[Closed] Have we done Oval chainrings yet?

One of the technologies which gets a resurgence every now and again.

Plenty of roadies use them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopace

Great on my single speed- goldtec do one called the One key- different than bio pace- do a search on taxzys wonky rings

They didnt catch on that well back in 89 (or there abouts)I had one and got rid fairly quickly, just didnt like it......If you have a nice pedal action then you do not need an oval ring!

taxzys wonky rings

"tazzy's wonky rings" might get you there quicker!

Don't know that it really made a huge difference , when I had them OEM , on my then brand new ,Raleigh Avanti mtb in 1987.

I've just borrowed one so I'll see what it's like. Had to go up 2 teeth on the singlespeed so I'll see if I can still get up some of the hills.

i thought biopace got it wrong, and these are essentially the opposite of that

Got Taz's wonky rings on my bike - Goldtech variety - they are great on SS bikes, so much better than Biopace ever were.

There've been a few narrow-wide oval chainrings, they don't work with shimano mechs though, the slight chain growth means the clutch gets worked much harder than a round ring and adds resistance and wears out.

Had them on my first mountainbike in 1985, they didn't catch on.

Have we done Oval chainrings yet?

About 25 years ago.

I think I can almost buy the snake oil for road use where power input is a lot more consistent - but on an MTB where power input is a lot more choppy I don't see how much they can help..

I've got Rotor rings on two road bikes and my mountain bike, I think they make a difference. I've got a 15 mile road loop I do most evenings, the first time I did it using oval rings I went round about two minutes quicker. Over the course of a month I tried round and oval rings on a variety of local loops and each one was faster on the oval rings.

Better riders than me seem to rate them. Carlos Sastre won the Tour using Rotors, Bradley Wiggins did his win on Osymetrics and plenty of other pros use them.

Huge fan of the Goldtec OneKey here. I have 5 on back order 🙂

The big question for me here is why are you faster? Someone with a power meter needs to go investigate if they really do magic out some more power.

All the naysayers are right they are rubbish cus bio pace was - tbh if you try one you may like it or not but really to offer an opinion I would suggest you try one especially if you ride singlespeed

Dave's been using Rotors for a few year, he know his stuff and is quite good a riding a bike too 😀

http://www.davebuchanan.co.uk/the-kit/

My brother in law rides with [url= http://http://www.rotoruk.co.uk/qrings/ ]Rotor Rings[/url] instantly he seemed to cruise up the hills. They seem pricey but the difference might be worth the £'s. I think the cervelo teams ride with them, spotted them on the tour.

The big question for me here is why are you faster? Someone with a power meter needs to go investigate if they really do magic out some more power.

I had this debate/argument with someone (probably Tazzy) on another thread. IIRC there were two theories put forward, If you think about it in terms of impulses (force*time) then it does improve things. If you imagine the pedal stroke simplified as 4 segments of force X for 90deg x2 and 0 force for 2x 90deg, then the chain moves at a constant velocity then by using wonky rings you lengthen the time the pedals are being pushed on and shorten the dead time so force x time is greater. So your legs can do more work without having to have bigger muscles. It doesn't give you extra cardiovascular fitness though, so for longer efforts there has to be another explanation. Which is there if you look at the usual advice given that you pick a chainring a few teeth bigger than your current round ring so that the bit your matching is the smallest part of the chainring (i.e. 32t round = 34t wonky). So for the same speed/gear you're going to drop your cadence slightly, which is a common method of unloading your cardio system.

The other theory is simpler, big muscles push down on the pedals, small muscles get you past TDC, the bigger muscles are far more efficient so anything that makes life easy on the smaller muscles is going to increase your power output.

Interesting points! I think I'll try the road ones first as the pedalling is more even/ constant than off road... Anyone seen any cheap lately that cares to share?

As per my previous post, I'm a huge fan of the Onekey on my singlespeed. However, I don't agree with the theory that you can go with a bigger oval chainring than your usual round one and get free speed/power. I originally replaced a regular 32T with a Onekey 33T and, whilst I instantly liked it, I still felt like I was pushing a bigger gear, albeit more smoothly. To compensate (when I'm riding in the hills), I've dropped from an 18 to a 19 sprocket, which works great for me.

