Page 1 of 2

Rotor Q Rings

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:07 pm
by JackLawrenceXXX
Who likes 'em? Who dosn't like 'em?

I am kind of a masher... usually gte home from a ride with a 72 RPM average... but that includes a lot of climbing... when I am paying attention I am usually at 85 RPM's.... at 90, I feel the need to upshift...

Would a 54X38 or 39 tooth combo shift horribly?

My FSA 56x39 combo shifts fine with SRAM Red ergos and Shimano 105 front derailleur.... (Planning a SRAM red front derailleur upgrade soon.)

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:12 pm
by Mario Jr.
I have just put a 53/40 set on my Power Arms SL cranks. After 500km I can say that I am absolutely convinced they give an advantage. I really feel that I have more power.

You can not have less than 40 tooth on, though. The variable diameter makes the radius tighter in some places. Something like a 38 tooth chaninwheel.

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:12 pm
by Weenie

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:29 pm
by JackLawrenceXXX
Mario... would their 40 tooth give me enough power on climbs to feel like a 39 or 39 tooth?

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:50 pm
by Mario Jr.
The difference between a 39 and a 40 isn't that big, so I think the decreased dead spots would more or less offset that difference.

On an other note, I was a bit nervous about the shifting, but the chainrings shift very well.

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:18 pm
chain rings do not give you more or less power just like crank arm length doesn't do anything for power. Power is Force x Velocity. I have Q rings on both my TT bike and my road bike. I had a few seasons seasons worth of power data on round rings and a season and a 1/2 on the Rotor rings. This includes power and HR.

Power was/is no different nor is HR under similar conditions. They do make it feel like it's easier to stay on top of a gear though. My TT bike has a round inner ring and ever time I drop down it feels like the crank arms are bent or something :lol:. You can feel where the "bigger" gear should be...... it's weird. Maybe it's mental, maybe they actually work, but it feels like they make a small difference.

I will say that the benefit seems to be the biggest at lower cadences. Liek the 70-90 range. That is not to say that they don't work as advertised above that but I really notice them at those cadences.

Mine shift like a stock set of rings. I'm convicned that the people that whine about the shifting are the same goobers that whine about Red being noisy. It's all about the correct setup. I have mine mounted on an SRM on cannondale cranks, with a DA front der, and Red hoods. That's 5 manufacturers involved in the front shifting on my bike and they work fine.

Adjustment, adjustment, adjustment, adjustment......................


Re: Q-Rings

Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:51 pm
by Geoff
I tried Q-Rings as an interesting experiment because I could get them at a great price. I ran them on an SRM Professional for 3 months. The manufacturer conducted a series of studies that suggested a 5% increase in power.

I conducted informal comparative tests based upon one of my interval courses for which I have many years of SRM data. As I run several SRMs, I was able to measure different 'runs' back-to-back and on alternating days etc.

I do not believe that you can consistently get a 5% increase in power, but I fully believe that you can get a 3 or 4% increase in power. I will qualify my comments with the acknowledgement that I am talking about a very specific application of power measured over a hill climb interval course designed specifically to work on 2-minute power.

Given how hard we work for a 1% increase in power, I now run Q-Rings on all my bikes (except my MTB, but I am working with Matt and Phillip at Rotor on a 110/74 BDC SRM solution).

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 12:04 am
by czvekslak
I have been on the rings since the fall. I run the new Agilis Evo Crank, ceramic SABB bb, 110 spider with 53/38 ring size. I don't have any power or HR data. For me there was a significant increase of knee comfort (two surgeries on my right knee), my cadence went up. It is easier to "hammer" a bigger gear on the flats.

The BB and the crank are the smoothest thing I have used since Dura Ace Octalink. The SABB really works and the cranks has incredible adjustability.

I rode a demo bike in February with round rings and it felt strange, I really had to concentrate on "spinning circles".

I have to agree with Starnut on the shifting quality - it is all about proper adjustments and not shifting like an idiot. The rings have an incredible finish, all the Rotor stuff is top notch quality and attention to detail.

As far as ring size you don't need to go to a 54. A 53 rotor ring has an effective feel of a 56 in your power stroke.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:31 am
by marko
Newest snake oil. Well packaged, but still snake oil.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 2:38 am
by czvekslak
The Specialized Cross country MTB team with some of the best riders in the world now on Rotor rings too, Cervelo test team plus additional pro's that ride the rings only spray painted black. Can't be all just BS in my opinion.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:00 am
by marko
Because pro's use it, doesn't mean too much. Ok, let me clarify my position. Generally if you hear, well I think it helps without any real data outside of marketing bs, chances are it's BS. The quest for magic power is endless, and cyclist willing to part with their money is also endless. Now with the latest big bang in short cranks, shouldn't you put these on short cranks and get a good 100watts in 3 months-right.

