Oval chain rings experience

[tomtom]

Sram responded to me claiming a 1-4% power inflation. Which makes me wonder how frequently are rotor and Power2Max polling crank velocity as they claim no inflation.

I don't know about the Power2Max but Rotor is computing power using angular velocity ...actually the same way as Favero Assioma and contrary to most others. Both Rotor and Favero Assioma compute the correct power for oval rings (no power inflation). See there for some explanation: https://cycling.favero.com/blog/tech-te ... -iav-power

I am using Q-rings for almost 10 years and I tried several times to go back to round rings and immediately had knee pain (but I am very sensitive to that problem). I tried OSymetric for some time but never manage to get them tuned correctly and they remained very noisy. I came back to q-rings and I am sticking to them for the moment (used with Di2 derailleurs).

IMHO with oval rings, a chain catcher is a must.
I am also using an over sized pulley wheels system and I noticed that it had positive impact stabilizing the chain.

Yes, a chain catcher is a must (although I damaged my new frame because the 44T innerblades rubbed ever so slightly at my frame ) but why did the OSPW stabilize the chain? Is it more rigid? Which one do you use?

[mf22433]

Sram responded to me claiming a 1-4% power inflation. Which makes me wonder how frequently are rotor and Power2Max polling crank velocity as they claim no inflation.

I don't know about the Power2Max but Rotor is computing power using angular velocity ...actually the same way as Favero Assioma and contrary to most others. Both Rotor and Favero Assioma compute the correct power for oval rings (no power inflation). See there for some explanation: https://cycling.favero.com/blog/tech-te ... -iav-power

I am using Q-rings for almost 10 years and I tried several times to go back to round rings and immediately had knee pain (but I am very sensitive to that problem). I tried OSymetric for some time but never manage to get them tuned correctly and they remained very noisy. I came back to q-rings and I am sticking to them for the moment (used with Di2 derailleurs).

IMHO with oval rings, a chain catcher is a must.
I am also using an over sized pulley wheels system and I noticed that it had positive impact stabilizing the chain.

Yes, a chain catcher is a must (although I damaged my new frame because the 44T innerblades rubbed ever so slightly at my frame ) but why did the OSPW stabilize the chain? Is it more rigid? Which one do you use?

I use the Ceramicspeed. Concerning stability of the chain, I am not sure why really... I tend to believe it is because the chain is lower at the rear (the cage is much bigger), so the chain remains more horizontal... is it a factor, I don't know. Or perhaps it is merely due to more tension in the chain. But for sure since I have the OSPW the chain behaves better during shifting.

[Mcdeez]

Soo a chain catcher will resolve the dropping chain issue?

[mf22433]

Soo a chain catcher will resolve the dropping chain issue?

That's the point of a chain catcher

[modemthug]

Hey! I'm late to this post.

So, I've been on Osymetric Rings for a while now. I've also have tried the QXL's and loved them too! I was just looking for a more ' aggressive ' lope (I got this with the Osymetrics). With that being said - I won't be going back to the traditional round rings.

ALL brands with setting up is kind of a nightmare for any first-time DIYer installing these rings. I started with SRAM Mech pre and with YAW and got it to work. I honestly can say, the old SRAM (10spd) was the easiest to set up-but that extra gear (11spd) was a need.

I've come to the conclusion that with oval rings - you do sacrifice some upper gears while in the big gear (cross chaining anyways) and in the small gear you lose some of the lower gears (cross chaining anyways). I mean you don't really lose them, but it certainly makes a lot of chain rub on the derailleur due to how whacky you have to set the derailleur up to make it work.

Currently, I'm on Di2 w/ Osymetrics. I don't really have chain dropping issues but I did in the past. Other than the cross-chain rubbing issue, that's all I can think of. Osymetrics are certainly louder than QXL.

[Sammutd88]

I've actually managed to get AB rings setup great on my Ultegra mechanical now. No chain drops, full range available without rub and fairly good front shifting. It'll never be as good as stock Shimano rings, but I never get missed shifts.FD height is critical.

[tomtom]

Soo a chain catcher will resolve the dropping chain issue?

No, just on the inside. In my experience the outside is more tricky. Because of side wind, bike movement, chaintension etc. A chaincatcher on the inside is helpfull and wise but in my case is only prevent 20% of the chaindrop risk.....

[mf22433]

Soo a chain catcher will resolve the dropping chain issue?

No, just on the inside. In my experience the outside is more tricky. Because of side wind, bike movement, chaintension etc. A chaincatcher on the inside is helpfull and wise but in my case is only prevent 20% of the chaindrop risk.....

In my case fine tuning of the front derailleur solved outside issues. I have now extremely rare derailling. I also think that bigger rings or higher ovality (QXL and OSymetric) makes it more tricky indeed. I also tried QXL in the past, liked them a lot but indeed they were more tricky than standard q-rings... and nowadays I believe that Rotor doesn't make them anymore (not visible on their website).

[hartox]

The old rotor rings were 10% oval and the QXL were 15%. The current 4x110 Q-rings are 12.5% oval. I think I like the 10% ovality more than 12.5%, to bad the aren't available anymore. I solved it by ordering an NOS Qarbon chainring, but once that is worn it will be tricky to source a 10% oval chainring for a 4x110 BCD I'm afraid

[hartox]

double

[bas]

First ride outside with 39 Absolute Black and standard Dura Ace 53.
Oval feels really good out of the saddle on any hill and good on steeper climbs seated, not good at all spinning on the flat.
Also when I shift from big to small and vice versa the first few pedal strokes feel really off as the legs have obviously adapted to the other shape.
I’ll give it a few more rides before deciding whether to keep it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mcdeez]

https://youtu.be/k5cd5A73vk0

Anyone know what crank bolts are these?

[MrRolandos]

Its AB bolts but older version, they were also in red. True mailing them, maybe they got some.

https://absoluteblack.cc/bolts.html black ones are available

[Mcdeez]

Its AB bolts but older version, they were also in red. True mailing them, maybe they got some.

https://absoluteblack.cc/bolts.html black ones are available

Thanks, is there other bamds that make these bolts in red or pink color?

[mf22433]

First ride outside with 39 Absolute Black and standard Dura Ace 53.
Oval feels really good out of the saddle on any hill and good on steeper climbs seated, not good at all spinning on the flat.
Also when I shift from big to small and vice versa the first few pedal strokes feel really off as the legs have obviously adapted to the other shape.
I’ll give it a few more rides before deciding whether to keep it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just my opinion but I would not mix oval and round rings, your legs need time to adapt to the oval shape and it takes usually a few rides after which you don't notice them at all anymore. With this mix of shapes on your crank you never allow for this adaptation to take place, actually you have to adapt at each front shifting.