Hi there I just put a Rotor ring 53/39 combo on my road bike.Both are on 3 “the road postion”, will change the 53 to setting 4 in about 6 weeks or so.will keep the small ring on 3 for climbing.What is every body else on ?, not very good instructions with rings!,anybody go 5?
bump because i’m curious too. i ride 3 on the big ring but could never figure out where to set the small ring (felt like it made it more not less difficult) to make it feel similar so i’ve got a q-ring big ring and a regular round ring on the inner ring. i’m with you, the instructions lack clarity but if you do a search someone from rotor posted here once with a much better description.
Started at 4 and 3. I ride about 80 degrees. 4 felt better and Q rings are all about feel for me. Coming over the top especially feels easier.
Little ring I started at 3 but ran into the problem of it not being my actual “climbing” ring but mostly my “riding intervals on the trainer in aero ring”. I could feel the shift when I would go back and forth between the big set on 4 and the little set on 3. So I set the little to 4 as well. That was better but not perfect.
Turns out the design of Q rings is such that even if BOTH rings are set on the same number, their orientation relative to each other is not quite the same. The assumption being if you are in the little ring you are likely to be sitting up/back/climbing, so the orientation of that ring is shifted back from the same number on the big ring, where the assumption is you are forward/aero/hammering.
Haven’t tried it yet but I would guess the big on 4 and the little on 5 would give the most comparable feel between the two when position is maintained. I am pretty much done with my little ring and sittting up for 2010 so I might mess with that change over the winter.
Hope this helps and doesn’t confuse you more. BTW, I love my rings and train with power for 5 years now and there is really no hard data to report in regards to power numbers, but Q rings and short cranks were the 1-2 punch I needed to ‘fix’ my over the top/burning hip flexor issue.
Dave L explains it well
When I used them I started at 3 and 3. Moved both to 4 then moved the big to 5.
Don’t wait 6 weeks, 1 or 2 weeks is fine.
jaretj
Turns out the design of Q rings is such that even if BOTH rings are set on the same number, their orientation relative to each other is not quite the same.
Maybe not exactly, but it should be aproximately the same… unless the small chainring is fastened to the crankset with the bolt insets set to the same side as the large chanring.
Sergio
Maybe this will help. As someone mentioned, you can go ahead and change the setting after you get a few miles on them, but we do like to see you ride at least 200 miles on them to get used to the oval (granted for a lot of people it takes less than that), but there is some behind the scenes muscle adaptation that needs to occur for you to be able to really tell the difference in each setting. the below is a copy/paste, so I appologive for the impersonal answer.
There are two factors which affect the best orientation of the Q-Rings: GEOMETRY & INERTIA
Geometry: The bike’s seat angle, the rider’s position on the bike and rider own body geometry affect when a rider can achieve peak force during the pedal. Normally, riders achieve peak force about 90º after the dead-spot, thus we created the Optimum Chainring Positioning (OCP) system so you can adjust the Q-Rings based around each rider’s dead-spot and riding style.
Inertia****: due to the variations of inertia during every pedal stroke, riders are actually able to push a larger gear AFTER you achieve peak force. Q-Rings are designed to be set up taking into account that a delay is needed between the rider’s peak power and where he/she can actually work with maximum gear, which is due to the acceleration of the complete bike and body that happens every downstroke. For example, if pushing 300 watts, at a high cadence, the overall force throughout the pedal stroke is small and acceleration is low; however, if the cadence is low, the amount of force needed is greater and the acceleration produced is higher as well, which will need for bigger delay.
Essentially, with every pedal stroke we are accelerating the bike and the rider’s overall goals need to be taken into account when setting up the Q-Rings. The bigger the OCP number, the bigger delay: the max gear will happen later in the downstroke:
If this delay is too short (by setting the Q-Rings to a lower number than your geometry requires) the max gear will come sooner in the pedal stroke, which is suitable for high cadence riders and may actually increase your cadence, but sprinting and climbing may be sacrificed, due to the pour acceleration performance. If said delay is too long (by setting the Q-Rings to a higher number than your geometry requires) the max gear will come later in the pedal stroke, which is suitable for high gear riders, will improve your acceleration but it will not be as comfortable to pedal at a very high cadence or high speed unless you change your position on the bike. When the proper delay is achieved, the rider will find a good compromise between good acceleration and high speed, including high and low cadence conditions.
Comments: #3 is the best for 70% of all ROAD cyclists. #4 (meaning that the maximum gear will come later, lower in the clock diagram) is favourable for most sprinters, but not for all of them. #2 (meaning that the maximum gear will come earlier, higher in the clock) is worse for accelerations but good for high speed and/or high cadence. For TT bikes (with steep seat angle), due to the geometry correction, the #4 setting is preferred, reaching #5 in some very aggressive geometry bikes for Ironman.