The main thing I notice with the Onekey is a smoother pedal stroke. Two other experienced singlespeeders have tried mine out and immediately noticed the same thing. Whether that translates to "moar speed" is debatable, but it sure does feel nice to ride :-).

I think I can almost buy the snake oil for road use where power input is a lot more consistent - but on an MTB where power input is a lot more choppy I don't see how much they can help..

On a geared bike with closer ratios I'm not sure the oval rings do much that simply being in the right gear can't do, but the logic in pedaling efficiency must still apply. I just don't notice it as much when riding gears on the back, probably as I spend less time hauling up climbs and more time at a more normal cadence.

This ^^^ I experienced just that effect when I swapped, running a 34 Onekey and a 19 on the back on my SS.

It was your fault I got one, James! 🙂

We shouldn't confuse things here, there is no "theory or concept", this is proven science, fact.
I think most people who are sceptical simply haven't tried them.

I think you only have to look at Marianne Vos, she's on Rotor Q rings. Rui Costa, World Champion, on Q rings. Anyone watch the Tour of Britain?
Winner, Dylan Van Baarle, on Q-rings.

Vos in particular is sponsered by Shimano, but removes the round rings and puts the Q rings on the Dura Ace cranks.

Christie O'Hara produced a brilliant peer reviewed study in 2011 from a US University, this is science, not a theory, it's proven. Round rings do not optimise the way humans produce power.

How does this relate to MTB? Look at the Vauxhall Mountain-Trax team, very successful, Tim Dunford another very successful rider, Dave Buchanon. The list goes on. These guys aren't paid to ride this stuff, they choose it as it gives them a clear advantage. Q-rings work really well in an MTB set-up, brilliant for climbing, recovery and also grip.

I think people should try them before dismissing them.

We shouldn't confuse things here, there is no "theory or concept", this is proven science, fact.

Is it? Where is the science? Have you got that Christie O'Hara paper? Why are they not universally adopted if they're that much better?

A list of people who've won whilst using them doesn't count. You could say the same about SRAM groupsets or Zipp wheels or whatever.

Look at the Vauxhall Mountain-Trax team, very successful, Tim Dunford

With all due respect to the guys, and I'm friends with Ben/Isaac/Tim so I'm sure they won't mind me saying, they're not exactly dominating are they (Tim wins marathons, but he won marathons on round rings). They get beaten by folk using round rings, does that not make round ones better...?

Edit: FWIW I do believe there's quite probably an advantage. But you'll not convince the naysayers with a Ron Burgandy-esque "they've done studies, it's science" argument.

I wouldn't rely on pros riding them as proven science that they work - pro riders are well known to be as gullible for this sort of thing as anybody.

However I do also expect there may be some real advantage. The thing is we're talking about utilising the human body here which isn't the perfect machine, and the theories given make plausible physiological sense.

I just want Goldtec to make some track size One-Keys 🙂 144 bcd 48, 49 and 50 would be great thanks...

greenstix7 - Member

We shouldn't confuse things here, there is no "theory or concept", this is proven science, fact.
I think most people who are sceptical simply haven't tried them.

I think you only have to look at Marianne Vos, she's on Rotor Q rings. Rui Costa, World Champion, on Q rings. Anyone watch the Tour of Britain?
Winner, Dylan Van Baarle, on Q-rings.

Vos in particular is sponsered by Shimano, but removes the round rings and puts the Q rings on the Dura Ace cranks.

Christie O'Hara produced a brilliant peer reviewed study in 2011 from a US University, this is science, not a theory, it's proven. Round rings do not optimise the way humans produce power.

How does this relate to MTB? Look at the Vauxhall Mountain-Trax team, very successful, Tim Dunford another very successful rider, Dave Buchanon. The list goes on. These guys aren't paid to ride this stuff, they choose it as it gives them a clear advantage. Q-rings work really well in an MTB set-up, brilliant for climbing, recovery and also grip.

