Crowd Funding For Crank Physics 379
BuzzSkyline writes "A new design for bicycle cranks violates basic principles of physics, but that's not stopping the inventor of Z-Torque cranks from trying to raise thousands in start-up capital through crowd funding." The picture looks intriguing for a fleeting moment before it looks silly. Covered in similar style at a site I'm glad to discover exists, the Bicycle Museum of Bad Ideas.
Makes a known problem worse (Score:3, Interesting)
One problem with long cranks and a low bottom bracket is the possibility of hitting your pedals on the ground during a turn.
This makes is worse by making it even more likely to hit the crank arm on the ground.
Re:Biomechanics (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah but the inertial difference would be some infinitesimal amount. Way to small to notice. The real problem is that this design in going to suffer huge stress at the points of the Z so if our intrepid rider is into mountain bikes he's going to break this thing about 4 weeks after he starts using it at precisely the worst possible time to have you crank break (while standing on your peddles on a steep climb.)
All you have to do to blow this out of the water is ask him why there isn't a curlicue wrench to give you more leverage in a tight place... not like we haven't been using wrenches for a while. This is a profound DUH, and no magic fairy dust nor faith in a loving deity will wash the stink of stupid off it. Sorry.
Re:This got a patent (Score:2, Interesting)
All cranks bend. Ride enough and you can see and feel it on a cheap bike.
Re:This got a patent (Score:2, Interesting)
"Twice" isn't quite correct. It'd work more like this: you spend 51% of normal pedaling power in compressing the springs and another 51% when fighting against the expansion. In the end you lose a whopping 2% of energy but in exchange get a lowpass filter between input and output power. The important questions are: whether that's really something desirable and does it justify the 2% loss.