Oval Chainring experience

bennydunks

Interested in anyone's experiences of oval chainrings especially inner small rings, did you notice it when riding? did you need to adjust your pedaling, did you personally feel any benefits?

I've just acquired an oval chainring by chance and going to give it a run for a laugh, so interested on other peoples experiences.

priory

in the early nineties we had Biopace rings which were an irregular oval. It was my impression that that they made no difference to anything much. The feel of the pedal stroke was the same. Perhaps more exaggerated oval shapes have more effect.

trivial_poursuivant

There are a few different types out there. Which do you have? Q Rings, Osymetric, Absolute black?

Personally I have used Osymetric and found no difference in power output or performance. Many people do use them and Say they do. A bit like people who believe in homeopathic medicine imo.

fat daddy

I use a single Q-ring narrow/wide oval on a 1x setup.

for general riding I notice no difference, cadence, no difference, going uphill, no difference, more power - nope, faster strava times ... no

but

I do notice a difference in changing gear under load ..... you know the times when you fcuk a gear change up and find yourself on the pedals thinking "crap should have changed, now its going to rip my rear derailleur apart" ... or if you gone on to grass and suddenly realize you need to change gear as its long lumpy grass but to keep going you need the power. Its here that the Q-ring has a noticeable effect .. perhaps its the change in torque easing off the chain every rotation, but its easier changing gear, there isnt the massive crunch.

however

I do drop the chain every now and again which I didnt do on the round narrow/wide


would I buy one again ... no .... but if the bike came with one I would keep it

I can see it being good for MTB though, especially with a chain guide

haydenm

fat daddy wrote:

I can see it being good for MTB though, especially with a chain guide

I run an absolute black on my enduro bike and it felt a tiny bit weird when I first put it on but now I have forgotten about it. As it felt weird there must have been a difference but it's not as pronounced as I'd expected. I think it does make it 'easier' at the top of your stroke if you are climbing over something awkward which is good but the bike still climbs badly for an enduro bike. Not dropped the chain once come to think of it, and that included racing in Dunkeld last month...

bennydunks

Thanks for the responses guys, its an Absolute black one - i rode it briefly this morning it felt different, but i also just changed from a standard to a compact chainset so maybe not the best comparison - I'd imagine the down stroke should feel maybe a little hard until you get to the bottom? or i might just be making that up.

bennydunks

FYI - This is on a road bike, but equally interested in MTB experience.

imposter2.0

bennydunks wrote:

I'd imagine the down stroke should feel maybe a little hard until you get to the bottom? or i might just be making that up.

I think you nailed it there. Most of people's experiences of oval rings are 'made up' or anecdotal, or otherwise based on personal impressions. If you like it, stick with it. There's little - if any - actual science to support any claims - good, bad, or otherwise.

poptart242

I rode Doval rings for 8 months or so. Maybe 50km to get used to, after that I completely forgot about them. It was only on one bike and I found swapping between bikes pretty uneventful.

rower63

Out of curiosity I got some Osymetric rings a few years ago. My thoughts:

- Front-shifting was TERRIBLE, always dropping the chain, so I removed the front mech to avoid the possibility and restricted myself to big-ring only. I kept the round small ring ON though, as it provides the extra spacing for the (Campag) chainring bolts to bite properly.

- On first ride, it felt really weird, quite different, but I quickly got used to it until it felt normal again.

- Did it make any performance difference? Impossible to tell just riding around as any differences are going to be imperceptibly small amongst all the other variables. (More about whether it should make a difference further down)

- Once, a few weeks into using it (thoroughly accustomed by now) while climbing, I went over a bump and the chain bounced off the front ring onto my ROUND small ring. Now THAT was weird, it suddenly felt as if I was riding in porridge even though the gearing was much lighter, I had the feeling that the work was being applied in all the wrong places. This was different from when I first rode it, as then I was expecting a difference, this time it was sudden and accidental.

- Should it make a difference? Well, obviously yes, because it’s not the same. But better or worse? Who knows? However several prominent riders still use Osymetric rings.

- Are round rings best? I very much doubt it. Given the strange evolved geometry of the human body, with its multiple levers etc, the chance that the bio-mechanically optimal set-up is perfecly circular seems to me to be unlikely. In other words there will likely be a non-circular optimal ring-shape. Unfortunately, the same reasoning also suggests that every rider’s “optimal ring shape” will be different.

- I abandoned the experiment and now use round rings again, much more convenient.

stueys

I ride q-rings on my nice bike and round rings on my winter & turbo bike. I flick between the bikes throughout the year. I prefer the feel of q-rings when I'm pushing hard, my cadence is higher and I just prefer the feel. Whether I'm more efficient/powerful on them, no idea, but they work for me.

Shifting has been fine for me, you need to pay attention to the height of the front derauiler and it's fine. I also run the aero q-rings which are allegedly stiffer, no idea whether that has helped.

