Moderator: Moderator Team
Frankly I am a bit lost on how this could work. But here is a pic for your thoughts.
So, the sprocket on the pedal/platform shaft is ~14t and the one mounted on the crank is ~28 (very rough estimate from that picture. That means a 2:1 ratio, so its a torque multiplier.
Unless there are some one way clutches involved, that arrangement fixes the position of those platforms relative to each other. That means they would have to be timed to make sure they weren't out of position with each other. Sounds uncomfortable having your ankles timed together like that (couldn't do a 1 leg calf stretch for sure).
I don't see how it really would make any more power since all lower lef forces are in series with your upper leg forces and therefore reacted against them given the platform appears to be under the ball of the foot. Also, the crank itself wants to move at a constant velocity, else the whole bike would have to slow down/speed up. So, if you pushed your toe down on this bike, the crank would want to speed up. But, it can't. So, your upper leg would have to slow down by a 1:1 corresponding amount. That seems inefficient.
I do think moving the pedal mid-foot makes sense expecially for endurance riders and for triathelons. But, this is something very different.
Take into account weight and friction and I bet this is easily a net slower bike....just this one engineers $0.02.
Anybody got a weight on that crank?
Cielo by Chris King Cross Racer
I communicated with the designer a bit more and looks like the idea is that at the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions, the heel could push down and the torque is transfered to the BB via the mini-drivetrain to the BB thereby eliminating the dead spots in the revolution.
Theoretically it may work but I seriously doubt there is any net increase in overall efficiency considering so many extra pieces.
Plus I cringe at the thought of the Q-factor. And no pedaling through a corner due to little ground clearance.
- Similar Topics
- Last post