Who's riding oval rings?

homers_double

1) Me.

2) No idea.

fat daddy

I am not ..... just money on something that isn't going to offer any real performance .... lets say at best it gives me a 1% increase in power somehow ..... 1% extra on top of of crap is still crap ... an oval chain ring isn't going to make me any faster.

step83

Not me, SRAM Yaw and Oval rings apparently rub a fair bit. May have a dabble if I build a winter bike up.

JesseD

Have done in the past as i got them cheap secondhand and liked them, moved from SRAM Force to Shimano 5700 with the 4 bolt system and they wouldn't fit so sold them and am now riding round rings again.

Any discernible feel or difference, not really sure I could tell, thought I climbed better but also think that was the placebo effect of having oval rings.

Would I try again? - possibly if I got them cheap enough but wouldn't spend £150+ on a set of chain-rings.

StillGoing

Step83 wrote:

Not me, SRAM Yaw and Oval rings apparently rub a fair bit. May have a dabble if I build a winter bike up.

Me with SRAM Yaw and no problems. You will get problems if you cross chain severely. In fact had them on two bikes with SRAM Yaw, but just sold one set and replaced with standard exogram rings. Would I buy them again? Doubtful, but I did feel benefits from them.

ryan_w-2

I am....

53/38T Rotar Aero Q Rings on 3/5. Love them!



Have made my pedal stroke so much smoother when riding my normal rings on my commuter.

benjamess

I am on my summer bike, not sure about the performance gains but i love the feel of them

meesterbond

Use to use Q Rings but the front shifting was a bit temperamental and the chain dropped a few times so moved back to round ones. No discernible performance improvement for me.

bernithebiker

I'm assuming this is associated with Absolute Black chainrings in some way?!

I'm a long time Q-ring user, but it's good to see some UK based competition for them as they're not cheap.

However, your chainrings look like an 'Absolute' nightmare to keep clean!

simon_masterson

I'm sure you aren't connected to the chainring brand in any way with a name like that, but the marketing is terrible. Many if not most of today's cyclists have not heard of Biopace; why go on about it?

imposter2.0

Absoluteblack wrote:

Who's riding oval rings on the road (of any brand), who isn't and why not?

Absoluteblack - the oval chain ring manufacturers?

LukeTC

Imposter wrote:

Absoluteblack wrote:

Who's riding oval rings on the road (of any brand), who isn't and why not?

Absoluteblack - the oval chain ring manufacturers?

Was gonna say, sounds a bit market research-y

imposter2.0

Props to Bernie and Simon for getting there first though...

meesterbond

Missed that one completely! :oops:

JesseD

meesterbond wrote:

Missed that one completely! :oops:

Yep me too. :?

simon_masterson

Perhaps they haven't done enough research, so maybe some answers would be helpful. Like many 'non-users', I don't use them because there is good evidence that at best they offer very little performance advantage.

I guess it's been long enough since these things went out of vogue - new product?

First.Aspect

1)no, because
2) its a fad - http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html - since there are two diametrically opposed approaches to the same thing, neither based on any quantitative analysis, the best of both worlds would appear to be round.

stueys

Yes on my nice bike, not on my turbo or winter. Much prefer the feel of oval and encourages me to have a higher cadence, whether I generate more power I couldn't say but I fatigue later on oval.

StillGoing

First Aspect wrote:

1)no, because
2) its a fad - http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html - since there are two diametrically opposed approaches to the same thing, neither based on any quantitative analysis, the best of both worlds would appear to be round.

Yes, that will be why Froome and others CHOOSE to use them.

The Rookie

philthy3 wrote:

Froome and others ARE PAID to use them.

FTFY

Riding Biopace on my retro bike, Exage crankset, reclocked round by one bolt to get them about right!

simon_masterson

philthy3 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

1)no, because
2) its a fad - http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html - since there are two diametrically opposed approaches to the same thing, neither based on any quantitative analysis, the best of both worlds would appear to be round.

Yes, that will be why Froome and others CHOOSE to use them.

...and Froome's performance director says they make no difference to his performance. Tim Kerrison has more data on this than most.

