O-symetric vs Q-rings

[Mrroadcyclist]

What to choose and why? and can anyone tell my the difference ?
It's on a Road bike and standard crank

 

[Oldman]

Some buddies that favor the large-gear, slower rpm TT mode like the Q rings. They all use smaller cranks for their road bikes and round rings. I think an analysis of your power to each leg at different crank lengths would provide a clue.

 

[Tapeworm]

Highly anecdotal but I prefer the sensation from the Osymmetric rings.
Having been a guinea pig for Q Rings in a study and using the Osym on my TT bike, power is completely unchanged from the various types of chainring (allowing for the 2-3% inflation reported with Osym on the SRM).

However it *feels* like I push a bigger gear at a more comfortable cadence with the Osyms with the 172.5mm crank.

On the roadie its 170mm crank and standard rings.

 

[DirtyWorks]

What's old is new again!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopace

It will fall out of fashion like all the other round-ish chainring schemes.

It didn't work for me when it was sold by Shimano.

 

[Mrroadcyclist]

I realize that this is "old" news. But my question is whether I should try o-symetric rings or q-rings from Rotor

 

[winkybiker]

What's old is new again!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopace

It will fall out of fashion like all the other round-ish chainring schemes.

It didn't work for me when it was sold by Shimano.

Shimano's Biopace system was the complete opposite of what these rings are trying to achieve. Biopace put you in a lower gear on the downstroke and a higher gear at the top and bottom of the stroke. This made for a very pulsing pedal stroke.

My reason for not riding these oval/squoval/ellipsoid/whatever abominations is purely aesthetic. They are as ugly as sin, and deserve to go straight to the tip, same as SRAM's hydraulic road levers.

 

[FitSsikS]

Shimano's Biopace system was the complete opposite of what these rings are trying to achieve. Biopace put you in a lower gear on the downstroke and a higher gear at the top and bottom of the stroke.

Ha, I didn't realize that was on purpose! A low end MTB I bought years ago had that system and I thought that they had mounted the rings incorrectly! I promptly rotated the rings so the opposite was true.

Before the 'correction' while riding up very steep hills you couldn't keep the front wheel down! If my memory serves me correctly I just changed the small ring.

 

[veganrob]

What to choose and why? and can anyone tell my the difference ?
It's on a Road bike and standard crank

I have been using Rotor Q rings for four years now. I do not have any definite proof that that give me more power or reduce lactic acid or anything. But I do know that from the first time I used them I liked them. Immediately they felt right to me. I know others that do not like them. I don't know why. I like them on the #4 setting on flat to rolling terrain like we have here in Mi. If I am going South to ride in the mtns I will switch to #3. I have standard 53-39 chainrings.
When I did some serious stuff down in Greenville, SC i used 52-36.
I have fried that used Q rings, then tried Osymetric and has now settled on the QXL Rotor rings. He is TT champion and that is pretty much all he does.
Hope that helps you some.

Cheers

 

[Mrroadcyclist]

Thank for reply