Image: PMP cranks by robadod from LFGSS [This feature from the road.cc archive was last republished on October 15, 2020]
We take a look at one of the more bizarre technical aberrations of recent history: the wackiest cranks ever made.
In 1981 Cycling Weekly magazine published a favourable review of an unusual new crank. The magazine gave a set to “a first-category Surrey roadman to try them out.”
The write-up said: “He fitted them in March and although our test is now over they are still on his best road bike. He has come to prefer them to orthodox cranks.”
CW’s tester “enjoyed the ‘feel’ of the cranks and reported that the slower his pedalling speed the more advantage he felt, which is perhaps why they are finding favour with big-geared time triallists.”
The tester told CW: “I didn’t just get the power on the downward strokes of the pedals but all the way round the pedalling revolution as at low pedalling speeds dead centre seemed to be removed. This helped me keep a steady rhythm particularly when sitting back in the saddle climbing hills.”
He didn’t feel the same benefit when pedalling quickly in a low gear, though.
CW concluded: “So there is the verdict, whatever the theories, in practice our roadman tester felt the PMP cranks offered an advantage – and surely that is the true criterion.”

That crank was the PMP Brevettato. Its unusual (but, as we’ll see, by no means unique) feature was a right angle bend about a third of the way between the bottom bracket axle and the pedal.
PMP made some interesting claims about the Brevettato cranks. They included:
- The unique form of the PMP pedal crank means improved distribution of the energy required in pedalling and a perfectly round stroke; the result: increased equilibrium.
- Its L-shaped design increases the pedal’s propulsion power and lessens energy dispersion on the downstroke.
- Pedalling the PMP way means to be perfectly in the saddle; in fact, the bicycle rider is forced to lean back slightly more than usual, putting him in the best possible aerodynamic position.
- The PMP pedal crank means that pedalling is no longer an “ankle game” since the bottom dead-point is lightened to allow greater ease on the upstroke.
- Bicycling becomes a pleasure and not a chore because the PMP pedal crank and its unique features take away the exertion and lighten muscle strain.
Bold claims, and with Cycling Weekly’s Surrey roadman finding they eliminated dead centre, you have to wonder why the design isn’t now ubiquitous.

That’s simple: it’s all bollocks.
A crank is a lever. The torque you generate when you load up the end of a lever depends on just two things: the force you exert and the distance between the point where that force is applied and the pivot.
Nothing else matters, especially not the route the lever takes between the two points. It can be a straight line, a right angle bend or any other shape; it doesn’t matter. All you achieve by making a crank any other shape than straight is to add weight and flexibility.
PMP cranks were even marked with the distance between the crank and pedal holes. As the Bicycle Museum of Bad Ideas remarks: “somebody at PMP understood it was simply an odd way to make a 175mm crank”.
Pretty much everyone who was paying attention in physics at school pointed this out at the time, but that didn’t stop a fad for PMP Brevettatos, especially among time triallists.
Even the great 80s time triallist Ian Cammish used them. Cammish, who won the Best British All-Rounder contest nine times in the 1980s, mentioned them when he tried to sell one of his 1983 bikes on eBay in 2013.
“Unfortunately the PMP cranks cracked a long time ago,” he wrote.
They had a bit of a reputation for that, though to be fair so did many other high-end cranks of the era.
Perhaps because of these reliability issues, and because not many were made in the first place, PMP Brevettato cranks are now rare and collectible. The most recent set I’ve seen on eBay went for US$400 — almost £300.
Other wonky cranks
The bike industry has a serious problem with knowledge loss, which leads to people who really should know better reinventing bad ideas over and over. The PMPs weren’t the first non-straight cranks (the earliest seem to have been in 1897), nor the last. Like the monster lurching back to life at the end of a bad horror movie, wonky cranks keep coming back.
Want to make people go “What the hell?” get yourself a set of dpardo Sickle Cranks:

It’s not at all clear what advantages dpardo claimed for this design. PMP had a slight case of ‘Campagnolo spoken here’ Italglish, but dpardo really needed to get a native speaker of English to write its marketing copy. It says — and I swear I haven’t changed a letter of this:
58T gear turns once is 1.6M faster than 50T!As same as pedaling 50T !Same pedaling force pedal 58T, the riding performance is 16% increasing than 50T with normal cranks
The craziest recent reappearance of wonky cranks has to be Z-Torque cranks, which came and went between 2010 and 2014.

The shape was claimed to have come to inventor Glenn Coment in a dream. He bent a wire coat hanger into the same shape and “when he revolved it in his hands he found that this crank assembly was different from any other crank assembly ever made. Except for top dead center and bottom dead center, this crank had no dead spots. He was amazed. And in future testing would find that during a rider’s maximum effort, power increases at a bikes rear wheel of 20-25% were possible.”
