Who's riding oval rings?
Comments
-
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
This is defiantly Post of the Week.
0 -
Yepp, gets my award although the "Should I wear a helmet on a turbo" thread seems to have a lot of contenders...0
-
philthy3 wrote: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 [...].
That might be why you use them, but the manufacturers of these chainrings claim performance benefits.0 -
Very good quote from Kerrison:
The credible tests and research that has been done is inconclusive, according to Kerrison: “Crank-based power measurement systems [e.g. SRM, Quarq] appear to over-report power when using Osymetric rings, which is probably due to the variable angular velocity of the crank throughout the pedal revolution. In other words, power reads higher, but this does not correspond with an increase in the power actually being generated by the rider.”
Worth referencing the above with the claims, e.g. Osymetric:
Our patented bi-cam design allows you to take advantage of the strongest part of your pedal stroke giving you 7-10% more wattage without doing any more work.
I know who I would believe out of those two...0 -
Used to love my biopace....0
-
I borrowed a friend's bike with them and rather liked them. The way I figure, if your knees survived the forces required to turn the crank over, the rest of the downstroke was much easier.cld531c wrote:Used to love my biopace....0 -
Bobbinogs wrote:V
Worth referencing the above with the claims, e.g. Osymetric:
Our patented bi-cam design allows you to take advantage of the strongest part of your pedal stroke giving you 7-10% more wattage without doing any more work.
I know who I would believe out of those two...
Their claim makes no sense, as the only way to make more power (watts) with the same work (joules) is to do it faster, i.e. higher cadence. (Of which they make no mention).0 -
Bobbinogs wrote:Very good quote from Kerrison:
The credible tests and research that has been done is inconclusive, according to Kerrison: “Crank-based power measurement systems [e.g. SRM, Quarq] appear to over-report power when using Osymetric rings, which is probably due to the variable angular velocity of the crank throughout the pedal revolution. In other words, power reads higher, but this does not correspond with an increase in the power actually being generated by the rider.”
Worth referencing the above with the claims, e.g. Osymetric:
Our patented bi-cam design allows you to take advantage of the strongest part of your pedal stroke giving you 7-10% more wattage without doing any more work.
I know who I would believe out of those two...
Exactly - and IIRC Jean-Louis Talo, the Osymetric guy, has explicitly refuted that they overreport, as well as making the claims about increased power. Oddly, the increase in power output is also exactly the same as the research says they overreport; freaky...0 -
TT bike has Rotor QXL
CAAD12 has Rotor Q
Winter bike has Absoulte Black Winter oval rings
Dogma has none as no one does mid-compact rings for campag
0 -
I ride a bio pace on my single speed an old Raleigh Quattro I've converted,I can't feel any difference at all to my round rings0
-
Maybe the Placebo effect works though?
If you think they are faster it makes to pedal abit harder....... :roll:0 -
0 -
Absoluteblack wrote:
Give one a go. I think you'll like it.
Any suggestions which brands I should be considering..??0 -
Absoluteblack wrote:The_Wicker_Man wrote:TT bike has Rotor QXL
CAAD12 has Rotor Q
Winter bike has Absoulte Black Winter oval rings
Dogma has none as no one does mid-compact rings for campag
Thanks for the support Wicker_Man #Absoluteblack
Any future plans to bring out campag 5 bolt chainrings?0 -
The term "linear torque" tells you all you need to know.Absoluteblack wrote:fat daddy wrote: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.
Hi, It's probably worth making it clear that oval rings don't produce more power. Certainly, Absoluteblack don't claim any gain.
What you do get from Oval, is a better use of the power you do have. Taking the slow stroking twin pistons (our legs) which produce power in rather angry looking, high-torque spikes and smoothing those spikes to more of a wave form delivery. Ideally a linear torque would be good, but as humans we just can't make power like that - withany shape chainring.
We find that the riders who benefit most are these pedal mashers, who struggle to develop an efficient spin with round rings.