If they worked, us 300 watters would slap them on and bang, 315 watts on every stroke, didn't, couldn't and wouldn't happen. I would be so obvious on every power meter that every stinking man woman and child, not to mention every pro would be on them yesterday-but there is no free power. But you say, I feel, I know, I still beleive.

Here's partial why not. Your chain rests on both the large and small part of the rings at the same time resulting in.... drum role please..... a perfect circle, net gain zero. You can even put these on a fixed gear bike, there is no sudden change in anything. If it even remotley worked, your rear derailluer would be pumping back and forth as it transitioned around, but it can't.

You push, pull pedal with your leg at 300 watts, and 300 watts goes to the rear wheel, no increased lever, no more, no way.

Hand these to any pro and sure they'll stick them on, bet you give em to cavandish and he'll still win.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:35 am
spoken like a true sKePtIc.

No one said the advantage was mechanical.

It's Physiological or Psychological. As said earlier, even if it only 1% or 0,5%, it's an increase. We chase grams and grams of drag, why not chase watts as well? I (a Rotor user) even said that I had 3 ish years worth of power files that tell me there is no difference in power. It's not mechanical goober.

You probably one of those old sKoOl dudes who uses downtube shifters, wool jerseys, and leather "caps" because there is no need for advancement 'cause "it's that way we've always done it."

If you'd actually ride a bike, you'd know that there is only a few teeth on a chain ring actually transferring force at a given point. It you were correct it would be impossible to shift under load. I'm willing to be that it's an exact tangent to the the applied force and is 4 or 5 teeth at most. Further, I'm willing to bet that the shift ramps and pins on any "nice" chain ring are placed with the crank arm location in mind because of this.

Moreover, I have people tell me all the time, "I can see your rear derailuer moving back and forth."

I'm a SkEpTiC too with most things. But being SkEpTiCaL and hard-headed are two different things. One accepts that there could be a possible explanation while the other refuses to accept any other explanation. Which are you?

The absences of fact does not disprove a Fe-nom-a-non.

True, you put Cave' on a 1989 Schwinn Paramount and he'd have won MSR. I doubt anyone has lost because of a Rotor ring (as you point out). However, someone might have won because of them. There is a big difference.........................


Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 5:18 am
by pharding
I have them and I am undecided after using them twice. They were very easy to adapt to.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:17 am
by audiojan
I have 50/36 on both my road bikes and 52/36 on my TT bike. I have actually seen a very slight increase of average wattage over my usual test ride coarse. I have very weak hipflexors (working on fixing that, but still an issue) and usually, my hips feel completely dead after a major effort... this doesn't happen as quick with the Q-rings, which means that I can ride at a harder average effort (although max. W is not affected at all). Not a major difference (last ride with round rings was 216W and with Q-rings 214W, 222W and 218W). Is this scientific evidence that Q-rings work? Not even remotely, it could just be all in my mind that it helps therefore it does... All I can say is that I like them and I feel they help me.

The front shifting is not bad at all. You will get a very slight "delay" in shifting from time to time as it seems like the ring needs to be in the middle position or smaller to shift up. Shifting down is not affected at all.

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:24 am
by Tapeworm
I was under the impression that the Q-rings do not allow you to produce more power, rather due to their shape allow for a an effective reduction of resistance on the upstroke of the pedal stroke and an increased resistance on the down.

Power will still be limited to your physiology but what they may do, emphasis on may, is allow you to produce the same amount of power for longer.

Or it may all be in your head. But, as the 'Nut alluded to, a psychological advantage is still an advantage!

The below presentation by Dr Jim Martin examines a few aspects, mainly cranks length but also pedaling technique. Check out the bit in regards to cycling efficiency and techniques. ... hnique.pdf

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:24 am
by Weenie

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 11:06 am
by rustychain
I used them for two seasons. IMO they work. I find they help save my knees especially when climbing out of the saddle. I used the older version and the newer set with improved shifting. I must be one of those that complain about Red being noisy (never owned Red and am half deaf anyway) but I never got good reliable shifting. I played with it and had THREE good mechanics try. Moving up to the big ring was just a crap shoot. I do think that they improved my pedal stroke and my out of the saddle climbing technique but I am back to my beloved SR round rings. I plan however on using them on my cross bike (single ring set up) were the smooth power transfer IMO helps with traction in mud