If true, that would be little short of astounding.
Z Torque further claimed “many advantages, including”:
- Smoother pedaling
- More power to climb hills
- Less perceived effort to pedal
- Faster acceleration
- Less affected by headwinds
- Ability to turn higher gearing
However, the Z Torque was really just another crank that connected the bottom bracket axle and pedal by a circuitous route, with an extra problem baked in.
As you can see, the long arm of the V shape, is really, really long. Imagine trying to pedal while banked over hard in a corner and you can probably explain why Z-Torque cranks were never even as popular as PMP Brevettatos.





















109 thoughts on “L-shaped cranks — explore the crazy idea that just won’t die”
1. Pay attention in physics
1. Pay attention in physics and avoid getting suckered by perpetual motion machines and other quackery.
2. Never underestimate the psychological power of the placebo effect. Tell enough people enough times in a convincing enough manner that sniffing a rat’s testicles before a race will make them faster, and sure enough some will actually go faster.
3. Don’t fancy sniffing a rat’s testicles? I can supply homeopathic rat bollock odour at just £25 for 10ml, enough for a month’s supply.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Do you accept Paypal?
Hmm. Magic wristbands, anyone
Hmm. Magic wristbands, anyone?
ColT wrote:
*cough* … Mr Thomas….
Sports people falling for snake oil … well I never…
To be fair, a non-straight
To be fair, a non-straight crank could possibly be of some use with non-round chainwheels to alter the power transfer, but with a circular chainwheel, there is zero benefit for a non-straight crank.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Still a lot easier to move the chainring rather than the crank arm
hawkinspeter wrote:
just no
the relationship between the pedal spindle and the crankshaft is unchanged regardless of the shspe of the metal connecting them.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Yes, except for the angle. Imagine that a crank can have a square hole at any orientation (i.e. 90 degrees difference) and thus the orientation of that hole can change the relationship between the pedals and the chainring. With a circular chainring that makes zero difference, but an oval chainring could show a difference in where the peak power is applied. However, a non-straight crank is the most stupid way of changing that orientation (more flex, more weight and less strong) rather than changing how the crank fits onto the crankshaft.
I’m not trying to argue for any benefit with a non-straight crank, but the only possible way that it would physically make any difference would be with a non-circular chainring.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Ultimately the forces through the pedal arm lever resolve to a straight line between the pedal axle and the chainset axle. Regardless of the shape of pedal arm the pedal axle (and foot) still traces a perfect circle around the chainset axle (think about it, the foot does not move further or closer to the centre at any point). Thus even with eliptical chainrings, the foot is making exactly the same shape around the chainset axle, and an ‘L’ shaped pedal arm does not position the foot relative to the curve of the chain ring any better than a straight pedal arm going from one end of the L to the other.
Cantab wrote:
I thought this thread was over.
What I meant was that the orientation of the crank-hole square will change the phase between the pedals and the chain-ring which will have no effect on a circular chain-ring. A phase change on an oval chain-ring may help or hinder by changing where peak power is applied. Again, a non-straight crank would not be an effective way of manipulating the phase difference between the pedals and the chain-ring.
[/quote]
Yes, except for the angle. Imagine that a crank can have a square hole at any orientation (i.e. 90 degrees difference) and thus the orientation of that hole can change the relationship between the pedals and the chainring. With a circular chainring that makes zero difference, but an oval chainring could show a difference in where the peak power is applied. However, a non-straight crank is the most stupid way of changing that orientation (more flex, more weight and less strong) rather than changing how the crank fits onto the crankshaft.
I’m not trying to argue for any benefit with a non-straight crank, but the only possible way that it would physically make any difference would be with a non-circular chainring.
[/quote]
Still “NO”,
Regardless of chainring forming, the “lever” in a pedal arm is always a straight line in terms of the forces applied. Adding a bend, be it 90 degree, 120 degree, or a corve merely increases the amount of material in use to create the same lever action from pedal to bottom bracket. If you REALLY wanted you ‘could’ make a pedal arm with a set of zig-zags out to the pedal and claim the increased pedal arm length (from the zig-zag) means more power. But it would still be quackery, as the raw physics looks at 2 things. power applied to pedal, and direct line of sight distance from centre of bottom bracket to centre of mount for pedal.
