Q rings????

[Tangled Tango]

Anyone out there using Rotor Q Rings? I am about to switch to a compact crankset and I am considering Q Rings. Unfortunately there are very few reviews on them. If what the hype is true, one would think they would become the wave of the future, but so far no revolution. Any user thoughts would be most appreciated.

 

[flyor64]

I've been on them for two seasons now. Can't say that I've noticed any benefits, and in fact, I've got them set at the lowest setting because the "odd" feelings I was getting on the more aggressive settings.

I'm actually going to go back to standard compacts rings this season for the simple reason that I now have to replace the rings and they are very expensive here in Norway. I see no benefit for spending roughly double the price for the rings.

I'll qualify my very subjective analysis by saying that I do not race my road bike. I just log alot of longish rides and a decent commute to/from work on my bike.

Perhaps someone who rides them competetively and/or extreme annual kilometers can offer a different opinion.

 

[Magnus]

I've got a Stronglight Bioconcept chainring on my Cross bike (they're approximately as ovalized as the Rotor Q-rings but you can't fine tune the direction of ovalization as with the Q rings). Does it work? I'll have to say maybe. Sometimes I've experienced lower heart rate than I'd expect for a given speed/cadence/wind situation but I haven't got any solid data to back it up. Merely a hunch. The Stronlights are about 1/3 to 1/2 the price of the Rotors, so certainly a cheaper solution if you wanna know if there's anything to the hype yourself.

 

[Michele]

I didnt try personally but I know friends, both amateur and some pros who used them; some liked, some not.

 

[luckyboy]

Only rode about 200km on them before I had to leave my new bike at home and come back to uni. I didn't think I'd feel that much of a difference but it almost felt like the rings weren't there, just much easier to push than normal rings.

Only problem I've had is that my front derailleur is quite narrow/wasn't set up quite right, and sometimes the chain gets stuck on the big ring but I'll be getting that fixed.

 

[DirtyWorks]

The concept of non-round rings improving cycling is almost as old as the chain drive. Shimano had them for a while too. No doubt, if someone from the manufacturer gets wind of this thread there will be lots of technical information proving they are better than round rings. They might be right. They might not be right.

I spent quite a bit of time on a fixed gear and so could never get used to the sensation on the road when Shimano sold their version of non-round rings.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

If what the hype is true, one would think they would become the wave of the future, but so far no revolution.

Given that such things are not new, and there has been no revolution, then I think that's your answer. As far as evidence goes, well there isn't any that demonstrates they are of benefit (or detrimental). Several studies are available if you search pubmed.

End of the day, we are limited by our aerobic metabolism. Any extra demand has to be paid for.

I put them in the same basket as crank length and bar tape colour. Ride what you feel comfortable with/prefer. It won't magically make you faster.

If testing with a crank based power meter, bear in mind that such rings will artificially inflate power numbers by a few percent.

 

[Ruby60]

Alex - What do you mean by "artificially inflating" power numbers? Seems to me that if testing shows an increase in power out, there must be an increase in power out....
I use round rings, but wonder about the following: If it is true that max power is created at a torque angle of 90 degrees... and my average torque is something other than 90 degrees, couldn't I use Q rings to adjust my spin so as to obtain the 90 degree optimum setting?
Thanks
Ruby

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Alex - What do you mean by "artificially inflating" power numbers? Seems to me that if testing shows an increase in power out, there must be an increase in power out....

Crank based power meters make some assumptions about the angular velocity during each revolution of the crank that are not true when using such chainrings. As a result, the reported power is a few percent higher (give or take) than actual power.

I use round rings, but wonder about the following: If it is true that max power is created at a torque angle of 90 degrees... and my average torque is something other than 90 degrees, couldn't I use Q rings to adjust my spin so as to obtain the 90 degree optimum setting?

Perhaps, but we are not limited by the force / torque we can produce, so it's unlikely.

And if such a thing did enable it, you have to pay for it somehow - and that comes from the production of ATP - which is a metabolic process. Hence, in the end, you are limited by your sustainable aerobic power (= ability to sustainably produce ATP).

 

[Boeing]

I've decided to give these things a try. I run a 177.5 crank. I wonder if that makes any kind of difference

 

[Ruby60]

Since (like Alex says) we are ultimately limited by our sustainable aerobic power, it seems to me that anything we could do to optimize our power output would be beneficial.
If it were me, I would utilize the Computrainers Spin Scan in concert with the Q rings and adjust to optimum.
But....I don't have the cash to buy the Q rings to experiment with....
Oh well...
Ruby

 

[Boeing]

I have 300 flat miles on these so far. no hills review yet because the muscles take a little adjusting to these rings and I want to judge with out fatigue.

I am no techy expert engineer or power meter guy so my comment is on the feel and what it means to me

I am a tall rider. Long legs. I feel, for lack of a better description, like I have more engagement through the top of the circle. from about 11 oclock to 2 oclock. In addition I feel as though I can run higher cadence/lower gear at same speed hammering.

what this all means I have yet to determine but I like it

 

[STODRR]

I've decided to give these things a try. I run a 177.5 crank. I wonder if that makes any kind of difference

I have them on mine with that crank length. I have the big ring set on 3 and the small ring on 4. 4 feels odd on the flats warming up I guess because of where you start picking up the power. but I love that setting on the hills.

