ccf
Guru
Any thoughts on this?
http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chain-rings-dont-work-because-you-wont-let-them/
-Cliff
http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chain-rings-dont-work-because-you-wont-let-them/
-Cliff
Elliptical chain rings don't work ...
- Thread starter ccf
- Start date
Tuloose
Guru
Exactly!
They make no difference at all except to your wallet.
Larry Oz did some testing on them awhile back I believe and came to the same conclusion.
I tried them out and noticed no difference in speed or knee comfort.
I believe the favorable reviews may be due to confirmation bias - spend enough for something that comes with so many accolades and you just might feel like you need to go along with the popular consensus.
After all, the supposed advantages seem to all come from someone's opinion, not science tested data.
It's a bit like religion - if you feel it makes a difference in your life then go for it but I remain an agnostic on this subject until solid proof is presented.
There just might be a reason why Shimano gave up on this concept years ago.
In my opinion Q Rings are the miracle diet pill of bicycle components.
They make no difference at all except to your wallet.
Larry Oz did some testing on them awhile back I believe and came to the same conclusion.
I tried them out and noticed no difference in speed or knee comfort.
I believe the favorable reviews may be due to confirmation bias - spend enough for something that comes with so many accolades and you just might feel like you need to go along with the popular consensus.
After all, the supposed advantages seem to all come from someone's opinion, not science tested data.
It's a bit like religion - if you feel it makes a difference in your life then go for it but I remain an agnostic on this subject until solid proof is presented.
There just might be a reason why Shimano gave up on this concept years ago.
In my opinion Q Rings are the miracle diet pill of bicycle components.
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
Ok I don't usually wade into this pool; but tonight I'll put a toe in (and only do a small wall of words) because this study found exactly what it was looking for, (don't they all)... 
First to all the people that are confused about the Q-rings:. There is no free power;
it has never been about that. No free lunch and all that. Many studies proved Oval do not magically make more power; cool, we already knew that , and yes Larry's test matched that idea, which is a good thing. People looking for free power riding the rings sorry you didn't get that if you thought that was what you were paying for. Blame the marketing people.....
Ok so far I am agreeing with Tuloose, now I'm going to diverge a bit with additional points. But I do appreciate a good agnostic. For the record, I too went looking for free power. I didn't find it but, found far different reasons for staying, Mark Stonich is a great source of theories on this topic. I may have talked to him too many times and tainted my opinion and pseudo facts... buy hey here comes more opinion.
Let's look at that....
The referenced study confirms a key point that we also already knew: Oval ring change the pedal velocity required to complete its orbit, at a fixed rate of force. Therefore, they do make a profound mechanical difference; and the body must react and adapt to it. Adaption can provide benefits, the amount of the benefit will determine if it's worth the expense. In this case the adaption is known as ankling. (There's also an adaption in micro accelerations, but oh my I don't have the time write all that. However it will make a great beers on the table conversation for the retreat in October).
Why is that important? If you ankle correctly you get a smoother pedaling action. There's debate on that too, ankling you see is also a religious affair. I'm going to side with ankling is good and leave the debates on that topic for other biking forums where it has high entertainment value. I have other posts here on the forum that show good ankling positions if you people want to chase that topic.
Now on a MBB, good ankling means easier and quicker adaption to whatever you want to think of as Pedal Steer forces. Smooth is the key, Anklers are smooth operators, but not everyone is a good ankler. If you are a bad ankler the variable rate of the pedal provided by the Oval rings will make you smoother because they can correct for your deficiencies; you could also just learn to be an ankler, that's cheaper. I have tried to learn to be a better ankler; I suck at it, my ankles are stiff.
Put a Qring on a bike; and pedal. Set it at OCP 1 to start and try all the setting 1 through 5. The majority of people notice a huge difference. I ride in OCP4 and I cannot stand OCP 1 nor 5. If you can't tell any difference you are a natural ankler and you don't need the help. I need all the help I can get, so you'll find Ovals on every bike in the garage, if you count my bikes you should find it easy to conclude I'd rather not be using them; I would love to avoid that expense.
Shimano gave up on them because they failed to make them profitable to market and sell. That's the only reason a company gives up on a product. It has nothing to do with whether it works or not; and of course that's probably why Rotor is selling a ton of them, better marketing. The experience of neither company indicates whether they work or not. So it's like diet pills
, and it's not... or is it? 
(sorry I couldn't resist)
My Salient test point; I can ride all models of Cruzbike no handed if they have an oval ring on them; I fail miserably if they have a round rings on them. Now Jim can do it on the round rings just fine, but I've watched him pedal, he's a far far better ankler than I am, he has very pronounced motion.
