Rotor Q-ring advice

[Osiris]

Good enough for Larry Oz during the 100 mile record and Aurélien Bonneteau during the hour record, good enough for old me. Who am I to argue to their superior speed. I doubt either gentlemen would put something on the bike willy nilly.

If one of the most successful racers of all time wore purple socks, would you argue with a straight face that wearing purple socks contributed to his impressive performance? Would you argue that he couldn't have done just as well if he'd worn white socks instead? Because that's precisely the thing you would have to demonstrate to conclude that Larry or Bonneteau owe their hour records to Q-rings. You haven't done that. Earlier on you wrote that successful racers like Froome and Wiggins used Q-rings, which demonstrates the same post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. As mentioned in the article I posted a link to, Wiggins has since abandoned Q-rings in favor of ordinary round rings. Has his performance diminished as a consequence? That is the only relevant question here.

Like I said, there have been studies showing slight advantages and I think I was able to measure very small gains. I probably spent a hundred bucks on reagents and 6-10 hours of effort. To bring it to a point, at tempo it was several beats less per minute for the same power and I also measured less lactate at the same power at tempo pace. A mere couple percent but I am a masher. Someone with a different pedal stroke might see nothing but then again some top Pros have used them, probably in violation of their contracts. Thus, I am not so quick to dismiss them.

What you've written here is a textbook example of how not to investigate a claim scientifically. You begin by cherry picking evidence, citing some studies which confirm your belief while ignoring the others. Then you suggest that perhaps different pedaling styles are the reason why, after many years of testing, no firm evidence has emerged confirming any of the claimed benefits of Q-rings. By doing that, you have taken a position that is unfalsifiable; if I and others don't see any advantage when using Q-rings, it's because we're not pedaling properly (I happen to be a masher myself, by the way). Then you move on to the by now familiar claim that "some top pros have used them", from which you leap to the unwarranted conclusion that the only plausible reason they could be using them is because Q-rings actually work. The last sentence, "Thus, I am not so quick to dismiss them", is an attempt to put the burden of proof not on those who claim that Q-rings actually work, but on those who remain unconvinced that they do. You have things precisely reversed. We don't believe claims because they haven't been proved false; we believe them because the evidence suggests that they are true. Ordinarily in cases where there is no firm evidence either way, the proper epistemic position is to merely withhold assent. In this case, however, we can go further than that. Here we have a claim (or set of claims) that can be scientifically tested, and which have been scientifically tested. The results fail to demonstrate that the performance claims about Q-rings are true. But if Q-rings actually provided any real benefit, then surely all this testing should at least show some evidence which cannot be discounted as confirmation bias or methodological error. The fact that we don't see that evidence despite years of looking for it militates against the claim that Q-rings actually work.

 

[RojoRacing]

well froome didn't win the tour this year from what I hear so there's that

Joking aside a pro will use a product of questionable gains as long as they're a sure there is no loss because in the end even if it doesn't make them faster it is certain to make them richer via the sponsorship contributions.

If there was ever a reason to use Q-rings it would be because that Jason Perez guy uses them to crush mountains underfoot his V20

 

[Osiris]

well froome didn't win the tour this year from what I hear so there's that

Aha! Conclusive proof that Q-rings don't work! Come to think of it, Phil Plath set three world records on his M1 using ordinary round chain rings, so that proves that round chain rings make you go faster.

Joking aside a pro will use a product of questionable gains as long as they're a sure there is no loss because in the end even if it doesn't make them faster it is certain to make them richer via the sponsorship contributions.

If there was ever a reason to use Q-rings it would be because that Jason Perez guy uses them to crush mountains underfoot his V20

Aside from the sponsorship issue, there is also the simple fact that even pro athletes can believe things that just aren't true. And they're no less susceptible to bias confirmation than anyone else. As a former motorcycle racer, you've probably heard of Keith Code, who ran the California SuperBike school. For those who don't know, Code championed a very strange idea that you could make a motorcycle turn better by pushing down on the foot pegs. His explanation for this was that by pressing on the foot pegs, you were lowering the bike/rider's center of gravity, which makes it respond faster to steering inputs. Of course, anyone who has studied physics knows this is absolute nonsense. The only way to move an object's center of gravity is to redistribute it's mass, and pushing down on the foot pegs isn't redistributing it's mass. Yet whenever this was pointed out to Code's mindless followers, they would respond with something like, "Oh but look at how many people are winning races using this technique!" Or, "Oh but Keith is a former pro racer, so he must know what he's talking about!" The sad thing is that even if someone knew nothing about physics or motorcycle racing, he should know better than to make silly arguments like those.

