oval chain rings

Frank pole

Seen a lot of these on various pro team bikes what's the advantage?

mercia_man

I used oval rings in the 80s on my mountain bike and couldn't tell any difference. They do make adjusting your front mech slightly more difficult. They were dismissed as a gimmick after a few years but have now re-emerged as a claimed performance enhancer for a new generation of cyclists. I remain sceptical.

Mad_Malx

The late 1980's Biopace rings were orientated differently to the modern Q rings though - it appears the thinking is opposite to Biopace. Biopace were supposed to even out the effort around the crank revolution, Q rings concentrate the effort where you have the most strength.

Rotor rings blurb:
"Q-Rings increase your power by emulating a Rotor System crankset in the power stroke and by minimizing the intensity of the "dead spot" zones. By extending the time you spend in the power stroke (where 90% of all power is produced) and smoothly accelerating the legs through the critically weak "dead spots". A 53T Q-Ring, around the upper dead-spot is equivalent to a 51T, but as the pedal goes down and more strength is applied, the equivalent chainring tooth size reaches 56T"

Bradley's gains were neutralised by dropping his chain in Romandie though (and almost cost him the stage and race), so I'm a bit dubious too.

bianchimoon

Friend of mine fitted Q rings 3 weeks ago, he's taken them off now as he's started getting knee pain for first time, co-incidence? personally, don't think so. I doubt the vast majority everyday road riders would see any performance enhancement. I'm quiet happy with the amount of pressure applied all round the pedal stroke of a round chainring

Gizmodo

After seeing Bradley Wiggins' chain come off in the crucial Tour of Romandy final TT race, probably because of the extra bounce that Q-rings give to the chain, I'm surprised anyone uses them. But then again he did win! The Q-rings or the engine?

lycraholic

He doesn't use Q-rings. He uses Osymmetric. There is a difference.

ineedalager

Yes that was close for Brad he maybe lost 10 seconds which turned an easier victory into something much harder as he looked pretty knackered afterwards.

Good win though well done Bradley and team Sky.

Mad_Malx

Lycraholic wrote:

He doesn't use Q-rings. He uses Osymmetric. There is a difference.

I see they are more square (and hence likely more chain movement), but isn't the principle the same?

ilm_zero7

some of my friend use them - the money no object ones mainly, and then even they say they cant tell the differences. yes some pro's do use them, but if the science was proven wouldnt every bike in the peloton have them?

cougie

Anyone remember L shaped cranks ? For extra leverage ?

rick_chasey

cougie wrote:

Anyone remember L shaped cranks ? For extra leverage ?

Err, what?

yocto

Rick Chasey wrote:

cougie wrote:

Anyone remember L shaped cranks ? For extra leverage ?

Err, what?

I just googled it.

http://www.classicrendezvous.com/Italy/PMP_crk_ad.htm

Want!

rozzer32

From an inside source:

One of the biggest benefits is not just running the Q rings themselves. But swapping between Q rings and round rings every so often. Apparently this helps your pedal technique as your legs have to adapt.


I run Q rings and am very happy with them. I don't find front shifting that bad. Although I'm going to try the advice above and swap every month or so and see if it makes a difference.

amaferanga

I can't really tell the difference - no increase in power or reduction in fatigue as far as I can tell. But then I haven't seen any negatives though so I'll use them until they need replacing. I'm running some Stronglight CT2 Bioconcept rings which are similar to Q-rings. Front shifting is a bit trickier to set up, but I can get shifting as smooth as with round rings. I do use a chain catcher though.

napahighcycling

The Q rings have evidence on the website (a long pdf file) that shows the rings have about a 2% gain in wattage over round rings, but that seems pretty negligible. Technically, they are better than round rings, but most people opt for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," excuse. Plus, round rings are pretty traditional.

cyco2

napahighcycling wrote:

The Q rings have evidence on the website (a long pdf file) that shows the rings have about a 2% gain in wattage over round rings, but that seems pretty negligible. Technically, they are better than round rings, but most people opt for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," excuse. Plus, round rings are pretty traditional.

That is an extraordinary website claim to make since a chain-ring is bereft of energy. :roll:

bompington

cyco2 wrote:

napahighcycling wrote:

The Q rings have evidence on the website (a long pdf file) that shows the rings have about a 2% gain in wattage over round rings, but that seems pretty negligible. Technically, they are better than round rings, but most people opt for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," excuse. Plus, round rings are pretty traditional.

That is an extraordinary website claim to make since a chain-ring is bereft of energy. :roll:

So, for example, if I put my saddle down 8" then I won't have any reduction in wattage, as my saddle doesn't have any energy, right?

:roll: :roll:

napahighcycling

bompington wrote:

cyco2 wrote:

napahighcycling wrote:

The Q rings have evidence on the website (a long pdf file) that shows the rings have about a 2% gain in wattage over round rings, but that seems pretty negligible. Technically, they are better than round rings, but most people opt for the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," excuse. Plus, round rings are pretty traditional.

That is an extraordinary website claim to make since a chain-ring is bereft of energy. :roll:

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, because the 2% gain I mentioned was the output gain a rider has when switching over to the Q rings from round rings.
The rings don't actually have energy, unless you would like to dive into molecular bonds between the atoms, which is a lot, but not related to this forum.

Slack

I imagine that individuals who have a certain pedalling technique would benefit from oval rings. I mean, individuals who mash the peddles, as they are more likely to have more of a pronounced dead spot, and the ovalised rings help them have a smoother stroke. Individuals who can spin nice circles will probably not benefit from oval rings.

I think the money is better spent on a proper bike fit, to ensure one has a decent leg balance (equal force applied from each leg).

Sleeping_menace

I run the Q-Rings on my TT bike.
I've had great luck with them. On longer TT rides especially, I'm faster overall because I'm not tapering off towards the end.
I did a couple mini reviews of my experiences with them if you're interested:

Initial impressions of them:
http://anotherdooratthe.endoftheinternet.org/2011/05/18/rotor-3d-cranks-and-tt-q-rings-early-impressions/

And a follow-up I did a bit later:
http://anotherdooratthe.endoftheinternet.org/2011/06/20/rotor-3d-cranks-and-tt-q-rings-5-minute-review-%E2%80%93-follow-up/

They're nothing like the old biospace rings which were a marketing exercise gone wrong.. Very mcuh worth a try...