Rotor Q Rings

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
bcheung
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:51 am
Location: Herndon, VA

by bcheung

I rode on Q-Rings all last season and decided to go to round rings over the winter to see what difference there was.

My n=1 observations, trying to control as many variables as possible:
- Less knee pain with the q-rings
- No more VMO (vastus mediales obliques) cramps when using Q-Rings
- Smoother out-of-saddle climbing

by Weenie


marko
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 5:12 pm

by marko

Well there ya have it, my cave riding wool jersey makes it so, no science no brain, just insults. You know this stuff is easily measurable and quantifiable, but because it's bunk, it hasn't been done. Wow starnut you spend alot of time with your feelings, I hope I didn't hurt them. Of course your backlash indicates I did. However, Your first post indicates no power gain, which is the main reason most folks would buy them. You also mention only 3 teeth transmit power, I'd say closer to 75%, just look at your chain, all those contact points transmit the power. Maybe you have 3 teeth on the new age stuff?

mattr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

marko wrote:You also mention only 3 teeth transmit power, I'd say closer to 75%, just look at your chain, all those contact points transmit the power. Maybe you have 3 teeth on the new age stuff?


unfortunately, you'd be wrong.

Once you get past the first few teeth, the tolerances mean that there is no longer power being transfered thro any further teeth/links.

User avatar
JackLawrenceXXX
Posts: 351
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:52 pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Contact:

by JackLawrenceXXX

Of course me starting this thread got the last set from Fair Wheel Bike sold before I could order them! ... and @ a close-out price as well! Dang it... you guys talked me into them... then got the last set!
-Jack Lawrence
Follow me, hate me or just laugh at me.... it's all good... just never say I am not excited and thinking outside the box! The true spirt of Weight Weenism!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1NadYdEW3Y
Jack@JackLawrenceXXX.com

Tazzy
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:55 am
Location: Netherlands, The Hague

by Tazzy

Any idea what the triple 50-40-30 price is and what weight it has?
Would be nice if it was less than the 105 tripple set is

spinwax
Shop Owner
Posts: 977
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: USA

by spinwax

To the OP. First off, I would probably opt for the Force or Rival front. I run the Red front and it seems flexy. I have been told by numerous sources that the Red is known to be flexy and there are many pros on the Rival or Force due to that fact. Honestly, I have had zero issues with my Red, but I can see there is some flex in the cage itself.

As for the rings. I couldn't tell you. There are actually quite a few guys here in town on them. One I ride with all the time runs them, but his pedal stroke is extremly choppy. Not sure if it is just him or the rings.

I have wanted to try them.

What it comes down to, is it your pedal stroke is smoother, you may not make more power, but you will make power longer because you are now waisting it on a terrible stroke. There is a reason so many coaches push people on high spins to smooth out their pedal stroke. It works.

Good luck.

EspenBjørgan
Posts: 694
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Trondheim, Norway

by EspenBjørgan

How is the effect of these for us riding at high candence? Let´s say that the wattagegain that both Rotor and O.Symmetric talk about are true, is those numbers based on riders riding on low cadence or high? And if we way that you get a 5 percent increase in wattage at low cadence(i.e. 90), what will the increase be at a high cadence(i.e.110)?
Hell yeah!

User avatar
bcheung
Posts: 841
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:51 am
Location: Herndon, VA

by bcheung

My normal cadence is 97-105 rpm, and I have been using the Q Rings with great success.

User avatar
JackLawrenceXXX
Posts: 351
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:52 pm
Location: Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Contact:

by JackLawrenceXXX

Espen... 90 RPM is low cadence? When I hit 90, I always shift.... I usually motor along at 85... thats what works for me... Before Lance Armstrong, seems like EVERYONE was a masher...
-Jack Lawrence
Follow me, hate me or just laugh at me.... it's all good... just never say I am not excited and thinking outside the box! The true spirt of Weight Weenism!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1NadYdEW3Y
Jack@JackLawrenceXXX.com

SFcyclist
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

by SFcyclist

I am very interested in trying these to smooth out my pedaling and reduce knee strain on steep climbs; however, I am a little confused as to how Q ring sizes relate to normal chainring sizes. I currently run a 39X25 as my lowest gear and when I am not in top form that is even a little too big for sustained steep gradients. Does a Q ring 40X25 equal the gear inches of a standard 39X25? Or, are they equivalent gear inches but the 40 is effectively "easier" to spin than the 39? Basically, I want to make sure that I don't make my gearing any "bigger" than a 39X25 and I would probably even appreciate it if I could drop it down to around a 38X25.

Also, does anyone by chance have a picture (or a link to a picture) of the Q rings fitted to a Dura Ace 7800 crank?

Thanks.

Geoff
Posts: 5290
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:25 am
Location: Canada

by Geoff

No problem with cadence. I was doing high-cadence intervals last week on them. No problem up to 195rpm intervals.

mattr
Posts: 4673
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

JackLawrenceXXX wrote:Before Lance Armstrong, seems like EVERYONE was a masher...


Nah, we were getting shouted at to use lower gears and pedal faster in the 80's.......... and the 90's......

Post Reply