Homebrew01

Same thought.

Stucky

I think the revi9ewer was just being nice- "due to change in position" (and of course, if the pedals require one to lower their seat 16-25mm! )

And with all the extry movement of those fugly pedals, I'm that would rob one of some energy.

But man, I sure agree- those things could be used as the picture in the dictionary under both "fugly" and "ridiculous". Oh...and "heavy"!

A few years from now, (or maybe next month) when these are forgotten about, someone'll see an ad for them, and have quite a laugh at how such ridiculous garbage could be actually be palmed-off on cyclists...and for $400, no less. Classic!

WheresWaldo

This was already discussed at least a month or two ago. Their claims as to power savings are based on a very imaginative reading of a University case study that showed basically no improvements using the pedals, or at least none that could be significantly measured. I posted a link to the paper in the old thread.

But just as the notorious confidence man Joseph Lewis, aka Hungry Joe, one said; “there is a sucker born every minute.”

bbattle

Check these out: A Pivoting Crank Arm for Riders with Limited Left Knee Flexion

bbattle

Or the off-center Revelox crankset. A new way to "ovalize" your chainrings.



LINK

datlas 

So this could be the future of cranksets!!

MikeyBoyAz

These pedals are awful; so is the website. I believe that sound science, and sufficiently understood science, should take only a few sentences to explain at a high level. This guy takes pages to explain a basic principle; either he's a fraud, or he understands neither pedaling nor his invention. The difference between his pedals and an ovalized chainring is simply weight and mechanical loss due to more moving parts.

Yuck.

Stucky

Yeah, anytime someone tries to explain something which should be simple and elementary, know that he is trying to put something over on you. The simple truth doesn't need a lot of explaining (nor to be boosted with testimonials; endorsements; references to 'research' which doesn't even prove it's value, but in-fact contradicts it. The more hype they try and build around what should be a simple concept (if it really worked, which it doesn't) the more you know you'ere being hood-winked. They try and make up with quantity what they lack in quality.

Jiggle

I'm embarrassed for these two cyclists who are endorsing it.

okane

Anyone know if that's for 1 pedal or 2? Either way it's still a steal (if you catch my drift) because shipping is FREE!

These would go well with my $50 brake cable, $650 tire, and $1700 saddle. Hope they come up with a $2500 matching crank set.

chaadster

I think this viewpoint is irrational. It simply does not make sense that if all this guy wanted to do was rip off cyclists with a scam product, that he'd go through all the expense and trouble to create a product that doesn't work, is expensive, is a hard-sell from jump street, and is only appealing to a tiny sliver of cyclists in the very best case. It makes no sense.

Rather, I think the producer must truly believe it, and given the long line of credible efforts along the same principles, he's not the only one wo has had a sincere belief in the idea that pedaling dynamics can be improved upon. From pro racers to component manufacturers, many, many people have been engaged in the idea and not only believe it has promise, but that it works.

Whether they've been right is questionable, but I don't doubt their sincerity or motivations.

WheresWaldo

Sincerity and belief in ones convictions doesn't mask the fact that his claims of efficiency are exaggerated at best and downright lies at worst. The Dr. who "invented" these pedals was part of a doctoral thesis that basically showed they didn't work. But he now has so much invested in a solution that there has to be a way to recoup some of that investment. If you search you will see the study was based on 20 individuals on this type of pedal (this is from memory, I am not going to reread the paper). Testimonials are anecdotal and never have to be based on reality, we get suckered in because someone else told us it was good. This is about 50% of the posts here, 'please tell me what to buy?' I don't even feel sorry for the people who fall for this junk science.

Even a President was sincere when he told the world, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'

Stucky

And that's a very naive viewpoint.

I could see you coming to such a conclusion in isolated cases- but the scenario we are discussing is one which is a tried-and-true old standard, used by advertisers; politicians; preachers and many others. The keys to the ploy are repetition [It doesn't matter so much what you say, but that you repeat over and over the key benefits that you want your audience to believe are true about the product or idea you are pitching] and selectivity about what data you include and exclude- i.e. failure to perform and show the results of simple tests which could prove that rthe product really worked- and inclusion of irrelevant info, like allusions to research which is negative or neutral as the product in-question, in order to attain credibility via "science" just by alluding to it.

These things do not occur jut by happenstance; they are very carefully planned and scripted, just as are the infomercials one used to see [Do they still have those? I don't watch TV...] on which they'd try and hawk some over-priced ineffective product of dubious quality, or schemes to profit in real estate by using techniques that the huckster used 30 years ago, which have little relevancy or chance of success in today's market and finances. Believe you me, every single word; every single image of such productions is carefully chosen and crafted to effect a desired result- as are everything else from what the people who answer the phones say, to the literature that comes with the product; to the type of box it comes in.

They sell image and lifestyle- which is why, every week I get junk mail from credit card companies trying to entice me to use their courtesy checks [or whatever they call them] and without fail, if read their BS, it ALWAYS starts off by filling the readers minds with images of luxurious resorts; swimming pools; fancy cars; etc. They're not trying to convince you that choosing their product would be the best rational decision you could make; they are instead playing upon your lust and greed [whether it be for secks, power; status...] and hoping that you will make an irrational dscision; that your desires will over-ride your intelligence.

You see some slob in a convenience-store who collects cans for a living, or who is on welfare, buying $20 worth of lottery tickets on a regular basis- How else do you think that such are sold?

Leinster

They're quite clearly Australian. Only an American could be so tone deaf as to confuse those 2 for Brits.

Leinster

I think the one difference between this and a longer crank is that on the upstroke of a longer crank, your knee gets pushed higher into your chest. With the pedal being able to slide forward on this, it takes that away from the longer crank. But that presumes that you're not pedalling circles; if you have any pull-up at all (say, on a steep climb or a sprint) or do any shoe-scraping motion, these are going to feel weird.

The diagrams in the video show the pedalling circle being slightly lower and forward of the traditional pedal circle, and they go on to say "and you can move your saddle down as a result." I suspect you'd get a similar power increase by moving your saddle back slightly, and then work on your flexibility to get your torso flatter and more aero.

FBinNY 

One thing to note is that the pitch is directed at tri-athletes. Not meaning to offend anyone, but as a class, tri-athletes are proven to be suckers for stuff like this.

hueyhoolihan

i agree, it makes no sense...





OTOH, this one, surely showed potential...



note the tail. before i noticed it i thought the guy was delivering part of an early pre-fab house.

WheresWaldo

I think these guys should partner with Nikola Innovations and have the best of all junk science in one set of pedals, then charge double what you would pay for a set of Speedplay Zero Ti!

BillyD

If the pros wear them, you guys will start wearing them.

/Thread

link0

Lol what a joke product. "MORE POWER", from all that extra friction in the levers, probably.

Stucky

If he couldn't create something new and different which does work.....using something which doesn't work is the next best thing [It's so much easier than trying to sell nothing]; and the price? You have to charge a lot for something like that. If it were cheap, the small potential audience for it would dismiss it out-of-hand. I'll bet it costs way less than $50 to produce each set- so there would be a huge mark-up, even after marketing costs- making it's limited appeal well worthwhile.

Agent Cooper

Another solution looking for a problem.

gregf83 

Or choosing a lower gear. There might be some merit in having a non-circular pedal stroke but the testimonials provided by their athletes was total bollocks.

ussprinceton

too heavy