Oval Chainring vs Round Chainring Distance Test | Absolute Black Chainring
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2021
- In this video I test to see if an oval chainring will travel more distance than a round chainring at the same given power output. I have done a 10 minute power test in the past and many commented and said that it will not affect your power output but that it will allow you to travel farther at a given power output.
I set up "Old Rusty" on the trainer and use the Favero Power Pedals to measure the oval ring at 200w for 20 minutes and I repeat the process with a round chainring. I use a Wahoo Speed Sensor on the rear hub to measure the distance traveled. Check out the video to see which chainring will end up on top.
Be sure to visit my website at www.blackwatercyclist.com
Subscribe: th-cam.com/users/blackwatercyc...
Follow me on:
Instagram: / blackwatercyclist
Facebook: / blackwatercyclist1
Strava: / strava - กีฬา
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 4](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/e7Oqqo90x_w/mqdefault.jpg)
Be sure to visit my website at www.blackwatercyclist.com
Subscribe: th-cam.com/users/blackwatercyclist
Follow me on:
Instagram: instagram.com/blackwatercyclist
Facebook: facebook.com/BlackWaterCyclist1
Strava: www.strava.com/athletes/179615
Thank you for sharing your discovery of the differences between oval and round bicycle crank-plates gears!
wow nice comparision, I almost change my round ring to oval chain ring for my road bike but now I decided to use my round ring for benefit in distance and speed.🤩
This was a great trust worthy and truth test. I would like to see an out of the saddle sprint test if you taking request. Thanks and great job..
Great Idea Ken! I have been riding oval now for about 6 months. I do prefer the feel of it but do not think it is hurting or helping the speed. Also I wonder how accurate the Favero pedals are at not being influenced by the oval rings. I will try to do a standing climbing effort video in the future.
Nice Work!!!
Love this clever comparison. Top10% clever man in the world.
People have a misunderstanding of what the oval is supposed to accomplish... even the manufacturers in their explanations. An oval is completely unnecessary, but not for the reasons given in these videos.
A round ring, to get whatever power, is like doing a push up and a pullup, a pushup and a pullup. If you're better at pushups than pullups, doing the same amount of pushups and pullups to turn the wheel will wear you out faster. Let's say you can do 40 pushups to 10 pullups. You will last longer if a wheel makes the same power and the same distance but with 4x more pushups than pullups. If it's 1:1, then you're going to run out of gas much faster because your pull up muscles are going to start complaining "I'm done" and you're going to start leaning on your push up muscles and trying to ease up on your pull up muscles. The whole idea, is that with an oval rign, you're using the muscles that are more powerful and last longer to produce more of the power that makes the wheel go round. If you ride for an hour, the oval ring should have you feeling like you can go farther than if you ride on a round ring.
Now if the oval is not getting the same distance for the same power, or not making the same power for the same rpms, that's just a design tweek or a slight difference in the teeth count, but has no bearing on whether or not the oval ring does what it's supposed to do: favor the muscles that are stronger and the zones where you produce more power. I mean, think about if someone says "I want to get a longer crank because this will let me produce more torque or more power" ... Just change your gears! it doesn't matter where you increase the leverage, switching gears has the same effect. So if an oval ring doesn't go as far, that could easily be remedied by changing the size of the ring so it's total distance matches the round (assuming tooth count didn't matter / it was continuously variable). What, if anything needs to be measured is your stamina providing all the power in one zone, and your stamina providing all the power in the other zone, ie, measure how many pushups you can do, and how many pullups you can do, and see if you can go farther if you optimize for the one you can do more.
The REAL argument against oval rings is a skepticism about how much this optimization makes a difference because your brain and legs already do some "ovalizing" via how much effort it tries to output at each section of the stroke. This is why it's questionable wheather clip pedals are even worth it, because yea you do output more power, but do you get more tired due to trying to do too many pullups and just end up reverting to your power muscles in the first place? When you just use normal pedals with normal shoes, you're essentially already pedalling on an oval ring due to the power output modulation performed by your nervous system. You don't really need an oval ring to favor your power zone, just push harder in your power zone and let the momentum drive you through the other two quarters of the stroke.
Anyway, I appreciate the time and effort you put into these to essentially prove that the same average diameter and the same average circumpherence will produce the same power and distance with some variation in torque, it's a good math lesson to people who buy the garbage reasons the manufacturers give. I still haven't seen anyone test the "how much gas you have left after using both for a long ride" because you kinda can't because again, it's based on your geometry and the power efficiency of your different muscle groups.