 

[ed72]

If one of the most successful racers of all time wore purple socks, would you argue with a straight face that wearing purple socks contributed to his impressive performance? Would you argue that he couldn't have done just as well if he'd worn white socks instead? Because that's precisely the thing you would have to demonstrate to conclude that Larry or Bonneteau owe their hour records to Q-rings. You haven't done that. Earlier on you wrote that successful racers like Froome and Wiggins used Q-rings, which demonstrates the same post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. As mentioned in the article I posted a link to, Wiggins has since abandoned Q-rings in favor of ordinary round rings. Has his performance diminished as a consequence? That is the only relevant question here.



What you've written here is a textbook example of how not to investigate a claim scientifically. You begin by cherry picking evidence, citing some studies which confirm your belief while ignoring the others. Then you suggest that perhaps different pedaling styles are the reason why, after many years of testing, no firm evidence has emerged confirming any of the claimed benefits of Q-rings. By doing that, you have taken a position that is unfalsifiable; if I and others don't see any advantage when using Q-rings, it's because we're not pedaling properly (I happen to be a masher myself, by the way). Then you move on to the by now familiar claim that "some top pros have used them", from which you leap to the unwarranted conclusion that the only plausible reason they could be using them is because Q-rings actually work. The last sentence, "Thus, I am not so quick to dismiss them", is an attempt to put the burden of proof not on those who claim that Q-rings actually work, but on those who remain unconvinced that they do. You have things precisely reversed. We don't believe claims because they haven't been proved false; we believe them because the evidence suggests that they are true. Ordinarily in cases where there is no firm evidence either way, the proper epistemic position is to merely withhold assent. In this case, however, we can go further than that. Here we have a claim (or set of claims) that can be scientifically tested, and which have been scientifically tested. The results fail to demonstrate that the performance claims about Q-rings are true. But if Q-rings actually provided any real benefit, then surely all this testing should at least show some evidence which cannot be discounted as confirmation bias or methodological error. The fact that we don't see that evidence despite years of looking for it militates against the claim that Q-rings actually work.

Good God, Areolus, your pedantic style can be annoying. Do you think I wanted a lecture

Notice I said "think".....I am N = 1. I tested with power, HR, and lactate levels. Did you? The protocols executed and study results published were very different than my requirements. The athletes were different. The power levels were different. Crank length was different. Fitness levels were different.

I have reviewed and approved hundreds if not thousands of scientific protocols for medical and pharmaceutical products. I am well aware of limitations of testing.

Subjectively, I found that they put less stress on my legs and knees when doing 200 miles day after day. This is just my opinion, it requires no response.

 

[Osiris]

Subjectively, I found that they put less stress on my legs and knees when doing 200 miles day after day. This is just my opinion, it requires no response.

Had you simply said that, I would have taken no issue with your claim except to say that this has not been my experience, and that there may be another reason to account for it. Instead, you repeatedly made the most insipid sorts of arguments in favor of Q-rings, including appeals to authority, cherry picking, post hoc rationalizations, and whopping non sequiturs. If the OP is trying to make a rational decision about purchasing Q-rings, you're certainly not helping him. On the other hand, if your goal was to illustrate all the errors to avoid in his deliberations, then it would be difficult to improve on what you've presented.

 

[ed72]

I measured. I qualified my results.

I shared my experience.

I am sorry but I will never post in a thread that you are in. You are a piece of work. Bye.

http://cyclingcenterdallas.com/blog...alysis-and-the-cycling-center-dallas-q-corner

Had you simply said that, I would have taken no issue with your claim except to say that this has not been my experience, and that there may be another reason to account for it. Instead, you repeatedly made the most insipid sorts of arguments in favor of Q-rings, including appeals to authority, cherry picking, post hoc rationalizations, and whopping non sequiturs. If the OP is trying to make a rational decision about purchasing Q-rings, you're certainly not helping him. On the other hand, if your goal was to illustrate all the errors to avoid in his deliberations, then it would be difficult to improve on what you've presented.

