The manufacturers of oval chainrings make a lot of bold claims. I’m particularly interested in the claim that oval rings result in a lot less stress on the knee joints (I have a history of knee issues).
How has your experience been?
I currently ride a 52/36 crank. Since the primary benefit of oval rings is climbing, I was thinking of switching out just the inner 36T.
Does that make sense or should I switch both?
Thanks!
I’m racing triathlons with Rotor Q-rings 53/39 Aero (11-28 cassette) and have pretty positive experience. I usually commute using regular Dura Ace 52/39 chain-rings (12-27 cassette) and definitely feel the difference when racing. Climbing feels much easier while downhills are faster even taking in account the difference in cassettes. Rotor claims that 53T Q-rings are equivalent to 51T in dead-spot and 56T in sweet-spot. I doubt though that you can mix small Q-ring and a regular large chainring - most likely it will result in shifting problems. I’m not sure also that Q-rings are solution to your knee issues. There is a bunch of variables you may consider - cadence, cassette, crank arm length, body position, etc.
never could get my rings right on my Trek Sc, had to soft shift to get it to shift properly.
Thanks for the comments guys.
I was looking at the Absolute Black products:
http://absoluteblack.cc/road-chainrings.html
They seem to have a good reputation in the MTB space but can’t find out much about their road products.
However, they say it’s absolutely fine to switch just the inner ring (in fact, unless you’re the kind of guy who hammers up hills in the big ring, it seems they recommend it). They also claim smooth as silk shifting…
The manufacturers of oval chainrings make a lot of bold claims. I’m particularly interested in the claim that oval rings result in a lot less stress on the knee joints (I have a history of knee issues).
How has your experience been?
I currently ride a 52/36 crank. Since the primary benefit of oval rings is climbing, I was thinking of switching out just the inner 36T.
Does that make sense or should I switch both?
Thanks!
According to the research described here: http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chain-rings-dont-work-because-you-wont-let-them/ , it doesn’t appear that joint velocities nor joint powers at the hip and knee are affected by elliptical chainrings.
In that experiment, Leong measured the angular velocity of subjects’ ankle, knee and hip joints while using the aforementioned chain rings. He found that velocity at the ankle joint changed radically as a result of elliptical chain ring use, but there was no change at either the knee or hip. Nor did power production at any of the joints change.
“The ankle negates the chain ring,” says Leong. “Nothing from the ring gets transferred to the knee or hip.”
I thought the point of oval chain rings was to smooth out the pedal stroke so the power is steadier at all stages of the stroke. The reason that I say that is because we have a lot of equipment at work that has dual pump heads. They all have elliptical movements because that greatly reduces pulsing. I don’t see how oval rings would benefit climbing. If you are having knee problems with climbing, it sounds like you may need to go to a compact chain ring.
Thanks for the comments guys.
I was looking at the Absolute Black products:
http://absoluteblack.cc/road-chainrings.html
They seem to have a good reputation in the MTB space but can’t find out much about their road products.
However, they say it’s absolutely fine to switch just the inner ring (in fact, unless you’re the kind of guy who hammers up hills in the big ring, it seems they recommend it). They also claim smooth as silk shifting…
O course they say that! q-rings told me the same, i lived somewhere without shit tons of hills would have prob kept them and could have felt with finicky shifting. Other peoples have suggested maybe my LBS were not good enough. My friend switched to them same time he has same bike but no Di2 and has had no issues. I did like the way they felt, so best of luck!
I started to use Rotor Q-rings last year.
They have 5 positions, I started with the recommended (think it was pos. 4 for TT).
Nothing really, feelt as usuall, then switched to pos. 3 and I feelt fresher after.
Haven’t noticed any watt increase but my legs feels better.
No problems shifting with either shimano mechanical or electronic shift.
This year i even got one for my roadbike to be the same as my TT.
I noticed no difference in performance or knee stress when I had a pair of Q-rings.
jaretj
I have the Q rotors (52/39) and love them (pos 3). The primary difference I noticed was improved climbing (compared to the same route on round rings) and fresher legs going into the run. To compensate for the placebo effect I looked at multiple rides prior to the ring installation and three weeks after. My overall times over specific courses improved by a couple of minutes on average. I’m not ruling out improved fitness or other variables but can say the rings felt better immediately. When I bought mine my LBS was supporting the Q rotor 30 day money back guarantee. Not sure if they still have the promotion but it gave me a bit of peace of mind to try the rings knowing I could return them if they didn’t live up to expectations / hype.
I switched to Q Rings last year as an experiment and the biomechanical transition was almost instantaneous. They just felt natural and comfortable (but then I had no problems with round rings either). I saw absolutely no gain in power, recovery, etc. However, what I did get was poor performance with dropped chains during shifting up or down. I could never get them to be as reliable as round rings. After messing around with them for weeks I finally gave up and switched back to round. Rotor’s Q Rings (or any similar manufacturer) make nice products but they will never help me cycle any better then the round rings I currently use.