I really really appreciate your input here and that is why I do these videos because I want to hear from everyone. You are right though in that you can change a gear to make it optimal and cover the proper distance.
I would love to be able to do a test on how much gas is left in the tank. I would have to agree that this would be the only real benefit to oval rings because my perceived effort was definitely lower with the oval rings so it would be interesting how that perceived effort translated into fatigue over the long ride. Great input!
This is a great reply considering the natural mental accommodation we all make to whatever shape chainring we bolt on (not to mention other aspects of bike geometry). I have been using a Q or oval shaped chainring for over 15 years because it feels so smooth. Perhaps I never gave my legs enough time to adapt to a round chainring.
I've been using oval chainrings for a few years now and it took a long time to get used to spinning the ovals. Once you learn how to do that you'll feel the benefits. I recently went back to round for a couple of weeks and my power didn't suffer however my endurance did and my heart rate was noticeably higher with round rings. Each to their own but I love ovals.
I actually use Oval Chainrings and prefer how they feel. In this test I really think the Favero's were susceptible to the power spike of oval chainrings on a power meter so that is why they traveled less distance. I prefer them for gravel and mtb for traction. I actually ran them for about 4 years straight before doing this video. They won't give a power increase but like you said, they will help with endurance and also with traction.
Thank you for sharing your experiences by using oval ang round chainrings.
Did you mean that the oval could make less effort and relaxing in terms of pedaling than the round chain ring? That is good. If the rider master pedaling the oval l, it can give more accelerations in speed in plain roads and torque power in low speed gravel or off-roads?
That’s Cool!…I will try to use this oval type chain ring.
I think the ovals are just easier to spin and smooth out the power phase of the pedal stroke, however it takes time to adjust to spinning ovals as I wanted to grind a bigger gear rather than spin. Don't get me wrong, there are times when grinding or pushing a big gear is the way to go, but spinning is winning!
Thanks for the data
Thanks for this
My pleasure!
Great video. This saves me from getting Oval rings in the road bike. I still may consider getting it for my MTB since I heard it helps a bit when getting over roots and rocks due to additional torque. I’m not positive though.
I will say that the power delivery is smoother with the oval ring on the trainer so yes I believe it will be an advantage over a round ring on the mtb trails for traction but not distance/speed.
@@BlackWaterCyclistI use one on MTB and the added torque helps in the climbs. I would not use it on the road bike because although it may help on hills, it doesn't make up for the disadvantage on the flat surfaces.
Thank you very much for the scientific, technical test. I am thankful. I just had a thought, with the oval I have experience that I can recommend a heavier gear than on the round, because the oval makes it easier for me to overcome the resistance / load. Therefore, it would be nice to compare the average speed in practice. For a higher gear, compare the real average speed. It will probably be a battle of even cadence with the round vs power pedaling with the oval. I apologize for my worse English.
i''ve just bought an oval and waiting for it to come. i think the benefit is that it allows you to exert more force where it matters (on each chain ring revolution). The real test is the overall power and stamina exerted by the user rather than the power registered on the pedals for the same distance travelled.
I actually prefer the way an oval chainring feels verses a round. Let us know what you think of it.
@@BlackWaterCyclist will need to test it out as there are times I get abit of a "slip" since I'm used to applying a constant pressure throughout on the round ring. But oval definitely feels more natural in terms of biomechanics. I guess that's why theres less stress on knees as per reviews. Will need to test it out more and see if theres benefits in using a higher gear with slightly lower cadence on the oval.
Nice video
Thanks Jimmy!
Great for a knackered knee,less strain at the top. Use on My Scott Rc XC For racing and also a double on my Roubaix with Ultegra. Love them and will never go back to Round. 👍👏👏🚴🏼🚵🏼
Yes definitely will help with knee issues. As someone who has had multiple knee surgeries, I have found shorter cranks to help more with my knees than an oval ring. You should try both and see what you think. I haven't gone crazy short but I run 170mm and most would recommend 175mm at my height. It has definitely helped my knee issues, especially in the winter.
@@BlackWaterCyclist yes i have already gone to 170mm and that definitely helps too. I have also had about 9 right surgeries since 84 due to My MX days.