The only way to avoid the “deadspots” would be to not have the pedals set to 180 degrees to each other, so have the sueare hole in one pedal offset by maybe 15-20 degrees. But this would result in a very ungainly pedalling rythym, and while “technically” avoidint a total deadspot would result in a more uneven application of power with a highpoint as (for example) left foot comes over top before right passed the bottom point, and a low point as both pedals are in the act of coming back upwards (good luck without cleats)
Pop into your local school and ask a physica teacher to help with some forces diagrams to see what we mean if you don’t follow.
StuInNorway wrote:
Yes, except for the angle. Imagine that a crank can have a square hole at any orientation (i.e. 90 degrees difference) and thus the orientation of that hole can change the relationship between the pedals and the chainring. With a circular chainring that makes zero difference, but an oval chainring could show a difference in where the peak power is applied. However, a non-straight crank is the most stupid way of changing that orientation (more flex, more weight and less strong) rather than changing how the crank fits onto the crankshaft.
I’m not trying to argue for any benefit with a non-straight crank, but the only possible way that it would physically make any difference would be with a non-circular chainring.
[/quote]
Still “NO”,
Regardless of chainring forming, the “lever” in a pedal arm is always a straight line in terms of the forces applied. Adding a bend, be it 90 degree, 120 degree, or a corve merely increases the amount of material in use to create the same lever action from pedal to bottom bracket. If you REALLY wanted you ‘could’ make a pedal arm with a set of zig-zags out to the pedal and claim the increased pedal arm length (from the zig-zag) means more power. But it would still be quackery, as the raw physics looks at 2 things. power applied to pedal, and direct line of sight distance from centre of bottom bracket to centre of mount for pedal.
The only way to avoid the “deadspots” would be to not have the pedals set to 180 degrees to each other, so have the sueare hole in one pedal offset by maybe 15-20 degrees. But this would result in a very ungainly pedalling rythym, and while “technically” avoidint a total deadspot would result in a more uneven application of power with a highpoint as (for example) left foot comes over top before right passed the bottom point, and a low point as both pedals are in the act of coming back upwards (good luck without cleats)
Pop into your local school and ask a physica teacher to help with some forces diagrams to see what we mean if you don’t follow.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point of the phase relationship between the position of the (oval) chainring and the position of the pedals. Yes, a force diagram shows no difference as there is no difference in how much force is applied.
Pop into your local academy and get an electrical engineer to explain phases to you if you don’t follow.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Still “NO”,
Regardless of chainring forming, the “lever” in a pedal arm is always a straight line in terms of the forces applied. Adding a bend, be it 90 degree, 120 degree, or a corve merely increases the amount of material in use to create the same lever action from pedal to bottom bracket. If you REALLY wanted you ‘could’ make a pedal arm with a set of zig-zags out to the pedal and claim the increased pedal arm length (from the zig-zag) means more power. But it would still be quackery, as the raw physics looks at 2 things. power applied to pedal, and direct line of sight distance from centre of bottom bracket to centre of mount for pedal.
The only way to avoid the “deadspots” would be to not have the pedals set to 180 degrees to each other, so have the sueare hole in one pedal offset by maybe 15-20 degrees. But this would result in a very ungainly pedalling rythym, and while “technically” avoidint a total deadspot would result in a more uneven application of power with a highpoint as (for example) left foot comes over top before right passed the bottom point, and a low point as both pedals are in the act of coming back upwards (good luck without cleats)
Pop into your local school and ask a physica teacher to help with some forces diagrams to see what we mean if you don’t follow.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point of the phase relationship between the position of the (oval) chainring and the position of the pedals. Yes, a force diagram shows no difference as there is no difference in how much force is applied.
Pop into your local academy and get an electrical engineer to explain phases to you if you don’t follow.
[/quote]
But you can set any “phase difference” you like with a straight crank by just offsetting the angle of the crankset spider. There is no point in using a bent crank to do it!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Just to check, were you on here a few months ago saying that disc brakes caused bikes to pull to the left, or was that someone else?
bikebot wrote:
I’ll plead innocent to that. I can’t recall ever holding that opinion.
Thinking about it now, that would only make sense if you had really weak/flexible axle otherwise, the forces would be distributed across both sides equally.
hawkinspeter wrote:
This is the first time I’ve seen someone troll those of us who did A-level Physics. I’ll bite. Have another think about how your weak/flexible (totally different properties) axle, contained in a stiff fork and with each end attached to a single wheel rim, could possibly cause a bicycle to pull left when that axle is braked at one end.
[/quote]
[/quote]
This is the first time I’ve seen someone troll those of us who did A-level Physics. I’ll bite. Have another think about how your weak/flexible (totally different properties) axle, contained in a stiff fork and with each end attached to a single wheel rim, could possibly cause a bicycle to pull left when that axle is braked at one end.
[/quote]
Surely you can twist the fork legs under heavy braking due to the caliper only being on one leg.
