Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
aka Zoo
Joined
·
763 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anyone ever try Q-Rings? I was just reading a blog post that Joe Friel has on them, looks like he's a big fan of them. A little pricey though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,555 Posts
Andrea138 said:
No. It's the same principle as the brief fad of Nautilus "variable resistance" weight machines. The only way they could possibly work is if the shape were customized to each individual's biomechanics.
In all fairness to Rotor, they do allow some customization with 5 settings. Below, max resistance part of the stroke in degrees past 3 o' clock:
#1…………… 08º for the 53t…………… 13º for the 40t
#2…………… 13º for the 53t…………… 18º for the 40t
#3…………… 18º for the 53t…………… 23º for the 40t
#4…………… 23º for the 53t…………… 28º for the 40t
#5…………… 28º for the 53t…………… 33º for the 40t
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
32,331 Posts
I'll put it in even more simple terms than Andrea.


If they actually did any good--everyone would have been using them for a long time. Because in one form or another, people have been creating solutions like Biopace Rings or Q-Rings or ______ rings in search of a problem for quite a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,831 Posts
Quite a long time

Room 1201 said:
I'll put it in even more simple terms than Andrea. If they actually did any good--everyone would have been using them for a long time. Because in one form or another, people have been creating solutions like Biopace Rings or Q-Rings or ______ rings in search of a problem for quite a long time.
It is my understanding that the first patents on out of round chain rings were issued in the late 1800s or early 1900s. That said, the key thing to understand about (insert the latest out of round ring here) is that they solve ALL of the problems that weren't solved by the previous incarnation. This is true, and it always has been true :)
 

·
Two scoops of inertia.
Joined
·
530 Posts
Did the other incarnations have the adjustability of Q-rotor rings? I recall seeing a pro bike that wasn't sponsored that had some manner of blank eliptical ring. So at least one person who cycles for a living prefers them.

If they actually did any good--everyone would have been using them for a long time.
I don't agree with this logic.Though they may well be worthless, the ammount or resistance elliptical rings have faced and will always face from the market will defeat any merit they have. The only historically similar designs failed, and it's too well established of a norm to break.
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
32,331 Posts
Dr. Placebo said:
Did the other incarnations have the adjustability of Q-rotor rings? I recall seeing a pro bike that wasn't sponsored that had some manner of blank eliptical ring. So at least one person who cycles for a living prefers them.



I don't agree with this logic.Though they may well be worthless, the ammount or resistance elliptical rings have faced and will always face from the market will defeat any merit they have. The only historically similar designs failed, and it's too well established of a norm to break.
Pros who use them, to my knowledge don't win any more often or perform better than those who use regular rings. The UCI hasn't banned them-so that probably means it is a placebo effect, knowing the history and tendencies of the UCI :)


For most anyone not earning a living riding a bike--any potential tradeoff for performance results in poor shifting on the front-der, just isn't worth it.
 

·
aka Zoo
Joined
·
763 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Bobby Julich rides one. Guess that's not really helping my case though :p Well, thanks for the info, I was only looking at them because Joe Friel seems to be a big fan of them so I had thought there may have been something to them. I appreciate the replies.
 

·
Two scoops of inertia.
Joined
·
530 Posts
More to my point is this: why would someone who is paid to cycle shoot themself in the foot with something that is worthless or counter productive? Their value may be as simple as preference or feel. It's not a force multiplier though so I don't see what mention there should be of winning because of them.
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
32,331 Posts
Dr. Placebo said:
More to my point is this: why would someone who is paid to cycle shoot themself in the foot with something that is worthless or counter productive? Their value may be as simple as preference or feel. It's not a force multiplier though so I don't see what mention there should be of winning because of them.
Could be preference or feel. I suspect some paid marketing also-but people call me a cynic.

Well, the reason to use them is for a performance benefit-according to the theories of those who make them. Hence if there was a benefit, it should show itself in the cyclists performance, post hoc ergo propter hoc.


There are lots of neat old threads in the RBR morgue on non-round rings. Search for Biopace in the search box-and you'll see all manner of amusing discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I put a set of Q-Rings on my compact DURA-ACE cranks. It took the recommended 500+ miles in position #3 to really get the feel for them. I am now in position #4 and that transition felt like the first transition from round to the Q-Rings. My impression is that they give the feeling of putting down the power smoother than round rings. Just like saddles, bars, pedals,attending college etc. they aren't for everyone, try them for yourself. Thanks for reading me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
More to my point is this: why would someone who is paid to cycle shoot themself in the foot with something that is worthless or counter productive? Their value may be as simple as preference or feel. It's not a force multiplier though so I don't see what mention there should be of winning because of them.
Well, Team Sky uses Osymetric rings, a similar product. They win a lot of races, but I don't think the rings are the biggest reason... :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
A study, "Non-circular chainrings for cycling" put out last year by Malfait, Storme, and Derdeyn, based on a mathematical model of pedaling concluded that,