The benefit of oval is really obvious off-road. Here muddy conditions limit traction, making progress with spikey high-torque output very hard. The rear tyre prefers even torque delivery to allow tread to hook up, engage with the dirt in a controlled way, drive and release. Oval helps smooth the power though the power phase of the stroke - where typically the lumpy pedaller can shear the tread across the dirt with a spike of torque - leading to a rear wheel spin and loss of drive.
Give one a go. I think you'll like it.
Cheers.
I'm going to turn my technobabble filter back on.0 -
First Aspect wrote:
The term "linear torque" tells you all you need to know.Absoluteblack wrote:fat daddy wrote: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.
Hi, It's probably worth making it clear that oval rings don't produce more power. Certainly, Absoluteblack don't claim any gain.
What you do get from Oval, is a better use of the power you do have. Taking the slow stroking twin pistons (our legs) which produce power in rather angry looking, high-torque spikes and smoothing those spikes to more of a wave form delivery. Ideally a linear torque would be good, but as humans we just can't make power like that - withany shape chainring.
We find that the riders who benefit most are these pedal mashers, who struggle to develop an efficient spin with round rings.
The benefit of oval is really obvious off-road. Here muddy conditions limit traction, making progress with spikey high-torque output very hard. The rear tyre prefers even torque delivery to allow tread to hook up, engage with the dirt in a controlled way, drive and release. Oval helps smooth the power though the power phase of the stroke - where typically the lumpy pedaller can shear the tread across the dirt with a spike of torque - leading to a rear wheel spin and loss of drive.
Give one a go. I think you'll like it.
Cheers.
I'm going to turn my technobabble filter back on.
Well I'm on the fence on this one, so no axe to grind either way, but I don't see a problem with 'linear torque'.
All he's trying to say is that rather than have a torque curve that is very bumpy, i.e. big peak at 2 o'clock followed by troughs at 6 o'clock, 12 o'clock, etc., his rings try to smooth that curve to make it more linear. Whether that's a good thing or not, is open to (lots of) argument......0 -
Absoluteblack wrote:Give one a go. I think you'll like it.
do you make them in 144bcd ? .... you do them to fit a raceface arm, but not in annodised orange .... not sure I could swap out my annodised orange, so it would need to be 144bcd for the CX0 -
I know what he's trying to say, but if you are marketing a product with a technical benefit to a bunch of well off tech-heads, ffs get it right.bernithebiker wrote:First Aspect wrote:
The term "linear torque" tells you all you need to know.Absoluteblack wrote:Hi, < technobabble > Give one a go. I think you'll like it.
Cheers.
I'm going to turn my technobabble filter back on.
Well I'm on the fence on this one, so no axe to grind either way, but I don't see a problem with 'linear torque'.
All he's trying to say is that rather than have a torque curve that is very bumpy, i.e. big peak at 2 o'clock followed by troughs at 6 o'clock, 12 o'clock, etc., his rings try to smooth that curve to make it more linear. Whether that's a good thing or not, is open to (lots of) argument......
My position is that if you make claims about efficiency (which they do) then back it up. As things stand, these companies do not seem to make anything other than claims, and none seem to make any effort to verify them or indeed debunk anyone else's. I'd applaud the effort of even trying to quantify the difference between the results of a normal pedal stroke and the same average power deleivered by an electric motor - at least that would demonstrate the problem they claim to be addressing..... if there is a problem at all...0 -
OK fair enough, although I think it's reasonable to say that for MTB especially, a linear power delivery is useful in that it helps prevent wheelspin. In this case, I see no reason why a pure electric motor (totally linear delivery) test wouldn't give good results regarding traction.
On the road, traction isn't such an issue, but sometimes my rear does skip if I'm giving it some out of the saddle on a hill in the wet. Maybe my Q inner helps with this, who knows?
But I agree that there is little in the way of conclusive testing; you'd think someone of Youtube would have had a crack at it by now... :!:0 -
Ask and you shall receive:bernithebiker wrote:OK fair enough, although I think it's reasonable to say that for MTB especially, a linear power delivery is useful in that it helps prevent wheelspin. In this case, I see no reason why a pure electric motor (totally linear delivery) test wouldn't give good results regarding traction.
