rotor cranks

(Bill Franklin) wrote in message . com...
You tell them, Mr. Jobst. Work is where it's at! We could care less
about power. You old fuddy-duddy! Go back to your spoked wheels!
I was temped to write a detailed positive review but I'd rather keep
my mouth shut and my advantage intact and continue to win triathlons
with them. Funny thing is rarely does someone even spot them on my
bike at my races.
I would say yeah, ride them on a test bike up a few hills in Boulder
and then say "oh, they're alright." People, if you think that that is
a controlled test you need retake 7th grade Science and get a lesson
in the Scientific method. If you want to listen to Jobst Brandt (has
he even seen the rotors?) you need to have your head examined. BTW,
Jobst, while you're at it can you explain to me why bumblebees can't
fly? I always wondered that, and I'm sure you are the person to tell
me.
BF

Do you have a good explanation as to why rotor cranks work though?

We've also seen positive "peer reviewed" reports for the "negative
torque reducing" variable crank-length machine.

To bolster these limited experimental results, some proper
explanations of how these alleged benefits might occur would be nice
and I suggest they would have to involve the muscle function level
rather than provocative concepts such as "dead spot reduction" which
seems to assume the rider doesn't normally get enough chance to apply
power or "negative torque reduction" which sounds like perpetual
motion.

Your "talk power not work" objection has potential validity at least
for short anaerobic bursts since with rotor the legs spend more time
on the downstroke at any cadence - so on the face of it more _max_
power might be possible.

In case anyone doesn't know, with Rotor you get both legs on the
downstroke at the same time in some sectors of the stroke.

Andrew Bradley

Yeah Dave, like I really believe that myth. A USAF engineer "proved"
that bees cannot fly using physics. Of course he was wrong- he used
incorrect assumptions. Just like a few years ago when the Universe
was "proven" by scientists to be 12B years old, yet the same
scientists "determined" certain stars to be 14B years old. Of course
that was eventually rectified. I am using simple metaphors because you
guys can't seem to get it.
Mr. Brandt is wrong in saying that it is about force times distance.
That is work. We are interested in power. That's what wins races. He
is a racer like me. We are not talking touring here. What he doesn't
realize is that the Cam on the rotors slows down your power stroke's
angular velocity in comparison to the bottom bracket a.v. (which is
what is driving the chain). Thus the "time" of the power stoke has
effectively increased. Also the time of the upsstoke (no power
applied) has decreased. Look at an olympic swimmer closely, the arms
don't move 180 degrees out of phase like windmills. They move more
slowly on the power stroke and quickly on the recovery. It is wrong
to say the rotors shift phases of the legs' strokes. They cause your
legs to work like a swimmers arms. Why spend 50% of your time
recovering? Another way to say it is the duty cycle has increased.
JB says riding fast though is all about cardiovascular limitations. If
this was true we could bike just as fast with our arms alone! Think
about it.

Of course you will not believe me.
Of course my name is an alias--I want to keep winning races next year.
While you morons are out spending $2500 on a frame, I bought a set of
RCs and a Power tap and with my HRM I saw the difference for myself.
I've participated in many threads in many forums regarding these
devices. The reaction is always the same. "I know they don't work
because..." Unless I get I job with RC Inc. this is the last you'll
hear from me.

--"Bill"

PS- Rotor Cranks don't work. Please spread that around while you enjoy
your fancy ass frame that makes you sooo much faster.

Bill Franklin wrote:

Yeah Dave, like I really believe that myth. A USAF engineer "proved"
that bees cannot fly using physics. Of course he was wrong- he used
incorrect assumptions.

The story of bees and other insects being unable to fly according to
aeronautical principles was already reported in a 1934 book "Le Vol Des
Insects" and the USAF was only formed in 1947, so that seems an unlikely
source. The author of the book, the entomologist August Magnan, indicated
that he and his engineering assistant Sainte-Lague had done the calculation
based on equations used in aviation. Of course these generally calculate
the lift available from a fixed wing and are therefore not applicable to
real bees whose wings are anything but fixed while in flight.

