Forum home Road cycling forum Road beginners

Want to try out q ring

B-riceB-rice Posts: 2
edited October 2015 in Road beginners
I want to try out front q ring they are oval chain ring has any one tryed them out and how did you like them and will they fit on the 9 speed bike I have now
«1

Posts

  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,207
    I want to try out front q ring they are oval chain ring has any one tryed them out and how did you like them and will they fit on the 9 speed bike I have now

    What you need to consider with Q rings or ovals is that there are 2 distinct camps. 1 will say they make absolutely no difference whilst the other will say they do. Various proofs for each argument have been put out there with no clear winner. You also need to consider the cost of them. If you're riding 9 speed, I'd have thought a better investment would be to improve your existing groupset rather than try and experiment with expensive chainrings.

    I use them inner and outer and for me they work. I needed no time to adjust to them either but Rotor do recommend several hours. Go to the Rotor site if you're still set on installing them and they will tell you if they will fit your 9 speed set up.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • No harm in trying them, it's a nice idea but no-one has ever managed to prove that they actually make you any faster. Essentially an advanced reboot of Biopace.
  • ic.ic. Posts: 766
    I used them for about 6 months and swore they were the new dawn. Then I moved back to round chainrings and by the end of the first mile couldn't tell the difference, wasn't faster or slower and legs felt the same during/after. There are better things to spend your money on that will make a difference to your riding IMO
    2020 Merida Reacto Disc Ltd - black on black
    2015 Cervelo R3 DI2 - black & white
    2015 CAAD8 105 - very green

    The departed:

    Boardman CX Team - sold
    Cannondale Synapse - broken
    Cube Streamer - stolen
    Boardman Road Comp - stolen
  • John.TJohn.T Posts: 3,698
    No harm in trying them, it's a nice idea but no-one has ever managed to prove that they actually make you any faster. Essentially an advanced reboot of Biopace.
    They are almost the exact opposite of Biopace. I use Q-XL on my TT and best bikes and find they give a smoother power delivery than the round ones on the winter bike. I also liked Osymetric but they don't work so well as a double. The Q-XL change fine.
    To the OP. They will fit on your 9sp setup as long as you get the same BCD. Also check with the suppliers. Many offer a try before you buy system.
  • No harm in trying them, it's a nice idea but no-one has ever managed to prove that they actually make you any faster. Essentially an advanced reboot of Biopace.
    They are almost the exact opposite of Biopace. I use Q-XL on my TT and best bikes and find they give a smoother power delivery than the round ones on the winter bike. I also liked Osymetric but they don't work so well as a double. The Q-XL change fine.
    To the OP. They will fit on your 9sp setup as long as you get the same BCD. Also check with the suppliers. Many offer a try before you buy system.

    It's an asymmetric chainring, so it's an advanced reboot of Biopace. I have vaguely thought about trying them on my TT bike, but truthfully I can't see it warranting the outlay.
  • John.TJohn.T Posts: 3,698
    No harm in trying them, it's a nice idea but no-one has ever managed to prove that they actually make you any faster. Essentially an advanced reboot of Biopace.
    They are almost the exact opposite of Biopace. I use Q-XL on my TT and best bikes and find they give a smoother power delivery than the round ones on the winter bike. I also liked Osymetric but they don't work so well as a double. The Q-XL change fine.
    To the OP. They will fit on your 9sp setup as long as you get the same BCD. Also check with the suppliers. Many offer a try before you buy system.