 

[jond]

No angst please. It’s just salted nuts. Team cruzbike. I enjoy reading all contributions. But never when it gets emotionally willing. Keep up the good work.

 

[RojoRacing]

Aha! Conclusive proof that Q-rings don't work! Come to think of it, Phil Plath set three world records on his M1 using ordinary round chain rings, so that proves that round chain rings make you go faster.



Aside from the sponsorship issue, there is also the simple fact that even pro athletes can believe things that just aren't true. And they're no less susceptible to bias confirmation than anyone else. As a former motorcycle racer, you've probably heard of Keith Code, who ran the California SuperBike school. For those who don't know, Code championed a very strange idea that you could make a motorcycle turn better by pushing down on the foot pegs. His explanation for this was that by pressing on the foot pegs, you were lowering the bike/rider's center of gravity, which makes it respond faster to steering inputs. Of course, anyone who has studied physics knows this is absolute nonsense. The only way to move an object's center of gravity is to redistribute it's mass, and pushing down on the foot pegs isn't redistributing it's mass. Yet whenever this was pointed out to Code's mindless followers, they would respond with something like, "Oh but look at how many people are winning races using this technique!" Or, "Oh but Keith is a former pro racer, so he must know what he's talking about!" The sad thing is that even if someone knew nothing about physics or motorcycle racing, he should know better than to make silly arguments like those.

Oh god don't get me started on Keith Code and his school A sponsor of mine sent me to his school for a little track time to setup up a freshly built bike, short version was it was a complete waste of time and the guy is a quak job at best. Part of what he was trying to teach is true but the problem is he had to teach it in such a convoluted way that make no sense because most people have no understanding of cause and effect or physics so the nonsense method actually make more sense to most people, it's a sad world we live in.

 

[jond]

Oh god don't get me started on Keith Code and his school A sponsor of mine sent me to his school for a little track time to setup up a freshly built bike, short version was it was a complete waste of time and the guy is a quak job at best. Part of what he was trying to teach is true but the problem is he had to teach it in such a convoluted way that make no sense because most people have no understanding of cause and effect or physics so the nonsense method actually make more sense to most people, it's a sad world we live in.

Nah it’s not all sad. It’s mostly beautiful mate . It is a broad church full of interesting facts and opinions and how boring would it be if we all were the same.

 

[billyk]

Nah it’s not all sad. It’s mostly beautiful mate . It is a broad church full of interesting facts and opinions and how boring would it be if we all were the same.

Thanks. I was just deciding to not follow this thread any more, but you gave me a bit of optimism at the end. I'm still not gonna read more it, but at least I'm leaving with a smile.

 

[DavidCH]

It's also greater with QXL over standard Qrings

Most definitely... QXL rings would work better with a clutch deurallier such as the Shimano ultegra RX 800.

I stopped using the QXL because of the chain drop. Pretty sure the deurallier will work.

 

[ed72]

I was on the fence putting QXL rings onto any bent due to higher potential to drop the chain, so, I picked up some "ancient" Rotor RS4X cranks. Installed today and headed into the 95F heat, ozone, and super high ragweed pollen. Despite some asthma issues on the last 30 seconds of my favorite 5 minute climb, my 5 minute power was 7.88% higher with these cranks compared my best ever on the round dura ace (on a bent, DF is still 20% higher). As a "rouleur", 5 minute power is a key physiological performance metric that I monitor very closely in XERT and GoldenCheetah. The lactate data and 10 mile TT will take time to do but 7.88% increase in 5 minute power is off the charts as far as I am concerned, especially since it was not a clean run (breathing issue at the end). A week does not go by that I don't test 5 minute power, so, this is real. My legs are not even fresh (bad form.....very negative TSB). BTW, these cranks are incredibly heavy, complex, and an aerodynamic nightmare. PP was also highest ever on a bent and I was not even trying.

Just sharing in case someone else ever does a search.....didn't think this tidbit was worth a thread and since it is related to the topic at hand, this seemed like a good place.

 

[ed72]

Upon further thought about localized leg soreness (0nly on a bent), I might try some 155 mm cranks with QXL rings. This leg soreness was what got me thinking of going back to QXL rings and what led me to this thread.