I have severe arthritis and these 2 things keep my Cycling and racing. So thanks for your good review and putting it out there to let other riders know what’s available and can help👍👍🚴🏼🚵🏼👏
i bought a 30t absolute black to help with my technical climbing in mountain biking as my rear wheel spins out too much . and ive tried sitting down, gearing up.
Awesome
Thanks Neil for watching.
You should probably test it on the long climb, like 15 miles @5% gradient for example. And see which leg feels fresher perhaps? My perception is oval isn't going to make me go faster on the flat either.
Yeah I will say the oval felt better and less stressful on my muscles but the speed was slower so I when I would increase the wattage to make the same burning feeling in my legs as the round ring, I was finally covering the distance of the round ring but having to do 20-25 more watts to do so but perception was the same.
There are several reasons to try ovals, supposedly it's easier on the knees, but also in looking at the video, I'm not sure they're set up properly. The pedal stroke should happen in the largest diameter portion and needs to be adjusted for the power phase of the rider. As best as I could see the pedal was set up to use the smaller diameter, which would require more power for the same speed. It's a small difference, but this was over a long enough period that tiny differences are all that's required to show a difference.
The oval should be equivalent to a slightly larger ring during the power stroke and equivalent to a slightly smaller ring during the time the pedals are more vertical. Revolution slows during applying power and speeds during less power. Best comparison should be an Oval with maybe 2 less teeth compared to the round ring. Say 30 tooth oval to 32 tooth round. That way power application remains the same but during less power application the oval ring speeds up just a bit. The advantage of the oval is the slight increased speed when less pedal power is being applied.
Test suggest that oval ring put the torque easier. I was able to climb same hill but a harder cog
thanks!great video!great tip!saving my wallet was about to bought the oval,so all about marketing purposes though
Power is force x distance divided by time so increasing distance with same effort is actually more power
its all about reducing pain on our knees
Thanks for the video.
I think Oval chainring needs to compare with a lower smaller round one. For example, 46t Oval compare to a 40t Round.
The reason is, oval chainring is supposed to let you feel easier to pedal. If I rephrase the sentence, i am supposed to be able to use the same effort to go faster. So.... the fact that we compare them in same teeth chainring is missing the point completely. It is supposed to make your 46t but feel like pedaling a 40t. So, put 46t Oval up against 40t Round and the result should be obvious.
46t vs 40t is just for example. You should measure the narrowest part of oval and match that to same diameter round chainring. That's what they claim, right?
Hi I was thinking about going to a 1X12 38t oval and 9-50t cassete from a 3X8 48t max and 11-32T cassete, I want to achieve 50Km/h at 90rpm and I was thinking that on the power stroke of pedalling would make the 38t chainring act as a 40t one thus allowing me to theoretically achieve 50km/h or 31mph. So would a 38t oval achieve the same top speed as a 40t round at the same RPM? thx I just subscribed.
What about the use of a Crank Tip?
Interesting results...so it looks like Chris Froome should have used round chainring 😀. Round just looks better on the bike, especially the "aero" non Sram axs you installed for your 13 speed test, where did you get it from?
Haha it definitely worked for him but not sure if he would have been faster without it.
That ring was made by Stone who is based out of China. Great chainring but unfortunately I've switched to Quarq spiders and can't use that direct mount ring. I agree it is a beautiful chainring.
What would be a 48t round be equal to how many teeth of oval chainring?
Great informative video. My only thoughts are this. Running the same tooth rings circle/oval isn't going to give you real world results. Because essentially any size oval ring will feel like 2 ring sizes higher at the point of power. I run a 1×10 with a 52 oval chainring. It would be better compared to a 53-54 chainring in overall performance and functionality.
Repeat this test. Do a 30 minute climb and check your average heart rate for both tests. You will be surprised
I will have to attempt this test again on a hill like everyone is saying. I appreciate your input. Should be interesting.
What they said 👆
@@BlackWaterCyclist
th-cam.com/video/bEKT4KtAavE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=n0RN_oymskYnyXtx
I think the advantage of the Oval would be seen if you take advantage of the shape by using a slightly bigger ring.
In comparison to a round ring, percentage wise it is the same "ovalty" to the equivalent size round. My test shows a disadvantage of the oval ring so I do not see going larger changing the results to be more favorable for the oval ring.
@@BlackWaterCyclist I think the advantage may be not in comparing the same size rings, but in comparing a round 32T with say an oval 34T. How large a chain ring we can push (and pull with clipless) is based on what we can do at the weakest part of the pedal rotation. If we can increase a ring size while maintaining a similar size at that weakest point, then there may be an advantage. Since you compared the same exact size rings, you are completely right in your results and measurements.
