Do Oval (non-round) chainrings improve one leg vs two leg cycling power (Q ring, osymmetric)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 พ.ย. 2016
- Do Q-rings improve power? Here is our answer, focusing on scientific facts and evidence not speculation. Yes here at FFT we have used q-rings & osymetric for over a year. However absolute proof they help is not clear. Here we talk about the basics of the effect of non-round (oval) rings on power, torque, pedal speed, bike speed. Firstly from a lab perspective where we can test one leg at a time, then in the field two legs. Thus we address: what exactly is the "dead spot" in the pedaling motion? In the lab it is the effort the carry the leg back up to the 12oclock position, in the field it is the transition between the dominant downstrokes. Perhaps oval cranks work because of biomechanical comfort for some, perceived mechanical advantage for others. However we suggest to take into account the exact chainring size when deciding what ring is best for you. (rotor Q ring, osymmetric, doval, absolute black, ogival, one up, woolf, biopace). BTW if you were hoping for a simple "one-size fits all" answer.....you will be disappointed. Non-round chainrings work for some people, sometimes for comfort, sometimes for pedal action, sometimes for power. For others they don't. In the opinion of FFT benefits on power are mainly because of the benefit of finding more appropriate gearing/gear ratios. However benefits in comfort may be seen.
[apologies for low quality audio in places].
Hey guys please join us on our accredited strava club here: fft.tips/strava
Round/oval shifting performance test. Please? For a tired racer, my money is on the ring that has the same performance if you click the shifter at any portion of the pedaling revolution. (round)
Nanometers of torque? 🤦
Personally, I prefer a round chainring and oval wheels.
looool
loooool
Smoother rides...
I do appreciate the though put into these vids though. Thanks and keep 'em coming!
This is exactly what I was looking for. A scientific, impartial and well informed study on the topic. Thank you. Subscribed
I appreciate him being aero for the vid
Here's my entirely un-scientific take on oval rings: I've been riding and racing for 40 years and 3 years ago switched first to Q-Rings and more recently to Osymetrics. I have partially torn lateral ligaments in one knee and a dodgy pelvis following a fractured sacrum. Riding with ovals has got me back on the road riding, and back to a decent level of fitness. I live in the Alps so most of the riding is long climbs, but there's a bit of everything here. I tend to ride around 85-100rpm, and particularly like oval rings on long climbs. They put less stress on my semi knackered knee when at its most bent in the pedal cycle, and I can ride consecutive days without pain. If I put an eyeballs out sprint through round rings, my ligaments need rest for a couple of days, but with ovals they're ok. Same thing if I have to grind on a very steep section of a climb. So I ride ovals.
Now onto the negatives: here in the Alps I need either 34-50 or 36-52, but this number of teeth difference on the chainset is right on the limit of what's possible for the front derailleur. With Q-rings I always found when on the little ring to little sprocket, the chain gets half picked up by the big chainring half way through the pedal cycle. In fact it even happened on the 3rd smallest sprocket when on the small chain ring, like a kind of chain slap against the big ring. No matter what I tried I couldn't stop that, but I rarely want to use those gears anyway, so no big deal. With Osymetrics I don't get this, but the big ring to biggest sprocket is unusable due to terrible chain rub. Big ring to next biggest sprocket it also a no-no due to chain rub, and though it still rubs on the next sprocket it's bearable. I have to be in 4th gear on the cassette before there's no rub in trim position with the front mech. I'm using a Shimano Dura Ace 9100 front mech, and have adjusted it SO many different ways, also with bike shop help, but there's just not enough difference between the outermost front mech setting and the trim to make it work smoothly. This is because the chain line on an Osymetric changes enormously as you rotate the pedals, way more than on round rings, and way more than Q-Rings. Oh for an old friction lever for the front mech! Maybe SRAM Red might work better, the front cage looks a tad wider. If anyone has any experience with this, do let me know.
You also have to set the front mech backwards a way with a shimmy on compact Osymetrics otherwise the chain rubs on the very bottom of the derailleur cage. You have to be a die hard advocate for these rings when it comes to front mech set up: I'd dearly love to know how Chris Froome's mechanics set up his front mech! I daresay much of the time he's on 38-52/3 which is much easier for the front mech.
Q-Rings are much easier in this respect. But I find the Osymetrics are more natural to use, and didn't notice them not being round when I first tried them, whereas with the Q-Rings I did. But maybe I was already semi 'oval-adapted' when I tried Osymetrics.. At the end of the day, at the age of 55 I'm getting PRs on Strava segments I've been riding for years, and am enjoying cycling without pain, so I'm sticking with my Osy's.
Thank you for the feedback bud and good rides.
Yes, thank you.
Have you thought of using a bar end type shifter for the front derailer mounted like the old touring bikes used to be? Bar end shifter in the left handlebar end where the tape plug goes.
Pretty the same feeling I had when used the Osymetrics. Very nice review! I cannot change a single word and totally agree. Thanks!
@@xexatubed Hello! Does your chain rub the big ring when you have it in the small ring on the 12,13,14 on the back? Do the Osymetric rings make a slight "chunk, chunk" noise when you pedal especially when slightly cross chained? I have Doval 2g rings 52/36 , couldn't beat the price as compared to the Osymetric. I am still comparing them to the round rings on my other bike. I really like how they feel but the noise is a little strange. Since I like the rings I can put up with the noise but just wondering if they are supposed to sound like that. Thanks!
units for torque are Newton-meters, not 'nanometers' (3:42)
Yea, I stopped watching after I heard nano meters.
clearly show how familiar he is with the topic :(
Well to be fair, humans aren't generating very many Newton meters of torque. 😂 might as well be a nano meter lmao
@@Jayson_Tatum you'd be suprised
The "dead spot" in a pedal stroke is not considered the upstroke, because as you have correctly said, the other foot is travelling down. The dead spot is the horizontal translation of the foot between the upstroke and downstroke, or between the downstroke and upstroke. This segment of the pedal stroke also generates very little power, and is where the cyclist will generally lose foot speed (fractionally). Non-round chain rings aim to make this segment of the pedal stroke FASTER by reducing the torque load present during the translation, the same way foot speed increases in your small ring. So on the Vertical portions of the pedal stroke you have max torque (56T equivalent) and on the Horizontal portions of the stroke, you require less torque to "reset" back to the power portion of the stroke.