"As a general conclusion, the results of the study indicate that optimizing the dynamic component of the joint-load by designing an appropriate non-circular chainring (ovality, shape, crank orientation angle and cadence):
- gives rise to favourable differences in curve profiles and peak-values for both the dynamic joint-moments and dynamic joint-powers compared to circular
- leads to a measurable crank power gain when applying the dynamic joint-moments of the circular on the appropriate non-circular chainwheel. This means that the dynamic joint-moments/forces needed to accelerate/decelerate the limbs with a circular chainwheel are delivering the dynamic joint-power needed to move the lower limbs with the appropriate non-circular chainring and are yielding a crank power surplus."​

My take away from this paper is, that given the same crank power output, the stresses on the joints are less for the right oval chainring. And given the same stresses on the joints, slightly more crank power output is obtained from the right oval chainrings over round chainrings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
A study, "Non-circular chainrings for cycling" put out last year by Malfait, Storme, and Derdeyn, based on a mathematical model of pedaling concluded that,
"As a general conclusion, the results of the study indicate that optimizing the dynamic component of the joint-load by designing an appropriate non-circular chainring (ovality, shape, crank orientation angle and cadence):
- gives rise to favourable differences in curve profiles and peak-values for both the dynamic joint-moments and dynamic joint-powers compared to circular
- leads to a measurable crank power gain when applying the dynamic joint-moments of the circular on the appropriate non-circular chainwheel. This means that the dynamic joint-moments/forces needed to accelerate/decelerate the limbs with a circular chainwheel are delivering the dynamic joint-power needed to move the lower limbs with the appropriate non-circular chainring and are yielding a crank power surplus."​

My take away from this paper is, that given the same crank power output, the stresses on the joints are less for the right oval chainring. And given the same stresses on the joints, slightly more crank power output is obtained from the right oval chainrings over round chainrings.
I used these for a while. I didn't feel I was any faster, but my knees did seem happier on longer rides.

The drawback to qrings is the set up on the front chainrings. They can be challenging to set up so that everything works right.

Another drawback is the price. It's the reason I did not replace mine when I wore them out.
 

·
Matnlely Dregaend
Joined
·
5,046 Posts
A study, "Non-circular chainrings for cycling" put out last year by Malfait, Storme, and Derdeyn, based on a mathematical model of pedaling concluded that,

"As a general conclusion, the results of the study indicate that optimizing the dynamic component of the joint-load by designing an appropriate non-circular chainring (ovality, shape, crank orientation angle and cadence):
- gives rise to favourable differences in curve profiles and peak-values for both the dynamic joint-moments and dynamic joint-powers compared to circular
- leads to a measurable crank power gain when applying the dynamic joint-moments of the circular on the appropriate non-circular chainwheel. This means that the dynamic joint-moments/forces needed to accelerate/decelerate the limbs with a circular chainwheel are delivering the dynamic joint-power needed to move the lower limbs with the appropriate non-circular chainring and are yielding a crank power surplus."​

My take away from this paper is, that given the same crank power output, the stresses on the joints are less for the right oval chainring. And given the same stresses on the joints, slightly more crank power output is obtained from the right oval chainrings over round chainrings.
There are many many dozens of valid research articles that show that non-circular chainrings do not work. The only ones that have found that they "might" work are theoretical articles like the one you mention, typically using finite element analysis. When the research tests actual people I have never seen a bona fide article that shows any benefit whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,831 Posts
A study put out last year by Malfait, Storme, and Derdeyn, based on a mathematical model of pedaling concluded that,

"As a general conclusion, the results of the study indicate that optimizing the dynamic component of the joint-load by designing an appropriate non-circular chainring (ovality, shape, crank orientation angle and cadence):
- gives rise to favourable differences in curve profiles and peak-values for both the dynamic joint-moments and dynamic joint-powers compared to circular
- leads to a measurable crank power gain when applying the dynamic joint-moments of the circular on the appropriate non-circular chainwheel. This means that the dynamic joint-moments/forces needed to accelerate/decelerate the limbs with a circular chainwheel are delivering the dynamic joint-power needed to move the lower limbs with the appropriate non-circular chainring and are yielding a crank power surplus."​
My take on this paper is that non-round chain rings have been around for over 100 years (first patents in the late 1800s I believe) and just never seem to catch on in the marketplace. Each and every new generation claims to solve the problems of the previous incarnations. I've seen this come and go a half-dozen times in the decades I've been riding. To accept some theoretical calculations when real-world experience has been a series of flash-in-the-pan fads seems quite the stretch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,084 Posts
My take on this paper is that non-round chain rings have been around for over 100 years (first patents in the late 1800s I believe) and just never seem to catch on in the marketplace. Each and every new generation claims to solve the problems of the previous incarnations. I've seen this come and go a half-dozen times in the decades I've been riding. To accept some theoretical calculations when real-world experience has been a series of flash-in-the-pan fads seems quite the stretch.
As you said, they should work, but only if all parameters are set. Sure they are nicer on the flats, but put yourself at a 10% grade for a mile where you are standing some, things get odd.

If I could have stayed seated all the time with my qrings, maybe they would be better. However, hills and mtn abound here. So, I'm better with round rings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,472 Posts
Yes. I have them, and absolutely love them. I'd never go back to standard round rings again. I have the 135BCD ones for Campagnolo on the middle setting. Kind of a pain to setup right, but once they are it's no problem. Sifts as good as before.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top