[CR]Curved crank sets: a crock.

I admit being surprised that the discussion on this particular triumph of marketing hype over common sense (let alone engineering) continues.

What are the functional differences between the curved or bent crank and the conventional design? The curved/bent one weighs more for given stiffness, or flexes more at the same weight. Just because it is longer. If I recall correctly, PMP cranks were marked "170" or some other functional length, the hypoteneuse or equivalent straight crank length).

The PMP crank is appropriately treated as one of the "Rarest of the Rare" at Dale's site, http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/PMP_main.htm. You can also reach my satire on it, The Bent Crank: Chronology of an idea http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/PMP_crk_ad.htm (originally published at Bike Tech), by scrolling down the links there. By now, it is very dated, so please give me a break.

By the way, at the risk of bringing down the wrath of the gods and Naimans, by the same logic the (in)famous "Curly" Hetchins stays (http://www.classicrendezvous.com/British_isles/Hetchins/Hetchins.htm; http://www.hetchins.org) were undoubtedly useful for promoting Hetchins when brand names were forbidden on bikes in British amateur races. At least that is the most plausible excuse I've found for Mr. Denny's* innovation. Functionally, it's just a way to get the flex of slightly longer stays without the advantages of a longer wheelbase. FWIW, I have a non-curly Hetchins, grateful that the better functional design was more affordable.

Having done enough damage for one afternoon, I remain, yr. obdt servant, harvey sachs mcLean va

*Mr. Jack Denny was the lead framebuilder for Hetchins. Apparently the innovation was his. No relation to our own favorite CR onlooker, according to those who should know best.