I had a road bike where the fork legs were twisted and it gave the bike a tendency to steer one way so i had to hang a long way off one side to ride no handed.
Can’t see how you’d affect the axle mind.
P3t3 wrote:
This is the first time I’ve seen someone troll those of us who did A-level Physics. I’ll bite. Have another think about how your weak/flexible (totally different properties) axle, contained in a stiff fork and with each end attached to a single wheel rim, could possibly cause a bicycle to pull left when that axle is braked at one end.
[/quote] Surely you can twist the fork legs under heavy braking due to the caliper only being on one leg. I had a road bike where the fork legs were twisted and it gave the bike a tendency to steer one way so i had to hang a long way off one side to ride no handed. Can’t see how you’d affect the axle mind.[/quote]
Well, it’s not completely bonkers…
A disk brake calipers applies a force to the disk a small distance behind the axis of the left fork blade, with an equal but opposite force being applied to the caliper. As this is off-axis, it results in bending of the left fork blade roughly in a direction perpendicular to the axle, and the left side of the axle moves backwards, turning the wheel slightly to the left.
Then two things happen.
1. As forks have ‘trail’, ie the contact patch is behind the headset axis, the contact patch moves to the right of the bike’s axis, which would create a tendency to turn to the right.
2. As the contact patch is no longer aligned with the bike axis, the bike starts to fall. In this case to the left.
3. The wheel is angled slightly left, which creates a tendency for the bike to move left, offsetting 1. above.
As for the result of 1, 2 & 3, plus no doubt something I have forogotten, I have no idea.
And in any case, I suspect the deflection is very small in any real-world bike not made of wet noodles, and completely dominated by other dynamic things such as rider balance, bumps in the road, that it’s never actually noticed.
srchar wrote:
You’re right – the axle shouldn’t make any difference. I’ll admit to having a few beers before posting that. Maybe in theory a weak flexible hub could deform with disc brakes but you wouldn’t be riding with a wheel that behaved like that.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Also why the bottom bracket and crank must have as little flex as possible, the bike might dangerously pull to the right when sprinting.
bikebot wrote:
I can’t even imagine how Christian Haettich counters that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30295759
bikebot wrote:
I remember that thread, stopped commenting when whatever ‘flatearther’ came out with that as I couldn’t be arsed banging my head into my dead horse.
bikebot wrote:
That depends on which hemi-sphere you’re in …. pulls to left in the north, to the right in the south. I have this on good authority.
hawkinspeter wrote:
No it couldn’t.
Welsh boy wrote:
It can change the relationship between the top dead center of the (oval) chainring with the top dead center of the foot on the pedal. Of course, a straight crank could be fitted in a different orientation with the crankshaft to achieve the same without all the problems of a non-straight crank.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Except there is a much better solution for that used by all modern oval rings – a series of bolt holes on the chainrings to interface with the crank arm at different angles. Never use any other material when the same can be accomplished with holes.
Shanghaied wrote:
Exactly. That’s why ‘L’ shaped cranks are completely useless.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Sheldon Brown on Shimano’s non-round Biopace chainwheel of the 80s and 90s: https://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html
HawkinsPeter wrote:
maybe read the article again. You could connect the pedal and the crank with any shaped bobble you want and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference. It’s still just a fixed relationship between bottom bracket and pedal. Doesn’t matter what shape chainring.
I would be wary of these
I would be wary of these snapping. Did this ever happen ? We’re they ever used for long enough in the first place?
brucethebruce wrote:
It does say they cracked.
What he said ^^^^
Anyone ever made a double-jointed crank?
matthewn5 wrote:
We still do 😉
https://highpath.co.uk/pulse-swing-cranks/
“Except for top dead center
“Except for top dead center and bottom dead center, this crank had no dead spots. He was amazed.”
True ! LOL
There’s nothing new under the
There’s nothing new under the Sun. This sort of bollocks keeps resurfacing. Currently it’s ‘oval’ (actually eliptical) chainrings. The way to eliminate deadspots in pedalling is to improve pedalling technique. All these gimmicks are just that, gimmicks. You can’t blame the manufacturers for trying to make a few quid, but simple common sense should tell you that it’s a waste of money.
Grizzerly wrote:
Oval chain rings were all the rage for a while in the late 80s/early 90s. My old MTB had them when I got it.
With modern materials
With modern materials (ignoring shape because that’s obviously a stupid idea), could you even-out power a noticeable amount utilising a crank? It’d have to flex a touch at maximum potential and return to shape before the effort you put in was negated completely. Obviously, the natural tendency of any such ‘power storage’ attempt would be to turn it to heat at the storage point.
