Ovalized rings, anyone?

[Geoff]

I conducted a test of those rings for a few seasons. I ran several sets of 'Q'-rings, a Rotor 'no deadspot' crankset and a set of Osymetric rings that I got from Mike Barry (that should have been my first clue). At first, I thought that there was a small power advantage. The more analysis of my Interval course thst I did, the more I recognised that the evidence was not clear. For me, it came down to the fact that the round rings just 'felt' better to me.

[BikeKingV1r]

Good point Geoff, I think it all comes down to feeling. I first started on oval rings on the mountain bike and just loved how smooth it felt and how I was able to hold a higher cadence with a bigger gear. So when I had the chance to move to absolute black rings on my road bike I did. It feels good to me, didn’t have power back then so no numbers, but to me it feels better and no bounce on high RPM’s.

I have had friends jump on my bike to “test” them and it’s not for everyone. I also think that Rotor might have a try/demo system. I would check with them and see couldn’t hurt to have a little insurance in case they are not for you.

[MyM3Coupe]

Had Q-rings for about two years and when Campy switched to a different bolt pattern I rode the standard round rings. Didn’t notice any difference at all really. Oval rings are an urban legend.

[TobinHatesYou]

Had Q-rings for about two years and when Campy switched to a different bolt pattern I rode the standard round rings. Didn’t notice any difference at all really. Oval rings are an urban legend.

They're very real and they have biomechanical advantages for people who don't like to pedal circles. If you are a quad/glute heavy pedaler like me who relies heavily on the peak power phase between 2 and 5 o'clock, then it makes an enormous amount of sense to make the chainring bigger during that power phase. It also makes sense to make the chainring smaller at the dead spot so you accelerate through it and get back to the peak power phase faster. In the end it's a way to reduce fatigue on smaller skeletal muscles. I'm more comfortable pedaling Q-Rings in any position, so I generate more power, longer as a result of that comfort.

[sib]

How are ovalized rings for out-of-the-saddle climbing?

[TobinHatesYou]

How are ovalized rings for out-of-the-saddle climbing?

I spend 99% of my time in the saddle on round rings.

Out of the saddle climbing for me has never been smooth with round rings because it feels like my pedal stroke wallows at bottom-dead-center. With oval rings, I get much less of that feeling of dead time between alternating peak power phases. Doesn't mean I make a habit of doing it much more often, but I definitely despise it less than with round rings.

[mattr]

FWIW i run them on the MTB and only really notice the difference when my cadence drops, so when i'm pushing on to get over the top of a rise without dropping a sprocket at the back. At higher cadences, i.e. not labouring the gear, i can't tell the difference. (i tend to favour 100+ rpm, so my low might not be the same as your low!)

I've also done a fair bit of back to back testing, as until recently i had two almost identical chainsets i could switch between. New bike is using M8000, so i'll need new rings

[mattr]

because it feels like my pedal stroke wallows at bottom-dead-center.

You tried shorter cranks, it's one of the things i've noticed, but not noticed since switching. I never realised it felt bad with longer cranks, until i got the short cranks and switched between them. Sudden lightbulb moment.

[onemanpeloton]

FWIW i run them on the MTB and only really notice the difference when my cadence drops, so when i'm pushing on to get over the top of a rise without dropping a sprocket at the back. At higher cadences, i.e. not labouring the gear, i can't tell the difference. (i tend to favour 100+ rpm, so my low might not be the same as your low!)

I've also done a fair bit of back to back testing, as until recently i had two almost identical chainsets i could switch between. New bike is using M8000, so i'll need new rings

thats interesting because i find the opposite. Both osymmetric and rotor feel smoother and more consistent at higher cadence like when climbing of TTing. But I tried them on my mtb and cx bikes and found the occasional "grinding" more difficult with oval rings

[TobinHatesYou]

because it feels like my pedal stroke wallows at bottom-dead-center.

You tried shorter cranks, it's one of the things i've noticed, but not noticed since switching. I never realised it felt bad with longer cranks, until i got the short cranks and switched between them. Sudden lightbulb moment.

Shorter cranks do a couple things. Your feet are covering a shorter distance while applying a tangential force. In order to make the distance equal at the same tangential force, you need to pedal at a higher rpm in an easier gear combo. So shorter cranks encourage a higher cadence no matter what your pedaling style is. You are still spending the same amount of time in each power phase, just at a higher rpm.

Oval rings don’t automatically force a higher cadence, but I find it much easier to keep a high cadence with them. There is less thinking about the follow-through at BDC because the chainring emulates a smaller tooth count and accelerates right through it. My pedaling feels smoother with oval rings, so my cadence increases naturally.

For out of the saddle climbing I would probably rather have longer cranks and oval rings since hip/knee angles aren’t important.

[Hexsense]

I keep going back and forth to and from oval rings.
Sometime i feel like i have small pain in the knee so i go to oval rings. Then i recovered and i noticed that i'm worse at sustaining high power with oval rings because the load is too concentrate and intense on big muscle on push down phrase. With round ring i work more toward top and bottom stroke so the push down phrase is not too hard and overwhelming the muscle (you know, there is a fine line between right where you can sustain for long time and just a bit more and it'll collapse in minutes). Then i change back to round, immediately i can sustain high power better. Then after a long while (months) after some hard training i may have some knee pain and i go to oval ring again..., repeat.

[Kayrehn]

Love it that the discussion here is sensible thus far (no troll coming in to mention biopace etc) - I used lots of osymetric (different generations, standard/compact) before playing with rotor Q and QXL rings. Tried Doval small ring for climbing too (great stuff cos they have the small ring for 5 bolt cranks in 34t).

Osymetric type cam design has the best feel for me by far. Rotor Q rings does nothing, QXL got closer to osymetric feel but still not as pronounced. I feel that Rotor's ovalised rings just doesn't have the same effect as the cam design, and I don't really buy that talk about having to train/adapt your muscles to those Rotor rings.

I say, try them, because when you switch over to round rings you probably wouldn't feel weird about it (like I did when I ride my light bike with round rings).

If you're looking at the Carbon-ti carbocam rings, pm me and I'll provide some ride feedback after my first ride on it end of the month.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[TobinHatesYou]

I definitely feel the slight ovalization of Q-Rings, and it does help me. It feels like my entire pedal stroke is smoother all the way around, and the in turn allows me to increase my cadence at the same gear size with less fatigue. Basically with round rings I accelerate through the peak power phase and decelerate through the deadspot and with the Q-Rings it is a constant speed...less strain.

I have not tried Osymetric.

[leandrofresh]

New studies demonstrate that margin of error with oval is around 5%. The only powermeter who fully supports oval rings is Favero Assioma with the introduction of the IAV firmware which mesures real vertical acceleration.

Favero has a study that is available for everyone to read about that matter. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zAb1KF ... PtJDz/view

I've read it many times, makes sense to me.

[NiFTY]

New studies demonstrate that margin of error with oval is around 5%.

So the range of error averaged 2-4% with a maximum of 4.5%, and that was with Osymmetrics. With a q ring which has less ovality and less of a cam design this error will be smaller as the angular velocity will change less over the course of the pedal stroke. Therefore the approx +2% for Q rings seems to be about right, and likely a bit more for QXL. If you only run ovalised rings I don't see ths as an issue at all.