@@luislebron4785 I think the only problem with that is that it will slow your pedal revolution even more causing your cadence to drop even more meaning you will travel even less distance. I know it will be geared up higher than the smaller ring but it would still travel less distance if the cadence drops even lower than the 46T oval. Love your input and thoughts here though.
@@BlackWaterCyclist Will it? I'm thinking maybe it allows you to push the larger gear because you get some recovery during the lower part of the cycle. This is an interesting and complex topic because besides the obvious mechanics and physics, there is a physiological aspect to it.
I rate this test as wattage was consistent ,, I rate them when standing ,, and they suit my preferred low cadence ,, I have wattage etc as well ,,I do find them easier on the knees ,, "position 4 on the tri bike .. Going to experiment on my trainer "kickr" "Perceived effort feels less on the ovals .. How did perceived effort feel ?
Thanks for the insight Mike. Perceived effort was definitely easier with the Ovals and I can see why many people love them. Let me know what kind of results you have with the Kickr.
@@BlackWaterCyclist Super interesting ,, On one tri bike setup running custom built 160 mm non compact fitted with QXL rings,,Position 4,, 226 avg power at a lazy 142 bpm but what is super interesting is they appear not to like cadence "With me anyways" as average cadence was only 66 rpm ,660 meters elevation in 42 km "Zwift" so there was some standing ,, I don't like high cadence on any setup but on 160 mm cranks that's low ,, No lactic burn and legs felt surprisingly good after .. I have tried them in my custom 155 mm cranks but there is too much "pulse" in the pedal stroke ,, That maybe because I am not used to them ,Tonight I will do the same ride but with 170's on ,,,"PS Even at low cadence they appear to load the knees less .. Sorry for the long reply ,,My strava www.strava.com/activities/5181342756
Maybe those slightly higher watts don't actually add extra fatigue? I haven't tried oval on a road bike, but on MTB I found low cadence technical climbs maybe a little better traction (less likely to spin) with an oval. Ultimately didn't think it made much difference, but given the choice for no difference in $$ I'd go oval. Street though? Meh.
Yeah I thought that myself because I actually preferred the feel of the oval and the perceived effort was lower but the speed was also lower so would have to increase effort to make up the speed which would defeat the purpose of the oval ring. I agree that power delivery is much smoother on an oval ring for steep technical climbs.
@@BlackWaterCyclist And here I am about to buy a 36t chainring to go with my 9-50 e13 cassette on my gravel bike (my 40t gives way to large a top gear) and can get an oval for the same price. Normally I'd go oval, but your video gives me pause...
So what did you decide Jeffrey? Did you pull the trigger on the oval or waiting on a round ring? I will probably be selling all my oval rings soon but may keep a few for some other tests in the future.
Can we conclude that oval chain ring good for moving off from still and climbing?
I agree that Oval rings are better for MTB and slower torque situations. I am actually using oval again and testing it long term to see. I actually prefer how the oval rings feel compared to round. Now I believe the Favero pedals were actually susceptible to being influenced by the Oval chainring. That is why the power was higher but cadence lower. I tested it with a Quarq as well and it did the same as the Quarq and Quarq says that oval rings inflate the power numbers by 4-5%.
@@BlackWaterCyclist thanks bro and I'm back to oval as well hehehe. You are right the feel is different and prefer the oval.
As you stated upfront the purpose of the test is to determine if an oval or round will give you more distance at a given effort.
However under your test conditions I see little correlation between effort and distance. Distance is merely a function of rpm x gear ratio x wheel circumference.
A better test would be to repeat a sustained effort hill of known distance with equal power which will always yield precisely correlated times irrespective of any gearing choices or cadence. However, that just leads us to the subjective aspect of efficiency.
What you do with cadence won't matter from a testing standpoint as long as the power numbers are the same. One's physiology will determine the most comfortable power producing cadence (efficiency).
The science on ovals is not clear, let alone definative. It falls to the subjective experience of the user.
Upfront I am biased as I just added a sub-compact set of Absolute Black rings to my road bike; at 62 years old I like gearing options.
I find, subjectively, after one metric century with over 4,300 feet of elevation is that it seemed less taxing to apply more torque at any given cadence and that power readings appeared less erratic, (Favero Assioma pedal powermeter) particularly when out of the saddle. I most of the time in the big ring even on low angle climbs of 5-7% of short duration (seated) because it was comfortable.