The things pictured are way too hard to have done that, but I suppose it it plausible to smooth out the power a minute amount. I’m thinking hill climb rather than track obviously where maintaining V is useful.
Last few remaining 100grm
Last few remaining 100grm packs of Magic Beans guarenteed to give you Froome like performance, for life! Only bids over £25,0000. per pack considered.
The only possible saving
The only possible saving grace that might be generously attributed (while squinting very hard and giving all of this year’s supply of Benefit of Doubt) to the dpardo Sickle Cranks might be this:
In order to reduce weight a curved crank with a mostly empty interior containing reinforcing struts might provide the same stiffness/strength as a solid straight crank of greater weight… but I suspect they’re going after the homeopathic rat-bollox crowd which Mungecrundle’s market research has identified.
Even the ‘experts’ can be fooled. I remember years ago reading a review of a disc-braked motorcycle in which it was stated that, as the brake calliper was behind the fork leg, the front of the bike would lift under braking. This from a professional magazine writer.
i love them. Hope they make a
i love them. Hope they make a handlebar stem to match
mylesrants wrote:
Arent mountain bike riser bars (with stems with positive reach) very similar in principle ?…
The contact points are at the same position as a flat bar bike with a stem at a more upright angle?
scrapper wrote:
No, riser bars don’t change the length of the lever between riders hands and the axle of the steerer tube. What they do is allow fine tuning of ergonomic fit; getting the contact point at the correct height without changing spacers (e.g. if the the steerer’s been cut too short to stack)
is my calendar wrong ?? …
is my calendar wrong ?? … 😉
1) Apostrophe alert:
1) Apostrophe alert: “It’s unusual (but, as we’ll see, by no means unique) feature…”
2) There’s more spring in a longer lever (other things being equal) so you would store energy during the down stroke and release it as your foot pressure reduces. Some would get converted to heat but some would be returned. So it could theoretically smooth your pedalling.
…seeking crowdfunding for
…seeking crowdfunding for centrally mounted disc brakes..should fix pulling to left or right .. just need to to get the brake mechanism to move in and out to avoid the spokes.
or wait for the mark II product: double disc brakes one each side with independent actuators – can steer left or right just by braking.
Should be able to sell loads of these in a groupset including cranks made of cheese to reduce peak loads on your knees.
gnarlyrider wrote:
You could actually get a set of marzocchi bombers with dual discs in the 90’s. Aimed at DH MTB.
Almost as retro as this article!
This does make me wonder why
This does make me wonder why no manufacturer ever tried an elastomer crankset. It looks like they would have found a few customers.
bikebot wrote:
This does make me wonder why no manufacturer ever tried an elastomer crankset. It looks like they would have found a few customers.
[/quote]
There is one out there that I’ve seen with springs connecting the crank arm to the spider. All I will say is that it doesn’t seem to have caught on…
Interesting that CW’s “Surrey
Interesting that CW’s “Surrey roadman” said back in 1981 they seemed to smoothe out his pedalling but only at lower cadences. Could it be that knowing he had these weird cranks made him, consciously or unconsciously, pay more attention to smooth pedalling technique, and that this went out the window at higher cadences? So there might have been a real effect, but it was psychological.
Bmblbzzz wrote:
Basically, the latter. As JS summarises in the article, it’s entirely bollocks. The same kind of bollocks gullible audiophiles used to fall for in droves back in the 80’s and 90’s.
The Cycling Weekly tester was writing shit worthy of this -> http://wathifi.com/
And for anyone still not sure, I’ve got some speaker cable I’d like to sell you.
bikebot wrote:
Haha. I once paid twenty quid for an interconnect, but I was a gullible teenager at the time. Copper core and gold plugs, with purple sheathing, ’twas a lovely thing and, of course, being twenty quid down, I convinced myself that it sounded better than the in-box freebie.
srchar wrote:
— srchar
You got off very lightly, a £20 interconnect is just a slightly overpriced cable. The $485 wooden volumen knob (google it) has become somewhat legendary as the finest example of this nonsense. It’s far from the most expensive piece of hardware, it’s just so utterly stupid.
Honourable mention to anyone who bought one of those pens that you were supposed to use to colour in the edge of audio CDs.
I’m sure I’m not the only person who has noticed similarities between bike retail today and the hifi market of twenty years ago. I’m amazed we don’t see much, much more of this nonsense, although Kickstarter has its fair share. With a health does of pseudo science, you could probably find a few Fred’s ready to pay £50 for a tiny bottle of chain oil. I’d bet Cycling Weekly would still be amongst those ready to fall for it as well.
bikebot wrote:
Not quite there- but £18 for a 50ml bottle is pretty ridiculous
Al__S wrote:
Not quite there- but £18 for a 50ml bottle is pretty ridiculous— bikebot
“Hand-blended” & “hand-crafted in the UK”. LOL. I myself only drink hand-poured beer.
