XQL Q-rings .vs. Reg Q-ring .vs. Circular Chain Rings

[LarryOz]

OK - I finally did it. I compared the XQL Q-ring to the regular Q-ring, to a regular round chain ring.
It was not exactly a one-to-one comparison as my XQL Q-ring is 53, my regular Q-ring is 52, and my circular one is only 50, but I adjusted cog teeth and rpm to make speeds match.

Variable Factors:

• Completed on a high school track
• wind was zero or less than 5mph
• temperature: mid 50's F
• humidity: 90=% - even spit rain at me about 75% through my testing
• bike: V20
• cranks:Apex 140mm
• seat: older V2 seat, with Ventist pad
• wheels: 3-spoke CF
• tires: Conti 4000SII
• tubes: Conti race light
• Cassette Cog: 19 tooth for both Q-rings, but 17 & then 15 for regular round ring

Procedure:
I started my Garmin 510 and did some warmup.
I had the XQL rings on OCP #1 setting, and rode in the 19 tooth cassette cog.
I ran 2 x 1 mile tests.
First I ramped up to 100 rpm and then hit the lap button.
First mile was with hands out on hoods, then hit the lap button after 1 mile over and immediately brought my hands into the center of the handlebars, after exactly another mile, I hit the lap button again, and rode around the track to where my tools were.
I paused the timer, and then un-bolted the Q-rings and moved them to the next setting (i.e., #2, #3. #4, then #5)
Got back on the bike, started the timer and ramped up to 100 rpm again, then hit lap timer again..
I repeated each 2x1 mile tests (hands out 1st mile, then hands in 2nd mile), always making sure I was back up to and maintaining close to 100rpm before I hit the lap button for each 1 Mile test.
..
Once I ran through OCP settings 1 thru 5 on the XQL Q-rings, I switched them out for the regular ones and started over again on OCP #1 setting.
I did the exact same series with the regular Q-rings as I did for the XQL Q-rings, I did need to increase my cadence to about 102 (to get the same speed) since the regular Q-rings are 52 tooth, and not 53 like the XQL Q-rings

Then when I was done with the regular Q-rings 9OCP #1-#5), I switched them out for a regular round 50 tooth ring.
Since this ring had less teeth, I shifted to the next smaller cassette cog of 17. My speed was a little higher, so I reduced the cadence to about 98 to get close to the same speed of about 22 mph.
I ran one 2x1 mile tests on with this regular 50 tooth ring. (one hand out, one hands in)

Then just for fun I shifted down one more cog to 15 teeth and ramped back up to 100 rpm -- speed ~ 26.0 mph.
I ran one more 2x1 mile set of tests at this speed as well. (one hand out, one hands in)

Then to cool down I ran 1x1 mile test at about 9 0rpm on the 15 tooth cog (~23.5 mph) - hands out only
Then 1x1 mile at about 80 rpm on the 15 tooth cog (~21.0 mph) - hand out only

I transferred all the Garmin data into a google docs spreadsheet and hid all the "laps" that were in-between the ones I cared about.
OK - for the big surprise
Per Q-ring documentation: going to a "lower" OCP setting is supposed to give you a "higher" flat-lander speed. I found the opposite was true.
Also per documentation: a higher OCP setting with help you spin up faster - I did notice this.

Maybe it is just the way I ride (or maybe I have not developed enough strength to take advantage of the XQL rings), but I have not found the XQL rings to be any better.
On the contrary, I can go faster on less wattage on the regular Q-rings. I also appear to use less wattage to maintain the same speed as I increased the OCP # (although #2 did beat out #5 by 0.01, but this was contrary to all other data)
The other really interesting tidbit of data is that as the speed and cadence I was riding at; the regular circular rings out-performed the XQL Q-rings in every OCP setting, and out performed the regular Q-rings in every setting except OCP #5.
I also noticed it was easier to apply power through the entire pedal stroke on the circular rings when compared to the Q-rings.
These results are almost exactly opposite of what I expected and I am baffled beyond words!!!
I need to go back to square one and make sure now that I have the Q-rings mounted correctly, but I am relatively sure I am set up the same as Ratz, Rick, and Gary.

I would love for others of you to undertake the same testing so we can compare results. Please do, and submit your results to this thread.

I have uploaded a snapshot of some of my data. If you would like me to share the entire goggle docs spreadsheet with you, email me and I will share it with you.
Thanks,

--
Larry Oslund

 

[battleaxe0]

What about putting it on a trainer, get it to a specific speed, probably normal cruising speed and resistance for the rider testing, maintain that speed for 5 minutes, and see what heart rate settles out at multiple cadences/rear gears for that speed on each ring? Would that be any better or worse of a test?