I think people should try them before dismissing them.
Posted 5 minutes ago #

I agree about trying them but the fact some spotrs people wear them doesn't matter.
A lot of sports people wear that brightly coloured tape, those little wrist bands which contain magnets or holograms 😆 etc.

Awesome, just seen they are now doing them - ordered...

hmmm... i'm in the process of refreshing my drive train right now... this thread is of interest...

would be great to hear to real world reviews

I've had the Tazzy snake-oil one for about 18 months.
Great on the SS, seems to even out the pedal stroke.

I tried Taz's wonky ring and just couldn't get on with it, felt weird like something was broken. Back to normal ring now

Sam - BETD's site will always show them as in-stock, even when they're not ;-). Last I spoke to them a few weeks back was that they should be ready soon though.

The article is here.

http://www.pelotonmagazine-digital.com/pelotonmagazine/september_2014?pg=59#pg59

http://www.pelotonmagazine-digital.com/pelotonmagazine/september_2014?pg=59#pg59

Great quote from the last paragraph.

Q rings feel rounder than a round ring so i don't get the "they felt weird" They totally smooth your pedal stroke out.

It's significant that the top athletes choose to use them, they are the ones looking for any advantage. A q ring can lower your heart rate by up to 2 bpm, no big deal? Over a 3 week race it is a huge help.

An oval ring surely doesn't generate any more power than an equivalent round ring... but net power (as measured by every PM except the new Rotors) perhaps yes on the basis that what you are actually potentially improving is pedaling efficiency, i.e. reducing the amount of time one leg is working against the other. Only someone with a all singing all dancing Rotor PM would be able to tell you if the oval rings make any difference IMO and all of this is dependent on the individual's initial pedaling action anyway. I don't think it is true to say an oval ring increases the time of the down stroke since the time you spend generating useful power throughout the stroke will be dependent on how that individual uses the muscles and joints of the lower limb to generate power.

Basically, my feeling is they are a bit of a crutch for poor technique. I see it a bit like a knee brace which is also a controversial thing in the orthopaedic world. Yes you can show the science that they work but the mechanism of them working is something mechanical replacing the job of lazy muscles. Probably a crutch most of us could benefit from but probably also not the only way to get the same gains in pedaling efficiency. Does something mechanical replacing some muscle activity guarantee reduced energy required overall and therefore more speed as a whole for less effort- not necessarily and although the idea is certainly plausible I am yet to see anything conclusive.

The Vauxhall Mountain-Trax team may use them but they are also a collection of very fast and talented guys/ gals who sometimes win stuff and sometimes don't. Vos may use them but she is also supremely talented. She would win with a square ring 😉

I'd like to try them but I would imagine the difference to riding output is small at best, rather than "a significant advantage" as others describe here... I think the claims are slightly overstated but O-Hara's take home message is no-one is at a disadvantage with an oval ring and gains are in the 1-6% power range. Sounds significant for racing but scientifically this is well within measurement error, inter-subject variability, day to day variability, etc.

I'd disagree with regarding the Rotor PM. The true test would be a Power Tap. One of the reasons certain power meters over-read when fitted with oval rings is that they use a magnet to calculate cadence and assume a constant velocity through the pedal stroke which doesn't happen when you're using oval rings. Any PM using an accelerometer should give an accurate reading.

Yes that is actually a good point monkeyfudger. So, in truth perhaps a force measuring crank on the left and right side set up for measuring everything independently from assumptions commercial PM's generally use is the only way to really get any idea. A Powertap may be slightly better but you are still only measuring net power produced not actual power developed by each leg where there may be short durations of one leg working against the other (thus decreasing efficiency) which I would imagine is one of the likely advantages of an oval ring.

Seeing as how some teams look for any advantage, Team Sky for sure, if oval rings are obviously 'better' then all their riders would be using them. Wiggo was but stopped using them and I don't think went back to them did he? So not clear cut at all.

I've no idea whether they give you a real benefit, a position I maintain despite owning and liking one on my SS.

greenstix7 - Member
It's significant that the top athletes choose to use them

No, it's not at all.