Mind you the price still compares favourably to Loctite, which might as well be champion racehorse semen.
Al__S wrote:
Not quite there- but £18 for a 50ml bottle is pretty ridiculous— bikebot
I’ve been suckered into buying this stuff: http://www.dry-fluids.com/dryfluid-bike-2.html
€18.90 for 50ml but at least it’s trying to be a different type of lubricant. (I like it and would buy again).
bikebot wrote:
Sadly, some writers at bike magazines have come out with some prize bollocks over the years. JS himself should remember a certain writer (who will remain nameless) whose apogee was the line “the cromoly axles gave a feeling of sturdiness to the ride”. This writer went on to review cars, and I often wondered if that was because he was hounded out of reviewing bikes by a pack of angry townspeople with flaming torches, etc.
Even he didn’t stoop to the depths that are the norm in the hi-fi reviewing community. Their vague terminology and credulousness allowed the rise of the phenomenon that is Peter Belt. Not even the worst bike magazine entertained anything as bad. No amount of directional speaker cables can compete with his mystery foil squares… and anyone who believes that crap can not only be sold bikebot’s speaker cable, but might bid for a second-hand Orgone Generator that I can source for them…?
Lol, this is the biggest load
Lol, this is the biggest load of rubbish ever. Forget about the shape of the crank arms, the force is applied in the same place regardless of crank shape and the torque acts in the same place. All these do is add extra weight by taking the long route between your foot and the centre of the chainrings.
Well, I fitted these cranks
Well, I fitted these cranks to my bike, with the amazing electric pedals from a few years ago and oval chainrings, and my bike pedals itself!
Steve Joughin recounts that
Steve Joughin recounts that Steve Lawrence snapped one of these cranks in the Tour of Scotland, apparently the broken end made a mess of his leg – “he was cut to bits.” And yes, the science behind the idea is “Bollocks.”
1995, variable length crank..
1995, variable length crank…
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5636554
2002, yet another variable length crank system…
http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6640662
oh great… yet another one, dated 2009…
https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2009101637
You have to admit they do
You have to admit they do look good though!
I give you Powercranks – used
I give you Powercranks – used by triantelopes and ooh Vino. So MUST be the cranks then…
https://www.powercranks.com/
The only excuse (apart from
The only excuse (apart from just liking the shape) for curved crank arms might be that with modern composite materials, it’s possible to create a stronger, lighter piece.
I’m trying to think of an example from nature, and very few structural bones are dead straight or of uniform cross section along their length.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Like a pre-stressed H-beam.
As an engineering student,
As an engineering student, this keeps on bugging me. Anyone who thinks, let alone tries to sell a stupid shaped crank, claiming it to be better than a normal crank, needs to be beaten over the head with said stupid shaped crank.
Its just clever marketing at
Its just clever marketing at the end of the day. The same type of people who have been conned into using disc brakes, wide rims, reinforced plastic (carbon fiber) etc on their road bikes.
All a load of bollocks and totally unnecessary except on an off road bike of course and in 10yrs time we will look back and laugh our heads off!
Oh and don’t even mention gravel bikes – Jesus! The old saying, ‘A fool and his money is easily parted’ has never been more true.
yupiteru wrote:
Why has this thread risen from the grave?
But I do agree, it’s always seemed to me that gravel is a very poor material from which to construct a bike. Bikes should only be made from roads or mountains, or some combination of the two.
yupiteru wrote:
Well carbon fibre has been around for at least 20 years now ? It’s a good material for frames.
yupiteru wrote:
Not really, no. Sure it’s light, and can have multiple times the tensile strength of ( insert metal alloy ) and the design flexibility afforded by an infinite choice of lay ups of the mats, means you could build the ultimate ‘custom frame’. However, the downsides are that you will be ( mostly ) ‘casting pearls before swine’ on that score, and Carbon fibre has a very ‘odd’ property, from an engineering perspective. In that upon receiving a significant shock, it will firm new surfaces, to dissipate the energy, which leads to ‘Carbon scarring’. Which will eventually make your ‘custom lay up’ pointless, as it won’t be behaving in the way you intended, when you designed it. But again, for the most part, it’s casting pearls before swine, and as long as the clueless keep buying CF bikes “ ‘cos it’s pro yeah” the manufacturers will keep manufacturing them, and the marketeers will find ever more cunning ways to extract money from fools.
Quote:
OK, I’ll bite, what don’t you like about gravel bikes?
If I’m in the market for a new bike (so I’ll be spending £1000 regardless) where’s the harm in having numerous subtly different styles of bikes, each with its own catchy marketing term.
