Hello -
Does anyone have experience with Q Rings that would be willing to share their opinion? I’m considering throwing the 54/42 Q Rings on my Tri-bike that is currently running DA 53/39. Are these things legit or fluff?
Matt
I have had great expeirance with the R-rings, and would say if your at all interested give them a go. It took me no time to to get used to them,and once i did i felt alot faster, and was climbing really well. They offer a few different settings for your personal pedaling style. I think there great and will be outfitting my bikes once again with the q-rings from my cross bikes to my road and tt bike.
have fun and ride fast.
Couple things to keep in mind:
Can you move your front derailleur up high enough? The FD is set at a height equivalent to a 57T ring for a 54T Q-ring. My bike could not accomodate the jump from 53T to 57T with the existing braze-on mount.
Is a 42T ring small enough for you for the rides you do? I found that for the rides I do it was not, I needed the 39T. If you ride relatively flat terrain then it might not matter for you.
i threw a q-ring on my singlespeed mtn bike this fall, and recently added a set ( 40 & 50t ) to the road bike. i dig them. no idea if they amount to anything other than a cool feel to the pedal stroke. but, the cool feel is enuf for me - at higher cadences and under spirited effort they give wicked-fun, albeit subtle feeling of being on top of the gear, and just jamming. they are inspiring that way, and worth it for that alone in my book - they are pricy, but also reflect super-hi quality so again, are worth the asking price.
They are the real deal - I have been racing on them since 2005.
We just signed the Colavita/Sutter Home pro cycling team http://www.teamcolavita.com/ to race on Q-Rings next season.
Got a new bike, Orbea Ordu, and Q-Rings don’t fit…just FYI.
Just out of curiousity what doesn’t work?
Styrrell
bike shop told me the placement of the front derailer is too low for it to fit.
Cannot atest to the ex phys studies (have not read beyond the titles) but for the sake of how the pedal stroke “feels” with them on I definitely dig them on the Tri bike.
check the sig… they sponsor me. The above tho is telling it like it is. I ain’t about candy coatin’ anything.
The issue is typically with vertical clearance- the 54 tooth chainring is as big as i think a 58 at its biggest spot- on most bikes you cant raise the front derailleur high enough to clear it. You can, however, VERY CAREFULLY file out the top of hte front derauilleur hanger, making the slot taller, which can make it work
I’ve used them for 2 years. They have helped me spin harder without stressing my knees. That alone makes them worth it.
proper set up is critical for their effectiveness (otherwise they can slow you down), but guidance on the proper set up is, at best, very scarce.
Hey guy… I bet if you took the “U” out of SUCK, then the rings would probably fit. That’s just an FYI though. Peace.
The issue is typically with vertical clearance- the 54 tooth chainring is as big as i think a 58 at its biggest spot- on most bikes you cant raise the front derailleur high enough to clear it. You can, however, VERY CAREFULLY file out the top of hte front derauilleur hanger, making the slot taller, which can make it work
My braze on had enough adjustability for me, but the derailleur cage itself didn’t! When high enough to clear the large ring, the chain would ride on the bottom of the derailleur in the small chainring and the bottom half of the cassette.
My compromise was to keep the small Q-ring and use the round big ring.
n=1, I really like the way they “feel” as many others posted above. However, they provided zero power improvement for me, and don’t shift nearly as nice as my old Dura-Ace (9-speed) chainrings, or my Ritcheys.
I like the Q-rings. Am I faster? More efficient? I doubt it. But they feel good to ride, especially in a hard aero tuck.
I have a few athletes that have Q-Rings on Orbea bikes so i’m a bit surprised. shoot me an email at kervin@rotorbike.com and we’ll figure it out.
I have Q-rings both on my road bike and my Tri bike. (50/36 road and 52/36 tri). Absolutely love them!
I did an extremely unscientific test, basically using my computrainer and a coarse that I have been using for years… with the Q-rings I was slighly faster, had an average wattage of 5 more and felt fresher when I got off the bike… Could it be other circumstances that produced these numbers? Yes, but I’m also not in the best shape I’ve ever been so I doubt that.
It took me probably a total of 10 hours to get the front derailleur just right on the tri bike though… the difference between the largest diameter of the 52 and the smallest diameter of the 36 meant that I had to set the derailleur pretty high, resulting in that the chain was rubbing on the bridge of the derailleur when I was on the 36 ring… it took quite some time to get most of the gears useful with the 36, yet have good shifting… Now, I’m pretty happy with it.
I see a 6-8 watt gain using Q-Rings compared to round rings, measured using a Powertap
.
Gary,
I’ve been riding RC’s for years on all my bikes. They are 180mm with either a 53/39 or a 50/34. My new ride comes with the proprietary Zed cranks with a max of 175mm crank length. I can’t justify letting the $1,000 Zed cranks sit in my shop so I’ve purchased a set of Q-Rings, 53-40 for the new bike.
Compare the 175mm crank arms with 53-40 Q-rings to the 180mm RC’s? I know about the lack of a dead spot with the RC’s and that concerns me a tad. But the weight savings may work well and also the shorter crank arms may be better as I’m getting older (53).