q ring vs O.Symmetric

c0ugars

which one would be the better for road riding and tt riding??

http://www.trainsharpcyclecoaching.co.u ... tAodzhc0YA

http://www.rotoruk.co.uk/qrings.html

i see these are being used alot in the tour and team garmin using the crank and chain rings

they both look the same is there much different for the "average" rider?

ShutUpLegs

Hi Bradley

incog24

PM me if you fancy some rotor road chainrings. I've got some for sale still in their packet.

Personally I've got a set on my TT bike and I'm getting on with them. I don't notice them, and frankly I think that 'might' be a sign of success. Mechanically the idea works, moving through the deadspot etc, so if I'm not noticing them its probably a good thing. If I was noticing them it'd probably be due to disruption to my pedal stroke. The arguments against are largely (and fairly) based on the flaws in the SRM based power studies. They're rubbish studies and so I'm happy to go on anecdotal evidence instead. In fact that almost goes for sport science as a whole .

rake

dont forget about gear shifting with wobbly gears, the chain goes up and down in the front skid cage. thats definately a draw back, besides the £.

rozzer32

I don't think gear shifting is affected because the front rings are set up the same, i.e high point and high point at the same position so the gap between the 2 rings is the same.

Some people say they work, some don't. Guess you will just have to try them out and see. I have been on the look out for a set of 53/39 oval rings for a while. I don't want to spend £170 on a new set to find I hate them.

Rotor seem to do a bigger range of sizes. O.Symmetric only seem to do 52/42 or 52/38 compact.

tmg

One of the guys on Eurosprt was talking about these the other day, saying he tried them but couldn't get on with them, the theory being they are supposed to help you get the most from each rotation through the deadspot

He siad he didn't like them and that there was little evidence that they actually did what they were supposed to, the team he rode for had done tests and they didn't show any improvement in power output Vs traditional

But like most tech some people like and others don't, would be interested in giving them a go but not prepared to pay the bucks and then find out I don't get anything from them

APIII

I've got the rotor rings on one of my bikes. I don't believe the bit about increased power, some people may. I do think the supposed removal of the deadspot has something in it. Having ridden them for week long trips, I can say I have less muscle fatigue than usual, but that is purely subjective and may just be my subconscious desperately trying to attach some benefit to them. Shifting is definitely compromised.

hopper1

I'm running a set of Rotor Q's on my TT bike, position 4.
I'm happy with them, so far. Can't say I've noticed whether they are any etter than round rings, but certainly not worse. No hassles with gear changing, using a SRAM Red front mech either. They're 54/42, so a bit of a ball breaker on hilly TT's.

RedJohn

Haven't really looked into these newer options, but I recall Shimano Biopace from the late '80s - it was everywhere for a while, but (like many) I found it just felt weird. In the end I swapped them for some round chainrings - the only ones I could get were some old ones a shop had stuck in a box somewhere, it was practically impossible to get new round ones then! (at a sensible price)

Not sure if these are significantly different though, I'd be interested if anyone can comment.