Who's riding oval rings?

bobmcstuff

Imposter wrote:

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.

Well there wouldn't be any actual data since he said in the post just above that they have never claimed added power. If it's just about feel and evening out traction that's going to be hard to quantify.

Bobbinogs

bobmcstuff wrote:

Imposter wrote:

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.

Well there wouldn't be any actual data since he said in the post just above that they have never claimed added power. If it's just about feel and evening out traction that's going to be hard to quantify.

Well, the AB website actually says "Oval chainrings do not produce more power, they allow you to unleash your true potential. They achieve this by optimising the pedalling torque you generate, reducing your effort on the climbs and increasing your speed at the same time - so you can be faster and more efficient. "

Sounds suspiciously like claiming some magical properties. Surely reducing the effort or increasing the speed for the same power is actually promising something somehow?? Calling it "Efficiency" may make it sound some kind of wibbly wobbly science thing but surely efficiency can be measured....power in versus power out = efficiency or am I missing the trick??

If efficiency is something that cannot actually be measured then I could just say that riding with a rabbit foot in my pocket increases my efficiency and helps me go faster for the same effort...although my statement would not be based on anything that could be proved as factual.

StillGoing

Bobbinogs wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Imposter wrote:

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.

Well there wouldn't be any actual data since he said in the post just above that they have never claimed added power. If it's just about feel and evening out traction that's going to be hard to quantify.

Well, the AB website actually says "Oval chainrings do not produce more power, they allow you to unleash your true potential. They achieve this by optimising the pedalling torque you generate, reducing your effort on the climbs and increasing your speed at the same time - so you can be faster and more efficient. "

Sounds suspiciously like claiming some magical properties. Surely reducing the effort or increasing the speed for the same power is actually promising something somehow?? Calling it "Efficiency" may make it sound some kind of wibbly wobbly science thing but surely efficiency can be measured....power in versus power out = efficiency or am I missing the trick??

If efficiency is something that cannot actually be measured then I could just say that riding with a rabbit foot in my pocket increases my efficiency and helps me go faster for the same effort...although my statement would not be based on anything that could be proved as factual.

Not really. If you take out the dead spot to some extent, you enable the rider to maintain more of the pedalling speed without losing speed or increasing fatigue with trying to get over the dead spot. Less tiring means improved overall speed surely?

ben@31

But the onus should be on the manufacturers to produce concrete results, not independents anyway.

I believe the opposite to be true, as an independent is what it says on the tin... they've zero vested interests and nothing to lose by telling the truth. The manufacturer isn't going to say "these Q rings a shite, they cost £127 and make cock all difference". I trust manufacturers marketing as little as I trust magazine reviews where the author has received free gifts or payment. Amazon need to sort their corrupt reviews out too.

"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."

My friends are fat unfit knackers.... Only an absolute miracle would work

bernithebiker

ben@31 wrote:

But the onus should be on the manufacturers to produce concrete results, not independents anyway.

I believe the opposite to be true, as an independent is what it says on the tin... they've zero vested interests and nothing to lose by telling the truth. The manufacturer isn't going to say "these Q rings a shite, they cost £127 and make fool all difference". I trust manufacturers marketing as little as I trust magazine reviews where the author has received free gifts or payment. Amazon need to sort their corrupt reviews out too.

"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."

My friends are fat unfit knackers.... Only an absolute miracle would work

I totally agree that a genuinely independent review is worth 10 times a 'sponsored' one. Witness the several glowing reviews of di2 9150, which could hardly muster one critical word between them. But then they were on all expenses paid trips....

But if a company is going to make bold claims for its products it needs to back them up with hard proof. The consumer shouldn't have to do that

bobmcstuff

Bobbinogs wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Imposter wrote:

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.

Well there wouldn't be any actual data since he said in the post just above that they have never claimed added power. If it's just about feel and evening out traction that's going to be hard to quantify.