(Bill Franklin) wrote in message . com...
Yeah Dave, like I really believe that myth. A USAF engineer "proved"
that bees cannot fly using physics. Of course he was wrong- he used
incorrect assumptions. Just like a few years ago when the Universe
was "proven" by scientists to be 12B years old, yet the same
scientists "determined" certain stars to be 14B years old. Of course
that was eventually rectified. I am using simple metaphors because you
guys can't seem to get it.
Mr. Brandt is wrong in saying that it is about force times distance.
That is work. We are interested in power. That's what wins races. He
is a racer like me. We are not talking touring here. What he doesn't
realize is that the Cam on the rotors slows down your power stroke's
angular velocity in comparison to the bottom bracket a.v. (which is
what is driving the chain). Thus the "time" of the power stoke has
effectively increased. Also the time of the upsstoke (no power
applied) has decreased. Look at an olympic swimmer closely, the arms
don't move 180 degrees out of phase like windmills. They move more
slowly on the power stroke and quickly on the recovery. It is wrong
to say the rotors shift phases of the legs' strokes. They cause your
legs to work like a swimmers arms. Why spend 50% of your time
recovering? Another way to say it is the duty cycle has increased.
JB says riding fast though is all about cardiovascular limitations. If
this was true we could bike just as fast with our arms alone! Think
about it.

Of course you will not believe me.
Of course my name is an alias--I want to keep winning races next year.
While you morons are out spending $2500 on a frame, I bought a set of
RCs and a Power tap and with my HRM I saw the difference for myself.
I've participated in many threads in many forums regarding these
devices. The reaction is always the same. "I know they don't work
because..." Unless I get I job with RC Inc. this is the last you'll
hear from me.

--"Bill"

PS- Rotor Cranks don't work. Please spread that around while you enjoy
your fancy ass frame that makes you sooo much faster.

Dear "Bill,"

What aliases do you use in what other threads?

Is the real "Bill Franklin" a moron? Shouldn't you
email him to let him know how you picked him?

Are your other aliases attached to equally convincing
records of achievement?

Do you conceal your fabulous cranks by the simple ruse
of letting most other riders pedal ahead of you?

Or is this just the amusingly cranky response of
someone sputtering in water rather over his head?

Carl Fogel

For all you arguing about these things, They have a 30 day UNCONDITIONAL money
back guarantee, if you don't like them, send them back. Make up yer own mind.
I'll bet if Jobst asked, he could get some for free to try.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Peter Chisholm writes:

For all you arguing about these things, they have a 30 day
UNCONDITIONAL money back guarantee, if you don't like them, send
them back. Make up yer own mind. I'll bet if Jobst asked, he could
get some for free to try.

There are some things that don't need to be tried to be evaluated,
either because so many other more gullible folks will take the effort
to find there is no free ride, or because there are glaring faults
apparent in cursory inspection. I will take advantage of both in this
case.

I had the opportunity to inspect these cranks at InterBike and see
them in motion, as well as listen to the explanations that went with
them. The effect they seem to achieve is that the downstroke of the
pedal is slightly longer in time than the up stroke, chainrings moving
at constant speed. Why should this be beneficial? That's where the
hand waving begins literally ending in circular arguments.

What is ignored is that pedaling these cranks with the chain removed
reveals that the feet (legs) are not in balance as on normal cranks,
where no effort is required to rotate to any angular position, the
downward foot balancing the upward foot. This is not the case with
Rotor Cranks:

http://www.timetrial.org/rotorcranks.htm

Beyond that, foot rotational speed is not constant although probably
insignificantly so. The dead spot, so to speak, that is claimed to
vanish, is still there, at the point where the pedal is at its apogee,
regardless of where the other pedal is. This whole concept is based
on the same one that I mentioned of "snap-over connecting rods" for IC
engines on the basis of unrealized energy within the stroke. Focusing
on individual detail often obscures the resulting effect as I believe
it is this case.

Bicycling effort comes primarily from the upper leg muscles that have
no idea what sort of action takes place at the pedal, only that the
work of the downward stroke takes place and the muscle expends energy
in the stroke. Gears can make stroke duration fit a rider's abilities
and all the other gimmicks that diverge from sinusoidal motion and
constant foot speed interfere with that effort.

I can recall such devices coming along every year as long as I have
bicycled. None has passed the test of use and none remain after a
season or two. I see far to little skepticism from consumers who are
flooded with clever promotions, be that bicycling or politics.

Jobst Brandt

In article ,
says...

....

Beyond that, foot rotational speed is not constant although probably
insignificantly so. The dead spot, so to speak, that is claimed to
vanish, is still there, at the point where the pedal is at its apogee,
regardless of where the other pedal is. This whole concept is based

Not really; what they mean by "dead spot" is that point where *neither*
pedal is on its powered downstroke (approx 12:00 and 6:00 position,
depending on the rider). Since one pedal is moving faster on its
upstroke, it goes over the top and starts down before the one on the
other side has completed its down stroke. That way, you always have at
least one pedal providing power.

I doubt it will significanly more speed because a person's body can only
produce so much power depending on their physiology, and reducing the
rest periods won't help that any, unless your conditioning improves
(which would improve your times anyway, no matter what cranks you have).

