Any one binned Oval cranks ?

bristolpete

Have been on rotor for 18 months and I like it.

However, forgotten what round rings are like and typically, after looking at more and more rotor riders going back to round, and with rotor selling round rings despite their ethos being about oval, I wondered if it is all rubbish and in fact, the sore legs I occasionally get may indeed be caused by oval rings. I agree that rotor do loads the quads in a different way and more loads goes into the hamstrings.

At the moment, the jury is now out for me and realise a true test would be a rig with one of each which is not possible.

Any opinions out there? any flitted between both formats.

I realise that oval rings are of course cyclic and have been on bikes since the 1800's and in theory, to me, they make sense.

napoleond

I tried them for a while, was unsure if they had any benefit and have switched back to round. I don't notice any difference (except front shifting is better...)

bristolpete

NapoleonD wrote:

I tried them for a while, was unsure if they had any benefit and have switched back to round. I don't notice any difference (except front shifting is better...)

Cheers mate.

i take it your cadence and technique stayed fluid back on round ?

napoleond

Yeah! It's odd though, since I came back to riding after my 3 month forced lay-off, my naturally selected cadence is a lot higher for some reason. I used to do my intervals at 85-90, now they are all 90-95 or even higher. It's not a conscious thing, it just happens...

bristolpete

NapoleonD wrote:

Yeah! It's odd though, since I came back to riding after my 3 month forced lay-off, my naturally selected cadence is a lot higher for some reason. I used to do my intervals at 85-90, now they are all 90-95 or even higher. It's not a conscious thing, it just happens...

Interesting. Funny as I am running a much higher cadence too, which could be down to rotor though I made a decision to do 2 x turbo sessions a week from dec 1st last year with cadence drills in them, which has paid off as I was riding around gurning along where as now, I am faster yet with a higher cadence but I don't think it is exclusively rotor, more to do with 'training' and 170mm cranks from 172.5. Have been running 165 too and cant really see a difference in 170/165, but 172.5 to 170 was a big leap. Might look out for an ebay round chainset to scratch the itch....

napoleond

You can just swap the rings. I have a Rotor 3D+ chainset on my bike, I run it with Stronglight CT2 chainrings.

bristolpete

NapoleonD wrote:

You can just swap the rings. I have a Rotor 3D+ chainset on my bike, I run it with Stronglight CT2 chainrings.

Good call, I clean forgot !

napoleond

Spa Cycles do the stronglights, they are excellent rings and Spa give fantastic service.

whojanicanackerov

NapoleonD wrote:

Yeah! It's odd though, since I came back to riding after my 3 month forced lay-off, my naturally selected cadence is a lot higher for some reason. I used to do my intervals at 85-90, now they are all 90-95 or even higher. It's not a conscious thing, it just happens...

Not a dig here but I do remember you claiming Rotor ovals to be "All THAT" when you were running them back then.
It seems to easy to recommend one thing to a prospective buyer over the net then later go on to tell them that you have changed your mind?
I did however follow your advice on Stronnglight CT2 rings and yes so far they have been fantastic. 8)

napoleond

whojanicanackerov wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Yeah! It's odd though, since I came back to riding after my 3 month forced lay-off, my naturally selected cadence is a lot higher for some reason. I used to do my intervals at 85-90, now they are all 90-95 or even higher. It's not a conscious thing, it just happens...

Not a dig here but I do remember you claiming Rotor ovals to be "All THAT" when you were running them back then.
It seems to easy to recommend one thing to a prospective buyer over the net then later go on to tell them that you have changed your mind?
I did however follow your advice on Stronnglight CT2 rings and yes so far they have been fantastic. 8)

I don't recall saying that? Are you confusing me with Pokerface? He raves about them.

I remember trying them and seeming to work a little on my TT bike, I never said they made a big difference. I changed back to round rings and did a PB. Go figure.

Rule74Please

q-rings were a compromise on the original Rotor Cranks. These gave a definite advantage but everyone was put off by the weight difference.

Found on Q-rings I was able to drive a bigger gear in the hills and as I got older I could hang in there a bit better. Did the experiment by going back to round rings and found I struggled to keep up when the pace was in the high 20's and low 30's

bristolpete

Rule74Please wrote:

q-rings were a compromise on the original Rotor Cranks. These gave a definite advantage but everyone was put off by the weight difference.

Found on Q-rings I was able to drive a bigger gear in the hills and as I got older I could hang in there a bit better. Did the experiment by going back to round rings and found I struggled to keep up when the pace was in the high 20's and low 30's

Interesting. As I said, I am happy with mine, what I am wondering is what you did and trying round again tis all just to see if I too can feel a difference at any point. I ride a fixed bike with round cranks and the first few pedal strokes seem odd but after a few seconds it goes. As Rotor say you can feel the dead spot, but not for long I think.

whojanicanackerov

NapoleonD wrote:

whojanicanackerov wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

Yeah! It's odd though, since I came back to riding after my 3 month forced lay-off, my naturally selected cadence is a lot higher for some reason. I used to do my intervals at 85-90, now they are all 90-95 or even higher. It's not a conscious thing, it just happens...

