Chiva wrote:KWalker wrote:Chiva wrote:If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. If these were so great, then every pro tour rider would be using them right? I mean these guys are only needing a 1% advantage to be a grand tour winner.
Half of the Vuelta top 10 used them. Wiggins has won medals on non-round rings and lots of stages have been won on them as well. They're obviously not hurting anyone so people reason that since they feel better and aren't detrimental necesssarily that they're worth keeping.
The other half of the top 10 used round rings. Armstrong and Ullrich won several TdF on round rings as well as many other riders winning many other stages on them as well. Same argumentcan be used for round rings obviously. I understand what you mean. I think the actual rotor crank that totally eliminates the dead spot would be helpful and do what it claims to do but it's heavy. Rotor said they are redesigning it. We'll see.
You didn't read a key portion of my and most of the poster's statements.
THEY AREN'T HURTING THEM AND THEY LIKE THE WAY THEY FEEL. It's as simple as that. Lots of people ride lots of setups that give them 0 net gain, but they do so because of some random sensation associated with that piece of equipment. Look at all the pros riding way too long and low, which has more of a detrimental effect on riding, but is done anyways out of some sort of weird tradition of feeling that they're more aerodynamically efficient.
There haven't been enough completely controlled and double blind lab comparisons to show whether or not the efficiency claims are accurate or not. Every single study has had some weakness- not controlling for an SRM's inherency to assume the rings are round, only comparing short anaerobic power, or using a small amount of untrained cyclists over a very short period of time.
As for the shifting that's all you. I have ridden Q-Rings and we have lots and lots of customers who love them. I've installed them on numerous bikes with every single groupset and managed to get it to shift perfectly. Its not easy at first, but if you use Google and read how people have shimmed/altered the adjustment of their derailleurs to accommodate the rings its fairly simple. Not as amazing as stock 7900 or Super Record, but I've come across many bikes that shift just as well or better than a stock Sram setup.
As for Rotor vs. O-Sys most people I've spoken to end up going towards O-Sys since they feel that the Rotor rings do not actually alter their stroke that much. Of the O-Sys users not a single one has ever gone back to round rings. I conversed with Shaun at SRM about the accuracy of readings with the O-Sys rings and once the normal offset procedure has been performed the units will read accurately. Of the people that use them with an SRM, none have felt that their training gains have been hampered and many have over half a decade of data to demonstrate any gains that have occurred while using them. Such gains can't be isolated, but its enough to leave them on. All of the riders have managed to achieve good front shifting using them and many report that its better than the Rotor rings (how this is possible I do not know, but so they claim).
So lets recap:
1. It isn't hurting a lot of people to run them pro or otherwise. They like the feel and still perform well. Psychological advantages like these often outweigh outright material gains.
2. You can set them up to shift perfectly fine if you know what you're doing or your mechanic has set them up before. It can be annoying until you learn this, but its not that hard.
3. People who have used both tend to go O-Sys and do not go back. Its not hindering them and they have also managed to achieve good front shifting.
I mean if they were so great wouldn't every pro tour rider be using them 