    It's an asymmetric chainring, so it's an advanced reboot of Biopace. I have vaguely thought about trying them on my TT bike, but truthfully I can't see it warranting the outlay.
    It is neither asymmetric or a reboot. Q rings are symmetrical but not round. The Biopace was totally different in that it put the high gear section at TDC, not the low one as in Q and Osymetric. I totally don't see the reasoning behind Biopace.
  • Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.
  • PTestTeamPTestTeam Posts: 395
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.
  • John.TJohn.T Posts: 3,698
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.
    Quite right. Saying that Biopace and Q are the same basic idea shows he has no idea of the concept of either and has probably never used either. I used Biopace back in the day as it was fitted to an old MTB I bought. I could never see what they were trying to achieve. Q and especially Osymetric are used by many of the top TT riders. I (while by no means a top rider) am consistently about a minute faster over 10 miles using them.
  • Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.
  • Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.
    Quite right. Saying that Biopace and Q are the same basic idea shows he has no idea of the concept of either and has probably never used either. I used Biopace back in the day as it was fitted to an old MTB I bought. I could never see what they were trying to achieve. Q and especially Osymetric are used by many of the top TT riders. I (while by no means a top rider) am consistently about a minute faster over 10 miles using them.

    You're missing the point. ALL non-round chainrings are based on the same essential idea: that maybe round isn't the best shape for a chainring.
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,207
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97

    The evidence for the various benefits is decidedly mixed at best, as far as I can tell. But the list of riders that no longer use them is more interesting than the very small one of riders that do - Wiggins of course is one, and David Millar switched from Osymetric to Q ring when his team was sponsored by Rotor, and the bikes he's been riding since retirement seem to have round rings. I would think that a huge number of pro riders past and present have tried them out and not continued with them, too. Jean-Louis Talo has been trying to convince professional cycling for over two decades, but were the grand tours this year a sea of funny shaped chainrings?

    Tim Kerrison has access to more performance data for this than most, and the best he can say of them is that “[P]erformance-wise, there is very little in it either way [...], [a] few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them. [...] That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”. Quite the ringing endorsement, really.
  • Might give these a go and see for myself.
    Not much money to shell out in the overall scheme of things.
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 15,959
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.
    I used Biopace back in the day as it was fitted to an old MTB I bought. I could never see what they were trying to achieve.

    It's not exactly hard to find out. There's this thing called the Internet which is full of all sorts of interesting stuff!......

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html

    I think basically, given that there really isn't any proof they work (maybe Froome uses them because he thinks he gets a psychological advantage over other riders who can't work out if they are the secret of his success or not!), the one thing we do know is that in time, elliptical rings will disappear and in 20 years time, a new variation of the biopace version will re-appear (again temporarily) and the current form will be in disgrace.

    FWIW, I have used Biopace on my touring bike. They are far nearer to round than the likes of Q Rings and, tbh, I found I barely noticed them at all. The only time I did was when I re-geared the bike with a much lower bottom gear - in the very low gears I could feel it. And it was sort of nice - it did feel like effort was being equalised through the whole stroke so I assume that less consciously, that was conceivably benefitting me in the bigger gears. But really I don't know!

    For my road bikes I think I'd benefit more with better front shifting on round rings.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • the one thing we do know is that in time, elliptical rings will disappear and in 20 years time, a new variation of the biopace version will re-appear (again temporarily) and the current form will be in disgrace.

    I reckon the elliptical cassette will be the next big thing.
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • PTestTeamPTestTeam Posts: 395
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97

    The evidence for the various benefits is decidedly mixed at best, as far as I can tell. But the list of riders that no longer use them is more interesting than the very small one of riders that do - Wiggins of course is one, and David Millar switched from Osymetric to Q ring when his team was sponsored by Rotor, and the bikes he's been riding since retirement seem to have round rings. I would think that a huge number of pro riders past and present have tried them out and not continued with them, too. Jean-Louis Talo has been trying to convince professional cycling for over two decades, but were the grand tours this year a sea of funny shaped chainrings?

    Tim Kerrison has access to more performance data for this than most, and the best he can say of them is that “[P]erformance-wise, there is very little in it either way [...], [a] few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them. [...] That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”. Quite the ringing endorsement, really.