Your pop up data showed this, but you're interpretation is off.
A low ankle pedaling style allows quality power application well beyond 180 degrees. Power application starts before the top, and a bit of a toe scrape at the bottom pulls it to way more than 200 degrees of meaningful power generation from one leg. Possibly as much as 260 degrees of meaningful power, which shrinks the dead spot tremendously. I used to pedal on the trainer in a 53x15 for 15 minutes with one leg. 60 rpm. Probably making well over 200 watts with one leg. 20 minute ftp between 420-440 with both legs. There are levels to this, kiddo. 😉 I heard a story about a pro who rode a pro/1/2/ crit and won a prime with one leg, just to be a smarty pants. Qualitative pedaling training separates normal from great riders.
@@sasquatchrosefarts Ok, uni-leg.
Love everything about this content.
Nice tip coach
Another excellent video. Hope there's more of these planned!
Feel free to suggest some hot topics
1. Tyres: tubs vs clinchers vs tubeless. Cr, CdA, weight, durability etc. of all three options.
2. Ceramic bearings. Performance, lifespan.
3. Optimal cadence (range?) for Certain events. Time trials, 5 min hill climb, etc? Is this rider specific? Other variables.
4. How crank length affects TT position. What's the best compromise?
5. Anything related to power data analysis - particularly use of power curve.
6. How air temperature/pressure affects performance
7. Anything related to tapering/peaking for key events
A long-ish list as they randomly came to mind. Would be awesome if just one of these was interesting for a future video. Thanks
Some great ideas there! Next is likely to be how to chose the optimum gear ratio (which will cover optimal cadence); but after that will look at your list
"The pedal velocity is slower on the up-stroke than the down-stroke." That's physically impossible, because one leg's up-stroke happens at the same time as the other leg's down-stroke, and the cranks are fixed in position relative to each other.
In the two leg (normal situation) very true! thats why I added a note saying "transition to upstroke" but in one leg lab test maybe not.
Nobody cares about 1 leg lab tests in the real world.
That was my thought too. The only thing in the test that matters, I think is the dead spot, since upstroke of one leg is the down stoke of another, but the dead spot happens to both legs at the same time.
@@spacitron4818 That's ableist
I think it's not a matter of if ovals produces more/consistant power, it's that ovals harvest energy from the rider more efficiently. It's the same thing as when like a rider shifts up or down a gear to make the best use of their power output. An oval chain ring shifts up and down and up and down with every revolution to best match the power being out put in each section of the stroke.
That's why all of those studies are inconclusive, they're measuring power when they should be measuring power efficiency.
It really doesn't matter if they work or not.
If they make the user 'Feel' like they work (placebo), then they will be more inclined to ride harder and actually improve.
agree completely. You have to use a chainring. these are not much more $ than a round one. Run it!
I hung onto every word there. Thank you for the not inconsiderable effort you put into this vid. I have enjoyed it. Now I just need to find out which size chain rings are best for me. Easy as that then.
thanks...chainring...actually we have that answer too, it is in a forthcoming calculator and/or app called "gearing selector" email info@fastfitness.tips and ill tell you what variables I need to know to give you the scientific answer.
These videos are usually great but this is a real disappointment. The fundamental question of whether asymmetric rings enable a rider to produce power more efficiently is not answered. There also seems to be a lack of understanding of what the dead spot is and what mechanical advantage and disadvantage are. The dead spot is actually a combination of the points over the top and under the bottom of the pedal stroke at which the mechanics of the body make it unable to exert force efficiently through the combined effort of both legs simultaneously (hence the reason it's a dead spot), not on the uplift for which the opposite leg provides the majority of the power (as stated but not properly considered). We ride with two legs, so discussion of one legged power production just muddies the water and belongs in a separate analysis of pedaling technique.
Yeh I kind of agree, I probably need to re-do it; with less rambling and more science!
For me as a mountainbiker it becomes easier to climbe steep technical terrain without having to get off the bike. That is a clear and obvious advantage for me. I.e. Most of the time it does not matter, but for situations where I have very low cadence in technical steep uphills I mange to make climbs I did not manage before without having to get off the bike.
same here.
I'm just lifting my leg on the upstroke, as long as I'm not pushing down on the upstroke I'm happy.
I purchased an oval chain ring to solve a unique problem while cycling. Towing a trailer with kids. I found my round chain ring was constantly making the bike bounce on the trailer hitch and the kids didn't like it either. So I have the oval ring orientated so that it smoothens the power delivery rather than tries to extract extra muscle advantage. I also ride with clipless pedals, so I have no up stroke to help spin a smoother power delivery. As a result I discovered something really interesting. Less seat fatigue as I'm not bobbing up and down so much and it's really comfortable. Also I find myself using a higher gear when peddling. So I reckon oval chain rings bring a whole new set of parameters that can be explored. It would also be really interesting to test with a combination of crank arm lengths. Does feel strange at first. Pressure on the pedals are more linear and thus give more a feeling of being planted to the bike.
Really valid point at 11:12
Good stuff
The upstroke phase only exists for a single leg. We pedal with two legs offest by 180', so the weak point is not during an upstroke or a downstroke of either leg (which are the same thing), but inbetween those strokes.
To make it simpler and using the right leg for reference - the weak point is inbetween its down- and upstroke.
Thanks for this. I ride two bikes- one with Q rings and one with round. There isn't a massive difference.