Well, the AB website actually says "Oval chainrings do not produce more power, they allow you to unleash your true potential. They achieve this by optimising the pedalling torque you generate, reducing your effort on the climbs and increasing your speed at the same time - so you can be faster and more efficient. "

Sounds suspiciously like claiming some magical properties. Surely reducing the effort or increasing the speed for the same power is actually promising something somehow?? Calling it "Efficiency" may make it sound some kind of wibbly wobbly science thing but surely efficiency can be measured....power in versus power out = efficiency or am I missing the trick??

If efficiency is something that cannot actually be measured then I could just say that riding with a rabbit foot in my pocket increases my efficiency and helps me go faster for the same effort...although my statement would not be based on anything that could be proved as factual.

No, I agree with you, they can't substantiate the claims they are making.

However that doesn't take away the fact that some people find them more comfortable to ride, which is a perfectly valid reason for doing anything.

There seems to be a legitimate argument for MTB - I was listening to a recent TrainerRoad podcast and one of their presenters was saying he's never noticed any difference on the road but offroad they help with maintaining traction/preventing wheelspin on steep/loose climbs (obviously that doesn't really affect us though ).

Bobbinogs

bobmcstuff wrote:

...I agree with you, they can't substantiate the claims they are making.

However that doesn't take away the fact that some people find them more comfortable to ride, which is a perfectly valid reason for doing anything.
...

That's 2 things we agree on then :-)

fat daddy

Well, I converted my 2x10 commuter to 1x10 and in doing so swapped the 2 chainrings for a single 44t Q-ring.

Its been on a month now for me to analyse the effects of an oval ring

(1) It feels no different to pedal . it feels like a normal chain ring
(2) There has been no increase in speed
(3) There has been no increase in my endurance
(4) I haven't noticed any improvement in recovery time

however

Off road, I cut across fields and a couple of the traffic lanes are SO bad in Bristol it really is akin to riding on a bridal path .. it does seemed to have improved riding over the bumpy stuff and changing gear on the bumpy stuff is also an improvement. I can only assume that the easing off of torque at the top of the revolution takes some of the strain off the chain allowing for easier shifts and generally hitting the muddy, slippery lumpy bits the pedalling has also been smoothed out.

so, for me, on road I can tell absolutely do difference at all, climbing, flat, descending, changing gear, its all the same

but off road it does seem to have smoothed out my pedal stroke and eased botched gear changes.

I would go oval again for an off road bike, but wouldn't bother with on road

KevinA

I want to but not sure if my bike components are compatible,

Will need to look into it when I get some cash together.

cycleclinic

Oval chainring cannot produce more power over a whole crank revolution but knowing this i bought a narrow wide 52T ring for 1x11 of garbaruk. I thought it would do nothing but i was wrong i climb easier now. I like it and slowly i will buy more of them.

I actually feel the ovality when pedallkng so maybe it is the degree of asymmtry with this ring that makes the effect noticeable where as other feel like they pedalljng round rings.

trailflow

I have set of Doval rings for sale £25. Anybody interested ?
viewtopic.php?f=40091&t=13077247

bernithebiker

Absoluteblack wrote:

Great to see so many positive anecdotal stories in this thread from riders who've taken the plunge to try oval chain rings. Living (and cycling) with an open mind, is always better.

OOoooh, that's controversial!

imposter2.0

Absoluteblack wrote:

Great to see so many positive anecdotal stories in this thread from riders who've taken the plunge to try oval chain rings. Living (and cycling) with an open mind, is always better.

'Open mind' and 'anecdote' in the same post

I would have thought 'living with an open mind' would be more like 'waiting for actual evidence', rather than 'believing marketing hype', but obviously not. On the upside though, your posts are becoming quite entertaining...

First.Aspect

If you are open minded, consider something carefully and decide it's b0llocks, does that make you closed minded?

Mikey23

If i was good enough i might consider it. As im not, i will spend my money on something else...

JesseD

I'd give them a go based on the fact that when my 6800 chainrings wear out (which they will as the new Shimano ones are made of some sort of soft alloy) the AB winter ones are cheaper to buy.

Fully understand the rationale that they may/may not work but if there is no difference and they are cheaper then surely its a win win instead of buying a new chainset.

Any claims on longevity or how hard wearing they are?

Are they stiffer than the Shimano ones?