    Tell you what. Why don't you try them for yourself then you can come back and answer the OPs original question, instead of guessing from using google.
  • Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97

    The evidence for the various benefits is decidedly mixed at best, as far as I can tell. But the list of riders that no longer use them is more interesting than the very small one of riders that do - Wiggins of course is one, and David Millar switched from Osymetric to Q ring when his team was sponsored by Rotor, and the bikes he's been riding since retirement seem to have round rings. I would think that a huge number of pro riders past and present have tried them out and not continued with them, too. Jean-Louis Talo has been trying to convince professional cycling for over two decades, but were the grand tours this year a sea of funny shaped chainrings?

    Tim Kerrison has access to more performance data for this than most, and the best he can say of them is that “[P]erformance-wise, there is very little in it either way [...], [a] few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them. [...] That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”. Quite the ringing endorsement, really.

    Tell you what. Why don't you try them for yourself then you can come back and answer the OPs original question, instead of guessing from using google.

    That wasn't meant to be a serious response, was it?
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,207
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97

    The evidence for the various benefits is decidedly mixed at best, as far as I can tell. But the list of riders that no longer use them is more interesting than the very small one of riders that do - Wiggins of course is one, and David Millar switched from Osymetric to Q ring when his team was sponsored by Rotor, and the bikes he's been riding since retirement seem to have round rings. I would think that a huge number of pro riders past and present have tried them out and not continued with them, too. Jean-Louis Talo has been trying to convince professional cycling for over two decades, but were the grand tours this year a sea of funny shaped chainrings?

    Tim Kerrison has access to more performance data for this than most, and the best he can say of them is that “[P]erformance-wise, there is very little in it either way [...], [a] few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them. [...] That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”. Quite the ringing endorsement, really.

    You've chosen to follow the "They don't work" logic, whereas many of us have actually given them a try and find they do work. A placebo effect? Maybe, but they work for me.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 15,959
    the one thing we do know is that in time, elliptical rings will disappear and in 20 years time, a new variation of the biopace version will re-appear (again temporarily) and the current form will be in disgrace.

    I reckon the elliptical cassette will be the next big thing.

    Pssst, don't tell anyone but I am working on a top secret project with Froome - elliptical jockey wheels........
    Faster than a tent.......
  • Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97

    The evidence for the various benefits is decidedly mixed at best, as far as I can tell. But the list of riders that no longer use them is more interesting than the very small one of riders that do - Wiggins of course is one, and David Millar switched from Osymetric to Q ring when his team was sponsored by Rotor, and the bikes he's been riding since retirement seem to have round rings. I would think that a huge number of pro riders past and present have tried them out and not continued with them, too. Jean-Louis Talo has been trying to convince professional cycling for over two decades, but were the grand tours this year a sea of funny shaped chainrings?

    Tim Kerrison has access to more performance data for this than most, and the best he can say of them is that “[P]erformance-wise, there is very little in it either way [...], [a] few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them. [...] That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”. Quite the ringing endorsement, really.

    You've chosen to follow the "They don't work" logic, whereas many of us have actually given them a try and find they do work. A placebo effect? Maybe, but they work for me.

    No, I've followed the 'Do they work?' logic; because there's no conclusive evidence that non-round chainrings offer any substantial performance advantage, one of the top pro teams with two grand tour winners that use(d) them can't find any appreciable difference, and the majority of the rest of pro cycling doesn't use non-round chainrings having likely tried them, I have chosen not to bother with them to date. The logic is good, and I have no doubt that the effect on underfoot feel is possibly worth having, but I have little enough money to spend on things that do offer definite performance advantages. Next time I need a new big ring, I might think about it if I can get it for a comparable price, but something tells me I won't.
  • the one thing we do know is that in time, elliptical rings will disappear and in 20 years time, a new variation of the biopace version will re-appear (again temporarily) and the current form will be in disgrace.

    I reckon the elliptical cassette will be the next big thing.

    Pssst, don't tell anyone but I am working on a top secret project with Froome - elliptical jockey wheels........