But... you don't really cover the possibility that the power is the same but the cycling is less of a strain on your joints.
My knees are certainly happier on longer distances using the Q rings but that maybe just me.
I agree....in many circumstances comfort trumps speed esp for recreational riders / those not in competition.
I agree with his main point at the end of the Vid, is find what works for you. I have gone back and forth between oval and round rings, for me it's been more about gearing and cadence. On my Mtn bike with a 1X11 set up I have been running 11-46 cassette with a 30T up front but just didn't like how it felt in the middle of the cassette when standing and sprinting up hills. Using a 11-42 cassette with a 50T expander cog I was able to go to a 32T up front witch suited me better over all. Since I really like this gearing I still am interested in trying a Oval chain ring to see what I think.
I use 11-46 with 32T oval and a 11-50(with one up) with a 34T oval. Pedaling up-hill suddenly seems eaiser, no doubt aided by the fact that I have reduced the crank arm lenght from 175 to 170 mm. I didn't find and negative side even on flat ground.
But, I need to warn you regarding the rear derailleur. I don''t have any problems with the one from the XC bike but, on the one from the enduro bike...that is 50% finshed in less than 4 months. I had to open up, regrease everything and tighten it to the max. It didn't take long though and the decrease in shifting performance returned. Maybe I got a flawed XT derailleur...but, the on on the XC bike performs as in it's first day without any work done to it.
having said that, I will not return to round chainrings anywhere in the future.
choose wisely and good luck.
Cheers,
E.
Yip gearing plays a big roll. On SRAM 10-42 with 34T chianringand 27.5 wheels I just didn't feel comfortable. GEarings always felt too heavu or too light. When Eagle came out I opted for the 10-50 and 36T chainring and presto,.........nirvana. Oval chain still didn't do any thing for me so I swapped back to round and it just works.
Having come from 2x9 to 2x10 to 1x11 the 1x11 gearing options just didn't line up for me. 1x12 has fixed that
FFT,
Your use of measurements instead of opinions , in general, is the most truthful approach,
and the one most faithful to "Engineering" methods in science.
You have used the mechanical and gearing analysis very well enough. Thanks.
...
However,
The physiological process of Cycling bicycle pedals around is kinetically more complex
than can possibly be presented in a short video presentation.
...
The ability of the muscular body to "adapt" to various mechanical apparatus is very great,
and could possibly over power any new devices attempt of "helping" the body perform better.
I have 40 years of club cycling experience, and I have adapted to the "Round" chain-rings.
My cycling buddy has 30 years of Recumbant Cycling, and he has adapted to that.
As you noted, the "Adaptation" ability of the human body is extremely great ;
ie, given time and practice, the human body can adapt to "Round" and/or "Oval" chain-rings.
The body can adapt to "Ankling" and "drop-heel" pedaling techniques.
In Triathlete circles, the body can adapt to "Running-on-pedals" techniques and aerobar positions.
...
Not considered is the Varying Amount of Effective "Muscular Pull" that can be provided
by the "Muscle Fiber" and "Tendon-+-Joint" combination.
This is a Linear Torgue concept.
The Muscle Fiber combined with Tendons does not produce "Linear Torgue".
And, when the Tendon wraps around a bone joint, the action is even less Linear.
...
Here is a little mental experiment to demonstrate this concept of kinetics:
(1) Visualize the muscle fiber extended in a bicep curl (arm straight down at 6'clock) ;
then
(2) Visualize the muscle fiber fully contracted (arm full up at 1'clock).
(3)(a) Muscle Fibers "extended" are pulling 'in-line' with possible motion of the tendon.
(3)(b) Muscle Fibers "contracted" are pulling "cross-wise" to the possible motion of the tendon.
Result : Muscles do not always provide "linear pull" to the tendon.
...
Then
(4)(a) Visualize the Quadriceps muscles at the top ( 1'clock) position, fibers fully extended;
(4)(b) Visualize the Quadriceps muscles at middle (3'clock) position, half contracted;
(4)(c) Visualize the Quadriceps muscles at bottom (5'clock) position, fully contracted.
Result : Muscles do not always provide "linear pull" to the tendon.
...
Summary:
The available muscular torque ,
simply considering One muscle group and One tendon attachment,
shows that the muscular activity of Cycling bicycle cranks around is very complex.
...
All of us should be more humble in proclaiming our "well-intended" Opinions and Expectations
concerning "Oval" vs "Round" Chain-Rings.
...
I hope that FFT will continue to Explore and Measure the complex activity of Cycling.
...
You continually keep referring to the down stroke and the up stroke of the cranks. You need to remember that a cyclist is a "two cylinder" pedaling machine. To discuss this phenomenon you should be considering whether a rider should pull up on the up-stroke. You may be aware of a chain set that didn't connect the two cranks: the descending leg couldn't lift the ascending leg. This was so the rider would "learn" to lift their training leg. The rider had to lift the weight of their leg, crank and pedal from bottom-dead-center to top-dead-center.
Oval chain rings make no attempt to address this issue.
It is an undeniable fact that purely due to Newtonian physics that energy can be saved by reducing the linear acceleration of the rider, bike and rotational acceleration of the (fly) wheels twice per revolution. Additionally energy can be saved by reducing the deceleration experienced each half crank revolution at top and bottom dead center.
Oval chain rings are an alternative or addition to a more even application of torque to the rear wheel through the pedaling technique often referred to as "ankling".
There is definitely a measurable and worthwhile advantage to be gained.
One of the reasons for the adoption of higher cadence climbing is that the man and machine aren't continually gaining and losing so much momentum at each slow pedal stroke: It's like having more, smaller cylinders in a car engine resulting in more but lower power pulses per rev.
Oval chain rings aim to improve on this further.
