Do Oval Chainrings Improve Performance? (Bike Fitter explains)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- RCA Channel Subscription: cutt.ly/2bDSkPr
About Neill Stanbury: neillsbikefit....
About the RCA: roadcyclingaca...
Expert Bike Fitter Neill Stanbury explains why he has chosen to use Q-rings (Oval Chainrings) over the last 10 years of his cycling. There have been some huge benefits claimed by the companies who create these products with some cycling superstars fitting them to their bikes. But do these actually make you any faster?
#cycling #bike #fit
For me, climbing at low cadence feels a lot better with oval rings. Round rings feel better at high cadence.
This
Interesting point. I rode them for 5-6 years and love climbing out of the saddle
Yeah, I was just thinking that the "dead spot" is pronounced for low cadence riders.
I agree. I tried round outer ring with oval inner ring and it was more efficient than the opposite which I also tried. I found oval is more usefull on Mtb than road bikes.
Not only low cadence, but generally low inertia. I use Osymetrics on the road bike, but a regular round chainring on the TT bike. I feel like when the speed is higher, the advantage of the oval is much less and with more inertia, the dead spot is much less pronounced. That and my cadence is also higher on the TT.
I think I could listen to Neill for hours on just any subject. It's ridiculous how good a storyteller he is.
I've used Q rings for many years, initially on a recommendation from my physio when recovering from a broken leg to build up the muscles. I think I spent about 6 weeks getting used to them and as far as I was concerned they were 'round' :-) I put the Q rings on my winter bike, and when I got on my race bike which did not have Q rings on I hated it. My seating position was wrong, I felt I wasn't ever in the right gear and I got odd little aches in my legs. As soon as I went over to Q rings, I was fine.
I had all the power data from before and after the Q rings, and there was no difference, and I really mean nothing at all. I could produce the same output on the round rings vs the Q rings but it felt less ergonomic.
As a result I've got Q rings on all my bikes, grave, MTB and road. However modern group sets really don't like Q rings. With the SRAM 11 speed red etap (I bought from new) I could run Q rings (53 39) once it was tuned it was perfect. That was back in 2016 and it was in use right up till I tried to get it working with SRAM 12 speed.
No matter how hard I tried, the new SRAM front mech would not allow me to use a Q ring, so I had to go back to a round big ring, but I have a small ring in the Q ring. First time I rode this I really hated it, but I stuck with it. I'm 6'4" and 80 kgs, so I'm no climbing goat, but the q rings really help with the steep climbs. It's a bit weird at first having both on the bike but I've got used to it and don't even think about it.
Interestingly I'm not a heal dropper or a pointer (twinkle toes !) I just like how the Q rings smooth out the power output.
Interesting video, thanks for making it.
My SRAM Red front mech has worked flawlessly with 52/36 AB oval chainrings… just have to set it up right.
I see a lot of comments saying that it works better with lower cadence.. I find it really interesting that Froome was basically the only WT Pro who was running ovals, whilst he was known for cycling with a very high cadence
I’ve used oval chainrings and finds them useful for climb and mostly for MTB. Round chainring would be best for roadbike on flat.
How much of the research is Oval/Q-rings vs Biopace rings? In other words, do you know for sure if the studies specify where the ellipse/cam action occurs on the pedal stroke? The oval chainring manufacturers today all say that Biopace had it backwards, but I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve. I haven't ridden either kind, but to me it would seem like Biopace was designed to homogenize torque transfer instead of amplifying each downward pedal stroke. Wouldn't it be beneficial when trying to drive monster gears and to smooth out forces through the hip at the bottom of the stroke instead of, for example, moving to shorter cranks? Am I completely wrong and is Biopace universally acknowledged as being detrimental?
I don't have data on Biopace, but I rode 'em for several years. Torque was indeed homogenized what I liked alot. But Biopace has caused a lot of knee pain (both left and right), for which I couldn't specify the source. I only got my answer when my 52T chainring wore out and looked like a shuriken. Then I got problems with the transmission/shifting/chain drops and for the lack of propositions on the market had to go back to round chainrings. Knee pain has gone instantly and never bothered me again.
But I haven't got used to round chainrings. At all. They feel wrong to me. Too much of a dead spot and the power transfer feels like on/off cycle which I don't like. I want to go back to oval but must look closely into options because for unknown reason modern transmissions don't really favor oval chainrings.