StillGoing

Stueys wrote:

I ride q-rings on my nice bike and round rings on my winter & turbo bike. I flick between the bikes throughout the year. I prefer the feel of q-rings when I'm pushing hard, my cadence is higher and I just prefer the feel. Whether I'm more efficient/powerful on them, no idea, but they work for me.

Shifting has been fine for me, you need to pay attention to the height of the front derauiler and it's fine. I also run the aero q-rings which are allegedly stiffer, no idea whether that has helped.

Similar story here. I run 50/36 Q-Rings on my summer bike and round rings on my winter bike/turbo trainer. Much prefer the summer bike feel over the winter bike and have had absolutely no issues with changing gear on the front. I used to have Q-Rings on both bikes, but sold one set to try SRAMs Exogram cranks. Wish I'd stuck with the Q-Rings.

EBEB

I have previously had Q rings and now am trying QXL and Biopace rings.

I’ve read the research Rotor use to promote their kit: it’s over short distances & that fits with what I’ve found. For sudden changes in power it is nice, but over longer time periods it makes little difference. I’ve also read lots of negative studies, but they don’t look at the short bursts.

One benefit I think might be true & unresearched is for people with a history of knee injuries. I’m reasonably confident Q/QXL are better. I use Biopace on a fixed - the theory being it would be nicer on my knees for braking - maybe it is, but grinding up hills I don’t like. I have it set so a cadence of 100 = 20mph - I would do it a bit gentler next time.

As regards the dropping chains - I’ve found no difference. Bit more of a pain to setup, but after that it is okay. Less margin for error. The ovality tends to be more with bigger rings, so dropping into the small ring to grind up a Hill isn’t as nice as normal.

asprilla

I used q rings in 2013 and 2014 and I remember thinking that they made a difference to my climbing in the saddle. I didn't replace them though when I sold that bike and didn't think about them again until recently when I was building a new bike with Rotor cranks.

I've now got a rings (52/36) on my best bike and I'm about to put them on the TT bike. Will it make a difference? Dunno but I like them.

term1te

Back in the day I had Suntour XCD on my best bike with Ovaltech chainrings. It was a triple and the inner ring was very oval. After a week or so I didn't notice the ovalness(?) of the outer two rings, but it was noticeable on the inner ring, especially at higher cadence. I couldn't spin up a hill without starting to bounce about in the saddle. Probably poor technique, but never a problem with round rings. I can't say I noticed any improvement in performance, or the much claimed reduction in stress on my knees. However, when I went back to round rings a few years later, they felt strange and slower for a couple of weeks. Probably all in my mind. I don't remember having a problem dropping the chain with the oval rings.

bennydunks

Seems to be a running theme that everyone thinks potentially there is some improvement, but they are not sure! thanks for all the replies interesting to here everyone's replies.

imposter2.0

bennydunks wrote:

Seems to be a running theme that everyone thinks potentially there is some improvement, but they are not sure! thanks for all the replies interesting to here everyone's replies.

If that's what you think from reading this thread, then you haven't read it properly.

mercia_man

I had bikes with Suntour Ovaltech and Sugino Cycloid oval rings in the late 80s/early 90s, plus I tried a few mountain bikes with Shimano Biopace rings.

In my view, they were largely pointless. They compromised front shifting slightly although changing was fine when adjusted carefully. On mountain bikes, I did quite like the feel of an oval ring when climbing up muddy banks in bottom gear of a triple where maintaining traction was important. But for road riding - I like to spin at a fairly high cadence - round rings feel better for me.

There's plenty of "scientific" claims about the benefits of bigger and smaller ovals and different orientation of rings but round rings have stood the test of time in real world riding. Oval rings have come and gone several times in the history of cycling.

cycleclinic

I been using a 52t garbaruk 1x arrow wide oval chainring all year. It very good. No chain drops, no problems on the hills except very steep ones.

I am uncertain if it makes difference or not but it feels different and there will be difference in torque during the the rotation of the pedals. Ovality is 12%.

simon_masterson

EBEB wrote:

I use Biopace on a fixed - the theory being it would be nicer on my knees for braking - maybe it is, but grinding up hills I don’t like. I have it set so a cadence of 100 = 20mph - I would do it a bit gentler next time.

Biopace was a completely bogus concept even back then, but I can't see a non-round chainring ever being a good idea on fixed?

Mercia Man wrote:

There's plenty of "scientific" claims about the benefits of bigger and smaller ovals and different orientation of rings but round rings have stood the test of time in real world riding. Oval rings have come and gone several times in the history of cycling.

Just a shame that they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency as a result of using them - unless of course you count Jean-Louis Talo claiming that inflated power figures on Osymetric rings are actually accurate. The concept has been around long enough that if it actually worked, we would all be using them.

cycleclinic

it is just that the benfits of oval rings only happen at certain points in the power stroke but overall there cant be any difference in power so most people dont notice any difference and many find the down side of the front dhifting with oval rings a problem. For me with a 1x bike they make sense. I can ride taller gearing on a hill but I dont have the problems of poor front shifting.