Then of course there is the feedback loop, Larry is fast, Larry rides Q-rings, I want to be fast like Larry so I ride Q-rings, So if he doesn't change I won't; good thing Larry doesn't look to me for suggestion on what tech to ride... oh crap it's like an episode of star trek....we are stuck in a loop.
I don't think that is unilateral; but I'm sure that there is a percentage for which that is true. It may not be as high as you think; confirmation bias tends to correct itself as people don't repeat the mistake; when it's time to repurchase in the future; they change and pretend the past didn't happen.
I think you got your proof. You actually tried them; they didn't' work you moved on. How dare you try them before you made an opinion that's very un-cyclist of you.
Ok so hopefully that's a good counter point which leaves this a debate and not an argument?
Footnote: TRSTriathalon is notorious for writing one-sided pieces the really push the beliefs of the "journalist" to make discussion go, Ben Hobbs is a Sales & Marketing machine They are good at it and there is a lot of snark below the surface over there. Listen to the DCRainmaker podcast some time, Ben is the Co-host, and his on that show personality is completely fabricated knock-off of Adam Carolla as seen on the old MTV LoveLine show. So understand their motives in writing that pieces and interpreting the study for you.
A good article would have compared and contrasted both sides of the argument, a peer review of the study and it's findings would be much more interesting. If someone can find the original work please share it. The good part of the article is this: "The short answer goes like this: Elliptical chain rings don’t do anything to help you. Nor do they do anything to hurt you. Also, it’s not that simple." Sadly the long version of the article lacks that balance failing to provide the more info to explain the "it's not that simple"
First to all the people that are confused about the Q-rings:. There is no free power;
it has never been about that. No free lunch and all that. Many studies proved Oval do not magically make more power; cool, we already knew that , and yes Larry's test matched that idea, which is a good thing. People looking for free power riding the rings sorry you didn't get that if you thought that was what you were paying for. Blame the marketing people..... Ok so far I am agreeing with Tuloose, now I'm going to diverge a bit with additional points. But I do appreciate a good agnostic. For the record, I too went looking for free power. I didn't find it but, found far different reasons for staying, Mark Stonich is a great source of theories on this topic. I may have talked to him too many times and tainted my opinion and pseudo facts... buy hey here comes more opinion.
I get the point you were going for. You mean that, for what your looking for, they make no measurable result in the final product; where that product is either: power or comfort that justifies the expense. Fair enough, and you owned that when you said "if you feel"... good... so what is it people feel?
Let's look at that....
The referenced study confirms a key point that we also already knew: Oval ring change the pedal velocity required to complete its orbit, at a fixed rate of force. Therefore, they do make a profound mechanical difference; and the body must react and adapt to it. Adaption can provide benefits, the amount of the benefit will determine if it's worth the expense. In this case the adaption is known as ankling. (There's also an adaption in micro accelerations, but oh my I don't have the time write all that. However it will make a great beers on the table conversation for the retreat in October).
As a side note this point, this variable velocity, is why Oval's mess up badly designed power meters that assume angular velocity is a constant at each integral measure of RPM. Even without ovals, that is a poor assumption but, exacerbated by Ovals.
Now on a MBB, good ankling means easier and quicker adaption to whatever you want to think of as Pedal Steer forces. Smooth is the key, Anklers are smooth operators, but not everyone is a good ankler. If you are a bad ankler the variable rate of the pedal provided by the Oval rings will make you smoother because they can correct for your deficiencies; you could also just learn to be an ankler, that's cheaper. I have tried to learn to be a better ankler; I suck at it, my ankles are stiff.
Put a Qring on a bike; and pedal. Set it at OCP 1 to start and try all the setting 1 through 5. The majority of people notice a huge difference. I ride in OCP4 and I cannot stand OCP 1 nor 5. If you can't tell any difference you are a natural ankler and you don't need the help. I need all the help I can get, so you'll find Ovals on every bike in the garage, if you count my bikes you should find it easy to conclude I'd rather not be using them; I would love to avoid that expense.
Shimano gave up on them because they failed to make them profitable to market and sell. That's the only reason a company gives up on a product. It has nothing to do with whether it works or not; and of course that's probably why Rotor is selling a ton of them, better marketing. The experience of neither company indicates whether they work or not. So it's like diet pills
, and it's not... or is it? (sorry I couldn't resist)My Salient test point; I can ride all models of Cruzbike no handed if they have an oval ring on them; I fail miserably if they have a round rings on them. Now Jim can do it on the round rings just fine, but I've watched him pedal, he's a far far better ankler than I am, he has very pronounced motion.
Then of course there is the feedback loop, Larry is fast, Larry rides Q-rings, I want to be fast like Larry so I ride Q-rings, So if he doesn't change I won't; good thing Larry doesn't look to me for suggestion on what tech to ride... oh crap it's like an episode of star trek....we are stuck in a loop.