It's interesting talking about adapting, because my MTB and Gravel bike have ovals (1x), and my road bike is good old round 105 (2x). I don't "notice" switching between them but then I'm probably riding and pedalling differently on them to some extent and the rest of the bike feels different too.
Hi Neil, it’s interesting hearing you talk about the adaptation. I used to run an oval ring on my small chainring for climbing purposes. I had read that they were better at lower cadence. The initial shift from large to small ring felt a little strange for the first few minutes of riding were but as the cadence dropped the Oval ring seemed to come into its own. You didn’t mention anything regarding cadence.
Hi Neil, I have been using Q rings for about 8 years now in my road bikes. Also QXL (16% oval vs 10%) where the whip effect you mention feels a little more exaggerated. But also, have continue using round chain rings on my gravel bike and mountain bike regularly, so I do not notice any difference in the pedal stroke now whatsoever when I use one or the other. One thing you don’t mentioned is this concept which really convinced me: fatigue distribution, one of the information I found (do not know where, google certainly...) was the oval rings make big muscles used in the down stroke (quads and calves) work harder over time, whilst small muscles used in the upstroke work lighter. So, to me there is general misconception about what oval rings do: they do not improve power, they improve efficiency/endurance, besides the look AWESOME. Have you found any studies about this? I would like to get your opinion true or myth.
I had a friend do a dissertation in his sports science studies on oval chain rings. Was brilliantly done. To summarise the difference ended up being so minuscule it's barely relevant. Like changing your bolts to Ti bolts difference. You can argue it's lighter but.... Really. In theory yes.... But no. Lifting your head looking at the horizon has a bigger effect than the oval rings .
@@playmoreguitar5393can you post the results?
Loved the absolute black oval ring on my mtb, especially on steep climbs. Didn't seem to have much effect on the road. Perhaps because I don't do much out of the saddle climbing on the road bike as opposed to my mtb.
I have the same experience. Took about a year to learn how to get best out of the shape - rear wheel no longer loses traction on steep pinches or wet roots and I think it's because the torque is more even across the pedal stroke. I don't "mash" so much on arduous climbs either.
I'm running AbsoluteBlack 48/32 on my road bike now. About 4500kms so far and won't go back to round. If anything I'm a minor heel dropper as I was taught this was a way to keep cadence and pedal stroke smooth, especially when climbing in the saddle. I find the slightly lower gearing for climbing assists me on the very steepest pinches, though I don't attack ascents like I used to, so tend to ascend slower and more 'easily' nowadays. Downside to that is I take longer getting up my regular climbs but I'm not fussed. OTOH, when riding flatter or rolling terrain I spend a LOT more time in the bigger 48 ring than I did in the 50, and can comfortably hold the 48 at a decent cadence most of the time without too much cross-chaining, therefore my average speeds have gone up a bit with the ovalised rings.
I am a mountain biker turned roadie they make a huge advantage on punchy climbs on the mountain bike so naturally just started using them on road. I found it smoothed out my pedal stroke
This is probably the best and the most sensible explanation about Oval chainring available online…Great work 👌🏼
I could listen to Neill talking for hours! And I guess I have haha!
I’m working on a Möbius Strip chainring. LMK if interested. 😂
How good is Neil, can explain everything so well 👏
You didn't mention knee pain, Neill, but I went on to an oval 1X set up over five years ago when I was suffering from knee pain which turned out to be caused by arthritis - I've now had both knees done with total knee replacement inserts. That was on my road bike and it just felt easier and more comfortable than the 2X round rings on my old bike. Initially, I had 2X round rings on the bike I have permanently on my Kickr Core trainer and, to be honest, whichever of the three I rode, it didn't feel massively different so I guess I was adapted to both oval and round. Later, I changed the rings on my indoor bike to Rotor Q-rings and that meant less difference from the road bike, so I felt more at ease. However, I had lots of issues with the front derailleur and recently I have junked that and converted that bike to oval 1X. I did that just after restarting riding following my second knee replacement, having fitted (temporarily) a 150mm crank with a single oval ring to allow me to get my foot over the top of the pedal stroke with limited knee flexion. The reduced radius of the oval ring at the top of the stroke definitely helps if you have issues with bending the knee. Performance wise, the only difference I noticed back when I first started on the oval ring was when changing gear - it seemed to take less effort to bring the cadence back up to my comfort cadence when changing to a higher gear than it did with round rings. I don't think I'm a heel dropper but then again I have fairly flexible ankles.