On the road, traction isn't such an issue, but sometimes my rear does skip if I'm giving it some out of the saddle on a hill in the wet. Maybe my Q inner helps with this, who knows?
But I agree that there is little in the way of conclusive testing; you'd think someone of Youtube would have had a crack at it by now... :!:
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/05/absolut ... gs-review/
Other than "perception" he couldn't find a difference (using Garmin Vectors)0 -
First Aspect wrote:
Ask and you shall receive:bernithebiker wrote:OK fair enough, although I think it's reasonable to say that for MTB especially, a linear power delivery is useful in that it helps prevent wheelspin. In this case, I see no reason why a pure electric motor (totally linear delivery) test wouldn't give good results regarding traction.
On the road, traction isn't such an issue, but sometimes my rear does skip if I'm giving it some out of the saddle on a hill in the wet. Maybe my Q inner helps with this, who knows?
But I agree that there is little in the way of conclusive testing; you'd think someone of Youtube would have had a crack at it by now... :!:
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/05/absolut ... gs-review/
Other than "perception" he couldn't find a difference (using Garmin Vectors)
Interesting, but in his own words; "Of course, this is far from a rigorous study" . Like most of them, unfortunately.
But the onus should be on the manufacturers to produce concrete results, not independents anyway.
Until then, there's a lot guesswork going on, but as he also said, the leg muscles feel different on Q's, (or ABs) so something different is definitely happening.0 -
Anyway in the modern post truth era, people don't need science, or some experts proof to buy stuff, just nice anodizing & some clever marketing.0
-
Moonbiker wrote:people don't need science, or some experts proof to buy stuff, just nice anodizing & some clever marketing.
This is how I chose my last chain ring ... I looked at the AB ovals .... but then the race face narrow wide came in anodised orange .... I got the race face0 -
Well I confess I have cobweb chain rings, purely for the way they look. Which they also do in oval!!fat daddy wrote:Moonbiker wrote:people don't need science, or some experts proof to buy stuff, just nice anodizing & some clever marketing.
This is how I chose my last chain ring ... I looked at the AB ovals .... but then the race face narrow wide came in anodised orange .... I got the race face0 -
They do look pretty
Matching red bar tape & bottle holders?0 -
bernithebiker wrote:OK fair enough, although I think it's reasonable to say that for MTB especially, a linear power delivery is useful in that it helps prevent wheelspin. In this case, I see no reason why a pure electric motor (totally linear delivery) test wouldn't give good results regarding traction.
On the road, traction isn't such an issue, but sometimes my rear does skip if I'm giving it some out of the saddle on a hill in the wet. Maybe my Q inner helps with this, who knows?
But I agree that there is little in the way of conclusive testing; you'd think someone of Youtube would have had a crack at it by now... :!:
One of the guys on the TrainerRoad podcast uses oval rings for MTB and says they help with maintaining traction there.
All 3 of them were of the opinion that on the road they don't offer any real performance advantage, but some people find them more comfortable (which seems like a totally reasonable reason to use them).0 -
@AbsoluteBlack - Do you do any wide/narrow oval chain rings larger than 38T - an oval 42T would be nice? Either Shimano 4-bolt or normal 110BCD ideally.
I think statements on your website like this, "You don't have to try our ovals, but be sure if your friends use it or racing rivals, they will ride faster than you.", are doing you no favours at all!0 -
Absoluteblack wrote:
Hi Simon, I'm glad you've noticed our marketing long enough to decide that you don't really like it. I guess that means it's achieved at least 70 per cent of its purpose.
Please do let me know what you think we can or should do?
Cheers.
You could start by referencing some studies or other source material for some of the claims you make on your website...0 -
its not very oval though is it ?0
-
Absoluteblack wrote:
Blindly quoting Sheldon Brown is a blinkered approach. IMHO.
It's not as bad as failing to offer any useful data (other than anecdote) to support your marketing though, is it. I did ask you earlier for more info on this, but you seem to have tactically ignored it.0