    :D
    "You really think you can burn off sugar with exercise?" downhill paul
  • I've seen a few bikes with elliptical looking wheels, but I'm not sure they were supposed to be...
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,207
    Fine, 'non-round'. However different the two are, it's the same basic idea. What unites Biopace and modern non-round chainrings is that they both belong in the 'nice idea but won't make you any faster' category.

    So you're pushing your opinion out there when in fact you've never tried them.

    I'd suggest the OP take your comments with a pinch of salt and formulate his choice based on actual Q ring users' (present and past) experience.

    For what it's worth, I use Q rings on all my bikes and find them to be beneficial.

    And of course there's absolutely nothing that you haven't bought into because there's insufficient evidence of performance benefit, I'm guessing. No-one has proved conclusively that using non-round chainrings will make you faster.

    The evidence is out there for the benefits of non-round chain rings; you choose whether to buy into it or not. Plenty of riders have and swear by them. I doubt the likes of Froome would continue using them if he didn't see any benefit in them. They might make you faster by the simulated larger ring on the down stroke being easier to achieve and less effort in the dead spot, they might not. They might just make the effort seem easier or help with knee issues etc.

    http://mpora.com/videos/AAdgobbuddxn#tuXTf3SMoPJcX08T.97

    The evidence for the various benefits is decidedly mixed at best, as far as I can tell. But the list of riders that no longer use them is more interesting than the very small one of riders that do - Wiggins of course is one, and David Millar switched from Osymetric to Q ring when his team was sponsored by Rotor, and the bikes he's been riding since retirement seem to have round rings. I would think that a huge number of pro riders past and present have tried them out and not continued with them, too. Jean-Louis Talo has been trying to convince professional cycling for over two decades, but were the grand tours this year a sea of funny shaped chainrings?

    Tim Kerrison has access to more performance data for this than most, and the best he can say of them is that “[P]erformance-wise, there is very little in it either way [...], [a] few riders have a preference for the Osymetric rings, but many of our riders have tried them. Only a few continue to use them. [...] That said, both Wiggins and Froome used them in the 2012 Tour, so they are unlikely to be significantly detrimental to performance.”. Quite the ringing endorsement, really.

    You've chosen to follow the "They don't work" logic, whereas many of us have actually given them a try and find they do work. A placebo effect? Maybe, but they work for me.

    No, I've followed the 'Do they work?' logic; because there's no conclusive evidence that non-round chainrings offer any substantial performance advantage, one of the top pro teams with two grand tour winners that use(d) them can't find any appreciable difference, and the majority of the rest of pro cycling doesn't use non-round chainrings having likely tried them, I have chosen not to bother with them to date. The logic is good, and I have no doubt that the effect on underfoot feel is possibly worth having, but I have little enough money to spend on things that do offer definite performance advantages. Next time I need a new big ring, I might think about it if I can get it for a comparable price, but something tells me I won't.

    The cost of Q rings is comparable to the costs of other high end chain rings.

    Some pro teams will no doubt be restricted by the terms of their sponsorship preventing them from using elliptical rings. I agree some riders ditched them, but I recall the horror tales of Di2 equipped bikes struggling with front end shifting using elliptical chain rings. Some riders won't see a discernible difference in much the same way as some drugs have no effect on an illness for some sufferers. But they do make a difference for some of us using them and you will never know unless you try them. Casting doubt on something you haven't tried is akin to believing the world is flat simply because you haven't seen anything that proves it's not. Rotor do a trial test for their Q rings. Give them a call and try a set.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • Some pro teams will no doubt be restricted by the terms of their sponsorship preventing them from using elliptical rings. I agree some riders ditched them, but I recall the horror tales of Di2 equipped bikes struggling with front end shifting using elliptical chain rings.