Back in 1987, I bought a Schwinn Tempo with 105 and Biopace chain rings. Everything about them felt better. They felt smoother and felt like they give a better stroke with more power. I still use oval today but the advantages that I feel they give me may be all in my head.
- but that's not always a bad thing !
I find Q rings are better only for MTB and climbing while grinding.
When you are a time trialing and pushing as big a gear as possible I find I can use one gear bigger for the same cadence as a round ring. So in other words go faster.
Froome doesn’t use them anymore from my understanding..
i was on qring 52, i tried 50 round, it actually felt heavier during pedal, and with oval chainring, i can easily go up to 9x rpm.
Most interesting video about oval chainrings I've ever seen. I also find that point about heel droppers liking oval rings also interesting because another cycling youtuber, vegancyclist, swears by oval chainrings. I've noticed that he is also a big heel dropper. Another point of interest is that he likes them in a 1x setup, he says the oval chainring smooths out the gaps in the gears. Would be curious about any objective merit to this claim.
Yes, Tyler's claim of smoothing the gear"gaps" in a 1x setup via using an oval chaining has me intrigued, because it's the perception of these sudden jumps in cadences that has me putting off going to 1x. I DO have bad knees, and basically believe all of the "physics" behind ovals, but I just cant find supporting evidence as to what Tyler says, so have never made the move, as much as I want to.
Other considerations are my desire for my gravel bike for the SRAM 10-44 XPLR rear setup, which ideally requires a 1x front. IF I did this, then I'd LOVE to have the gaps "blended" as Tyler says..
I have run them three yrs now and love them but I run one ring up front. I’m a heal dropper so that explains a lot. The advantage I have noticed is when I spin instead of just crank down it feels more fluid and I increase speed with less effort.
Personally I think there is a benefit for myself and will be sticking with them.
Hey Neil, great video - curious what were those plastic cable tie things sticking out of your helmet around 1:20?
Cable ties to deter magpies 😂
I have been on Q rings since 2007. Never had a problems with shifting. It does take a little more work settling up the derailleur. It does take some time to adapt to them. When I first got them, I was told that it will take some testing to find the right position of the ring has its like an old the points in a car distributor. If you get the gap right the car run if not it doesn't work. What found out for me in a TT I could run a big gear at the same cadence.
Have oval just on the inner ring for climbing, just like the smoother feel of them. Two different brands too, Absolute Black on one and Rotor on the other. Both feel good, any gains from it, hard to quantify but my legs feel ok after long climbs.
Oval chainrings were previously released as a new thing in the late 80s. They first came out around 30 years before that...
I ran ovals for two seasons (across 2 years) on gravel and road. Switched back to standard round rings no real gains or losses except on low speed steep gravel climbs I feel I need a smidge more effort but that’s a small % of ride time. The deal breaker for me was shifting performance as I run 2x on both road and gravel.
Regarding heal dropping. I’ve noticed when building up my own arch support under my right inner sole, that if the arch support was placed too forward I would drop my heel. I slid it back towards my heel and I noticed I stopped dropping my heel. My stroke on that foot became more stable and stronger too.
I've been using oval chain rings for about 2 years now. Can't say I've seen any performance benefit, but the pedal stroke just feels nicer to me. It just feels good.
People have been playing with non round rings for over 100 years and nobody ever found anything conclusive. Better to worry about aero shoe laces really.
Very interesting and informative. My experience is not too dissimilar, and as a mechanical engineer, I obviously have this afinity to engineering principles of leverage. And naturally, as Cadence is the overriding force in the four bar linkage system in cycling. Not to mention the complexity of the human performance envelope. So here goes.
I have a 36t oval on mtb (12 speed) with long cranks 180mm (I got long limbs okay). My acceleration is noticeably quicker than with a 34t round chain ring. Mostly because of the shorter duration gap between up changing with the later. Basically I felt that I could easily push a higher gear ratio more easily with the oval chainring. On top of that, my neuraplacisity adaptation to a faster cadence speed over the dead spots has improved my Road TT cadence, even and especially with, its round 54t ring. Believe it or not, this is now without the the bounce I used to experience.