 

[Charles.Plager]

What about putting it on a trainer, get it to a specific speed, probably normal cruising speed and resistance for the rider testing, maintain that speed for 5 minutes, and see what heart rate settles out at multiple cadences/rear gears for that speed on each ring? Would that be any better or worse of a test?

I think you'd still want road verification, but that being said, you've posted a brilliant idea. You can even make it blind this way (don't tell Larry what's setup and hide it from him). Even if not doing a blind test, I'd think you might get better reproducibility on a trainer.

 

[Jeremy S]

Maybe you're really good at spinning round rings, Larry.

 

[SamP]

Has Garmin implemented elliptical chain ring support yet? Also, a quick read of some reviews suggests there might be some DF bike assumptions in their firmware (see the bit about the installation angle calibration).

 

[ratz]

Has Garmin implemented elliptical chain ring support yet? Also, a quick read of some reviews suggests there might be some DF bike assumptions in their firmware (see the bit about the installation angle calibration).

I did test that with a Stages left only in another thread. We know the error rate there. Larry did similar test and had %. I forgot to ask him if he adjusted for the offset. That would be the number one reason to do this setting on a power trainer or with a hub power meter. If you take the reading at the wheel it should be consistent from Round to Q.

 

[snilard]

I am not precisely sure, but I think that this measurement and conclusion are not correct.

1. Are you sure that Vector works correctly with non-round rings?
2. Vector is measuring flexion of pedal axe. Not all this flexion is used to move bike forward. No-one is pedaling perfectly so aplied force is not perfectly parallel to crank and it produces some flection in other directions. You changed pedaling style from configuration to configuration.
3. I think that this differences what you measured are due to changes in environment and inaccuracy of your instrument - Vector.
4. In perfecly equal environment there will be always same power needed for same speed. Only difference can be due to beeing different part of time in more or less aero position. I mean that if your cranks are parallel to ground, this is more aero than if it is perpendicular to ground. And when you spend let's say 90% of time in parallel and 10 % in perpendicular position, you will need less power than being 10% in more aero and 90% in less aero position.

I think that you should measure your exact effort to say what is better for you. And power meter is not good instrument in this case. Meybe measurement of your blood lactate is better way, I don't know.
Or you should hold exact effort and measure your output power by spider or hub based power meter.

 

[JOSEPHWEISSERT]

Or you should hold exact effort and measure your output power by spider or hub based power meter.

Yes, it seems to me that the best way to compare the rings' differences would be to set up a controlled environment where all input variables are held constant except for the chain rings. Then the bike could be mounted on a trainer (which would have to be capable of measuring power itself accurately) for a given duration at a specified cadence and a resulting "distance". Then measure oxygen going in, carbon dioxide going out, and heart rate. Then see how efficient Larry is at doing the same work with different rings. And make sure to blind fold Larry!

 

[LarryOz]

What many of you have said it true.
I think my conclusions were faulty at this point - sorry?!?
As I do not think the Vector Power system is calibrated for Q-rings and therefore there must be an offset applied for whatever OCP you are using. Those numbers don't seem to exist via Garmin.
And power is power. Yes it should take the same power to go the same speed in like conditions regardless of the rings (unless there happens to be a power loss associated with one ring or another), which I doubt.
So, I more likely outlined the differences in how the Vector system detects the power at the different OCP settings.
I may have to get a hub based power system and compare the readings from the 2 systems using the same testing. That would be truly interesting.

 

[mzweili]

I think my conclusions were faulty at this point - sorry?!?

Larry you don't have to be sorry. You put so much effort in that search, I'm amazed.
It's a great beginning. With some fine tuning you will be able to come up with valuable information.
I highly appreciate your contribution to this forum, and I'm for sure not the only one.

 

[JOSEPHWEISSERT]

I highly appreciate your contribution to this forum, and I'm for sure not the only one.

Ditto.

 

[ratz]

Did someone say "aero", "power tap", testing multiple configuration:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/arsenal-reinventing-the-wheel#/story

 

[jond]

h

What many of you have said it true.
I think my conclusions were faulty at this point - sorry?!?
As I do not think the Vector Power system is calibrated for Q-rings and therefore there must be an offset applied for whatever OCP you are using. Those numbers don't seem to exist via Garmin.
And power is power. Yes it should take the same power to go the same speed in like conditions regardless of the rings (unless there happens to be a power loss associated with one ring or another), which I doubt.
So, I more likely outlined the differences in how the Vector system detects the power at the different OCP settings.
I may have to get a hub based power system and compare the reading from the 2 systems using the same testing. That would be truly interesting.