The heavy, clunky Rotor RS4X cranks yield 7.88% more power over 5 minutes, 5.5% more FTP, and 10-12% more peak power (I didn't do the math on peak, this is back of the envelope). Just numbers sitting in GoldenCheetah and XERT but performance is performance. If anyone has ever jumped power numbers like that in one day, I would love to know how. I haven't even experimented with the crank position settings.

My 10 mile TT usually takes me 22:00-22:10 although my personal best was 21:41 with my best tires, skinsuit, etc. I have many, many runs on it.

I cracked off a 20:43 with the Rotor RS4X cranks under conditions not as good as the 21:41. Lower temperatures and less moisture in the air, higher atmospheric pressure, wind. Same gear and kit. To put numbers on it, my average speed went from 27.7 to 29.1 mph (prior PB to current). Some of it owes to enhanced ability to power over three small climbs.

I did not see this magnitude of power increase with just the rings on a standard crank but I did see a smaller improvement (I think...) and more comfort over round rings. If I can find a reasonably priced, used 155mm crank to fit my QXL rings and BSA BB, I am going to give those a try and save the Rotor RS4X cranks for special use because parts and tools to fix them are scarce and honestly, these cranks are really ugly to look at but they are starting to grow on me. My initial quest was to fix the leg issue, I have some hard rides with the RS4X cranks but they are too short (30-50 miles) to draw any N = 1 conclusions.

 

[Balor]

Oval chainrings and other alternative to round chainrings methods of propulsion (including linear drives and the like), cranks length, etc - those are question of biomechanical FIT first and foremost - it likely depends on a huge number of personalised variables like muscle fiber rations, body proportions, or even joint health and muscle attachment points like Osiris himself mentioned.
Would you argue whether someone's saddle height or cleat position works for him or not? In some cases, self-reports of 'how it feels' is as good as we'll get - in the foreseeable future, at least. *shrugs*

I've read stuff about 'muscle synergies' and while I don't claim to understand more than half of all the words, this is an other point to consider.

 

[ed72]

I have often pondered why short cranks are so popular on recumbent bikes. I think I now get it. Unless one is using a railgun seat, the pelvis is essentially fixed or locked into the seat unlike on upwrong where some motion is possible. Coming over the top of the pedal stroke on a recumbent with typical length cranks (170-180mm) puts the knee is a somewhat acute angle. I do not understand the biomechanics but for me, it creates localized pain in my quads. I experimented with all manner of boom length to no avail. What a shorter crank along with QXL rings gets you is a more even distribution of force across the quads without as much stress coming over the top ( 9 o'clock). Of course, this is just my opinion. My knees are are pretty bullet proof, so, I felt the pain in my quads.

What the RS4X cranks does is ELIMINATE 15 degrees of crank motion at the top and bottom dead center.

I did a climb yesterday on my RS4X cranks. I used to do this climb in 9 minutes on a DF without killing myself. I never broke 13 minutes on my bent (M5). I did 10:04 yesterday. One minute off a 10 mile TT and 3 minutes off a climb (several very steep pitches of 12-13%)

Used QXL rings or q rings can be found used on e-bay, often cheap. I sold my 46/34 rings for like 85 bucks.

Does anyone really think that a Master's National TT Champion would put anything on their bike that wasn't proven to make them faster. ((?)).....This Dutch fellow wins everything. Anecdotes of course. Why does LarryOz wear QXL rings on a shorter crank. I provided ample summary data showing that the RS4X Rotor crank has made a massive improvement for me.

 

[Balor]

I've personally installed osymmetrics on a bike of an amateur, but pretty powerful guy (400+ watts FTP, 45+ average speed in TTs). He also claimed a LOT of benefit, mostly in lowered HR and perception of effort, but raw power, too!
Of course he has heart rate meter and power meter. (And he is also a masher and a pretty tall/heavy guy).

He is rather clueless about scientific method and tech stuff, but he's pretty keen on results.

Of course, 'argument from authority' is not really an argument per se, only 'something you should strongly consider'. When it comes to biomechanics, what works for some may not work for another person, unless you really know what your are doing, but that likely require a PHD in sports medicine and a battery of (invasive!) tests.

 

[ed72]

The following link has an analysis of upright pedaling. I had to watch it in 0.25 speed.

