I tried them, did not like them, went back to round.
As the science shows there is no conclusive evidence of benefit. The difference only comes noticeable at much higher ovality than we have on bikes. The Osymetric Froome runs are the most extreme, but aren't going to work on a MTB, and on road cause major shifting issues.
There may be perceived benefits to knee health or perceived effort. That is highly personal, and you need to decide if you feel any benefit.
Since SRAM seems to be accused of being a marketing company a lot, you don't think if there was any scientific proof of benefit that they would not offer oval rings?
Needs more data. Does anyone have a tame Phd student that can do a proper study on it?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=phd+study+on+bicycle+chainring+ovality
One thing I’ve wondered about is whether Oval Rings lead to premature wear of mech clutches – since the ‘chain length’ alters on every revolution of the pedals.
This is something I've worried about previously. Two things:
1) On a FS bike, chain growth occurs all the time, over compression but also with any bob.
2) All the clutch mechs I've used (both SRAM and Shimano over a number of years) have a small degree of 'float'. What I mean is that the end of the cage can move a small amount (5mm?) before the clutch fully engages. This completely absorbs any chain growth from the oval (which is small, but visible), Initially I thought this was just slop in the mechanism but I wonder if this is actually a feature that's engineered in because of (1).
TLDR: it's a non-issue IMHO.
Since SRAM seems to be accused of being a marketing company a lot, you don’t think if there was any scientific proof of benefit that they would not offer oval rings?
Can you rephrase that more clearly?
I have a technical question, can you run a chain guide with an oval ring? I'd have thought there's enough space but checking in case I've missed something fundamental with this...
Being old and weak of leg, I am always in too big a gear on steep climbs. An oval ring feels like it helps me get the pedal over the top
I have noticed the same on very technical or steep climbs. where cadence is low. or if I am out of the saddle. The oval ring helps getting over the top of the stroke and seems a lot smoother than it did with a round ring.
I just think they are one of those things that works great for some peoples pedalling style and bike setup and not for others. That does not make them snake oil.
@twistedpencil yes, I had one of those wee One-Up chain retention device on mine (when I had an oval-ring fitted) there was plenty of room
It's easy to dismiss "Placebo" but it's a strong effect. I read of a trail where patients in a study were told the pills they were taking were just sugar pills, and would not help...Lots still reported a benefit/improvement. Even when people are told it's a placebo, the placebo effect works. If you think oval chainrings are helping, they probably are.
They prey on people with choppy, low cadence pedalling styles, especially those on flat pedals. Those who have spent any amoount of time perfecting a smooth pedalling technique clipped in and on round chainrings, will find they are totally counterintuitive.
This.
I have a oval on one bike and round rings on others. I can't really tell the difference. But ive spent years riding road and mtb clipped in, so i tend to "spin". My mate has a more "push" pedal stroke and he borrowed my bike with an oval on it once and loved it. Put them on his bikes too and claims they really help him smooth out his pedaling.
Interesting comments here...
I get the idea that suggests an oval ring will make you bob on a FS bike... but TBH, you bob on an FS bike anyway!!
I've an oval rind fitted onmy stumpjumper - I love it.. t feels smoother (to me) than a round ring..
I've an oval ring fitted to my rigid SS (my race/disctance bike) - I love it even more...again, it feels like it smoothes out peddaling, and makes the bike feel like it 'spins up' quicker..
Is this all in my mind..? Maybe..but at £50 a pop, and lasting several years at least, it's a pretty cheap drug...
DrP
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=phd+study+on+bicycle+chainring+ovality/blockquote >And yet, absolutely nothing on suspension design, chain growth, clutch mechs, bob or anti-squat which is what most of the discussion has been about here.
They prey on people with choppy, low cadence pedalling styles, especially those on flat pedals. Those who have spent any amoount of time perfecting a smooth pedalling technique clipped in and on round chainrings, will find they are totally counterintuitive.
I can't work out whether this concept is a red herring when it comes to mtbing. Apart from the dull bits where I don't give a monkey's arse about what my pedal cadence is like, for the rest of the interesting bits, the concept of pedalling in perfect circles off road is a complete fantasy.
I've got my first ever oval ring to try out going on my new bike so I will report back in a couple of weeks.
nickc
Full MemberIt’s easy to dismiss “Placebo” but it’s a strong effect.
In these days of incremental upgrades etc it's probably one of the biggest effects there is tbh. If your bike feels good you tend to ride it faster and better. Like, when Steve Peat won the worlds, they literally took the bearing seals out of every bearing, degreased them, and oiled them. Did that make a difference you could measure? Probably not. Did sitting on the start line on a bike that you know has been prepped and honed to a completely ludicrous degree help? Peaty says yes.
Most purely technical discussions fail to acnowledge that the whole bike is run by a computer made of meat that hasn't had a software update since it used to be fitted in a monkey. It's why I like lighter bikes- I'm pretty comfortable that I can't prove a real performance benefit, but i like how it feels and that makes me want to ride further and faster. You could probably write OVAL CHAINRING on a round one and some people would find it feels better, and the point isn't that it's still round, the point is that the feeling is still real. Some people like suspension settings that are basically "wrong". Top end professionals have lost races because they couldn't find their lucky pants. You can't measure any of that on a dyno though.
