Q ring upgrade - Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh......
- Thread starter Robert Holler
- Start date
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
Ok that was fun and easy.
The QXL 50A arrived and so did the QXL 36T and the 11-30T Cassette.
Off to the secret lair I went....
It also appears that the RED Etap could run a 32T wifli cassette; there's plenty of unused length on the B-screw. The side affects of course would be the derailleur pulley being farther from the cassette in the 11th position than it's specd for. Eventually you have to replace a b-screw because if you turn it in far enough eventually i will bend on the load.
The QXL 50A arrived and so did the QXL 36T and the 11-30T Cassette.
Off to the secret lair I went....
- Popped off the Q52 and QXL38 and installed the QXL52/36 combo.
- Zero front Derailleur adjustment was needed. The Max Diameter on the Q52 is 54T and the Max diameter on the QXL50 is also 54T; the much smaller minimum diameter of the QXL doesn't come into play with the front Derailleur setup that was most welcome as I was too tired to be tuning front derailleur install height.
- Installed the 11-30T on the wheels
- Had to lengthen the chains. Annoying as those two now have 3 master links on them
- Chains are now the same length as needed for the Q52 and a 11-32T cassette which is what is on our trainer bikes. Will be nice to have all the chains the same length and the ones with 3 master link can get relegated to the trainer.
- Q52 was on OCP2 and QXL38 was on OCP4 we both like the feel of the QXL38 on OCP4 so the new QXL50/36 were both installed at OCP4 to start with.
- The 30T did indeed work with the ETAP Red rear derailleur. I had to turn the b-screw about 2 turns to take up the chain slack in Little+Little. To be expected; since the chain is longer
- QXL to QXL shifts better than Q-to-Q and Q-to-QXL (This is probably aided by having OCP's the same, but shifting was a clean as any round ring)
- The QXL50 feels bigger than the Q52 but pedals easier as it give more firm feed back, feel like it might be easier to keep my heel down on the QXL
- Post change we picked up 4.1 Gear Inches; so that a nice win.
It also appears that the RED Etap could run a 32T wifli cassette; there's plenty of unused length on the B-screw. The side affects of course would be the derailleur pulley being farther from the cassette in the 11th position than it's specd for. Eventually you have to replace a b-screw because if you turn it in far enough eventually i will bend on the load.
super slim
Zen MBB Master
A WISE man once said that "It did NOT happen unless there is Photo proof!!!"
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Ok so I'm considering replacing my standard round SRAM big ring with a Rotor QXL ring. I'm only going to replace the large ring because its the only one I'll be using during my 24hr race. I'm currently using a 52t on a 110 bcd crankset. Looking around for a decent deal and the correct product is a bit hard with these rings because most places show two different pictures with completely different mounting hole spacings. One has a 2 and 3 set hole spacing pattern and the other is evenly spaced hole all the way around. Do both work for the vendetta or as long as I get a 110bcd 52t ring I'll end up with the correct ring?
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/...tLOB97QHn0aWYOgd558K2BoCNX_w_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/...tLOB97QHn0aWYOgd558K2BoCNX_w_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
snilard
Guru of hot glue gun
2 and 3 set hole spacing is 110 mm BCD, evenly spaced holes 130 mm.
LarryOz
Cruzeum Curator & Sigma Wrangler
Not sure what you are referring to Jason (with the 2 and 3 set hole spacing), but I have seen a couple "different" versions of the Q-rings. I think it is just what is cut out. As long as it is "true" 110BCD, then you are going to be OK. There will still be a lot of "extra" holes for the correct alignment of the rings depending on bike (DF, bent), but for that 24 hr TT, I think you are just going to want to mount the #1 mark in the first hole to the right of the crank. (I'm sure you can find it in the pics on this thread)
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Looking at rotors website they describe the QXL as a sprinters ring best for fast twitch muscles and high cadences. I'd consider myself the exact opposite of that description while racing a flat 24hr with an average cadence at around 80rpm. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with a standard Q vs the XL. I've used Qrings on the single speed Mtb in the past and they always worked fine for me. I can the difference in pressure if I focus on it but I never really notice the change naturally. I can go back and forth between round and oval and instantly adapt without any effort. I was kind of thinking QXL to feel a greater benefit. You know more is always better right 
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
JOSEPHWEISSERT
Zen MBB Master
You could find out by building a mathematical model. The difficult part would be determining the mechanical advantage of your legs as the angle goes from about 90 degees to almost 180, such as tendon attachments and bone lengths, etc. Then add in the torque as the force on your crank arm changes from 100% at perpendicular to 0% at full stroke (sine wave). Then determine what change in chain ring diameter will cancel out the other effects so that your resulting mechanical advantage is effectively the same throughout your pedal stroke.Looking at rotors website they describe the QXL as a sprinters ring best for fast twitch muscles and high cadences. I'd consider myself the exact opposite of that description while racing a flat 24hr with an average cadence at around 80rpm. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with a standard Q vs the XL. I've used Qrings on the single speed Mtb in the past and they always worked fine for me. I can the difference in pressure if I focus on it but I never really notice the change naturally. I can go back and forth between round and oval and instantly adapt without any effort. I was kind of thinking QXL to feel a greater benefit. You know more is always better right
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
This is the correct answer.