A high percentage of professional cyclists will have tried non-round chainrings at some point, and the concept (even excluding Biopace) has been around for decades. The fact that they don't continue with them - and that the vast majority use round chainrings - ought to tell you far more. Chris Froome also endorses those ridiculous Turbine things you can stick in your nose - why don't you give them a try?

fat daddy

I thought enough research had been done now showing they don't make a damn bit of difference to power, but do make the pedal stoke feel different, so if you like the feel of ovals then its more comfortable if you don't then circular are better

Bit like choosing a saddle really a Fizik is not quicker than a Selle, but both feel different up your bum and the more comfortable one will probably allow you to ride better !

ryan_w-2

A majority of the Rotor sponsored riders are now using their 'No Q' rings, basic round chainrings.

First.Aspect

philthy3 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

1)no, because
2) its a fad - http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html - since there are two diametrically opposed approaches to the same thing, neither based on any quantitative analysis, the best of both worlds would appear to be round.

Yes, that will be why Froome and others CHOOSE to use them.

Not sure I follow your reasoning. Just confirm for me, you argue that because Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit?

.... look, some pros used to drill through seatposts, saw off bits of saddle or even insit on putting helium in their tyres, becaues they believed it made them faster. I'll bet you would have found some of those L-shaped cranks in the peloton back in the day. What about those decoupled power cranks that were supposed to make the pedal stroke more even? I bet some pros used those. Want me to go on?

bernithebiker

It's true that there still isn't any concrete evidence that they make you faster, but I do like the principle behind them.

When I first put them on (about 4 or 5 years ago), I felt much more leg muscle ache after the ride than normal (seems this is common), as if I'd done several hard hill drills. But after a week or so, that faded and my muscles 'adapted'. So 'something' was happening.

I now just have the small ring as Q, and the big normal. I can swap between my 2 bikes (the other is fully normal) and not notice any difference.

I like to think it helps my pedalling fluidity and cadence, but there's no way I could prove it.

When it comes to renew chainrings, I probably wouldn't be too fussed if I went Q or not....

StillGoing

The Rookie wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Froome and others ARE PAID to use them.

FTFY

Riding Biopace on my retro bike, Exage crankset, reclocked round by one bolt to get them about right!

Catch up; Froome isn't paid to use them, he CHOOSES to use them.

StillGoing

Simon Masterson wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

1)no, because
2) its a fad - http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html - since there are two diametrically opposed approaches to the same thing, neither based on any quantitative analysis, the best of both worlds would appear to be round.

Yes, that will be why Froome and others CHOOSE to use them.

...and Froome's performance director says they make no difference to his performance. Tim Kerrison has more data on this than most.

A high percentage of professional cyclists will have tried non-round chainrings at some point, and the concept (even excluding Biopace) has been around for decades. The fact that they don't continue with them - and that the vast majority use round chainrings - ought to tell you far more. Chris Froome also endorses those ridiculous Turbine things you can stick in your nose - why don't you give them a try?

It isn't about making a difference in performance and more about what feel it gives the individual rider. Some like them, some don't, but to dismiss them as a fad is ludicrous. If it works for the individual, it works for them. Doesn't make them crazy or dumb.

First.Aspect

Well, a "fad" is defined as being something short lived and widely adopted. So, on the grounds that oval chain rings of one form or another have always had low levels of use but have never been wildly popular, I guess you are right.

In that sense they are more akin to homeopathy, or using cheese to cure muscle pain.

Bikespeed

Yes, Rotor Q Rings 50/34 Defiantly generates more torque. Hard seated acceleration from around 20 mph i can feel the front wheel lifting with each push

First.Aspect

Bikespeed wrote:

Yes, Rotor Q Rings 50/34 Defiantly generates more torque. Hard seated acceleration from around 20 mph i can feel the front wheel lifting with each push

so, is that more or less efficient do you think?

imposter2.0

Bikespeed wrote:

Yes, Rotor Q Rings 50/34 Defiantly generates more torque. Hard seated acceleration from around 20 mph i can feel the front wheel lifting with each push