Forum menu
And clutch mechs. Are they compatible or does the oval big play havoc with the clutchy bits?
I'm fed up of shredding race face turbine rings so was looking at 1x10 and getting an oval ring but read a comment about it causing issues so was wondering what the concensus here was....
Can't see an oval ring wriggling the clutch back and forth any more than the chain bouncing about on bumpy ground does, so on that basis I wouldn't worry about it.
AB claim it has no effect - their video seems to support that.
Works just fine for me. Seems to last well too.
Cleverly shaped so the chain length is pretty much equal throughout the rotation. Don't think the growth is any more than a normal ring's natural out of round.
Mines been fine, and my mech was knackered to start with!
Have a couple of hundred miles on mine with ab black ring, xt clutch mech with rad cage and expanded XT cassette. Best behaving drivetrain I've had despite it's mix and match make up!
Super.
Thanks chaps!
Running a GX 2.1 clutch mech with an AB oval and there is no issue at all. When you spin the crank backwards there is almost no moment in the mech at all.
100% fine.
Just bought a second oval for another bike I'm building. Again, with sram clutch mech.
Working for me, clutch and non-clutch. Really rate these chainrings.
+1 no probs with mine (1x10 with RADr cage)
Works ok here. I also have another oval ring on a singlespeed without a tensioner. As above if you think about a symmetrical oval there's always X teeth forward of centre so the variation in chain length over a revolution is very small. Barely a visible mech movement.
If you put it on a medium caged cassette and the bigger cogs in the cassette you will see the mech pulse. In the smaller cogs its not noticeable and that why the video is shot in the small cog and with a small cage mech.
Yeah, the mech visibly moves on mine. But mechs can move, so, I am not concerned. I'm still not sure of any benefits tbh, and the chain retention seems just a little bit less good than a Works ring, though still good enough. And they are very lovely.
I had an oval on my 901 with a clutch and it worked perfectly.
Having removed mine, I can notice the difference on tougher climbs. It did help.
I have one and it creates no issues, again, I think it's a brilliant bit of kit 🙂
I have a Works one, as it was cheaper than the round one. Felt different the first time I used it, but I can't tell now.
Nothing odd with the mech - it's moving a lot anyway, so I can't imagine this makes any difference at all.
As above.
1x10, non clutch XT mech, works very well and had no chain drop.
Really rate them on my mtb's, would like to use on road but run a stages power crank and understand they can distort the figures, this has stopped me getting a stages for the mtb as wouldn't want to lose the oval off-road.
However looking again, thanks to your link, may get one for my singlespeed roadie if I can get the gearing right.
I've got one on my tallboy with a stages, only used it a couple of times on the turbo due to injury but the data looks alright
Stages on the road bike as well - who says it gives dodgy data? Froome used Osymetric with Stages?
Our power measurement through a Stages Power meter is event based, where as an event is one complete pedal revolution. Due to the changes in velocity non-round chain rings produce through the course of an 'event' you will see that your power will be skewed higher than with a round ring, which has a constant velocity throughout each event. Through our own testing, and using a hub-based meter as a control, we conclude that there will be a 4-5% increase on the readings from a Stages Power meter when used with a non-round chain rings. We recommend that our customers take this into account when changing from round to non-round chain rings, as they may need to adjust their functional threshold power accordingly.
Wasnt meaning dodgy data as such, just exactly what you've cut and pasted. I've got a fair bit of power data now and can, without overthinking it, use that while out on the bike.
For me to have one set of data offroad and one set on road would be far too confusing and would also distort any TSS.