They go in for unproven stuff that feels good as much if not more than the rest of us

Mudshark - Because Shimano won't allow it. It's about money, why would Wiggins even bother with oval rings in the 1st place?

You'll find a lot of pro team riders use oval rings on the mountain stages but just the inner, so not as visible.

It also depends on what you mean by 'better'. Interesting discussion but when I'm riding my singlespeed I'm not generally worried about a 1-6% power gain, I'm just having an enjoyable ride!

Having said that I would be interested to test ride one.

Wiggo was but stopped using them and I don't think went back to them did he? So not clear cut at all.

IIRC the squoval rings he was using he had to pay for himself as they're made by a tiny company (pretty much 1 man and a mill!). And they didn't even have shifting ramps. And I imagine shimano probably pay them a small fortune to use their kit so maybe words were had?

IIRC the squoval rings he was using he had to pay for himself as they're made by a tiny company (pretty much 1 man and a mill!)

Didn't he use Osymmetric, "squoval" is a Cervelo trade mark isn't it? Seriously.

Well some were using them and some weren't so at some point Sky felt able to use them. Overall hard to draw conclusions either way as it a team is all using them then that could be just due to sponsorship too.

Didn't he use Osymmetric

Yep, both Froome and Wiggins

osymetric is not oval is a twincam

So, technically, I think SKY have never used "oval" rings 🙂

The GB track team would be a better measure of marginal gains than the more commercial SKY perhaps.... but are oval allowed on the track in the first place and would the slight tensioning and untensioning actually reduce performance I wonder? EDIT: Doesn't look like they are UCI legal for track

Pros generally don't give a monkeys what they ride. So long as they are comfortable, nothing fails and their numbers are heading in the right directions most will ride anything. It is the other members of a team that care about this type of stuff by and large.

I wouldn't have though it possible to use without a tensioning device - which I imagine wouldn't be used on a track bike?

I fancy trying 'em but they're just to expensive to take the risk, I'd also worry about losing my chain when changing down. Didn't Rotor used to let you try them "for free"? Can't see it on their site now though.

Didn't Rotor used to let you try them "for free"

Yes, it was basically "borrow a set of ring from the nearest LBS that stocks Rotor". I could never find any MTB rings to try

I wouldn't have though it possible to use without a tensioning device

People use them on their singlespeeds with hoizontal dropouts fine.There is a good video in Youtube somewhere showing that the chain tension barely changes through a crank revolution. Still, with the power they put down on the track I do agree that the slight change in tension may be undesirable.

Oval rings are rubbish. Stay away from them. Particularly if you race. And most particularly if you race in my category 😈

I did a long ride on a bike that happened to have rotor Q rings the other weekend. Can't say I noticed any difference to normal chainrings.

I'd assume that the major benefit of having a lower gearing when not in the most powerful part of the pedal stroke is a reduction in fatigue rather than an increase in power. Find it can be harder to make the same power when there's a lot of resistance and you have to push through the dead spots in the pedal stroke due to the different muscles involved. I'm tempted to do some experimenting on the TT bike.

I think I'd benefit, my pedalling is quite choppy, try pedalling down hill in a gear you've got no chance of "catching" and see how your legs react at the dead spots. I reckon I'm bloody terrible!

http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&id=281442754074&alt=web

Some cheaper road ones there if anyone fancies....I'll order some when I'm back from hols..

Hi Guys,
Marcin at Absoluteblack here.
I found this topic as someone put my link here.

To explain few things.
Oval rings do not generate more power. Or another words you do not produce more power with them. Technically speaking they do, but gain is small that most power meters have bigger reading error to find it out. Hence we say they don't.

What they do however is:
*They make you quicker over the course of a (let say) lap because they do not fatigue your muscles as much as round rings. That means you can keep same average power for longer. So you will be quicker on certain distance. Hence we sey they do not generate more power but you can go quicker. You simply keep same level of effort longer.
* They hugely increase the grip when climbing. All my customers say very similar thing - power stroke is smoothened to the point where you feel more grip and your front wheel does not go up when climbing.
* They fatigue your muscles less, so you can push bigger oval ratio than on the round. (I mean oval 32T has 34T biggest ratio and 30T smallest one). So you will ride a bit quicker as well due to bigger leverage. But you will not feel it like pedaling round 34T.