As you showed near the end of the video distance travelled can exactly be worked out mathematically. Tooth count, not the shape, of the rings is all the matters whether they are round, oval, or square.
Hi Mark, great thoughts and input here. I appreciate it.
I would say that I did measure the effort by measuring the power which remained consistent. Now as far as perceived effort, I would say that goes to the oval ring. It felt "easier" but was also slower. When I would bring the wattage up to match the cadence of the round ring, the effort felt the same as the round ring but required more wattage to keep that same cadence.
That is something you do not really want because that means you will fatigue quicker later in the ride (cramps, fatigue, need more calories, less efficient) because you are pushing out more watts than what is required to maintain the same speed.
@@BlackWaterCyclist The conversation is great and thanks for the video to spur further thoughts.
I think there's something to having to rediscover different gearing selection(s) as the difference in feel has confused my legs a little. More miles, especially solo, are in order for me to make a better assessment.
This might correlate to you stating you seemed to have to apply more power to match cadence with the round rings, at the same perceived effort. I would note this would be a win as more power, that feels the same as less power, is a plus but "feel" is still subjective hence why we use power meters in the first place.
All things being equal you cannot put out more watts and maintain the same speed. You will go quantifiably faster with more power in any controlled test.
I refer back to the hill climb test. i.e. 280 watts will always equal a precise time to finish, 10 more watts will always cut that time by exactly the same amount as long as wind and weight are constant. More power is always faster. If not then the test criteria are flawed. How it "feels" is a function of training and recovery.
I don't have to guess how hard to go to get a PR on a segment I've already done, I know what output in watts I need, I just need to know if I can do it on a given day.
I have a running conversation with a close friend (who taught exercise physiology at Ohio University) about cadence and power. He admittedly has more fast twitch muscle fiber (by test) so he always bangs on about"spinning" everywhere, climbing included.
However I point out to my friend that a prescriptive cadence is not a constant to apply to everyone. With my particular physiology spinning at higher watts on a climb is exhausting and I moderate below what he may consider a "spinning".
No matter what, you must generate "X" watts to accomplish a time goal and hold in mind what blows your specific engine faster. I am more prone to cramping if I try to spin 60 or 80 miles into a hard ride and can stave that off by a more moderate cadence.
Once I take the opportunity to launch on a solo ride I'll look at the metrics more closely.
The gear rations for bost tests where the exact same, both 46 teeth, so the cadence difference 100% explains the distance difference. 29.45 kmh / 90 rpm x 87 rpm = 29.55 kmh ~ 29.45 kmh result, a 0.3% difference, not significant. So the result you got was exactly what was expected.
I have oval rings on all my bikes, but as far as their effectiveness...🤷
Yeah I have to admit that the oval felt great. But to be able to achieve the same result as the round ring, I have to pedal at the same perceived exertion as the round ring so it is a wash to me. I do like it for MTB and technical terrain. I am not for or against them since I actually used them for about 4 years before switching back to round. I may do a longer stint with oval and then do some test and see what happens.
2nd test was equal plus ovals are easier to climb and on kness
Clearly shows that the oval chainring requires less effort (lower rpm) to achieve the same power output. Higher rpm with the same power output results in higher heart rate amd more fatique. If the cadence were equalized in the tests, then the power output of the oval ring would have been higher at the same rpm, and the speed and distance results would have been different and would have favored the oval chainring more. Plus the fact that less fatigue with the oval will let you go farther.
I honestly prefer the feel of the oval chainring. The only issue here is the distance. You have to produce more power to go to the same distance as the round ring. If you matched the cadence of the round ring, I can guarantee you will go the same distance. The issue is that the oval appears to require more power to go the same distance as the round ring. I will say as well that if the Favero meter is not reading correctly then this test means nothing.
This was my thought watching this too; we’re seeking the opposite variable.
I mountain bike more than road and while many report oval rings aid mostly with technical climbs the most notable difference was a smoother cadence on my fat bike which resulted in a less bouncy ride( means quicker).
I appreciate and enjoyed the video. At the end of the day it’s really personal preference with the mental game being the most important of all. Thanks and cheers!
More power in the strongest muscles in your legs, instead of using weak muscles at the bottom of the pedal stroke
I think this test only demonstrated that the oval chainring overestimate the power reading on your powermeter. Mechanical physic don't lie. Same resistance and same ratio, you just did less power with the oval chainring.