What is interesting to me is the range of pelvis and hip movement on the clips. Both move as the pedal comes over the top (ankles also).

On many recumbent seats, this range of pelvis motion is not possible because the pelvis is supporting the weight of the rider and is "essentially" fixed or certainly not as easy to move fluidly in sync with the pedaling. This probably explains the extra power racers get with the railgun seat.

 

[ed72]

I've personally installed osymmetrics on a bike of an amateur, but pretty powerful guy (400+ watts FTP, 45+ average speed in TTs). He also claimed a LOT of benefit, mostly in lowered HR and perception of effort, but raw power, too!
Of course he has heart rate meter and power meter. (And he is also a masher and a pretty tall/heavy guy).

He is rather clueless about scientific method and tech stuff, but he's pretty keen on results.

Of course, 'argument from authority' is not really an argument per se, only 'something you should strongly consider'. When it comes to biomechanics, what works for some may not work for another person, unless you really know what your are doing, but that likely require a PHD in sports medicine and a battery of (invasive!) tests.

I kinda disagree to some extent. As an example, a National Champ TT gave me a secret once. He said a particular tire is very fast. It took me years to understand why he was right. He did not know why. Just that it was fast. He had tested them all because he owns a bike shop and he is very fast, so, no need for a wind tunnel. It would have been stupid not to buy what he suggested. I bought them. I went out and got two KoM on segments that I had been chasing for many months. $80 was worth the roll of the dice.

Just look at recent wind tunnel data for wheels by Hambini. It is on slowtwitch and weightweenies. He does not make wheels nor does he have a financial stake. He has access to a wind tunnel where wind flow can be varied real time (NASA type thing). His results seem to turn previous wheel cda data on its head although his YAW distribution might be a little off. The results that he obtained, not surprising to me, are ordered with what the experts or some authorities have known to be the fastest wheels. This is an area of interest for me because at 30-40 mph, it gets interesting so to speak. But off topic.

I am much more suspicious of "data" generated by those who have a stake in the outcome. I base this upon a career of reviewing scientific data associated with medicinal product development and approvals. More to the point, I have rarely if ever seen a study in the bicycling industry that gives me confidence. Even Andrew Coggan often says something along the lines that performance is what matters. The biomechanical dynamics on the bike along with the flow of air is very complex and I am almost smart enough to realize I do not completely understand it-this is exactly why I take note of top riders or racers, especially if they are paying for junk out of their own pocket.

Bent legs and short cranks are clearly anecdotes.

https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=113&t=153138

 

[Osiris]

Does anyone really think that a Master's National TT Champion would put anything on their bike that wasn't proven to make them faster. ((?))

Absolutely. You yourself raised the example of Wiggins, who for some time used Q-rings, but later abandoned them for standard round rings. Clearly Wiggins put something on his bike that wasn't proven to make him faster. When I got into weight training some 30 years ago, there were still world class athletes who swore by training methods that had been completely discredited by that time. They succeeded in spite of these methods, not because of them.

Of course, 'argument from authority' is not really an argument per se, only 'something you should strongly consider'.

The "argument from authority" is a classic logical fallacy that should be "considered" only in philosophy 101 courses, not when trying to make a rationally informed purchase decision. There are many reasons why an athlete may be using a certain product, and some of those reasons have nothing whatever to do with its actual performance benefits to prospective buyers. Let's apply a little common sense. If the claim is that Q-rings do indeed provide performance benefits, why haven't round chain rings been pushed into obsolescence? Why, after so many tests have been performed, has no clear evidence emerged that Q-rings actually work? Why, after all the years that Q-rings have been on the market, are only a tiny fraction of athletes using them? And why pick those athletes as your evidence, rather than the vast majority of successful athletes who don't use Q-rings? If a show of hands is your evidence, then surely the weight of evidence militates against the assumption that Q-rings work. The most one could reasonably suggest is that Q-rings work, but only for a small number of people. And even that claim rests on another assumption for which no evidence has been provided: that there is unimpeachable scientific data demonstrating it.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[ed72]

Lawyers, Economics, Philosophers, Architects.......they aren't all quite worthless.

OTOH.....I have seen terrible protocols and outright fraud.

I don't put nothing on my bike that hasn't undergone my scrutiny.