Unless you’re claiming road bikes, gravel bikes, touring bikes and CX bikes all share identical geometry, materials, clearances, gearing and braking?
Same with discs. They have
Same with discs. They have advantages, they have disadvantages; why does somebody care what someone else chooses to ride. And it is choice, again to think that someone has been duped is ridiculous. We can take the argument as far back as he likes, no carbon frames, no gears, penny farthing…
Give me non round wheels….
Give me non round wheels….
reippuert wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7s4PfvCZg
I’d like to see some analysis
I’d like to see some analysis of the physics of ordinary crank lengths.
Is it the case, for example, that for steep climbing a longer crank would be a good idea, as less force is needed to achieve the same torque (due to the longer lever)?
rjfrussell wrote:
In practise crank length doesn’t seem to make much difference . People who experiment with widely varying crank lengths are able to adapt within a wide range without power output being materially affected.
As for leverage, that leverage is modified by the rear sprocket size, the front chainwheel size and the wheel size. What you’re left with is your power output available to propel you uphill and if that doesn’t vary much with crank length then neither does your uphill speed.
Kind of counter-intuitive all that but it does seem to be true.
rjfrussell wrote:
Basically, yes a longer crank provides more torque. If you change your crank length, it’s like changing your gearing.
Usually, people only change their crank lengths to improve their bike fit, so someone with long legs might want longer cranks and similarly, shorter legged riders might benefit from shorter cranks. It’s quite useful on a tandem to have different crank lengths to allow different sized riders to use the same gear and cadence.
hawkinspeter wrote:
While that’s true, I think it is imperceptible. Moving from a 172.5 to a 175 will give you, what, just over 1% difference in gearing? That’s not even as big a difference as moving from a 53 to a 52 tooth chainring.
srchar wrote:
Complete rubbish. Changing the length of your crank DOES NOT change your gearing. The ONLY thing which changes the gearing for a given wheel is the ratio of the chainring to the sprocket, if your chainring is 4 times the size of your sprocket, for one revolution of your chainring your sprocket will go round 4 times regardless of the length of the lever (crank) turning it.
Welsh boy wrote:
You’re technically correct (the best kind of correct), but I’d like to point out that I was referring to the effective gearing which is the relationship between the force applied at the pedal and the force at the rear wheel. This can be changed by keeping all your gears the same, but changing the size of your back wheel or changing the length of your crank (although as srchar has pointed out a small size change doesn’t make much difference).
Although the ratio of revolutions of chainring/sprocket is unchanged, the distance that your foot travels will increase per revolution with a longer crank and thus the work (Nm) increases. So, a much longer crank will make it feel like an easier gear.
Here’s some info from the late Sheldon Brown on the subject: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gain.html
what is the purpose of this
what is the purpose of this article.? or comments about it? or this comment? this is all pointless.
philtregear wrote:
Perhaps nostalgia, or a chance to snigger at the scientifically illiterate who thought this would work. Or maybe a light hearted diversion from the endless stories of people being knocked off their bikes, which seem to dominate roadcc these days.
Griff500 wrote:
what is the purpose of this article.? or comments about it? or this comment? this is all pointless.
— Griff500 Perhaps nostalgia, or a chance to snigger at the scientifically illiterate who thought this would work. Or maybe a light hearted diversion from the endless stories of people being knocked off their bikes, which seem to dominate roadcc these days.— philtregear
L-shaped helmets offer 853% more protection against being knocked off your bike, studies reveal.
I still have a limited amount
I still have a limited amount of Snake Oil and brightly coloured Magic Beans at clearance prices.
Gents, would any of you be
Gents, would any of you be interested in some Nigerian real estate I currently inexplicably have laying around? Going cheap!
Crampy wrote:
To whom do I email my card details?
wellsprop wrote:
me
Hmmm. Central disc brake…
Hmmm. Central disc brake…
Fit to axle inside the spokes, operate by bluetooth? No need for wires hydraulics as self contained unit…
Comes with free Ratbollock essence
A regurgitated article that
A regurgitated article that refuses to die?
ktache wrote:
Apparently if you repeat something enough, in these parts, it becomes true. No matter how much bollocks is included.
Once more, but this time with
Once more, but this time with feeling
lolol wrote:
That’s getting a vinyl release:
https://grizzlybomb.com/2019/03/01/buffys-once-more-with-feeling-getting-a-vinyl-release/
HawkinsPeter wrote:
Well, now I’ve got something to sing about
https://youtu.be/Sv8uRVLN5Dc
brooksby wrote:
Bunnies aren’t just cute like everybody supposes!
They’ve got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses!