At top-dead-center a lower gear is effectively used (smaller chain ring) so the cranks, (not the bike) speed up and pass through this segment quicker. Similarly a higher gear is engaged (bigger chain ring) on the down stroke so the more powerful push and resulting torque lasts longer. Even though this is the most powerful crank segment, the bike, rider and wheels are discouraged from forward acceleration as the big gear can't be "wound up" immediately.
The question is, can the body in all its complexity adapt to take advantage of these tangible gains?
I think it can but:
a). riders need to learn to adapt to the different pedaling action and
b). the current on-bike power meters are not accurate enough to indicate the small difference in improvements.
A static Watt Bike probably is but I don't think riding a Watt Bike is the same as balancing a two wheeled bike under normal ride conditions. Can the resistance on the Watt Bike mimic the inertia of the bike / rider combination plus wheels out on the open road?
We may be only talking about 0.2% of any given 0.6 sec revolution (at an average 90 rpm) but consider that Andy Schleke lost the three week long Tour de France by 39 seconds. (over 6 hours /day for 19 days this equals 410,400 seconds.
The 40 sec.to win =0.001%)
Nice post, glad this one got you thinking in this much detail. You make some good points in fact I have updated the video to reflect "transition to upstroke" not just "upstroke". If you know of any more informative studies I would be pleased to know. thanks.
so if Schleck had used a oval chainring, he would have won the TdF? It's a nice bookworm argument, but complete nonsense. You didn't need to come up with the complicated argument. I could have just said that if Schleck had used a bit more aero jersey and carried an ounce less water, he could have shaved 40 seconds off too, and probably much more. Too many factors involved in racing man, and to make a case of Schleck could have won if he had used oval chainrings is a complete rookie wishful thinking
To add to R A BISHOP, the difference of application is also the difference of effect. When you're calculating out .8sec at a certain mechanical advantage, the example being the 53T chain ring. The mechanical advantage is intensified when you change to say a 32T or 34T on a mountain bike. It also changes again where cadence is inconsistent. So the mechanical advantage is going to be intensified in terms of torque and also where pedal cadence may also be slowed drastically along with the weight that is creating the resistance (heavier bike, more resistance in tires). Once you calculate those factors, then add the phenomenon that on a MTB, you're more often starting 3 & 9 o'clock position where you're at a mechanical advantage already.
In many ways, it is so hard to not only discredit but also accredit the benefits of the oval rings because the software, how it's being measured, algorithms used for measurement all create a margin of error too great to actually measure a difference. As R A BISHOP said, the pro tour cyclists win by seconds after 2+ weeks of riding.
Then there's the variable of optimizing the pedal stroke in which he named "ankling". I was taught (and my description is going to be crude) is that the toe needs to remain lower than the heal, and the method to correct this is to manipulate your knees like you're going to try to touch them to the bars. Just be simply doing this (remember I'm saying this crudely) it naturally causes you to elevate your cadence with the same amount of power. Couple that with an oval ring, and the dynamic changes.
I'm not saying that if Schleck had used oval chain rings in particular. I agreeing that "marginal gains" in any area are worth exploring. I would include more aerodynamic ways to carry food etc than in jersey pockets. When a rider most wants to cheat the wind they will grip the drops lowering their shoulders and, involuntarily, exposing bulging pockets to the head wind. It's similar to riders who drop their heads during a time trial while wearing a long-tail aero time trial helmet.
I was just pointing out that 1, 2 and 3 week tours can be lost by second. Also 200K plus single day classics can be won or lost by millimeters in a sprint. Marginal gains can make a difference.
Returning to oval chain rings, the normal, rhythmic progress of mini accelerations and deceleration that a bike and rider experience can be compared to driving down a motorway in a car while rhythmically increasing and decreasing pressure on the accelerator. I would suggest that this would result in a measurable increase in power usage and fuel consumption.
You shouldn't be pulling up on your cranks...wasted watts!
I have a Shimano Biopace
Fc-M350 170 mm, i have purchased my used beloved bike two years ago with 80 Euro, actually i had no idea that the crank was oval shaped lol , but i choosed this bike among hundreds of other bikes was there because i felt so comfortable when i tested it, nowadays i have upgraded my bike, i upgrade every thing except the original frame and the nice old crank, i even turned it to E-bike with 1000w, its a monster now, glad i didn't changed my old crank.
Tjakepzzz...
Nice...
Very good. As far as it goes. However, one additional point which is the Raison D'être for oval (and biopace) rings. The large diameter is to accommodate the strong part of the cyclist's pedal stroke and the small diameter is to accommodate the weaker part. Taking a close look at the way this is to be used to advantage, we see that the all-important transition from the weaker to the stronger position occurs between the, say, one o'clock and four o'clock position of the crank. Here the leg is beginning its downward thrust, building up strength, and easing into the peak at four o'clock. Human muscles don't like sudden changes, this is called 'gracefulness' in the dancing art. I enhance this effect by dropping my heel early and getting a head start into the downstroke. But then, I am sure my cadence would be considered too slow for your discussion, which seems to be more racing oriented.
Not at all. Riders I have spoken to feel they gain most advantage during slow cadence pedaling, particularly when climbing. So if your cadence is slower you can probably gain more from oval rings.
Erm we totally missed the point here - there are no 1 legged cyclists, so the dead spot is not when a leg lifts, it's the point when both legs change direction, so a good orientation would be one which approaches going up stairs, so low gear at top/bottom and high gear through pedal stroke (each stroke is the other foot's return)
Lee Tanczos Did you just assume how many legs I have?!
Yes you are right. Also I have since seen a cyclist with one leg and reconsidered the theory. Commercially there aren't any though unfortunately.
Lee Tanczos juan jose mendez ..
How do you know if I don't have one leg?
By the tone of your voice.