I don't think that is unilateral; but I'm sure that there is a percentage for which that is true. It may not be as high as you think; confirmation bias tends to correct itself as people don't repeat the mistake; when it's time to repurchase in the future; they change and pretend the past didn't happen.
I think you got your proof. You actually tried them; they didn't' work you moved on. How dare you try them before you made an opinion that's very un-cyclist of you.
Ok so hopefully that's a good counter point which leaves this a debate and not an argument?
Footnote: TRSTriathalon is notorious for writing one-sided pieces the really push the beliefs of the "journalist" to make discussion go, Ben Hobbs is a Sales & Marketing machine They are good at it and there is a lot of snark below the surface over there. Listen to the DCRainmaker podcast some time, Ben is the Co-host, and his on that show personality is completely fabricated knock-off of Adam Carolla as seen on the old MTV LoveLine show. So understand their motives in writing that pieces and interpreting the study for you.
A good article would have compared and contrasted both sides of the argument, a peer review of the study and it's findings would be much more interesting. If someone can find the original work please share it. The good part of the article is this: "The short answer goes like this: Elliptical chain rings don’t do anything to help you. Nor do they do anything to hurt you. Also, it’s not that simple." Sadly the long version of the article lacks that balance failing to provide the more info to explain the "it's not that simple"
Last edited:
bladderhead
Zen MBB Master
I turn my ankles. It seems more comfortable, and I think it gives me a tiny bit more power. I ride on my insteps, with heel-clips. I think I could be a useful guinea-pig, as some sort of control-sample. If someone would buy me an oval chainring....
DavidCH
In thought; expanding the paradigm of traversity
Starting out... don't go with Q rings as the riding is smoother with the dynamic boom. With Q rings the dynamic boom oscillates more.... a twitch on the handlebar compensates and when used correctly creates more power thru the pedals. Larry doesn't see this so much because of two things... his cranks are small and his bars are something else. 
trapdoor2
Zen MBB Master
Crap, I'm an ankler? Will I be shunned? I like my Qrings...but in truth, I can't actually tell any difference in any of the positions.
Ok, I spent my money and found no magic pill. Meh. I'm comfy with the fact that they simply look cool. If questioned, I will lie like a dog. Yes, they make me faster!
trapdoor2
Zen MBB Master
Not pretty enough. Would rather have a set of old-school drilled ("drillium") and/or panto rings. Those Italians know how to make beautiful hardware...Now though you know not to spend on them next; so you did learn something useful. You can always sell at half price to someone that wants to try them; put some beautiful Praxis round rings on and have money left for pizza
Actually, Campy didn't sell them that way. Drilling done by third parties usually.
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
You only say that until you shift a praxis ring; and it's 4 seconds while you are waiting for the chain to move and realize you blinked and missed it because it's so quick.
bladderhead
Zen MBB Master
trapdoor2 said:
Not by me - another ankleflapper. Disgusting!
ratz said:
You could try a single ring. Aaargh, depravity!
There you go, two flame wars at once.
trapdoor2
Zen MBB Master
Ooooooh. Great idea! Go 1X with a drillium old skool chainring up front.
Too bad back in 1980 they were almost all 52 tooth x 144BCD (with 175mm cranks). I think I can remember some 50t chainrings though.
JOSEPHWEISSERT
Zen MBB Master
Your skepticism is appreciated. Remember the claims of headset bearings making people faster back on April first? But this is different. Here are my thoughts based on math, physiology, kinematics, and experience.
Free power? No way. That’s ridiculous. Variable pedal velocity? Of course, but that’s beside the point. The same thing happens when a cyclist changes from one cog to another cog, or from one chainring to the other chainring. Think about it. If you’re in the big ring and going a given speed relative to the ground, then you shift to the small ring, what happens? If you stay at the same speed relative to the ground, the pedals go around faster (higher RPM). The same thing happens with an oval ring. It’s just that the oval ring is a CVT (continuously variable transmission), as opposed to shifting, which is a discrete change (it’s either one pedal speed or the other until you shift to another ring). Saying that oval rings are not advantageous is the same as saying that having ten cogs and two chainrings is the same as having a single speed (only one cog and one chainring). Anyone who has ridden both multi-gear and single speed setups can testify that there is a noticeable difference between the two, and no one expects more power by using multiple gears. The faster pedal velocity means the foot is traveling a greater distance (in a circle) for the same movement of the bike, which is experiencing resistance when climbing a hill, moving against the wind, or accelerating. The important point is not the varying pedal velocity, but instead, the mechanical advantage experienced when this happens. This is important to the muscle, since the muscle fibers can fire differently due to the lower force required.