Not a dig here but I do remember you claiming Rotor ovals to be "All THAT" when you were running them back then.
It seems to easy to recommend one thing to a prospective buyer over the net then later go on to tell them that you have changed your mind?
I did however follow your advice on Stronnglight CT2 rings and yes so far they have been fantastic. 8)

I don't recall saying that? Are you confusing me with Pokerface? He raves about them.

I remember trying them and seeming to work a little on my TT bike, I never said they made a big difference. I changed back to round rings and did a PB. Go figure.

Argh maybe it was Pokerface and I`m glad you didn`t see my comment as an attack on you as it`s quite easy to get the wrong Idea on the internet especially with my bad comunications skills and typing and spelling

Rule74Please

bristolpete wrote:

Rule74Please wrote:

q-rings were a compromise on the original Rotor Cranks. These gave a definite advantage but everyone was put off by the weight difference.

Found on Q-rings I was able to drive a bigger gear in the hills and as I got older I could hang in there a bit better. Did the experiment by going back to round rings and found I struggled to keep up when the pace was in the high 20's and low 30's

Interesting. As I said, I am happy with mine, what I am wondering is what you did and trying round again tis all just to see if I too can feel a difference at any point. I ride a fixed bike with round cranks and the first few pedal strokes seem odd but after a few seconds it goes. As Rotor say you can feel the dead spot, but not for long I think.

Dead spot came back when going up. Probably the same happened when big power needed at 28mph+

Would fit a set of rotor cranks again odd thing is my left foot still sits at 1 o'clock when freewheeling and I've not used them for 5 seasons

BBH

Was thinking bout some myself just today
Now, this maybe due to my pedalling not being all that, it's just I seem to have a dead spot on round rings when I reach around the 30-35 position (assuming a clock face is the ring), I kinda get a good clunk as im not engaging the chain at this point put when I push past 30 all is fine and no further noise, happens even when I am in the 50/11

Any ideas??? Poor pedalling?? Seat to far back??? Q ring candidate???
Cheers all

napoleond

Saddle too high? One leg longer than the other?
Try lowering the saddle a couple of mm at a time. Bear in mind you may have to adjust the fore/aft slightly too.

BBH

Cheers will try, happening on both legs so (hopefully) leg length ok!! Will drop ht first and see

briantrumpet

BBH wrote:

Cheers will try, happening on both legs so (hopefully) leg length ok!! Will drop ht first and see

Maybe both legs are longer than the other.

BBH

Nah..., not me

rozzer32

I run Q rings and am happy with them, feel normal to me now.

Apparently the trick is to keep swapping between oval and round rings, as your legs adapt apparently your pedalling technique improves.

That's what I've been told anyway.

shockedsoshocked

From what I've read, the manufacturers say they work, independent studies seem to say they don't (with a few exceptions, I think the Osymetric-Harmonics were the best available). At best the pedalling action can be just uncomfortable, at worst they can overload the knee flexors and the muscles in the hips, leading to either premature fatigue or injury.

dennisn

FWIW, way back in time, last century, there were these rings called Bio Pace(I believe). They were oval? shaped or something like that and claimed to be the best thing ever. Well, you can imagine the hype. In any case they aren't around anymore. Or are they? Maybe just under a different name? IMHO if these things really worked, AS ADVERTISED, everyone (and I mean everyone) would be using them. Then again I'm a huge skeptic.

napoleond

I still have original Biopace cranks on my 1986 Muddy Fox MTB. Awful.

bristolpete

dennisn wrote:

FWIW, way back in time, last century, there were these rings called Bio Pace(I believe). They were oval? shaped or something like that and claimed to be the best thing ever. Well, you can imagine the hype. In any case they aren't around anymore. Or are they? Maybe just under a different name? IMHO if these things really worked, AS ADVERTISED, everyone (and I mean everyone) would be using them. Then again I'm a huge skeptic.

Yes and every time Rotor are mentioned, someone else mentions bio-pace which in turn allows someone to remind others that the caveat of bio pace is that the top of the oval was in the wrong place, thus rendering them moot and actually creating knee issues. But Rotor do not suffer from this and with the interchangeable ring placement, they are modular.

As before, I have been on Rotor so long I have forgotten what round rings feel like....

dennisn

bristolpete wrote:

dennisn wrote:

FWIW, way back in time, last century, there were these rings called Bio Pace(I believe). They were oval? shaped or something like that and claimed to be the best thing ever. Well, you can imagine the hype. In any case they aren't around anymore. Or are they? Maybe just under a different name? IMHO if these things really worked, AS ADVERTISED, everyone (and I mean everyone) would be using them. Then again I'm a huge skeptic.

Yes and every time Rotor are mentioned, someone else mentions bio-pace which in turn allows someone to remind others that the caveat of bio pace is that the top of the oval was in the wrong place, thus rendering them moot and actually creating knee issues. But Rotor do not suffer from this and with the interchangeable ring placement, they are modular.

As before, I have been on Rotor so long I have forgotten what round rings feel like....

I wasn't trying to slam Rotor at all. Just relating a little history and mentioning that I'm a skeptic of the highest or is it lowest order.

dennisn

NapoleonD wrote:

I still have original Biopace cranks on my 1986 Muddy Fox MTB. Awful.

1986? Do they even have any teeth on them after all these years?