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
Looking at rotors website they describe the QXL as a sprinters ring best for fast twitch muscles and high cadences. I'd consider myself the exact opposite of that description while racing a flat 24hr with an average cadence at around 80rpm. I'm wondering if I'd be better off with a standard Q vs the XL. I've used Qrings on the single speed Mtb in the past and they always worked fine for me. I can the difference in pressure if I focus on it but I never really notice the change naturally. I can go back and forth between round and oval and instantly adapt without any effort. I was kind of thinking or QXL to feel a greater benefit. You know more is always better right
The following is all opinion based on the bikes at our house and is recumbent specific where I see the behavior as slightly different than as advertised on DFs. On a recumbent it is more about quad or hamstring dominate than it is about mash or spin.
- QXL makes a better little ring than a QRING standard for everyone.
- Big ring it is better learnt on a QRING STD but the QXL is likely better after you are adapted (your MTB experience counts)
- If you are a masher who can spin big watts i.e. OCP 1,
- if you are a steady state rides to a watt plan rider use OCP 4
- If you are a day rider use OCP2
- Always use OCP4 on little ring
- Know the teeth equivalents of the min and max of the QXL And know what you like for gear combos example I like a 53 round a 52Q and a 50QXL
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
I wouldn't say I mash per say. I like to keep a very steady cadence throughout all my gears but never maintain a cadence above 90 for more then a sprint. I also like to stand a lot and work the legs a bit different from time to time......oh wait, wrong bike
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
I would say QXL 50 or 52 and OCP 4 as your starting point
I like how well the 50 climbs and I coast at 40mph, and thing big are fears I can't push on a flat.
Here are the calcs to compare to rounds
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f48c47ncuyd28qz/qring calcs.xlsx?dl=0
I like how well the 50 climbs and I coast at 40mph, and thing big are fears I can't push on a flat.
Here are the calcs to compare to rounds
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f48c47ncuyd28qz/qring calcs.xlsx?dl=0
LarryOz
Cruzeum Curator & Sigma Wrangler
I have a "reg-Q" 52, and an QXL - 53. The way I read the instructions I thought the OCP #1 was for best "flat terrain" riding in steady state. That is what I basically have ridden in both of the large rings. I then mount the "smaller" rings on the OCP #5 for the better climbing aspect.
I truthfully have not really noticed any really big difference between the 2 "different" large Q rings and have tested them at constant wattage, rpm, and speed on a track. For me that it the issue of testing these rings, especially with my Garmin Vector pedals. Power is power too, so even without the Vector Pedals and using a straight PT hub (or other), I don't think you will be able to "see" a power difference. I think you have to go "perceived effort", or "perceived feel". Most people say their knees feel better, but actual "proof" that you gain 5% more power - I'm not sure how they can really substantiate it! (I think I would have more luck proving I could make more power on my week leg (right one), but riding a slightly longer (2mm) crank on that side - heck I might try that since I am always 52%/48%)
..
I was just watching the last TT stage of the Tour, and Froome was riding his TT bike on a a KICKR (nice commercial for them) to warm-up and had elliptical rings and they were saying that he got 5% more power from them.
All I can say - is that the jury is out on that for me - It is was "really" true and verifiable - then EVERYBODY on the TOUR would be riding them - and they are not... so what does that tell you?
..
Having said all that - I right them because the basic idea seems to make sense, my knees don't hurt, and they look really cool going up and down against the horizon of the road!
My 2-cents for now.
RojoRacing
Donut Powered Wise-guy
Yeah I'm not looking for a power output advantage. I just figure over 24hrs of smooth effort I could benefit from a biometric adjustment to keep things fluid.
ratz
Wielder of the Rubber Mallet
That is why I like them they seem less fatiguing, more smooth, and for me that means better climbing. Power never been proven out for us either too many variables, but efficient equals farther and faster
Larry I am pretty sure you are one of the few that can turn OCP 1, so far no one else has reported settling into that, but your strength makes that not a surprise. I can ride OCP1 and I am fast but dam it is exhausting, this might be a crank length thing. Pretty much everyone seems to have 2 settings they hate, for me that is 3 and 5 dead spot feels worse aka bigger. 4 and 2 are good. And 1 I am too weak to keep the rpm turning, but if I was showing up to one those flying sprint events I think I would switch to OCP 1 for the day.
super slim
Zen MBB Master
My Knees LOVE the Q rings!!!
Are we going to see some tests by Larry of OCP1 and OCP4 settings?
Run each one at 80% max. power for 1 hr, then see how long and far you can go at 105% power???
Any better ideas, of how to test?
Are we going to see some tests by Larry of OCP1 and OCP4 settings?
Run each one at 80% max. power for 1 hr, then see how long and far you can go at 105% power???
Any better ideas, of how to test?
Dave Arnold
Active Member
Well said Larry. While the evidence for increased performance doesn't appear to be there, other reasons, like easier on the knees and the placebo effect might be valid. I sure would like to try them, but I don't want to invest $$$ in them just for a trial.
By the way, Chris Froome uses O.symmetric and Bradley Wiggins previously used O.symmertic, but now says "...I stopped using those silly things". Mark Cavendish has Q-Rings on his "spare" bike--not sure if that means he uses them when racing. While watching the tour, I did see some Q-Rings in the peloton but it seems like it was the exception.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/product-news/osymetric-chainrings-do-they-work-28044