* Ovals do not overwork clutch mech. at all. On my website near the bottom you can see the short video:
http://absoluteblack.cc/oval-104bcd-chainring.html
* SS configuration do not require tensioner. Changes in tension are very minor. For those who understand arithmetic I will say that no matter how you cut our oval shape on half, the arc length stays the same. So it picks up same amount of chain in minor axis as in major axis. It behaves same as round shape in this regards.

There is a very interesting topic I started on MTBR. So for those who are interested have a look. There is many people already using my rings and they post their experience over there.
http://forums.mtbr.com/singlespeed/oval-rings-unfair-advantage-singlespeed-932469-8.html

And lastly. I charge only 47gbp for the ring.. This is something which does not exist on the market, but will have best fit to it, as oval 32T ring has 30T smallest diameter and 34T biggest one. That is what most people are looking to use. It will fit best for someone who use now 28, 30 or 32T round ring.
Our ring has also threaded 104BCD holes with 2mm offset, so it can clear 30T smallest diameter and give you better chainline. In addition it is very light.

We are quite similar to Rotor rings. OneKey ring has different clocking so it will be difficult to compare them as clocking is the most cruical thing to ovals. If you get it wrong they will work differently. OneKey is about 30deg different in clocking to Rotor or mine so it will feel different when pedaling.

Have a look on this mtbr topic so you will understand a lot more.

M

Well they were pretty much standard on Shimano equipped road bikes years ago (even cheap Exage groupsets - my Harry Hall 531C had them). Then they seemed to go out of fashion. I've no idea if they contribute anything, but if the rider things they do, well...

I did a bit of experimenting with some Egg Rings (UK made oval rings) about 15yrs ago on a Cannondale Raven, when I was at mbr magazine.
Worked really well in terms of controlling suspension bobbing. Didn't work well in terms of shifting.
Narrow/Wide and big-range rear cassettes have opened this up again, and it's going to be cool to see if people adopt it. I'll have to give one a try.

standard on Shimano equipped road bikes years ago

Biopace was very different, I think the orientation was all wrong.

Marcin at Absoluteblack here.

Thanks for that. Could we have a 34t too please 🙂

Biopace was very different, I think the orientation was all wrong.

Biopace was at 90(ish) degrees to oval rings out there now. Shimano supposedly designed them considering momentum of the system (including leg weight) which apparently said that was the right way. Unfortunately their model was clearly all wrong and they were crap...

As soon as AbsoluteBlack have a 34t 104 bcd ring available I'm in. Very interested to try these 8)

...bit of experimenting with some Egg Rings (UK made oval rings) about 15yrs ago...

Potted history of Oval rings from Chris Bell here:

[url= http://www.highpath.net/index.html ]EGG Rings[/url]

Marko

My wonky 32t AbsoluteBlack ring has arrived! Was a bit worried when the chainring bolts turned up without a chainring the other day, but turns out I'd missed a mail from Marcin telling me it was going to be delayed a few days. Looks a very nicely CNC'd bit of kit. Shall pop it on, give it a bit of a thrashing, and report back soon.

still waiting for the 34t to become available, even checked their site today.

awaiting a full detailed report mrblobby.

If I like it I will be badgering him for a 34t. Notice the label on the pack does have a 32t and a 34t checkbox so the intention is obviously there to make some 34t.

Looks nice... 🙂

[img] [/img]

Interested in hearing about these too.

We really need a turbo/PM/HR comparison 😉

Just spotted these [url= http://www.bikerumor.com/2014/09/13/ib14-nikola-reinvents-the-pedal-w-sliding-q-factor-to-boost-power-efficiency/ ]pedals that slide on their spindles[/url] too. Quite interesting in a similar way to oval rings in trying to make more efficient use of the power you have. Probably of interest to the STW dodgy knee brigade too.