    That doesn't mean that pro-cycling is full of frustrated riders that have to put up with round rings. I imagine all the teams that use Shimano could get away with them just like Sky does.
    Some riders won't see a discernible difference in much the same way as some drugs have no effect on an illness for some sufferers. But they do make a difference for some of us using them and you will never know unless you try them.

    They alter underfoot feel, yes. You may indeed experience some of the benefits that there is mixed evidence for (lactate buildup etc), but if even Team Sky can't find a definite performance advantage that manifests itself in making you faster, I am pretty confident that there isn't one until it's demonstrated otherwise.
    Casting doubt on something you haven't tried is akin to believing the world is flat simply because you haven't seen anything that proves it's not. Rotor do a trial test for their Q rings. Give them a call and try a set.

    :lol:

    You're not being serious, are you?
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 15,959
    Casting doubt on something you haven't tried is akin to believing the world is flat simply because you haven't seen anything that proves it's not. Rotor do a trial test for their Q rings. Give them a call and try a set.

    To be fair, sometimes instinct can be right. I spent years slagging Dan Brown books off without actually having read The Da Vinci Code. Then I did and it proved me right. Dan Brown is a truly terrible writer; he knows how to structure a plot but there's no evidence in that book that he could write a decent sentence if his life depended on it. But that said, it was more satisfying to know I was right having tested the theory and if Rotor allow trials then its obviously well worth trying if you are so minded.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • StillGoingStillGoing Posts: 5,207
    Casting doubt on something you haven't tried is akin to believing the world is flat simply because you haven't seen anything that proves it's not. Rotor do a trial test for their Q rings. Give them a call and try a set.

    To be fair, sometimes instinct can be right. I spent years slagging Dan Brown books off without actually having read The Da Vinci Code. Then I did and it proved me right. Dan Brown is a truly terrible writer; he knows how to structure a plot but there's no evidence in that book that he could write a decent sentence if his life depended on it. But that said, it was more satisfying to know I was right having tested the theory and if Rotor allow trials then its obviously well worth trying if you are so minded.

    :D I was always taught to be cautious.
    I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.
  • rolf_frolf_f Posts: 15,959
    Casting doubt on something you haven't tried is akin to believing the world is flat simply because you haven't seen anything that proves it's not. Rotor do a trial test for their Q rings. Give them a call and try a set.

    To be fair, sometimes instinct can be right. I spent years slagging Dan Brown books off without actually having read The Da Vinci Code. Then I did and it proved me right. Dan Brown is a truly terrible writer; he knows how to structure a plot but there's no evidence in that book that he could write a decent sentence if his life depended on it. But that said, it was more satisfying to know I was right having tested the theory and if Rotor allow trials then its obviously well worth trying if you are so minded.

    :D I was always taught to be cautious.

    That is good advice. You are therefore far less likely to be eaten by a leopard than I am.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • earthearth Posts: 934
    the one thing we do know is that in time, elliptical rings will disappear and in 20 years time, a new variation of the biopace version will re-appear (again temporarily) and the current form will be in disgrace.

    I reckon the elliptical cassette will be the next big thing.

    Undoubtedly, then we can mix the two and have the ellipse of the cassette at 90^ to the chainring to balance the power delivery.
  • I have the rotor road, inner and outer rings and also rotor aero q ring. I also have a couple of biopace v old steel and not quite so old aluminium. For what its worth re the above debate although biopace and qring are opposite in intent, it actually quite easy to rotate the biopace 180 degrees to give a v similar q-ring effect with a fractionally taller/harder gear on the downstroke. Personally I find that the biopace looks dated so I dont use it but they are super cheap on ebay so there is a cheap way to experiment if you like. I love the looks of qring but whilst q-ring aero chainring isnt the lightest it certainly makes it look like you mean business! However compared to the SRAM aero TT chainring which is the same weight and quality as the qring aero, its about half the price. If you want a cheap q-ring, the inner ones, and those in silver are often pretty cheap. the outter, aero esp 54T or 55T are usually over £100.
Sign In or Register to comment.