Oval rings just make pedaling more efficient, specially on climbs where we are fighting gravity (deceleration ) so reducing the dead spot in the pedaling, improves the pedaling fluidity and reduce leg fatigue. I've been using an inner q-ring for years now. I'm a climber, also a heel dropper! and I did notice climbing is easier with the oval ring. I did a non-scientific personal test on my trainer on the same virtual climb and it was noticeably easier using the oval ring, I managed to hold more power for longer. The large ring I kept it round as I didn't notice any benefit on the flats but the number one reason was chain drops. The outer oval ring is notorious for chain dropping. If someone is trying these, just swap the inner ring!
Neil does it again! As someone else stated here, I’ve never heard a better explanation of Q rings. When is the Neil and Cam world tour? Can we get a channel sponsor for that?!
The key factor is also cadence and crank length. Shorter cranks mean higher cadence and less dead spots. That can be achieved without oval chainring
Agreed
I'm new to cycling and saw an oval-looking ring on another video. The idea seems brilliant to me, effectively giving you a ratio that varies throughout each cycle. I have found that uphill cycling (on round rings) feels very "lumpy" and bouncy, and I would think an oval one could well "feel rounder" by making the torque more uniform. I'll be keen to try one out...
I’m on Q rings for about 10 years. It felt good right from the start and because I was faster than others, I figured it must be working. Nowadays I’m switching between 5 bikes and some of them have round rings. They also feel just normal to me and there’s no significant difference in power or speed. I’ve also experimented with the ocp settings. According to some tests I should go higher, but ocp 3 feels the best for me. Ocp 5 gave me instant knee pain that I’ve never had before. I think Q rings can benefit on steady state rides, but sprints feels better on round rings. I’ve never had a bad shift, so I really don’t understand where those stories come from. The engineering of Rotor is really good. They make a high quality and long lasting product.
For me, climbing felt much better and the overall feel was much better. Looking for some now for my titanium Lemond build.
would you notice any differences with cycling dynamics that are provided via power meter such as assiomas?
so like pedal smoothness, torque effectiveness, pp start/end phase etc?
I grabbed a bike with oval shape q ring. And it felt really good compared to my conventional ring use.. and I guess person who had it adjusted to stroke was spot on for me !
First, the quad doesn’t push down. Put a rider on a bike, stop the pedal at 3:00 and have them fire their quad. The resulting force on the foot is forward, the resulting movement at the hip is backwards. The knee is a pivot, if it’s directly over the pedal, extending the lower leg from the knee CAN’T push the pedal down.
I’m gonna ask you to understand isolation of large muscle groups (because you’re a bike fitter). Glutes extend the femur down from the hip, glutes push down. It’s a very wide muscle group with a 1:1 mechanical advantage (upper and lower attachment points are about the same distance from the pivot) so glutes provide torque, but are limited in speed. Quads extend the lower leg from the hip. The system is designed like a kick-drum pedal where the muscle body is long, but there is a very short distance from pivot to lower connection - designed for foot speed, but not torque. If you look at a model of a rider, and you understand how the two large muscle groups extend from their pivots, you can find an efficient range of motion. Quads are 11:00 to 2:00, glutes are 1:00 to 4:00. So, you have more speed in one phase of the pedal stroke, and more torque in another phase - is this starting to make sense?
I’ve watched dozens of videos about oval chainrings, none of them have gotten the engineering right. The ones who have tested oval chainrings have applied poor engineering and poor learning. People spend most of their time with weight on their feet, weight at the bottom of the pedal stroke is just normal. On an oval chainring, that flaw in the pedal stroke is amplified. The trick is to teach the rider to only apply downward force from 1:00 to 4:00, then put them on oval chainrings.
In my own coaching I’ve taken this one more step. When doing muscle isolation drills, you will find an efficient cadence range for each muscle. In my case, high 60 isolating just glutes, high 80’s isolating just quads. The ratio of the two is the correct aspect ratio of the chainring.
A bit late to the party here but have been using Q rings for approx 10 years. However not exclusively. I find Neill’s comments on adaptation very interesting as I have 1 road bike with a rings and 2 road bikes with round and switch between them depending on my fancy or weather conditions at the time (i.e. mud guards or not). My findings are that I feel I can climb much better on the Q’s with a more even/continuous resistance through the cranks. With the round rings I experience a definite big increase in resistance through the peak/trough to then get over the gear to the power drive. Akin to a chopping motion, i.e. push, push one pedal, down and then push, push other pedal down and so on.
H.T.H’s.
I used Q-rings many years ago and experienced a small increase in performance up to two months after the switch. I guess the reduced resistance at the dead spot eventually made me weaker at that part of the phase, to a point where there was no longer any advantage over the round one. Maybe I would have needed to keep switching between them, where the round one would have been for the build phase and the oval for performance, but I never went that far.