Oval rings were around in the 1890's. They have never gone away it just that round rings work.

rower63

Simon Masterson wrote:

Just a shame that they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency as a result of using them - unless of course you count Jean-Louis Talo claiming that inflated power figures on Osymetric rings are actually accurate. The concept has been around long enough that if it actually worked, we would all be using them.

This is essentially saying "Just a shame they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency, except where they have."

imposter2.0

rower63 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Just a shame that they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency as a result of using them - unless of course you count Jean-Louis Talo claiming that inflated power figures on Osymetric rings are actually accurate. The concept has been around long enough that if it actually worked, we would all be using them.

This is essentially saying "Just a shame they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency, except where they have."

You might need to read Simon's reply again...

asprilla

I thought Rotor had shown increased efficiency, in that test subjects had lower heart rates at any given power output.

simon_masterson

Imposter wrote:

rower63 wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Just a shame that they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency as a result of using them - unless of course you count Jean-Louis Talo claiming that inflated power figures on Osymetric rings are actually accurate. The concept has been around long enough that if it actually worked, we would all be using them.

This is essentially saying "Just a shame they've failed to show any increase in power or efficiency, except where they have."

You might need to read Simon's reply again...

What he said

trivial_poursuivant

Apart from Chris Froome, I cannot think of any other current users of oval chainrings. When I read the MSPs from manufacturers they like to point out things like smoother pedal stroke - yet not many TT riders who would benefit the most from that use them. The other thing is, Froome does seem to have an extraordinarily high amount of mechanical issues in big races. I sometimes wonder if this is down to the uneven motion of the chain through the front mech.

The other reason I thought , When Froome and Bradley Wiggins used them were they also used Stages single sided power meters (I know sky did use a double sided more recently) so to get a better reading from a single side, maybe the oval chainring helped but I doubt it helped increase power output simply by using it. It may help the rider maintain the figures - Froome constantly staring at his Garmin ? But if he wasn’t paying attention to the numbers would they actually increase? The longer it is taking an actual reading from the meter which is then doubled will obviously be a higher figure in total. If it were used in conjunction with a double sided meter this may not happen as it’s a 50/50 split between legs. A Stages could read only 45% of your full pedal motion if that’s all you actually spend putting power through it. Or if using an oval ring and it increases your power/stroke to 55% of the full revolution it’s 55% doubled.

I know this might not sound like it makes complete sense but I can’t think of a better way of expressing it.

simon_masterson

Trivial poursuivant wrote:

Apart from Chris Froome, I cannot think of any other current users of oval chainrings. When I read the MSPs from manufacturers they like to point out things like smoother pedal stroke - yet not many TT riders who would benefit the most from that use them. The other thing is, Froome does seem to have an extraordinarily high amount of mechanical issues in big races. I sometimes wonder if this is down to the uneven motion of the chain through the front mech.

The other reason I thought , When Froome and Bradley Wiggins used them were they also used Stages single sided power meters (I know sky did use a double sided more recently) so to get a better reading from a single side, maybe the oval chainring helped but I doubt it helped increase power output simply by using it. It may help the rider maintain the figures - Froome constantly staring at his Garmin ? But if he wasn’t paying attention to the numbers would they actually increase? The longer it is taking an actual reading from the meter which is then doubled will obviously be a higher figure in total. If it were used in conjunction with a double sided meter this may not happen as it’s a 50/50 split between legs. A Stages could read only 45% of your full pedal motion if that’s all you actually spend putting power through it. Or if using an oval ring and it increases your power/stroke to 55% of the full revolution it’s 55% doubled.

I know this might not sound like it makes complete sense but I can’t think of a better way of expressing it.

Pretty sure Wiggins had switched back to round rings by the time Sky started using Stages?

First.Aspect

Personally I use round chain rings and oval wheels.

trivial_poursuivant

First Aspect wrote:

Personally I use round chain rings and oval wheels.

I guess you own a Fuji then!

EBEB

Simon Masterson wrote:

Biopace was a completely bogus concept even back then, but I can't see a non-round chainring ever being a good idea on fixed?

bogus for accelerating, but I was thinking more about the stress on knees during braking at the tightest knee angle. I fully expected it to be worse, if anything, for accelerating.

The concept has been around long enough that if it actually worked, we would all be using them.

Depends entirely on your definition of ‘worked’. I think there might well be a benefit for the subset of the population who have certain knee problems, who might describe less pain or be less likely to get fat - I would then say it ‘worked’ for them, but it isn’t a hypothesis I’ve ever seen researched. Can’t see who would pay to research it.

ThisGirlCant

I have an old Marin Palisades mtb with biopace chainrings. I can't tell any difference between them and round ones. I didn't even know they made them any more.