A 52 tooth chainring is a 52 tooth chainring, as I understand it.

In other words, according to my interpretations of the rules, you're good. BUT...I'd confer with my coach, if I were you.

---

Eli Curt

I'm Professionally Amateur. Are you? Become an ambassador today!
Chimps in Training!

Got this confirmed by Osymetric. A 52t is a 52t.

I believe the gearing restriction is there for a purpose, to reduce the risk of injury to developing muscles. These O rings will take you over the gearing limit twice during each O ring revolution.

You present an interesting point. The age-old question:

Even if this is technically allowed, would doing so violate the spirit of the law?

Kind of like why I can't ride bikes on the Sabbath.....

---

Eli Curt

I'm Professionally Amateur. Are you? Become an ambassador today!
Chimps in Training!

Would a shim like that also help me out, knowing that my gears are indexed properly and the cage limited properly, but I can only shift from the small ring to the big ring when it's on the trainer with low or no chain tension? As soon as I'm on the road, I can't go from small to big

I have a question regarding the size of the Osymetric chainrings in relation to round ones or Rotor's Q rings/QXL.
I'm considering 50-52/38 (38 is the smallest for 110 bcd 5 bolt pattern).
Some people say that with the Osymetric rings they can push, with the same effort, smaller cogs comparing to the round rings. On the other side I red an article which was suggesting going for smaller number of teeth than used on round chainrings.

I am less worried about the bigger ring as I think I would be OK with 50t.
I have been using Rotor Q rings for many years, the last almost three years on QXL 52/36.
There is a quite a number of hills around my place so I would not like to go harder than what I have right now.

Would Osymetric 38 feel similar to 36, or it is simply harder? I would appreciate your input.
I wouldn't like to find myself in the situation, spending £200 and not being able to push the gears :)