...

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.

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 writes:

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...

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"
wrote:


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.)

...(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".

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.

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 writes:

In article .com,
says...

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 wrote:
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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:18:28 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Alex Rodriguez writes:

In article .com,
says...

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.