Interesting idea, but problem I can see with that is on one part of the revolution of the cranks one foot is more forward so that will work well, but what about the other way when one foot is farther back on the revolution. Wouldn't this make it harder?
Originally Posted by Gary Tingley
I must agree with Gary on this one...... A friend of mine......Frank Geyer races with them and of course also trains with them. He races a challenge jester and gained even more speed with these cranks plus lowering his heartrate at the same time. I plan on getting a set........ just don't know yet which set to plunk the money down for yet. Still waiting on my new carbon frameset yet.
The rotor cranks appear to be way worth the money. Huge gains for recumbent riders.
Out of curiousity are they more efficient on a bent? and why if so.
I'm sure that Gary can list more reasons than I. I've come to the conclusion that they may be more efficient for bent riders, because we tend to have slower cadence due to the position we are sitting. More leg weight to lift up and down. Spinning can be more fatiguing on a bent than a wedgie. These are the perfect cranks for mashers. Constant all on power all the time. Frank now tends to pedal at a slower cadence but with more power per stroke. At the same time, the cardio vascular has slowed at the same given wattage output. It does take some time to adjust to them to bring your heart rate back up to previous levels. At the same time the wattage output goes up further. This means faster. Most of you guys don't race though, so it may not be of any interest to you to go any faster with less percieved effort.Originally Posted by Kev
Chris and Gary, I like speed, though I don't have the opportunity to race others hereabouts. I tend to mash the big ring so I'm intrigued by the stroke-efficient concept of Rotor Cranks, but I'm also concerned with the extra weight of those things. If Chris (and Frank and Garrie, et. al.) go to the extent of weight-saving carbon frames (and, I'd assume, light-weight wheels and everything else) then why heavier cranks? Do they really more than compensate for the extra rotational weight?
I'll gently rise and I'll softly call
Good night and joy be with you all.
Originally Posted by bentrox!
I was concerned with the extra weight also, but according to everyone that uses them..... it doesn't seem to be a penalty. The extra efficiency overcomes the weight penalty. I will still have a sub 19 lb bike anyhow. They all claim hill climbing is much easier now on the recumbent.