What's the question? You have to ride the Q-rings for atleast a month, do yourself a favor and ride only the Q-rings and really follow the notes on 'brain training'. Training on Q-rings, and racing on standard rings, because they look better? Oh lord, save your money, lad...
I don't think the aero rings are the same shape as the normal non-aero Q's? Could be wrong on that one though...
No you don't. The Rotor shit is nonsense. Studies have shown that Q-Rings do not positively influence static and dynamic loading aka they do nothing positive for the pedal stroke. Essentially Rotor just wants you to get used to them enough so you can rotate them to your liking, but it doesn't matter since the shape is non-optimal. A link to the study: http://www.noncircularchainring.be/pdf/ ... se%202.pdf
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note: "The Q-Ring is a brilliant example of excellent manufacturing
workmanship but is first and foremost a compromise solution due to
technical compatibilities and marketing reasons: ovality 1.10, slightly
modified ellipse and crank at 74°. But as with all compromises, this oval
is sacrificing most of its potential advantages. The problem of the Q-Ring
is firstly its lack of ovality and secondly, the crank orientation. Even with
the crank oriented in the optimal position the Q-Ring performances are
disappointing and remain very weak. The mathematical model does not
confirm the performance figures published by Rotor, neither in the crank
orientation as advised by Rotor, nor in any other crank angle orientation."
There is no nonsense with removing the dead spot. Just for that alone, particularly when climbing, makes them worth the money to me. Have you used them personnally?
The extreme of the theory put into practice are the osymmetric rings. I dont see how they will hurt you, seeing how Wiggo and Froome somehow dominated the TDF using them. So maybe there is something to them? Results dont lie. That study isnt real world you posted.