Use elliptical rings rotor Q and BETD rings. They do make a difference, and no they’re not biopace as the ellipse is in a different position an the were designed to do different things.
used by lots of teams and race folks even wiggo had ellipticals.
lots of in depth threads with links to research reports and stuff on this here forum about then if you have a look
oh and according so some that don’t use them and haven’t tried them, they’re snake oil and it’s the 80’s again 😉Posted 5 years ago
‘Properly’ orientated oval rings – that is with the long axis through the power stroke, unlike BioPace – work very well for low gear / high RPM applications, especially when climbing or when carrying luggage.
The proof of the pudding for me is returning to round rings and finding them ‘dead’ and harder work…Posted 5 years ago
from Osymetric website :
What is an OSYMETRIC curve?
OSYMETRIC curve is not an oval or ellipse, is a dual cam, a TwinCam.
What is a Twincam : 2 curves are symmetrical about a single point.
Why is OSYMETRIC not an oval or ellipse?
Neither the ellipse or oval and can solve the optimization of the strength of the leg using a crank.
As tazzymtb said Wiggo used them for the last tour de France. Especially during the time trials; that being said if they are not better that round chainrings, at least they are not worse.Posted 5 years agobig_scot_nannySubscriber
I remember hiring a bike from Ellis Bringham in Aviemore in about 1989, and on looking down could not figure out WTF was wrong with the bloody chainrings!
Many years later I became aware of Biopace, and suddenly everything was clear. 😀
but really, are they better? Really? Or is it more like me thinking white components make me faster (by 15% or so)?
KevPosted 5 years ago
but really, are they better? Really?
Do not mix biopace with Q-Ring or Osymetric rings. They are three completely different systems despite trying to tackle the same problem.
Think that on a round chainring you have huge variations in terms of required energy input (depending at which position you are on the ring) to keep a given pace. Actually, the round chainring is less adapted than a chainring like Osymetric that compensates the variations.Posted 5 years agorewskiMember
I had biopace in the 80s, everyone including my LBS used to say I’d go through chains a lot quicker, that never really happened, nor did the perceived benefits to be honest, would be interested to try Q rotors, but they’re at the bottom of the a very long list of other bike gadgetry.Posted 5 years ago
I can recall 1 test linked to on this topic only, and it was clearly biased. Also, a few people have bought them and think they are better.
So for me, the jury’s out. The only benefit I can see is that you get through the dead spot more quickly. I don’t find time in the dead spot a limiting factor in my performance – can still easily get to max HR on round rings.
I still say if they were deomnstrably better this would have been norne out in testing and EVERYONE would be using them.Posted 5 years ago
I don’t find time in the dead spot a limiting factor in my performance
I do, especially on technical climbs so that’s why I would fancy those just to give them a try. Maybe this is just a hype but I don’t think so, the idea makes sense to me.
I still say if they were deomnstrably better this would have been norne out in testing and EVERYONE would be using them.
That is not true, there are many examples of rather bad systems being widely used while better ones are available, they are however often not widely used for several reasons.
Osymetric claims you are up to 10-12% more efficient which is already very good I think (if true). They also argue that you can easily check this figure yourself power measuring devices.Posted 5 years ago
barkit – Member
Osymetric claims you are up to 10-12% more efficient which is already very good I think (if true). They also argue that you can easily check this figure yourself power measuring devices.
I bet they do. But why aren’t the teams using them decimating their competition? 10% is a HUGE performance increase.
It’s a joke.Posted 5 years agoD0NKSubscriber
10% is a HUGE performance increase
aren’t these figures for best vs worst case scenarios? In cycling there’s so much emphasis on rider ability that once you get to elite level any technical improvement is tiny whereas for you and me it would be a marked improvement (10% still sounds a lot tho).
no idea whether funky shaped rings are any good, I get the power and dead spots but if you ‘help’ the dead spot aren’t you increasing your effort on the usual power part, helping you in one area but gimping you in another? evening out the torque out which presumably would be great in a motor but bodies are a bit differentPosted 5 years ago
cynic-al – Member
why aren’t the teams using them decimating their competition?
In theory yes, I think DONK just provided the perfect reply to your question. I remember the Sky team used to hide the brand on the chainrings so their competitors would not notice and copy them right away.
DONK – Member
if you ‘help’ the dead spot aren’t you increasing your effort on the usual power part
It’s a matter of optimzing your effort; your remove “resistance” where you are the weaker (i.e. around the dead spot) and you add what you substracted in terms of diameter at the moment where you reach your maximum power. With a round chainring, there is some “waste” every turn.Posted 5 years ago
I don’t find time in the dead spot a limiting factor in my performance
I do, especially on technical climbs so that’s why I would fancy those just to give them a try. Maybe this is just a hype but I don’t think so, the idea makes sense to me.[/quote]
Back in my Calderdale days, my elliptical rings certainly helped with technical climbs. They get you through the dead spot quicker, and mean you have an higher effective gear through the power stroke, which means the back wheel is less likely to lose traction. What’s not to like?
My granny ring was 40% ‘ovality’ which means it was effectively a 20-tooth through the dead spot, and 28-tooth through the power stroke. Unfortunately, with the demise of EggRings, you can no longer buy rings which are this elliptical, but every little helps.Posted 5 years ago
It’s a matter of optimzing your effort; your remove “resistance” where you are the weaker (i.e. around the dead spot) and you add what you substracted in terms of diameter at the moment where you reach your maximum power. With a round chainring, there is some “waste” every turn.
They increase the integral of the product of your legs’ force input and the mechanical advantage of the crank/chainring combination over a complete crank revolution.
Or something… 😉Posted 5 years ago
wouldn’t know about gearies but on a singlespeed they do make a difference, you can go up 2-4 teeth on the front for the same perceived effort, the top speed spin is much more comfortable without feeling that your knees are wrecking and on steep thrutcy climbs they can make the difference between cleaning a climbing and walking. you don’t have chain drop issues either as long as you know how to set the tension. SS elliptical rings can be had for 35-45 quid so not a massive price either.
I hate riding round rings now, just feels gash.Posted 5 years ago
I’d agree to a certain extent, but again my comments are based on SS, on a road bike, turbo or tack bike I can spin high cadence smoothly. Spinning out an SS mtb is never as smooth, for me personally a wibbly wobbly thing makes it smoother and gives me a higher cadence or more i can hold the higher cadence that bit longer. Like i always say, it works for me others may **** hate it. But don’t compare it to biopace and then poopoo it without giving it a go.Posted 5 years ago
The topic ‘Oval cranks?’ is closed to new replies.