.....

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

David Kerber writes:

Beyond that, foot rotational speed is not constant although
probably insignificantly so. The dead spot, so to speak, that is
claimed to vanish, is still there, at the point where the pedal is
at its apogee, regardless of where the other pedal is. This whole
concept is based

Not really; what they mean by "dead spot" is that point where
*neither* pedal is on its powered downstroke (approx 12:00 and 6:00
position, depending on the rider). Since one pedal is moving faster
on its upstroke, it goes over the top and starts down before the one
on the other side has completed its down stroke. That way, you
always have at least one pedal providing power.

What does this improve? I think the inventors don't understand
geometry if they think a crank produces any significant power in the
first five or so degrees from TDC. The cosine of 5deg = 0.996 or 4%
of vertical half stroke, which is 2% of the downward stroke. That %
times a lever of less than an inch isn't doing much that can't be done
more simply with rigid cranks.

I doubt it will significantly more speed because a person's body can
only produce so much power depending on their physiology, and
reducing the rest periods won't help that any, unless your
conditioning improves (which would improve your times anyway, no
matter what cranks you have).

That's the crux of the matter anyway. Its force times distance per
unit time that described work in and work out, so all this altering
the "bio pace" is just so much more hot air after years of these
things.

Jobst Brandt

"David Kerber" wrote in message
...
Not really; what they mean by "dead spot" is that point where *neither*
pedal is on its powered downstroke (approx 12:00 and 6:00 position,
depending on the rider). Since one pedal is moving faster on its
upstroke, it goes over the top and starts down before the one on the
other side has completed its down stroke. That way, you always have at
least one pedal providing power.

I doubt it will significanly more speed because a person's body can only
produce so much power depending on their physiology, and reducing the
rest periods won't help that any, unless your conditioning improves
(which would improve your times anyway, no matter what cranks you have).


It sounds like this might afford some advantage in mountain biking,
when traction is a problem. I'm a masher and I seem to consistently
spin wheels when one pedal (usually the right one) is at 3:00. It sounds
like the rotor cranks might fix this. Anyone tried this on a MTB?


-- Jens

wrote in message ...
Peter Chisholm writes:

For all you arguing about these things, they have a 30 day
UNCONDITIONAL money back guarantee, if you don't like them, send
them back. Make up yer own mind. I'll bet if Jobst asked, he could
get some for free to try.

There are some things that don't need to be tried to be evaluated,
either because so many other more gullible folks will take the effort
to find there is no free ride, or because there are glaring faults
apparent in cursory inspection. I will take advantage of both in this
case.

I had the opportunity to inspect these cranks at InterBike and see
them in motion, as well as listen to the explanations that went with
them. The effect they seem to achieve is that the downstroke of the
pedal is slightly longer in time than the up stroke, chainrings moving
at constant speed. Why should this be beneficial? That's where the
hand waving begins literally ending in circular arguments.

What is ignored is that pedaling these cranks with the chain removed
reveals that the feet (legs) are not in balance as on normal cranks,
where no effort is required to rotate to any angular position, the
downward foot balancing the upward foot. This is not the case with
Rotor Cranks:

http://www.timetrial.org/rotorcranks.htm

Beyond that, foot rotational speed is not constant although probably
insignificantly so. The dead spot, so to speak, that is claimed to
vanish, is still there, at the point where the pedal is at its apogee,
regardless of where the other pedal is. This whole concept is based
on the same one that I mentioned of "snap-over connecting rods" for IC
engines on the basis of unrealized energy within the stroke. Focusing
on individual detail often obscures the resulting effect as I believe
it is this case.

Bicycling effort comes primarily from the upper leg muscles that have
no idea what sort of action takes place at the pedal, only that the
work of the downward stroke takes place and the muscle expends energy
in the stroke. Gears can make stroke duration fit a rider's abilities
and all the other gimmicks that diverge from sinusoidal motion and
constant foot speed interfere with that effort.

I can recall such devices coming along every year as long as I have
bicycled. None has passed the test of use and none remain after a
season or two. I see far to little skepticism from consumers who are
flooded with clever promotions, be that bicycling or politics.

Jobst Brandt







The balance which you refer to on the upward stroke stroke is
negative input
to your pedal stroke, that idling pedal should be unweighted when
power delivery has ended. RC's do not eliminate the dead spot area,
they try to
compensate for part of the area. I would agree that where the
compensation has
to start is too early in the downward stroke especially when you are
seated
in the saddle although the very forward position of tt riders on their
saddles
might improve this. I would expect these cranks to have most effect
when you
are riding out of the saddle and correctly timing the unweighting of
the idling
pedal.