If you set the offset outside the recommended setting there was a chance your glutes would hit you with stabbing pain mid ride.
If you like the oval chain rings, I've got some 35-year-old Shimano Biopace chain rings I'll sell you... They'll rock your world! 😁
Don't forget that oval chainrings usually artificially inflate your power data. For my Osymetrics, it's around 5-6%. Take that into account, and choose them for their biomechanichal advantage, not for the higher power you'll get on your rides, because this one is NOT real.
My highest ever 20min test was on round rings. I’ve been within 2-3 watts multiple times on oval rings over the years. I don’t think they help with power output. I do think they’re more comfortable. biomechanically round chainrings don’t make sense to me anyway. So I’ll stick with the oval rings.
I think the focus is not really the power you apply on yhe downstroke, because we use our gears to adjust that. But the little power we have to move the pedal to the next power downstroke is way lower. I myself don't use 360° of power on the pedals. 90% of my force is applied on the downstroke, so Oval helps a lot to always be ready to put power down, not wasting so much force and time on setting the pedal for the next downstroke. I have 1x12, so front shifting is not an issue
Really good stuff, and timely for my cycling journey. I recently put an oval on my small ring and have liked it for the steep climbs. Coincidentally, I have a heel down pedal stroke 😊
Talking of allowing for adaptation... How long would Neill expect someone to adapt to the changes made during a bike fit? Had a fit last year which had a few alterations, I didn't like the new fit after a couple of weeks so promptly starting tweaking... Should I have given it longer? 😶
Interesting, I was going to try them just coz, but I'm very much a short muscular mesomorph, and most definitely a toe pointer not a heel dropper (like most people I know with short muscular legs). So, end of the day, probably not for me.
I'm a simple man. Oval was cheaper & looked cool so I bought it.
Don't notice it at speed & has improved technical climbing. (Gravel Bike)
They feel great, keeps heart rate lower than round. They do accelerate slower than round rings.
Been switching between Rotor Qs and Sram Round rings on my XC bike over a few years I can never tell the difference even after an immediate switch... no difference in riding either, lets be honest, too many factors and the 0.00005% difference the chain ring makes is immaterial.
Ovality is around 5-10% so a 53 will be a 55 to 58 max as it's max ovality; no where near a 62t! Also if a 53 is 48t at smallest, and 62t at largest .. it no oval it wonky 😂
im swaping between bikes all the time, oval chairings on the road, round chainrings on the trainer. only damn difference is the crappy shifting on the ovals.
If oval chainrings were any good and offered any performance gains then Shimano would sell them and the Tour riders would be using them😉
Have been on rotor q rings for over 10 years. Performance aside, I've not had any knee pain in the last decade, whereas before I often did. To me they don't "feel" oval and didn't need much in the way of adaptation.
It takes about three months for your body to use that power directly and the number of strokes also affects endurance! This is late 80s these bad boys on a mountain bike with 90 psi 2 inches wide much like a motorcycle tire thanks to working at a bike shop long before the Internet I think there is only three or four larger than the one I had
I’ve been using AB oval for few years and I love it, but I can see the Rotor oval has a different set up position arms, so can you get any gain using that different set up? Thanks
Did you show or mention in detail, the best position to fit the rings on your crank arms?
If so, I missed it both times I watched your video.
Honestly I found that I'm the big ring the oval chainring felt smooth and it smaller ring it felt choppy
Im old enough to remember biopace, which seems a very similar idea and theory, but it feels odd, I never liked them
Uphill Smoother 👌 And Round are good in Power.
No, it's Fromme, you and me :)
I use them on my TT/Triathlon bike. I find it "saves" my legs and I have much better runs after the bike.
Can you get the RS4K offset cranset. I ran one over the summer of 2007/2008 and they definitely improved climb performance.
I am a heal droper, my heal hurst bad... I wil give it a try
using actually qrings since 2014 never again using rounds
IMH I really think you should evaluate the oval ring again.
Have both oval and round. Can’t notice any difference.
To be pedantic, Osymmetrics are not oval.
Awesome Bike Great Deal At Around $500
I tried on my mtb many years ago. First, they felt different and had some placebo effect I thought I’m faster on climbs… but actually, I wasn’t. After a while I switched back to normal and didn’t bother with oval anymore.
Test it on a machine. That will eliminate variables.