 

[Boeing]

I have them on mine with that crank length. I have the big ring set on 3 and the small ring on 4. 4 feels odd on the flats warming up I guess because of where you start picking up the power. but I love that setting on the hills.

with that size crank I have always felt a little flat spot or delay engagement at the top from about 11 to 1 oclock. especially on the left leg for whatever reason the q's fixed that immediately. Even if it is a question of just feel. Like I said I dont have the capacity to measure power benefit even with the greatest of meters because of all the other conditions involved and I am not that smart. so I wont comment on power.

however I felt better at higher cadence which is all that matters to me at this point. although I will say my muscles felt new fatigue for a while

I am going to try them at 175

 

[laziali]

The concept of non-round rings improving cycling is almost as old as the chain drive. Shimano had them for a while too. No doubt, if someone from the manufacturer gets wind of this thread there will be lots of technical information proving they are better than round rings. They might be right. They might not be right.

I spent quite a bit of time on a fixed gear and so could never get used to the sensation on the road when Shimano sold their version of non-round rings.

Ah,yes, i remember the shimano biopace rings. Made perfect sense from an engineer's perspective but died a quiet and unloved death. A solution in search of a problem was the common view.

 

[STODRR]

with that size crank I have always felt a little flat spot or delay engagement at the top from about 11 to 1 oclock. especially on the left leg for whatever reason the q's fixed that immediately. Even if it is a question of just feel. Like I said I dont have the capacity to measure power benefit even with the greatest of meters because of all the other conditions involved and I am not that smart. so I wont comment on power.

however I felt better at higher cadence which is all that matters to me at this point. although I will say my muscles felt new fatigue for a while

I am going to try them at 175

I know the feeling. I think it was because of the hip abductor at a certian point is just about as far as it can go in contraction (some peopel might call hip angle)unless you reguarly train it. don't know if that is true or not but that is my thoght process. I am trying 172.5 this year for road and 170 on the TT bike.

Where I felt it helping is at the end of long races or hills where I am spent, and can barely pedal squares.

 

[Boeing]

Has anyone noticed how friggn sharp these ring teeth are? real knuckle busters tuning and lubing/cleaning bike. and I cut my right calf on a slight rub. It's not from wear either. I took a brillo to the big ring teeth. damn

 

[richwagmn]

Ah,yes, i remember the shimano biopace rings. Made perfect sense from an engineer's perspective but died a quiet and unloved death. A solution in search of a problem was the common view.

A well deserved death IMO. I tried them when they first came out and couldn't stand them.

Not sure what the difference is between Bio-pace and Q-rings but I predict a similar fate.

Besides, if they did offer a real benefit, why wouldn't we see them on every single pro-team's bikes?

 

[Master50]

A well deserved death IMO. I tried them when they first came out and couldn't stand them.

Not sure what the difference is between Bio-pace and Q-rings but I predict a similar fate.

Besides, if they did offer a real benefit, why wouldn't we see them on every single pro-team's bikes?

Biopace and Q rings are opposite in effect. the q rings bulge where the Shimano rings dipped and bulge where the Q rings dip. Or in other words they worked opposite to each other.

I think the Shimano design was for not for racing but for J Q public

 

[Ruby60]

New update please...Boeing...anyone..

Boeing... please give me/us an update on your experience with the Q-rings. Are you a racer? Crits..RR..TT's?
I race primarily crits and am wondering what the effect would be using Q-rings in a sprint situation? Anyone....
Thanks

 

[avanti]

I suspect that non-circular rings may be usefull for those who use low cadence but not for those who pedal at high cadence (Cancellara for example).

 

[Notso Swift]

I cant remember any pro sprinters using the elliptical rings, TT and Climbers, but not sprinters (Thinking when Thor as on CTT they were sponserd and he had the round version)

Sort of agree with above and I just guess when you are getting up at 130+ the slap becomes an issue and the lat thing you want is a jump/drop (and I can show you the scars from dropping the chain in a sprint)

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I cut my teeth on elipticals back in the day when I was a learning rider and peddled at a very low cadence (< 80 rpm). I never had any problems, but ditched them for standard rings later after I learned to peddle at a higher cadence (90 - 100). I did not notice any drop in performance with the standard rings, but I am just a recreational rider who puts on lots of miles. I did seem to be able to peddle more of a round stroke using standard rings vs. ovalized rings. Anyone notice the same or different?

As for claims that elipticals reduce knee strain in the low power zone, it seems they would increase knee strain in the power stroke by effectively increasing the number of teeth in the power zone (e.g. making a 53T feel more like a 56T). So it would seem to be a trade off.

 

[CoachFergie]

I cant remember any pro sprinters using the elliptical rings, TT and Climbers, but not sprinters (Thinking when Thor as on CTT they were sponserd and he had the round version)

Sort of agree with above and I just guess when you are getting up at 130+ the slap becomes an issue and the lat thing you want is a jump/drop (and I can show you the scars from dropping the chain in a sprint)

Greg Henderson uses Osymetric rings.

 

[Boeing]

Boeing... please give me/us an update on your experience with the Q-rings. Are you a racer? Crits..RR..TT's?
I race primarily crits and am wondering what the effect would be using Q-rings in a sprint situation? Anyone....
Thanks

Not a racer anymore.

I am not a real informed physio guy. i only go by feel.

I just feel like there is consistent pull on the chain so to speak ( i know that not real answer and I cant quantify). and contrary to the poster above a frw bars, higher cadence seams to benefit more. I don't use power meter. I took them off to see if there was a difference and missed them and felt different muscles. for me it is simple. no gap at top of stroke at higher cadence

One real problem however is front shifting. I have to be in the 16 or higher when in big ring when shifting back to the 39. otherwise I am in no mans-land with no engagement. Chain-line on my bike is an issue with its wider than normal BB for some reason. but it didn't do this with the normal rings. No solution yet