So, given my youngest has outgrown his bike seat, and is on the cusp of riding without stabilisers, it’s time for the old workhorse to return to action as my winter bike.

Given I have a NW oval chainring of a suitable size in the spares bin, and I’ll be running a tensioner, any reasons for/against running an oval on SS?

none and you can run an oval ring without a tensioner btw.

Only if the continual changes in tension don’t bother you. They bothered me when I tried many years ago but I am a bit obsessive about change tension admittedly.

I run a Rotor Q Ring with no issues on my SS.

It will physically work and plenty have no issues, but like Kerley I can’t stand the loosest points, admittedly mostly from an OCD point of view.

Tension correctly at the tightest spot and live with the floppiest bit 🙂

I also prefer a round ring anyway as I find oval too choppy especially on SS- way more control and smoothness with a round ring for me… but that is a whole other discussion 🙂

I’ve had ovals on various singlespeeds without tensioners for a few years now. The only issue I’ve had is one bike that drops the chain if the chain is worn. However that one has a 42t ring so I wonder whether the difference in length through the rotation is greater than on mtb sizes.

I’ve done ovals on singlespeed and hub gears…works really well. Slight change in chain length but just set the tension on the tight spot. Bikes are tolerant and don’t need a perfectly tensioned chain 🙂

I’ve had ovals on various singlespeeds without tensioners for a few years now. The only issue I’ve had is one bike that drops the chain if the chain is worn. However that one has a 42t ring so I wonder whether the difference in length through the rotation is greater than on mtb sizes.

Geometry-wise, the variation in chain slack increases as the size ratio between front and rear cogs/rings increases, so yes. There would barely be any variatoin in a nice comfy 1:1 ratio 😉