hi larry with a pedal based system you are measuring if you like the input and not the out put. at the wheel power is less due to losses through the entire drive. so a powertap hub for instance would be closer to what your actual output is but these differences are minor. a bike drive train is pretty efficient. but yes testing with a powertap hub would be of interest. do you know someone who could loan you a wheel.???

a power meter is a power meter just strain guages and they are consistent otherwise they would not be a valid product they may be inaccurate minor individually but they are consistent which is what you really need.

getting into where exactly the power was peak delivered on the stroke is.....well to me unreasonable as we just dont have that amount of control as we pedal. how much of an advantage can be had by shaping the ring is conjecture.i hold up all the pro teams as an example how many use q rings in general. surely their research program seeking any legal advantage they can must be seen as solid research. i am not saying q rings are not a valuable tool in aiding peak performance for an individual . i am saying at the end of the day you make the rings go round and round in a pattern which you may prefer one more than the other but that it may not actually increase your speed.
it may however feel better and that is an advantage as is spinning.

now you measured speed too and that is telling given that your conditions on the day were mostly stable.

i do not think therefore that your results are so off. i think pedal ling style is very important here in that it takes a while to adjust from platform to platform and muscle nuances take time to adjust. it takes me two weeks to post previously measured power figures and heart rate data when i switch platform from say DF to trike and back again as i am using slightly different muscle groups and pedal style. therefore the chainring style too has an acclimatisation period and therefore it may not be possible to test back to back the efficiency feel of your pedal stroke.

i tend to think though that whilst efficiency} was measured here in your testing see speed attained that there is also the feel subjective factor. the fact also that you are spinning at a higher cadence with the q rings at a given speed compared to the round ring is a major point of difference and most of us prefer to spin up hills rather than grind so here is a solid advantage to the q rings. but everywhere else from your analysis i see no result that would spur me on to change out my round chainrings in search of speed......and i am too cheap

tell me if you are pushing 200 watts with round rings or q rings or eliptical do you think you will go that much faster with q rings. certainly the manufacturers claim an advantage but can they claim outright speed. so there fore it is all efficiency gains which are harder to measure the subjectivity part there of. in the end larry you are a rocket on roadrunner 1 or 2 so just get out and keep pedalling and enjoy the ridiculous speeds you attain on the V
then again i could be completely wrong. and those q rings look awesome too. hope i have not caused anyone offence as there is a lot of support for q rings here and i am the odd one out.
so please no offence just my thoughts as they spewed forth in trying to understand and explain. yes i have taken a look at the independant research on the qrings. but i see pro teams not using them. yes they have deals done but for instance only one team is using sram drivetrains this year. and it is not uncommon to see variations on individuals bikes.

 

[ratz]

The short version of what Jon said.

"Which ring makes you got faster? Whichever one you have had mounted on your Vendetta for the last 2 weeks."​

 

[jond]

The short version of what Jon said.

"Which ring makes you got faster? Whichever one you have had mounted on your Vendetta for the last 2 weeks."​

thanks ratz i wish i could be so succinct but my verbose wordy rhubarb skills are what they are lets ride.

 

[ratz]

lets ride.

any time any road.

 

[trplay]

Let me see if I have this straight. The test didn't give the results one wanted so they must be wrong. If we already know what the results are suppose to be why do you need a test in the first place? Just wondering?

 

[Charles.Plager]

I think my conclusions were faulty at this point - sorry?!?

I reject your apology.

You've got nothing to be sorry about. You tried one technique, you're now assessing said technique, incorporating the feedback from your colleagues, and planning your next step.

Welcome to science.

 

[hamishbarker]

Hey Larry, how much difference to your CdA do you think the trispokes are compared to say your deep (are they 70 or 80mm) rims (how many spokes?)?

I have an old powertap wheel - unfortunately a lot of spokes by current standards (32 - but at least it stays true!), and did some laps on a track on the weekend. I know that my tires are slow (vredesten fortezza or something - the guy who does all the tire testing measured them as not too good ("...the worst"!), so they have to go, but anyway, I did 10 laps at about 30km/h, about 10 at 20km/h and 5 laps at 40-42 km/h (ran out of puff). It's a big track at Nelson Trafalgar park, I think about 400m, need to check. Ran R chung method on the data on the three sets of laps, and seems like CdA of 0.246 and Crr 0.0055.

0.246 CdA doesn't seem as good as I would hope. I have a medium V frame and at 6' (183cm) I could probably benefit from a large instead, would get the BB higher.

Who else has done good sets of CdA / Crr measurements? I saw Jim Parker's post, his numbers were averaging around 0.26, (and he's a bit bigger than me (skinny) so maybe 0.246 is not so bad.

Will upload the spreadsheet to google drive for others to poke around with.

 

[trplay]

Larry just for the record I find your testing interesting and useful.