Trying now on mtb Absolute Black oval chainrings. This weekend i'll have a race with them. On a short trainig yesterday, what i found is that on flat they are super smooth to ride. Like we are not making great effort to build up speed. But i'm still a bit sceptical on technical terrain or on climbs. Maybe is because i'm not adapted to them, but they seem to be a little "laggish"... Well, i'll give it a try
Someone should 3D print a 53-8 oval chainring just so we can put it on for laughs.
AGHH! ahh AGHH! ahh
New marginal gain. Expect Vroom to get even more ridiculous. Especially on TUEsdays.
That'd be a 3-ring chainset or at least an MTB-chainset with some very small bcd :D fitting 8T (2T smaller than commercially available rear cog) could be a bit of a problem to fit on 110bcd, never mind 130bcd lol
There's a new-ish material that (at temps below 80 degrees Celsius) approaches the strength of aluminium. Probably fine for a big-ring
I've never felt like they made me go faster, I've only felt that it makes low RPMs easier, and high torque riding less tiring than round rings.
It's more of giving your legs an ever so slight rest and shortens the effort period per revolution.
Sean Young how is it giving your leg a rest in the down stroke (high torque zone) when you’re pushing more teeth? If anything it would make low RPM harder
@@scottgeorge6375 I think he means he can put the same power he would have put through a round ring, in a smaller time period or window when on a non-round ring. So a shorter, yet stronger push to then gain more recovery time during the revolution. Another way of saying it is, non-round means you can push only during 2 to 4 o'clock (viewing right side of bike) but with more power. Where as round rings, on a hill, you have to push from 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock. It all comes down to what you're better optimised for. High inertia or low inertia pedaling. I think genetics and lifestyle play a big part in that.
Several points - there are one-legged cyclists, like the fellow who did the Moab 24 Hr years ago, passing two-legged riders on uphills before dismounting and hopping past on the steepest stuff. Second, two legs joined by the crank show a two-phase cycle, where the primary foot is pulling the other thru the weak part; riders on flat free pedals are only applying force downward, and the other is along for the ride on the upswing. The alternate muscle groups are enjoying a rest cycle during the arc where they are not active, so flushing blood in and out is a part of the phases. Cadences and apparent gear ratios/leverages are all trained and optimized for output over fifteen second to ten hour periods. A single rotation cycle means very little. How much less efficient is the old toy pedal car, which some have tried to adopt with no success, to the bicycle drive train?
The weak points are when the pedals are crossing over top and under the bottom (either leg), just like alternating electrical current. The narrow part of the ring gives an effective lower gear at these points giving the legs a little break at that point. Way back it was shown that the efficiency only appeared a low cadence-right where my old legs like to run (I don't race).
Should be also mentioned that they often won't work perfectly with most front derailleurs
I found in RL, that ovals work better for grinders, and spinners should test before using. Grinders have enough time to take advantage of the gear change, but it just gets in the way of spinning.
Its about balancing off the dead spot with higher gearing, whilst maximizing torque on the down stroke. The up stroke is more about taking off the weight of the upward leg so that the down stroke is maximized, not having to push the weight of the upward leg. Thanks though for the very valuable insights.
i have tried these and they do feel like they smooth out the pedal stroke, but what i don't like, which is commonly agreed, it does sacrifice front shifting smoothness
subjectivity is still an important characteristic of the human species. If the result of wearing a green shirt makes you happy then it works. Not everything we do need scientific qualitative support (nor can it be measured). Great video..
I'm using an Absolute Black 34t oval inner ring and a round outer ring on my Ultegra 11-speed setup. Shifting with the front derailleur has been flawless requiring no adjustments. The difference between a 34t oval and a 34t round is not really noticeable other than it feels like I pedal smoother with the oval ring. I am considering an oval outer ring also.
Take in account that the human body is not a machine solely based on mechanical functionality... I felt a overall “smoother” more pulsing than charging stroke and considerably less fatigue as well as increased traction on technical steep climbs, which results in a more consistent movement. Oval chainrings do help at least for me and in mountain biking.
So glad to hear your comment. Do you think it would help an amputee with no ankle, who really has the dead spot on tdc while standing and cranking? That's me, I have been trying to find a solution and thought the oval might do it.
To be honest, I can only speculate. But first thought it should help. From my experience the dead spot as felt in a very slow cadence on steep sections is reduced. If your bio mechanical setup is prone to feel the dead spot I guess a oval will help, at least there will be less torque in the 6/12 clock position as you effectively have a smaller sized chainring. Hope this helps?
My experience: I have Osymetric 52-42 and I feel that my climbing ability is improved, especially out of the saddle. When you're basically "hammering" out of the saddle, you have your entire body weight pushing down on the pedal and very little upstroke or "scraping gum off year cleats motion". So gaining teeth on your chainring out of your saddle would benefit. Seated pedaling in the saddle is less efficient for me. Very short upstroke with higher cadence makes it difficult for me to focus on any pulling motion. Sprinting is terrible for me with Osymetric. Although you are more hammering than focusing on complete stroke, I find the larger down stroke duration makes if difficult for me to find the right cadence. Maybe I need to spool up to a faster cadence. I want to see if it's possible to run a 53 round outer ring and a 42 Osymetric inner ring. That would work best for me.
Does this take into consideration the larger muscle groups can take the added stress in regards to endurance?
What's the term used for setting both crankarms to the same 12 o'clock position? Effectively converting your bike to a rowing maching where both legs are engaged on the downstroke
if you pedalling with one foot its a disadvantage in the up stroke but we pedalling with tow feet .
Zed Gee there is a dead spot between both downstrokes which is explained in the vid.
Yeah I have no idea what he is on about in this video as well. Is this all just about having one leg, he never mentions it in the video except the title. Like 10:40 "oval chainring did have advantage in down stroke, but disadvantage in up"... But during that up your going down with other leg so how that that be lol. Is he talking about forward/back - top stoke/bottom stroke when he says upstroke?
