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