That's what I mention in the video, if the power meter is off then it means nothing. Coming into it I really thought it would be the same. Favero must not be accurate in their claims that an oval ring doesn't distort the power numbers. I'm not sold on oval rings. They feel great, I won't lie but I don't see an advantage unless you are riding in some very technical terrain or have knee issues that it helps.
i’m on 11-28t 105 cassette, what oval teeth should i go with, 52t ? 50t or anything below..i’m on single 105 crank🙏🏼thanks guys!
It really depends on where you are riding? If you are doing some spirited group rides on flats where the speeds will be high, then I say 52T.
The power is not comparable in this test because it measures peak power on every stroke which has to be higher on the oval.
You would need to check the real average, which is hard to ;-)
Maybe compare the heart rate at identical speed...but again to many variables.
Might be a matter of taste in the end!
Yeah I really think the power was distorted in some way with the oval ring. Favero claim it isn't but I'm not so sure. The studies that are out on it do not show that it is slower, just that it is either the same or very very small gain. My opinion: ride what feels good and will get you on the bike more.
If you keep power the same, the distance will be of course the same.
Well what you didn’t account for is overall circumference of the oval vs. round. I’m guessing that your oval has a smaller circumference so therefore the speed and total distance is lower.
What’s really interesting is that you were able to keep the same wattage with less cadence. I bet if you correct for the difference in cadence you would have a different conclusion.
You proved you don’t have to pedal as quickly to get the same wattage. That’s why people like the oval so much.
This brand chainring may not be the best based on the overall geometry.
They were both 46T chainrings so the total circumference should be the same. Are you saying use a 44T oval so the larger part of the ring is the equivalent of a 46T? You would actually cover less distance in that scenario because then you have to bring the cadence up even more to account for the distance you are losing to the 46T round ring.
Yeah honestly I preferred the slower cadence of the oval, It felt better than the round ring which is why I think it is so popular. The problem I see though is that you are producing more power but not producing more speed which is the problem. I think it feels better so you can put out more power but your speed is once again the same as a round ring with more effort.
Also when standing climbing, I have found that the power phase changes as the bike tips up so you are no longer in the optimal power phase.
I think you should ride what is comfortable and understand that an Oval ring is not going to improve your speed over a round ring but may make things more comfortable.
I’m saying that not all all ovals are created equally. The skinnier part of that oval must be much closer to the center of the crankshaft making the overall distance that the chain travels slightly less than the round
@@Skntpig I gotcha. Actually according to this biomechanical analysis of an oval ring, the rings that have the "deadspot" the smallest are actually worse because some power is generated in the deadspots, not much but some, and the small section takes it from some power to pretty much zero power.
www.noncircularchainring.be/pdf/Biomechanical%20study%20chainrings%20-%20release%202.pdf
So according to that paper an oval ring with very little ovalty in the small spot is best. Super interesting stuff.
I found your test interesting none the less. I just ordered an absolute black for my MTB so I’ll see how it goes. They have some comprehensive test info on their site. Of course you can’t believe everything online haha
@@Skntpig bahaha that is exactly right! Nice pic by the way, what street bike do you have? I used to ride a Yamaha WR426 all over the place which I was younger.
The flaw was that you didn't change gears to vary the change in torque.
But that would have rendered the test useless because then you added the variable of another gear. So you are saying if I shifted to an easier gear it would have offset the numbers? If I went to an easier gear, I would have traveled even less distance per revolution. I think Oval rings are great for technical climbing but I do not see their benefit for regular power transfer or speed. I do think they feel great at the same wattage but to make the oval go as fast as the round ring, I had to increase my effort up to the same "feel" of pain as the round ring.
@@BlackWaterCyclist Not necessarily so. An oval adds 2 teeth to the power phase of the pedal stroke, so that force production is harder at the point whereupon power is put down. For this reason q-rings are better because you can adjust them to how you pedal....the OCP becomes a greater angle away from 3:15 up to ppsition 5. Yiu get 2 teeth less to the return, so less force needed through the deadspot and a quicker return. This leads to better economy and pedal stroke. Power cannot be changed but the usage of it can be modified. You need it set up correctly. Other rings cannot change orientation or work in the opposiyr way...they are elipsevand not oval. You need later power delivery for aero positions and earlier power delivery for upright positions.
@@lucilledadang1989 I understand what you are saying but what happens when you need to be aero and then you hit a climb? You will never have the perfect orientation.