Very informative. I'm interested in the correct spelling of the chainring brand you introduced as Oquval or Oguval. Tried searching for it. My ascertion is if you're going to do something do the highest degree to completely apply the principal. You introduce this as 40% oval to round. Well I'm willing to try and experiment also willing to share results.
Upstroke/downstroke it doesn't matter. What produces the more power at the rear wheel?
Interesting vid, although I'm not sure that we 'finally have the truth'! Until a proper, large scale, accurate, impartial test is done, we won't get the truth either, but such tests are expensive and time consuming. Personally I run a 36t Q on the inner ring and a 50 round on the outer, it's what works best for me.
Regarding your statement on adaptation... I switched to oval rings on my primary bike over two years ago (Q-rings initially, now AbsoluteBlack). Initially I felt a perceived improvement in speed and power. When I got a dedicated commuter bike that I kept round rings on it became apparent to me that there is little difference. Basically, I feel no difference when I switch back and forth between the two...
Interesting Scott Booth, I would say the same until I tried Osymmetric then there was a big difference....and not necessarily for the best!
After riding mountain bikes for 20 years, my pedal stroke is almost completely quad dominated. I do not spin as effectively as other riders. If you do spin uber effectively, an oval ring probably wont seem as helpful. For someone like myself, I believe it increases the load where I am strong and reduces it where I am weak. Is it a good idea to go this route? I ride for fun. The further and faster I go, the more fun I have. If the oval ring can help me in these areas, its worth it.
Nanometers of torque?
Nm is Newton meters, no?
Sorry, that verbal typo really stuck out.
oh , ok now i got it
A very un-biased account on the long debated topic of Oval vs Q-Rings. Being a previous convert from Oval to Q, I have now found myself returning to the Oval, I was forced due to needing more teeth going from a 55T Q-Ring to 58T Oval, allowing me to maintain a better chain-line through the drivetrain. It will be interesting to monitor the progress over the coming winter months.
Many years before Rotor, this idea was tested on bikes, and didn't function then. I would like to try one though. Finn. Denmark
I've been riding bikes for 40 years and never, not even once been able to develop muscles soreness or growth in my calves. Until recently when I tried some ovals and couldn't walk straight for 4 days... What is the go with that.
What about the square chain ring?
I don't know how to explain but I can feel the big difference when using Oval. I ain't going back to round. Its helps a lot especially in distant riding.
Hi. How are you doing? I am thinking to buy a chainring QXL Oval 46T, I recommend it?
I think the oval effect should be most pronounced at a low cadence (50-60 rpm)on the dead spot (bottom) of the stroke, when one leg is at full extension and the other knee is fully bent. At a high cadence it will just be like a round chainring, becuase the changes in chaninring diameter will be too fast to percieve.
Due to the fact we're Bipeds...I'd like to know the difference of Downstroke advantages to Upstroke disadvantages, and whether the force in the Downstroke advantages of the sum of both sides negates the Upstroke disadvantages ???
I have just ordered a Rotor ALDHU Carbon Crankset. A 53/39 bigger gears 2 build power . I am an old guy & l spin . Souplese as the French Say .
Also ordered a 52/36 & may order a 50/34 .
I have always ridden round Chain Rings .
Have ordered 11/30 & 11/34 cassette
Rotor ALDHU Crankset looks like the most Commonsense approach 2 replacement / swap out of Chain Rings
Question time ⏲️.
Can u sprint on Oval Chain Rings ?
Nice Job here by u on TH-cam. Always gr8 value.
Robert Australia 🇦🇺
Simply thanks for the info cause is Great..
So people.... keep Oval.
If they're basically supposed to change the gearing at various points of the pedal stroke, then why doesn't the rear derailleur pulley cage move? I mean, if you change the bike's gearing in the usual way (with front and rear derailleur), the pulley cage swings back and forth to take up the changing slack in the chain. Yet every time I've seen an oval crank drivetrain spinning (including in this video) the rear derailleur isn't moving at all?
Because when the ring is vertically aligned, the chain is taken by this vertical extension, and when the ring is horizontally aligned the chain is taken by the extra reach from horizontal extension. If my math is right, that equals to roughly no derailleur movement.
1990 Shimano Biopace
Biopace were.the direct opposite of rotor rings and caused problems with the knees they put resistance in the dead spot and made a complete pigs breakfast of the whole thing , no wonder they were withdrawn.
Hi there, in theory can we use crank based power meter with oval chainrings? Will the reading be accurate? Thanks before mate.
Try this link: powermetercity.com/2016/07/24/power-meters-oval-chainrings/
Oval is a winner for me when standing an pedal mashing my ss mtb
1:28 What's that chainring called?
Ill stick with a round one,it fits nice in my mrp chain device,it would be pointless with an oval ring,youd need the guide block and jockey wheel slackened off,that defeats the point of its purpose If i had an xc or all mountain bike id rather stick with the triple ring set up for hills,i tried one on a triple ring set up,wouldnt work with the front mech,i had xt bio pace years ago,that was a lovely set up for climbs,you could drop gears,unlike oval narrow wide chainrings
He threw me off the deep spot your foot goes forward and backward right?
Absolutely great informative analysis and presentation of the data.
Can one install this with a 3 ring pedal ring?😊
l have two bike within 2lbs of each other both have 46T chainrings with similar cassettes out back and the MTB pedals a lil easier with the oval ring even tho its heavier ,sooo l m looking into oval options for my other bikes too :)
So what you're saying seems to imply that, in order to take advantage of the theoretical faster return-to-power position on an oval ring, a rider would have to change their RPM from slow (power zone) to fast (dead zone) 2 times every 360 degrees. This does not seem likely, as I believe that given the high RPMs road cyclists generally pedal at, momentum keeps pedal RPM relatively even, negating the advantage of oval rings. One exception might be low RPM climbing out the saddle.