In addition to mechanical advantage by itself, it is important where in the pedal stroke the mechanical advantage occurs. The oval rings must be in the correct position relative to the crank arms. An oval ring balances the mechanical disadvantages of two things. The first thing is the disadvantage the leg experiences when in the fully bent position versus the fully extended position. The extended leg has an advantage over the bent leg. To experience this, do a few squats with a few hundred pounds of weights on your shoulders. You will find you can lift heavy weight easier with a straighter leg than a more bent leg. The second is the angle of force the leg applies to the crank arm. More cranking force (torque) results when the pedal force is applied to the crank arm at a right angle than at any angle greater or less than perpendicular. The oval ring provides mechanical advantage to somewhat balance the mechanical disadvantages of the leg angle and the crank arm angle. These three things (leg angle, crank arm angle, and variable chain ring diameter) combine to smooth out the resistance your quadriceps muscles experience during each pedal stroke. And then your muscles, with a spectrum of fiber types, can function better.
Free power? No way. That’s ridiculous. Variable pedal velocity? Of course, but that’s beside the point. The same thing happens when a cyclist changes from one cog to another cog, or from one chainring to the other chainring. Think about it. If you’re in the big ring and going a given speed relative to the ground, then you shift to the small ring, what happens? If you stay at the same speed relative to the ground, the pedals go around faster (higher RPM). The same thing happens with an oval ring. It’s just that the oval ring is a CVT (continuously variable transmission), as opposed to shifting, which is a discrete change (it’s either one pedal speed or the other until you shift to another ring). Saying that oval rings are not advantageous is the same as saying that having ten cogs and two chainrings is the same as having a single speed (only one cog and one chainring). Anyone who has ridden both multi-gear and single speed setups can testify that there is a noticeable difference between the two, and no one expects more power by using multiple gears. The faster pedal velocity means the foot is traveling a greater distance (in a circle) for the same movement of the bike, which is experiencing resistance when climbing a hill, moving against the wind, or accelerating. The important point is not the varying pedal velocity, but instead, the mechanical advantage experienced when this happens. This is important to the muscle, since the muscle fibers can fire differently due to the lower force required.
In addition to mechanical advantage by itself, it is important where in the pedal stroke the mechanical advantage occurs. The oval rings must be in the correct position relative to the crank arms. An oval ring balances the mechanical disadvantages of two things. The first thing is the disadvantage the leg experiences when in the fully bent position versus the fully extended position. The extended leg has an advantage over the bent leg. To experience this, do a few squats with a few hundred pounds of weights on your shoulders. You will find you can lift heavy weight easier with a straighter leg than a more bent leg. The second is the angle of force the leg applies to the crank arm. More cranking force (torque) results when the pedal force is applied to the crank arm at a right angle than at any angle greater or less than perpendicular. The oval ring provides mechanical advantage to somewhat balance the mechanical disadvantages of the leg angle and the crank arm angle. These three things (leg angle, crank arm angle, and variable chain ring diameter) combine to smooth out the resistance your quadriceps muscles experience during each pedal stroke. And then your muscles, with a spectrum of fiber types, can function better.
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Holy crap I didn't realize they didn't work, please excuse me while I go put my round rings back on.
super slim
Zen MBB Master
My kneeeeeeees say that Q Rings work!!!
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
Nice! That makes me a hybrid; I burn fat, carbs and protein.....
bladderhead
Zen MBB Master
trapdoor2 said:
I have Redline 145 cranks and Raceface 42t wide-narrow chainwheel. I suppose I could drill holes in it to make it look like it belongs to an old steel racer-tourer.
castlerobber
Zen MBB Master
Somewhere around 1991, I bought my first bike-shop bicycle, a low-end DiamondBack MTB with SIS thumbshifters and slightly odd-looking chainrings that I later learned were called Biopace. The shop guy didn't use them as a selling point, or tell me much about them. All I knew was that the first time I rode more than my usual 6- or 7-mile loop on that MTB, 17 miles on rolling paved roads, my left quadriceps tendon threw a fit. For the three years I owned that bike, I consistently had pain above the left knee if I went more than 15 miles. I've never had that happen on any other bike before or since, upright or recumbent, round rings or elliptical, at any distance. It didn't occur to me that the Biopace chainrings might have been the problem until years later, when I discovered that a significant number of other people had similar difficulties with Biopace.
I've used Q-rings for nearly 10 years. I went at it as an observer/skeptic, with an "Is this true?" outlook. I can't say I'm any faster, and I don't track power or heart rate. But my knees like them, whether with 170mm cranks on a road bike, or 165mm cranks on a tadpole trike, or 150mm cranks on my S30. So I'll stick with them unless/until something provably better comes out.
super slim
Zen MBB Master
With that progression will the next bike have 140 mm cranks?
JOSEPHWEISSERT
Zen MBB Master
That makes sense. Elliptical chainrings and short cranks both reduce stress on the knees, but in different ways. The nice thing is that the effect is cumulative. Having both is better than either by itself.