From what I have read from one paper is that the problem with Oval is that we actually can put power down earlier and later in the stroke than what the oval rings are providing. Basically the dead spot is too dead on the current offering of oval rings.
All the studies out there show no advantage of an oval chainring when it comes to power and speed. I do think there is an advantage for traction off road because it slows down your pedal stroke in the power phase to keep from spinning the rear wheel.
@@BlackWaterCyclist It's progressive. You get maximum +3 teeth at the most powerful point of your stroke, swinging back to -3 teeth at the weakest. Q-rings aren't as extreme as QXL, Ossymetric rings or the like, so the difference between push and pull is less exagerated. The inner ring can be calibrated to be a digferent OCP. When you hit a climb, your peak power with an oval is LATER because yiu have to factor in the slope. That's why the inner ring for the same setting is further past the quarter to 3 position. When you climb, you tend to sit up, thereby changing the biomechanics further. Hence setting 2 might be best.
For an optimal aero position, big ring 4 should be used. Small ring 3 or even 2 is best. That needs to be tested to suit. The system is best used with short cranks. 155s with a 46-30 gives a super aero position to apply power and equates to 51.5-33.8 cranks when scaled up from a 172mm crank. You end up gettting up to 53.5 teeth in equivilent pushing force and 48.5 teeth in pulling force whilst opening the hip angke to apply more torque.
Your crank length and gearing may have some effect on the set up. Those are variables to assess. If yoir bke is set up with a tight hip angle, the oval will be detrimental. If the hip angle is opens up in an aero position, it will help.
Crank length makes no difference at all to overall leverage, should you accomodate it with the correct gearing. In the case of 172.5-155....that means an 11.2% higher maximum gear for a given chainring as well as a lower gear that is 11.2% less.
Cadence is not effected because it requites more force to turn a smaller diameter, as determined by crank length.....again the oval will really help in this, so another benefit to the set up.
Try 155 + 46-30 q-rings. I can assure you it works extremely well....I use this :D
I use this :D
Tgis might be helpfulvfor your set up:
OCP settings changes: the numbers below reflect the position at which the Q-Rings achieve the largest size; i.e.: in the #3 setting, the 53t becomes a 56t at ~18� below 3 o�clock, while the 39t becomes a 41t at ~23� below 3 o�clock for the same #3 setting, due to the chain coming from higher start point at the sprockets to lower position at the ring.
#1 becomes largest at: 08� for the 53t, and 13� for the 39t
#2 becomes largest at: 13� for the 53t, and 18� for the 39t
#3 becomes largest at: 18� for the 53t, and 23� for the 39t
#4 becomes largest at: 23� for the 53t, and 28� for the 39t
#5 becomes largest at: 28� for the 53t, and 33� for the 39t
....So in a 4-4 your pedal stroke for the clmbingbringbis later to accomodate the slope of the incline. If yiu set it 4-3, tgen the inner ring is the same as the big ring. I do this and climb more upright.
For this reason, you might like to try 4-2 as well.
The way to know your settingbis actually easy. You only need a wall and a shadow. Imagine you are pedalling. You onow how the force feels from repetitions. When against a white wall wity the correct lighting, imagine you are pedalling in yiur regual position.Stop at the point at which you feel most powerful in your stroke. Look at the anglebof your too past 90 degrees projected on the wall. Do this severap times to check itvis consistant. ...
This is then tye correctvangke wst 90 degrees t set your OCP to, as per the chart/information above.
@@lucilledadang1989 I really appreciate your explanation here. I actually run 170mm cranks and I am 6'2. I love shorter than recommended cranks. I have run 165 before and enjoyed those as well. The shortest I have tried is 160mm and the longest was 190mm. Shorter is always better in my opinion.
Hard to tell for sure but it looks like you have the oval chainrings fitted the wrong way. looks as if they're 72° off
Hi Aaron, they are fitted correctly. There is only 2 clocked positions you can have with a fixed spider that is 5 bolt 110 bcd. Rotor and Easton/Raceface can be clocked a little more specific that this Absolute black one.
A bummer.
Yeah were you surprised by those results? I know I was.
@@BlackWaterCyclist Indeed, I was. I expected a slight discrepancy the other way around. Your report felt like a cold shower, I must admit (for I had been contemplating upgrading to oval chainrings in at least a couple of my bikes, once my extant chainrings are sufficiently worn).