Now we just need
[img] [/img]
and tin foil headwear

I have Rotor Q Rings on my TT bike, can't say I can feel much difference, but if they cause less fatigue when riding for long periods at steady cadence, then the benefits will be impossible to quantify.

When you turn up at time trials, a large proportion (probably most) of the riders have Q Rings, O Rings or a variation. I know TTers are a bit sheep-like in their mentality (if Bottril wore a thong on the outside of his skinsuit, you can guarantee there would be dozens of them appearing at club 10s!) but they're also very diligent number crunchers and most use power meters.

So this would suggest to me that there's a benefit, although whether that would translate to mountain biking where cadence is so inconsistent, I would be quite doubtful.

G

but they're also very diligent number crunchers and most use power meters.

They also have a good feel for what it's like to ride at a certain power for a long period of time on specific courses, so can usually do a pretty good job of evaluating any changes and have loads of data for comparison.

although whether that would translate to mountain biking where cadence is so inconsistent, I would be quite doubtful.

I reckon it may actually be quite beneficial. For me cadence is typically lower when needing to generate lots of power on a mtb, so more resistance and longer in the "dead spot". Think the lower gearing through the dead spot would really help, especially when out of the saddle when the differential between the dead spot and power part of the stroke is much bigger.

So.... I've got a 32T on the hardtail which with the 11-36 cassette is, realistically, barely high and low enough, but more or less OK and I'm not adding a 42T on this bike. So, if I was to go with an oval ring, what would be the closest in overall effect to the 32T I have? Another 32T? Or is it still the case that you go up a size?

32T oval ring will suit best someone who uses 28, 30 or 32T chainring currently. While pedaling, you will feel quite similar effort to the one riding round 30T ring (as the smallest diameter of the oval is that size), but you will gain the speed similar to riding 32/34T chainring.

above is from absoluteblacks website

i seee spiderless sram have slipped to 5th november

Seems a bit contradictory that (tells me I should get a 32T but that it'll feel like a 30T) , which is why I was wondering about other opinions. 32T seems like the best option- since it'll give the same range but feel easier pedalling- but not sure.

whether that would translate to mountain biking where cadence is so inconsistent, I would be quite doubtful.

Im a huge fan of them, and I have some data I can sustain a higher 5min power with them than without- which is useful for Cross.. which I do, now this is just anecdotal I admit and the shifting on double set up is less crisp than Praxis/shimano. I do run 1x11 QCXC1 on my CX bikes and I find smooth application of power on muddy climbs is good, I'll be riding them next MTB season in a 1x11 application too.
Bruce

I reckon it may actually be quite beneficial. For me cadence is typically lower when needing to generate lots of power on a mtb, so more resistance and longer in the "dead spot". Think the lower gearing through the dead spot would really help, especially when out of the saddle when the differential between the dead spot and power part of the stroke is much bigger.

It's worth a try, but I think you'll find it impossible to quantify. You can't even trust timed reps of climbs on an MTB as you're never riding exactly the same line/surface twice.

I recently did a testing session with a coach and a Wattbike. Turns out I have almost perfect pedal technique and equal l/r balance. So I'm thinking the benefits would be less for me than for a "masher".

G

I recently did a testing session with a coach and a Wattbike. Turns out I have almost perfect pedal technique and equal l/r balance. So I'm thinking the benefits would be less for me than for a "masher".

I'll probably get on ok then 🙂

Though even with perfect technique you won't have a constant power through a revolution.

Very true, my biggest concern is that using Qs might compromise my pedaling technique on round chain rings. And I'm not about to upgrade all my bikes to ovals!

G

I'm not sure it would. Going back to Bottril, in his blog he said the biggest advantage he felt was in keeping the Q rings for racing but training on normal rings. So i don't think it's a problem switching between them. I can't actually feel any difference in the pedalling stroke between them.

I acquired some SR ovaltech rings for my winter hack. Not ridden any distance, but in normal configuration it felt very odd indeed. Massive increase in leg speed further in the power stroke.

Think I'm going to rotate them, think it was either one or two bolts anticlockwise (its 5 bolt pattern) to see if I can get them more small diameter at the dead spot, maybe that'll be better.