The experiment should be designed like this: oval ring rider normally:
Run test on oval ring, run test on round, 6 weeks adaptation, run round, then oval
The other way around for normally round type riders.
I used Q-rings for years, and then QXL rings, the even more ovalised version. I swore by them, especially the QXLs. My best ever performances, mainly in criteriums, were all on QXL rings. Was that to do with the chainrings, or with my overall fitness? I suspect more the latter than the former. I did like the feel though, feeling as though I had a greater sense of leverage during the power phase.
I was then faced with a similar problem to Neill. I couldn't get them, or certainly not for a price that I'd call reasonable, and so I've been back on round chainrings for the last year. I'm definitely going slower these days, but I think that's more to do with having three years off the bike after having a daughter than the shape of the chainrings.
Interesting I never had a problem with shifting. Maybe my mechanic was just awesome, or maybe I timed my shifts well. My SRAM set up throws the chain off the round rings far more than my Shimano set up ever threw the chain off my oval rings.
Can a 'heel dropper' work on her/his pedalstroke, to become an efficient 'ankle stabilizer' without losing power?
Or is the pedal stroke preference individually tied to composition of muscle fibres all through our legs?
I have been on Q rings 2 years, then QXL, for 10 years.
They as this man says, give you better circles, I feel more "connected" ie the power is on the whole way around the pedal, where rounds you are missing part of the stroke.
You spin, pedal FASTER, I will never go back to rounds. I have 3 bikes with Q & QXL and 3 with rounds, so I know the difference.
Seen all sorts of bs stories about them. It amazes me, more don't use them
I've run Rotor Rings for well over 10 years, and like Neill says they just feel right. Moving forward I'm going back to a regular chainring. The shifting performance is not optimized with Rotor Rings, and I just ordered a bike with electronic shifting, so ditching the Rotor Rings.
My 2 cents. At 1.90 meter (6ft2.8) I like using 180mm cranks. Even tough nowadays lots of people advocate shorter ones. They feel more snappy accelerating out of corners and climbing as well. However I never liked the cadence on long smooth level rides. I want to be around 90-95 but with the 180's it somehow stays around 85-90. Until I started using Q-rings. The speeding up on the dead spots make it more natural and gives me that slightly higher cadence.
At the moment I'm back at normal rings on 175 just to try it out and I didn't like the shifting. Lets see how that feels again for a while
Greeting to RCA!!!
Where Neil is right: cycling oriented research is in most cases designed without adaptation phase.
What Neil misses: oval chainrings are supposed to make the best use of our force, which is far from being linear throughout the stroke. Usually the longer circumference is designed so that it “pulls” the chain when the force applied to the pedals is the largest (ca 125+/-5 deg). Usually the chainring should “bulk” at this very moment.
I like my oval chainrings for steady efforts, especialy TTs or long climbs. I don't like them for more varied efforts like sprinting or MTB.
Great summary. I've been on ovals for 8 years, on both mtb (10%) and road (12%). If I ride a round ring now, it feels horrid and I blow through the power phase way too quickly. As said, shifting is pants but I'm on 1x on everything now so that's irrelevant to me.
They're very popular in the MTB world mate! Smoother pedal stroke and more even torque especially when doing technical climbing. Cheers.
Except they're constantly fighting the clutch, wearing it out much quicker
Biopace (oval rings) first appeared in the early 80s as part of shimano groups. Cycle products just go around in circles so you have new product to buy. Wire in the shoes instead of buckles and laces was the early 90s......
For weaker riders, like myself, using a 34 oval with a 52 round can make the combo shift better, the standard 16 tooth difference recommendation can somewhat be ignored. While climbing the oval does feel better IMHO, while I don't miss the oval when in the round big ring at all. So for me, anything that can make the climb feel better is a plus, not avoiding climbing makes me a better rider and I have a wide range of gears including the amateur 34/34!
Yes, is better you fell more relaxation on pedals
I love how we can't even decide which axis of the oval (the short or the long) should be aligned with the crank arm or maybe something in between. In the video the crank arm seems to be more closely aligned with the short axis but maybe there is a slight angle. The original idea was to align with the short axis, but then biopace aligned with the long. I've seen reviews aligning either and claiming it is better :). Sheldon Brown is in favor of aligning the long axis like the biopace. Anyway, I bought a $7 chainring from Amazon just to experiment with both alignments and then almost surely will go back to a round chainring.