There is a real different noticeable if you ride daily climbing hills 10% or more grade. I meant daily. Compared between Oval Biopace and Round Chainring results in real different. Quite alot.
Why does he place his camera so much higher than his eye level? Is there a cinematic or photographic advantage?
I think oval rings are beneficial for lighter road bikes, giving the bike a longer pedal stride, cause less weight will have less momentum at high speed than say a steal frame road bike..? Does this sounds accurate or nah? cool videos btw!
you don't get a greater advantage with a bigger chainring, it is the opposite. put a bigger chain ring on and the gear ratio reduces, put a smaller chainring on it gets easier to push, because it is a relationship between the crank length and ring size. Therefore you have a greater advantage when the ring is at its smallest, when you feet are top and bottom. At these points you can produce less torque but you have a greater advantage. i.e. gearing is easier. Therefore it give you a move consistent spinning action and power delivery compared to a power peak at 3 and 9 o'clock and power low at 12 and 6 o'clock
What's the expression?
If it ain't broke...
12:04-12:05 all you need to watch/listen to in this video
Which one best tell me Qring then ovel nd about size teeth
best for me is oval 56 chain ring
Missed the point. They are designed to decrease fatigue by lowering MA at dead spot, not increase power output. Shimano's Biopace was supposed to increase power at the dead spot.
what jersey are you wearing?
Shimano had Biopace (oval) chainrings in the late 80s. I just wonder about the variances in tension on the rear derailleur springs during the pedal stroke with the oval; just watch the rear derailleur while these are used; that's spring tension at work which would add resistance wouldn't it?
Thanks, we have reviewed the biopace here: th-cam.com/video/A557LYuFkSM/w-d-xo.html. Given there is always some tension on the rear the ovality effect doesn't make any difference provided you have not maxed out the derallieur's maximum capacity.
nanometers of torque?
The "peanut' shape power curve is caused by the two legs. I don't think you can move to practical consideration without always considering both legs. So you have take your sine wave, double it and shift it 180 degrees. of power 54T on power down, but only 8T on the lift up of that leg, the net result when you combine the two legs is 54-8 = 46T and the narrow part of the peanut is when the feet are at the top and bottom, so that might be (I'm guestimating now) maybe 36T. But then you have to consider momentum with further evens everything out. So I can see where bright people, and bicycle engineers, can reasonably disagree. I've been peddling a Fisher HooKoo E Koo (I guess 1987) with a Biopace eccentric. My results.... I don't really know. It's okay.
I think for a duffer like me, an eccentric chainring is probably the most helpful on steep slow climbs, where a couple of teeth (leverage) one way or the other makes a big difference.
One TH-camr mentioned this.
7:15 You're discussing climbing. The test of a possible benefit of the eccentric chainring? Video riders peddling up steep slopes right at the point where they crap out. If eccentricity is useful, then those riders who crap out will be doing it when the peddles are top and bottom and they just can't get the peddle to where they can make that down stroke. Eccentric rings should show their value (if there is any). Consider a climb where you can keep going with 34 teeth, but not with 36. Eccentricity gives you both. 36 where you have maximum power and 34 where you don't.
Overall cycling I think it is more effective to keep a steady 60-80 turns/minute pace, and even out my peddling: moving towards the 'sausage' of the professional cyclists.
Bottomline: The real lesson here I think is about leverage. And not just for cycling. There are some eccentric 'fulcrum' levers, more mechanical advantage at the beginning, but as you lift the mass and moving its center of gravity (think of tipping over a rock) it becomes easier. I'll try to keep your video and my random thoughts the next time I'm thinking of simple machines.
Really smart video. Well done. You said, "you only notice when you change between oval and round." Ding! Okay, I have strong legs, I think I 'muscle' my old Hoo Koo E Koo a lot more than rented and borrowed bikes where I keep an easier gear but a faster cadence (and I think I also keep a more consistent cadence). I'm thinking about getting a new mountain bike. I want a very low gear for climbing, but oval or round? I won't worry about it.
The upstroke isn't 'the dead spot' as the other side is doing the down stroke at that time. It's around the 12 o'clock 6 o'clock position. So all that waffle right there was most probably all guff.
Your shirt looks cool. Which model/brand is this ? :)
thanks. planet X own brand. they are often on sale.
I have a black Oval on my Mountain Bike .The Oval has two more teeth than my old one.. What I've found when climbing steep terrain is that from 3 o'clock to 5 o'clock I have to push down with more force but it is only for a fraction of time and the leg gets a rest immediately after so I climb much better and with a bit more speed as I am putting more effort into the Bike but I can say because the maximum effort is such in a short duration I don't feel it at all . Also put a larger chain ring on my Trance2 and though it wasn't recommended can change between the 2 ok if I make sure the chain is angled though I rarely need to use it unless there fire road.,
As a triathlete I dont get thigh cramps as often as I did after switching to oval and my legs feel Less fatigued off the bike so I run much better
So I have been using a non round small cog only as I get knee pain working on the idea that I would be putting power through when knee is strong and in a good position and reduced power on the transition phase where joint is 'weak'. It feels better and I don't think my knee hurts as much. Any evidence for this or is it more likely that my knee is just getting better and it's a coincidence? I haven't tried going back, gift horse and mouth and all that
A lot of anecdotal evidence that non-round rings help comfort, but no actual studies on this I could find.
Thanks. That's kind of what I thought. Interesting video though. Keep them coming
Definately helps for knee pain, also shorter cranks help even more
I may not have got my head around this properly, but isn't the point about oval chainrings not about the decrease in efficiency in the upstroke, but about the point where the cranks are between the 10 O'clock and 2 o'clock positions where either leg is getting to the bottom of the downstroke (down stroke being where most of the power is derived) and thereafter transitioning the next leg to the top of the downstroke a bit easier/ quicker so the next leg can push a big gear again on the downstroke? Either way I like this guys vids and look forward to trying my oval chainrings - I went for cheap ass Doval chainrings on Ebay - will see how they go!
