Saw someone post something about this on the light cranks thread. Anyway it got me thinking why they're back again! Yes that's right again, Shimano did it twenty years ago with Biopace rings & within the space of about 3/4 years everyone decided they were shite. So why are they back? anyone care to enlighten me on this one?

Its called marketing. Sell stuff and make it sound good or sound like you need it because it will make you good.

Nothing to do with fact or science.

Perhaps marketing is the religion to commercialism ?

Because most of the guys that originally had them are now playing golf and there is a new bunch of gullible b&$t&rds to sell them to. Girvin flexstems will be next years must have. 😆

from what i understand rotor q-rings have simply oved the ovalising to the correct position so it now actually does do something.

biopace were designed incorrectly from the start and gave no benefit.

apparently

I'm not entirely convinced that they have any major real world benefit for most of us but to dismiss them out of hand is just stupid especially as there's a logical theory to why they should be good.

As mentioned above, Shimano's biopace was amazingly designed incorrectly with the chainring's orientation out by 90 degrees. Since they were all five bolt then, you couldn't get them turned to the correct orientation.

There is research that shows benefits and plenty of pro roadies and mtbers believe it enough to be using them even when not sponsored. The consensus seems to be that they're more advantageous when pushing hard rather when spinning (one reason why a lot of the pro roadies are using them in TTs) so tend to be better for smaller chainrings for normal riding.

I'm not sure that I'd fork out for them at current prices but I'd be happy enough to try when they become more reasonable.

Saw someone post something about this on the light cranks thread. Anyway it got me thinking why they're back again! Yes that's right again, Shimano did it twenty years ago with Biopace rings & within the space of about 3/4 years everyone decided they were shite. So why are they back? anyone care to enlighten me on this one?

Er they never went away. Shimano wern't the first either and got it wrong which is why they were rubbish. The orientation of the ring made the gear harder when it should have been making it easier.

I've ridden a 10% oval on a singlespeed and it's not bad but not really different either. With gears you can get more ovality and it would probably make a difference to the feel of the gearing but whether it's worth it is another matter.

For more real info from someone who's been making them for a long long time.
http://www.highpath.net/

null

As usual, Sheldon has (had) some well thought out views…. and is far more supportive of the concept than many have judged

I had Biopace chainrings on a Peugeot road bike and always got on with them

I re-orientated my Biopace rings inna Eggring stylee which was an improvement but you'd still pedal like a demented donkey. Then I re-discovered the amazing innovation of round chainrings and have been hooked ever since. As already mentioned, they are good for people knee destroying cadences like Lars Ulrich, or whatever he's called.