Q-rings 52/36 vs Round 50/34

poeter

Hi guys,

I'm currently riding round 52/36 and will be progressively doing steeper climbs. However, I want to maintain a higher cadence and not have to grind down to 40rpm.

So I was exploring the ideas of going round 50/34 rings at first but the idea of Q'rings came up as I also I want to save my knees for the long term. I was advised of 52/36 qrings would ride like 50/34. Would this be the case? or should I go for 50/34 q'rings instead to be on the safe side?

Thanks!

cougie

Just a gimmick. Stay conventional. Simpler for gear changing too.

stueys

I ride Q rings on my nice bike (in 52/36), Q rings are well worth a try, I run normal round on my winter and turbo bike and it always feels nicer to get back onto the q rings. My cadence Is noticeably higher on oval as well. I always recommend people to give them a go, most of my buddies who have tried them have stuck with.

As to whether 52 q-rings feel like 50 round, I don't think so, though I've got 52/36 on all my bikes now so maybe that's just me. I would assume the gearing is broadly comparable, what Q-rings will give you is a tougher gear on the power part of the pedal stroke and a lower gear on the rest of the stroke. Broadly I suspect it's a wash.

I used to swap out my q-rings to a full compact (50/34) for my yearly mountain trips, staying with an 11-28 on the back. I like to sit at 95-100 cadence on the flat and climb at 80-90. This year I stayed on my 52-36 q-rings and ran the new DA 11-30 cassette on the back. That combination gives you a nice range of gears and is well worth a go.

sloppyschleckonds

Snake oil

svetty

^ this
If there was a broad evidence base showing increased power/efficiency it would be all over the internet - and round rings would have died a death (except at cheap end of the market). That hasn't happened....

Placebo effect accounts for perceived benefit in those who propound their use - which isn't to say they are deluded as placebo effect is tangible - however it's not the rings but their psychology that creates the 'benefit'.

manxshred

I have tried Rotor Q rings on my road and mtb a while ago, and more recently as a 1X11 on my MTB with the absolute back oval rings.
They aren't for me, I have gone back to round rings every time with much better results. Other people swear by them, so unfortunately it is a bit of try and see if you like them.

philbar72

Tried q's for a while in 2015, and for the most part they were fine, and it felt like you could pedal a gear up compared to normal rings... oddly... now that 11-30 cassettes are out, on a 52/36 chainring you get a slightly lower bottom gear than 34x28 and the advantage of a 52/36 means you have a decent a spread of gears.

a person who I know that coaches says if you use them, don't use Q rings for training. I didn't ask why...

maddog 2

they aren't snake oil, they are just different.

snake oil is another way of saying they are b@ll@x. But you could say anything you don't like is b@ll@x....

to answer the OP, you should think of them as offering a different pedalling action, rather than altering the gearing per se.

StillGoing

Used to have Q rings on main bike and winter trainer. Switched the winter trainer to round rings last year and it just feels odd, or certainly not as nice as the Q rings. I run 50/36 with Q rings and 50/34 round, both with an 11-28 cassette. I don't need anything bigger than a 50 as I'll never spin out and the 50/36 makes for a smoother change on the front with SRAM and Q rings I find.

stueys

Svetty wrote:

^ this
If there was a broad evidence base showing increased power/efficiency it would be all over the internet - and round rings would have died a death (except at cheap end of the market). That hasn't happened....

Placebo effect accounts for perceived benefit in those who propound their use - which isn't to say they are deluded as placebo effect is tangible - however it's not the rings but their psychology that creates the 'benefit'.

It’s not a placebo affect, my cadence is tangibly higher on q-rings than round. Whether that makes a difference to my power output, etc, I have no idea. I haven’t tried to quantify the difference, I prefer riding q-rings over my other bikes that run round and that’s good enough for me to stick with.

StillGoing

Stueys wrote:

Svetty wrote:

^ this
If there was a broad evidence base showing increased power/efficiency it would be all over the internet - and round rings would have died a death (except at cheap end of the market). That hasn't happened....

Placebo effect accounts for perceived benefit in those who propound their use - which isn't to say they are deluded as placebo effect is tangible - however it's not the rings but their psychology that creates the 'benefit'.

It’s not a placebo affect, my cadence is tangibly higher on q-rings than round. Whether that makes a difference to my power output, etc, I have no idea. I haven’t tried to quantify the difference, I prefer riding q-rings over my other bikes that run round and that’s good enough for me to stick with.

The doubters said the same about sti shifters when they started appearing over downtube shifters. :roll:

imposter2.0

philthy3 wrote:

Stueys wrote:

Svetty wrote:

^ this
If there was a broad evidence base showing increased power/efficiency it would be all over the internet - and round rings would have died a death (except at cheap end of the market). That hasn't happened....

Placebo effect accounts for perceived benefit in those who propound their use - which isn't to say they are deluded as placebo effect is tangible - however it's not the rings but their psychology that creates the 'benefit'.

It’s not a placebo affect, my cadence is tangibly higher on q-rings than round. Whether that makes a difference to my power output, etc, I have no idea. I haven’t tried to quantify the difference, I prefer riding q-rings over my other bikes that run round and that’s good enough for me to stick with.

The doubters said the same about sti shifters when they started appearing over downtube shifters. :roll:

Not sure if that's an appropriate comparison, tbh. STI offered a tangible benefit, in being able to shift gears without having to take your hands off the hoods and reach for the down tube. In comparison, despite being around for a similar length of time, the claimed benefits of oval rings remain scientifically unproven.

daniel_b

I have a 36 Q ring to fit onto my Scott, hoping it will help a touch with climbing, most reviews I have read are positive, but I guess some people get on with it, and some do not - I could be in either camp.

I am open minded about it though.

I have a good mile long 10% average gradient hill near me, so will be able to do a direct comparison.

fat daddy

Daniel B wrote:

I
I am open minded about it though.

I was open minded when I bought mine ..... turns out I can tell no difference between oval and round under normal riding conditions.

HOWEVER

it does seem to make a difference when changing gear under load ... you know those times when you haven't changed gear before hitting the sudden out the seat effort, whether onroad or off road, you now face that daunting crunch of the rear mech as you try to get on to the bigger cogs whilst rapidly slowing down and applying a worrying amount of torque that you fear is just going to rip the rear hangar off ??? ... Well the oval ring makes this less graunch of the gears less harsh ! ... I assume maybe the less torque at the small part of the ring

The downside is I have dropped the chain a few times over rough roads, or bunny hopping, which never happened with round rings

If I was going to do it all again, I would stick with round and learnt to change gear early !