Rich Cook Noticed them since I'm here in he Far East. Dovals are made in South Korea by a small workshop. Very affordable. I can a double set used for USD34.
What do you mean by one leg vs two leg cycling power... No one cycles w/ just one leg, or at least I've never seen which isn't saying much. I can see how the chainring would be in one position for flat riding.. and another (just the opposite) for uphill. Am I understand that correctly??? I'm a much "lighter rider" than most of ya, short trips here and there; as well, practically being new on a bike these days, for I haven't had one, nor rode a bike in 40 years, but I've got to get out of here, for I need the exercise big time. Talk to me, please. Question: What effect, if any, would an oval chainring have on the crank shaft / bearing???
i think a lot of folks just use the wrong length cranks, and that is why they detect such a change when using oval rings. almost everyone regardless of height uses 170-175mm.
I am 6'3". recently swapped my 175 cranks for 152 cranks (well short for my 34" inside leg).
I am already running non-standard chainrings, and have never been tempted to go back to "standard" sizes - I run what suits my riding, not what is fashionable.
with the 152mm cranks my cadence shot up, and Strava PRs occurred left right and centre.
folks need to sort out gearing and crank length first before even worrying about stuff like oval rings.
but many folks just buy a bike and copy some or other "pro", without looking at their own circumstances.
fashion always stands in the way of science, and this is no exception.
I agree with you 100%! Very few riders consider yet alone change their crank lengths
+Peter Milsom I am 5'75". My crank length is 172.5mm. I am very surprised to read that you use a very short crank. How does it feel? would it not feel a lot harder to turn the same gear?
If you read Peters post carefully you will notice that the shorter crank allows a higher cadence, this in turn allows you a smaller gear. The power will be the same, the speed the same, the only differences are crank length and cadednce. Its a personal preferance thing, and it works.
+Ken B thanks for pointing out. I missed the "read more" part of his post.
Ok, after reading his full post I understood it now. Basically he use smaller gears for that higher cadence.
I guess that higher cadence is achieve-able because his legs are making much smaller circles. I assume he is spinning high 90s to over 100rpm type of rider.
Some hurdles though is crank fitment and power meter. I use rotor 2inpower and the shortest crank length is 165mm. That's not even close to 152mm and I am a much shorter guy to Peter Milsom, so I guess I would use even shorter if I fancy that set up. That means finding something that hardly exists to fit with my Tarmac and use a rear wheel or paddle based power meter.
Edit: I did find some very short crankset online. Would have to check with my TT coach for his opinion over such set up.
golferchin76 At first it seemed rather like running on the spot, with my legs going up and down without much forward movement.
The theory is that i should use a slightly lower gear, yet i can move my legs to get a higher cadence, which compensates. my legs can go round faster for the same effort because i am moving them in smaller circles.
After a bit, you just get used to it - indeed, the scientific studies on crank length show that familiarisation is worth quite a bit, whatever length crank you use. familiarisation = adaptation.
i think is not about mechanical advantage, may be it´s just a way to correct a bad peddling technique, pros tested on pioneer pwoermeter reduce a lot dead spots amateurs does´t but with a oval ring can improve their peddling
We have been told about a new oval chainring from France. Plateaux ovales - Dual-Oval dual-oval.com/ We have no experience with these or their shape but they look interesting.
what if the tires are running on clay, dirt, or ice?
Clay / dirt should be taken care of under the cyclocross option in the XLS. Running on ice will be all about safety not performance.....so I suggest go low and slow!
Would it be worth using an oval inner for climbing/lower speeds where you say the 'pulsing' effect on speed is exaggerated? And then sticking to a round big ring where the effect on speed is negligible?
Great question. Its possible but it could equally make the problem worse. I have been trialing the more extreme oval of osymmetric this year and you really notice the difference in the phases of the pedal stroke and further I didn't like the effect when climbing esp when standing when pulsing is at its peak. However ultimately like so many things you really have to try it to decide for yourself.
@@Fastfitnesstips I run my setup like this. You do notice the difference on the trainer. Can take 1-2 minutes to smooth out pedal stroke. BUT, in the real world, when I hit a gradient and drop to the inner, oval ring, it has the opposite effect; it makes climbing feel like riding on the flat and so no change in pedaling feel. That's my experience anyway.
At a strictly set application of power (100w, 200w no matter) thru some type of device which also was able to completely unweight the leg weight on the upstroke, would an oval 53 accelerate the rear wheel RPMs faster and then sustain a higher RPM (still at that prescribed power setting) thus resulting in a faster wheel speed than a round 53? My hunch is yes, the cadence will be higher and thus result in more wheel speed with the same power applied in the downstroke. However as the video keenly addresses, adaptation occurs and long time round ring riders are able to scrape the bottom and push over the top and thus benefit from a mechanical advantage at the 12/6 over oval rings. However does the mech advantage of oval rings at the 3/9 outweigh this? I sure would like to see this test.
Yes there would be a slight benefit during the downstroke L&R (but a disadvantage during inverse of downstroke L&R). Would these effects cancel each other out?
there would be no disadvantage on the upstroke in the model I suggested since the upstroke leg weight would be eliminated. However with oval rings, if a rider was adept at pulling up during the upstroke they would realize a mech advantage at that point in addition to the downstroke. The question is whether the relatively lower gearing of an oval ring at the 12/6 position is more than compensated for by the greater gearing coinciding with optimum biometrics during the downstroke i.e. 3/9 position. And yes, as you suggest a powertap hub would be the best power measuring tool for this.
If u make money of showing us some products thats compleatly fine.. i actualy want that u get paid for this great info. This is pro stuf. Just dont ever sign up for saying shit someone else wants to be said.. stay true to use.