My steel 1987 Trek Elance, has stock oval rings. I notice the difference on hills over my modern road bike with regular chainrings.
If I ever build a climbing bike, I’ll use ovals on it.
I have never understood the talking point about the Q rings. But I remember when Froome was with Team Sky almost every one was on the Q ring or similar, but they have changed and now I think only Froome uses them. I think the way they muck up , can cause problems with shifting and the possibility of chain drops, no thanks.
I found them ok on the mountain bike but after 45 years of learning to pedal in circles, they made my knees hurt ( even tried adjusting the saddle). also at high cadence I found the bike bounced more. As Sir Brad once said, "what was I thinking, stupid things"
Great video! Really informative as always.
I switched to an oval chainring a couple months back. I have found that I am more efficient with the oval. I ride based on my heart rate not power metrics. On a flat, calm day I can ride about 0.3-0.5mph faster while maintaining my heart rate at normal range (while most likely in a deeper gear).
I’ve found when riding hills and into the wind I can run one gear deeper than what I did with a round ring and still pedal the same cadence comfortably. Absolutely none of this is scientific by any means. I ride 800-1,000 miles per month and usually notice slight variations pretty easily. These were my findings after switching to an oval.
I feel like my oval was well worth the money and a purchase I would make again knowing what I know now.
I did race on Rotor Q rings and Osymetric for years, but stopped using them in 2017. If it was not for the regular chain drop I would choose Osymetric. The Q rings did not feel as good as the regular round rings. Froome used Osymetric and not Rotor Q rings.
Interesting ... I have been using absoluteblack oval rings for a couple of years now, as I had knee issues and I felt a big dead-spot in my pedalling.
The oval rings and shorter cranks seemed to help with the dead-spot thing.
Couple of years and some issues later, it turns out I had a too high saddle, so the dead spot would mostly be due to that.
Now I have a bike with oval rings, another with round ring that I ride back to back, can't feel a difference.
If I am on round rings for a long time, when I get back to oval rings, I feel a difference for about 10 minutes ...
Moving from oval to round, I never feel anything different.
The derailleur moving back and forth with every power stroke would take some efficiency away from the oval chain ring..if it wasn't for that I think I would try one.
Let me add one important info: if you are running 2x setup, do not run a mixed oval-round chain rings; it feels really bad shifting your front mech between an oval and a round one, especially so when putting on power.
I like my oval rings, the need for "exerting" power during the dead zone is less making it easier for my knees.. but ymmv.
I always thought my deadspot on round chainrings was down to improper technique or leg strength but took the plunge on oval chainrings from Rotor and the deadzone pretty much disappeard. This has done wonders for my comfort on the bike but can't tell it has done anything else. Bought during sale so all in all was roughly $180.
The comfort increase alone was well worth it imho.
Went back to round chainrings for a few weeks and the old dead zone came back instantly. Switched over to oval again and it went away.
I run rotor q rings. Felt weird at first for 10mins or so, but then love them ever since. I heard they also work the calf muscles less or you get less fatigue, dunno tho, I don't drop heels really they feel good for me🤷🏻♂️
I did like the feel of them on my mountain bike on steep climbs at low cadence. A lot of mountain bikers say oval rings fixed their knee pain so maybe it prevents their knees from snapping straight so quickly toward the bottom of the pedal stroke from a saddle height that's to high? They sucked pedaling through rock gardens though as sometimes when your rear wheel falls into a hole right when your pedal position hits the bigger part of the ring or vise versa. Which makes it really hard to keep consistent drive through the rock garden. Pedal bob on a full suspension bike was also worse with the oval ring.
I never understood the claim of power gains. They don't make your legs or cardio stronger overnight so why would you put out more power? Legs and lungs is what lets you produce the wattage minus drivetrain friction.
I recently read through the science of ovals, and you stand nothing to loose by going to ovals, none of the studys i have read showed negative effects, and some of the studys showing no statistically difference, actually shows a tendency towards better performance with ovals. ( Pretty clearly if you ask me) Personally my sprint power is much better on ovals...
Oval rings were big on mountain bikes in the 90's. I liked them. Went back to round on a new bike. Didn't really seemed to (anecdotally) make much difference in performance on local climbs. So I stuck with round ever since.
May I suggest using a wedge under your cleats, for a smoother transition period?
I too use an oval ring, and by raising the back of the cleat. Eliminated the dead spot of
transitioning back to a regular chainring.