The design of Q-Rings includes slight differences for the small chainring in regards to the big ring, so it is not necessary to adjust the inner ring different than the outer because they are used for different purposes. If they are going to be set different, the small ring is usually set at the same or smaller number than the big ring. For example: 53/39 can be #3/#3 or #4/#4 or #2/#2 or #4/#3 or #3/#2 #1 and #5 are extreme but we have found some consumers using #2/#1 and #5/#4, but really very strange #1/#1.
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: 08º for the 53t, and 13º for the 39t
#2 becomes largest at: 13º for the 53t, and 18º for the 39t
#3 becomes largest at: 18º for the 53t, and 23º for the 39t
#4 becomes largest at: 23º for the 53t, and 28º for the 39t
#5 becomes largest at: 28º for the 53t, and 33º for the 39t
1 Like
Turns out the design of Q rings is such that even if BOTH rings are set on the same number, their orientation relative to each other is not quite the same.
Maybe not exactly, but it should be aproximately the same… unless the small chainring is fastened to the crankset with the bolt insets set to the same side as the large chanring.
Sergio
See OCP Settings in the post following your original. That is what I meant by relative orientations of the rings differing even when set to same number. This takes into account the supposed different uses for the different chainrings. Which is great if you use them that way, ie big ring aerobars, small ring climbing. I ride all aero all the time and the difference in the settings is enough to effect structured sessions, especially if you are not aware of it. It’s easy to workaround once you know what is going on though.
Still love my Q-rings.
Turns out the design of Q rings is such that even if BOTH rings are set on the same number, their orientation relative to each other is not quite the same.
Maybe not exactly, but it should be aproximately the same… unless the small chainring is fastened to the crankset with the bolt insets set to the same side as the large chanring.
Sergio
See OCP Settings in the post following your original. That is what I meant by relative orientations of the rings differing even when set to same number. This takes into account the supposed different uses for the different chainrings. Which is great if you use them that way, ie big ring aerobars, small ring climbing. I ride all aero all the time and the difference in the settings is enough to effect structured sessions, especially if you are not aware of it. It’s easy to workaround once you know what is going on though.
Still love my Q-rings.
I agree. My comment is regarding the possibility of someone installing the small chainring with the insets facing the same way as the large chainring (it can happen if someone is not careful). When this happens the difference is way larger than the 5° diference posted.
Regarding adaptation time, last year a friend of Sergio had problems just before the race with his bike and used Sergio’s P3 With Rotor Q Rings set on #4 on the large chainring. He had never ever used Q Rings, but was able to win the TT nationals using them. He mentioned something about a difference but apparently it was not in any way harming his performance. smile
Most riders that have tried Sergio’s bikes have bought later a Q Ring set. The difference might be small but as far as our experience goes, it is a positive difference and ever little help counts once you reach a certain point.
Sergio
Maybe this will help. As someone mentioned, you can go ahead and change the setting after you get a few miles on them, but we do like to see you ride at least 200 miles on them to get used to the oval (granted for a lot of people it takes less than that), but there is some behind the scenes muscle adaptation that needs to occur for you to be able to really tell the difference in each setting. the below is a copy/paste, so I appologive for the impersonal answer.
There are two factors which affect the best orientation of the Q-Rings: GEOMETRY & INERTIA
Geometry: The bike’s seat angle, the rider’s position on the bike and rider own body geometry affect when a rider can achieve peak force during the pedal. Normally, riders achieve peak force about 90º after the dead-spot, thus we created the Optimum Chainring Positioning (OCP) system so you can adjust the Q-Rings based around each rider’s dead-spot and riding style.
Inertia****: due to the variations of inertia during every pedal stroke, riders are actually able to push a larger gear AFTER you achieve peak force. Q-Rings are designed to be set up taking into account that a delay is needed between the rider’s peak power and where he/she can actually work with maximum gear, which is due to the acceleration of the complete bike and body that happens every downstroke. For example, if pushing 300 watts, at a high cadence, the overall force throughout the pedal stroke is small and acceleration is low; however, if the cadence is low, the amount of force needed is greater and the acceleration produced is higher as well, which will need for bigger delay.
Essentially, with every pedal stroke we are accelerating the bike and the rider’s overall goals need to be taken into account when setting up the Q-Rings. The bigger the OCP number, the bigger delay: the max gear will happen later in the downstroke:
If this delay is too short (by setting the Q-Rings to a lower number than your geometry requires) the max gear will come sooner in the pedal stroke, which is suitable for high cadence riders and may actually increase your cadence, but sprinting and climbing may be sacrificed, due to the pour acceleration performance. If said delay is too long (by setting the Q-Rings to a higher number than your geometry requires) the max gear will come later in the pedal stroke, which is suitable for high gear riders, will improve your acceleration but it will not be as comfortable to pedal at a very high cadence or high speed unless you change your position on the bike. When the proper delay is achieved, the rider will find a good compromise between good acceleration and high speed, including high and low cadence conditions.