And what’s with all the carrots?
What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
There’s nowt more retro than
There’s nowt more retro than an increasing amount of material on road.cc
Which is a shame – because it’s always mostly been a well-informed and creative site.
Retro: L-shaped cranks – a
Retro: L-shaped cranks – a bad article that just won’t die…
I’d actually be curious about
I’d actually be curious about how this worked for in-phase cranks ie: handcycles; I have three dead spots in my rotation on my upright, with a huge one at forward bottom – main power is at backwards bottom and upwards mid, with a small deadspot in the middle, then a small power spot in upwards-forward before we’re dead again.
… In other words, from my right side so we’re clockwise; 6o’clock to about 9/10 is my main power phase, using my entire core to pull towards me;
then a small dead spot, then power through to about half-one pushing upwards and forwards with my middle back and shoulders.
Mostly dead spot through to 3, using biceps and shoulders, dead-spot through to about five, small power through to six.
I wonder if having the cranks tipped back a bit with non-standard geometry might help with the dead spots a bit – I think an oval ring would likely have more effect, though. I suspect I’d end up with my cranks jammed against my thigh more often with non-straight cranks, though.
Crippledbiker wrote:
These won’t help at all, they do nothing, may even make things worse as the actual crank arm looks like it might stick out more – not sure on that. It’s a really interesting question though.. i’d definitely have thought a non-circular chainring might be able to help, although the actual profile may need to differ from a leg-cycling one to cope with the different dead spot timing. Power data with a decent sampling rate would help.. wonder if anyone has done any work on this ? Going to have a look, good luck with your search.
fukawitribe wrote:
These won’t help at all, they do nothing, may even make things worse as the actual crank arm looks like it might stick out more – not sure on that. It’s a really interesting question though.. i’d definitely have thought a non-circular chainring might be able to help, although the actual profile may need to differ from a leg-cycling one to cope with the different dead spot timing. Power data with a decent sampling rate would help.. wonder if anyone has done any work on this ? Going to have a look, good luck with your search.— Crippledbiker
There has been a small amount of research done; the shape currently believed to be most optimal is egg shaped.
Good luck shifting gears, though.
Having had a think about these, I suspect it would just move the deadspot in terms of position on the rings; the position of my power and dead zones, in relation to the position of my hands, probably would not change, and the change in position of my arms in relation to my shoulder would likely move (think knees, arms want to be in a fairly narrow envelope), probably outwards which would increase agility but reduce power.
Egg shaped? Do you mean the
Egg shaped? Do you mean the chainring? Reminds me of the old biopace chainsets from the late 80’s. Never tried one, so can’t comment on those.
L shaped cranks won’t make an iota of difference to the applied turning moment though
They were supposed to
They were supposed to eliminate the top dead centre dead zone. If your pedal dynamics / technique are right, you don’t need L shaped cranks. They may have some benefit to people who ‘flat foot’ around the entire rotation, but unless you really haven’t got a scooby, or your carrying some sort of ankle problem, that’s not many people. TL;DR they are a shit idea.
Judge dreadful wrote:
Go on then, I’ll bite.
Why do they have some benefit? How are they mechanically different to any other crank?
Drinfinity wrote:
they really don’t have any benefit worth talking about. The L shape just means that you could eliminate top dead centre power dip, without having to change the angle of your foot relative to the ground. It’s far easier ( and more effective) to learn how to pedal correctly.
Judge dreadful wrote:
No. One more time – it makes no difference. Other than increasing the weight and maybe decreasing rigidity.
The turning moment applied by
The turning moment applied by the foot is the same regardless of the shape of the lever. This only adds weight to the design. I would further hazard that it increases flex in the crank, therefore reducing efficiency (albeit minimally) and adding potential weakness and possibility of failure.
I thought these were an April fool, are they actually marketed?
There is no benefit. So long
There is no benefit. So long as the pedal hole and the axle hole are fixed in relation to each other, it doesn’t matter a fig what shape the metal in between is.
StraelGuy wrote:
It does matter, but not in a good way. A bend in the crank will flex more.
Oh I love this. Could not
Oh I love this. Could not wish for a clearer example of the shortcomings of typical tests reviews. In this case we can all laugh at the reviewer. And yet so many reviews repeat exactly, precisely, the same methodological error – rely on the reviewer’s own human bias and subjective opinion and write it up as some kind of valid finding.
They were great for ‘flat
They were great for ‘flat footers’. Nowadays the pedalling techniques have improved, you can’t ‘roll your foot around the stroke’ / pedal in circles with L cranks. They were an interesting idea, which has now been consigned to the dustbin of ‘strange solutions to the problem of inefficient human leg levers when cycling’.