I mentioned up the page that I do think there's a difference, though I wouldn't want to quantify it. But I think you've got to be comfortable with the fact that you can have a non-performance difference that leads to a performance improvement, if you've ever met a human.
Shred
Full MemberI tried them, did not like them, went back to round.
As the science shows there is no conclusive evidence of benefit. The difference only comes noticeable at much higher ovality than we have on bikes.
OK so, this is an interesting comment. Because you say the difference is too small to be noticable at the level of ovality you had; but you also say you didn't like it. What part of the unnoticable difference didn't you like?
That's a genuine question btw, not trying to be snarky. It's pretty common- quite a few posts in this thread amount to "the difference is too small to matter, but also it's bad".
I have shit knees
... so I bought an oval chainring for my road bike - but only the outer one as that's what was on offer
Now that is weird. Dropping from the oval to the round inner ring is VERY noticeable - feels like something is damping the rotation (which it sort of is, of course). There's no way that only I could feel that, it's very marked.
Doesn't make one or the other better or worse but they are definitely different
I thought I would try one a couple of years ago. I'm old enough to have remember Biopace back in the day and realise there is a 90 degree difference and this is trying to achieve the opposite effect.
(more leverage where there's more power, lower effective gear where there is less power
New chain ring needed changing anyway and I was oval curious to see if it helped me on climbs (see above about being old enough to remember Biopace).
Always been on flat pedals, never clipped in and I don't have a Strava account so I am not looking for PB's or incremental gains over long rides or whatever.
I ride a full sus, 2015 TR Scout so only 125mm and HL. I never use pro pedal or lock out.
I like it. I do perceive a small advantage on steep technical sections, traction is good and makes them more fun to me. I don't perceive any disadvantage anywhere else. Might be a placebo effect, I don't know. I might go back to round next time to see if I can see a difference the other way.
On the placebo effect. My 8 year old boy is convinced it gives me some kind of super power and totally sees it as an unfair advantage. I tell him it means that I don't need to by an Easy bike for a few more years yet.
I'm as much a roadie as an mtber, I can spin pretty well. The oval ring on my SS feels good, I expect because of how it works at lower cadences. But I'm not thinking it is any mor efficient.
Top end professionals have lost races because they couldn’t find their lucky pants
No: they just think they have.
Well it arrived folks and it has been fitted
By the way it has been fitted to my new Sonder Camino
I think the reason many shout 'placebo' is that when you initially go from round to oval the perceived difference is usually small, or even nonexistent. That's because your muscles and brain have been on round all your life, so that's how you pedal. At this stage many say 'snakeoil' and go back to round.
But if you give ovals a bit of time - I'd say at least 250 miles - and give your your muscles time to adapt to the different stresses, when you go BACK to the round it feels REALLY different. This is basically what scadeypants is saying with his round/oval 2-ring setup.
So, once you adapt to oval, then go back to round (on a mate's bike, say) then it just feels rubbish, frankly, as you blow through the power phase far too quickly. It's not subtle either. This is also more pronounced on hardtail/rigid/road bikes IME.
I have round on one bike and oval on the other two at the moment, I can absolutely tell the difference but neither feels weird any more - in the way that the first ride on an oval ring did.
My gut feeling is that any increased efficiency claims for oval rings are snakeoil, but the "crawling up steep climbs" benefit is real and very noticeable.
I think any effect of an oval ring is masked by using gears, you select a gear to get a decent pedal stroke. Used one in a 1x and didn't really feel any different, though I was used to one on my SS by then.
Fit one to a SS and they do feel beneficial to me, or as clearly as I think feel and bad science testing can indicate. At a low rpm but not fully straining or stall point sort of climbing effort they seem to help keep momentum or rhythm despite being a couple of teeth larger. The benefit when spinning along at high cadence low torque is simply that my gear is 2 teeth higher than the round ring that it replaces.
I get the idea that suggests an oval ring will make you bob on a FS bike… but TBH, you bob on an FS bike anyway!!
That's it, I think to say whether it's a benefit on a given FS bike you'd need a complex model of both rider pedalling style and the bike's linkage design, shock set up, etc. So back to feel and bad science for most of us then.
So back to feel and bad science for most of us then.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
^ ha, no, it's just a thing. Isn't bad science just testing for opinions vs proper science testing for facts?
But if you give ovals a bit of time – I’d say at least 250 miles – and give your your muscles time to adapt to the different stresses, when you go BACK to the round it feels REALLY different.
I have done probably thousands of miles on oval and now back on round. Can't say I can feel a huge difference. That's not to say there isn't a perceptible difference, just not for everyone.
I'd like to A-B test oval vs round on the same bike (like scaredypants has done) before drawing any firm conclusions though.
the whole bike is run by a computer made of meat that hasn’t had a software update since it used to be fitted in a monkey.
This is brilliant 😀
^ ha, no, it’s just a thing. Isn’t bad science just testing for opinions vs proper science testing for facts?
Bad science is testing for opinions in a non-scientific way. Opinions *are* facts, and are important and worth measuring. But of course, what the measuring them will tell you is what the opinions are, not whether they are true.
The April fools are early this year
or 3 years late...
DrP