Comments:
#3 is the best for 70% of all ROAD cyclists. #4 (meaning that the maximum gear will come later, lower in the clock diagram) is favourable for most sprinters, but not for all of them. #2 (meaning that the maximum gear will come earlier, higher in the clock) is worse for accelerations but good for high speed and/or high cadence. For TT bikes (with steep seat angle), due to the geometry correction, the #4 setting is preferred, reaching #5 in some very aggressive geometry bikes for Ironman.
The design of Q-Rings includes slight differences for the small chainring in regards to the big ring, so it is not necessary to adjust the inner ring different than the outer because they are used for different purposes. If they are going to be set different, the small ring is usually set at the same or smaller number than the big ring. For example: 53/39 can be #3/#3 or #4/#4 or #2/#2 or #4/#3 or #3/#2 #1 and #5 are extreme but we have found some consumers using #2/#1 and #5/#4, but really very strange #1/#1.
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: 08º for the 53t, and 13º for the 39t
#2 becomes largest at: 13º for the 53t, and 18º for the 39t
#3 becomes largest at: 18º for the 53t, and 23º for the 39t
#4 becomes largest at: 23º for the 53t, and 28º for the 39t
#5 becomes largest at: 28º for the 53t, and 33º for the 39t
Correct me if I’m wrong but let’s say you have the following scenario…you are on a triathlon bike and ride steep (78+ degrees) so you move the big ring to setting 4 to account for being so far forward. When you are in the small ring, the assumption is that you are further back on the seat, say <75 degrees, so you would want the ring to be largest at 18 degrees below 3’oclock or even less than 18 degrees depending on how far back you are sitting on the seat. This would put you at setting 2 on the small ring. To me, it appears that the small ring should be set 5 degrees less than the large ring for the same OCP setting, not 5 degrees more. Why are you moving the max ring size further below the 3’oclock position in the small ring when you are less steep when climbing and would want the max ring size closer to the 3’clock position. I noticed GregX said he prefers #4 in the big and #2 in the small. That makes sense to me.
Has anyone used Spin Scan on a Computrainer to determine their setting? I am currently riding a 3 because my average torque angle on spin scan is right around 90 degrees. I’ve never been sure if that is a good way to pick a setting, but it feels right, so I’ve never bothered to change it.
The issue is that when you are in the small ring, climbing a hill with the front wheel elevated, your power zone may come in a little earlier, but because your front wheel is raised (say 5 degrees), it pretty much rotates your pedaling clock. so, lets say you are climbing a 5% hill, moving the hardest part of the Q-Ring down 5 degrees will essentially put you at the desired position. while you will move back on the saddle, there is only so far back you can move.
HOWEVER, I personally ride the #4 on the outer and the #3 on the inner and ride #3/#2 on my road bike, but it has to do with the hills you usually ride. our hills in Colorado, while long, are usually not that steep; if I was in an area where the hills were shorter and steeper, I would probably stick with #4/#4 on the TT bike and #3/#3 on the road bike.
Ideally, you would print the report after your ride and look at the ATA # for each leg and average them out. the #3 setting makes it hardest at 108 degrees and you can move the orientation in 5 degree increments (sooner by going to #2, and later by going to #4).
I usually recommend doing a good effort in the large ring in a gear similar to that which you would ride on a flat road with the wheels level and look at the report for the outer ring and then raise the front wheel a few degrees and do a good effort on a 5-6% climb so your chain would be positioned on the cassette on a cog that you would normally ride on such a grade with the wheel raised, and then look at the report for the inner ring. this way you can actually set the orientation for each ring individually as opposed to averaging the inner and outer ring. the key is that your wheels are in the correct position, and you have your chain in the correct cog, since some of you know that entry angle of the chain has something to do with it.
I hope this helps,
Kervin,
Can you explain why Shimano compact can only be set at #3? I would really like to move to Q-rings, but am concerned about that limitation. I’m on a shimano 50-34 165mm crankset now.
And any suggestions for the cheapest way to move to a setup that would get me to a place where I could experiment with #4 setting,etc? Thanks.
problem is that the back/inside part of the Shimano compact cranks (as well as carbon BB30 cranks and Quarq Compact spiders) makes contact with the Q-Rings’ inner diameter no allowing you to bolt on the stock outer ring. So we basically removed the material that would hit the crank arm, but by doing that, it eliminated the option to change the setting. The original plan was to make and OCP3 and OCP4, but unfortunately, due to increase in demand of all of our products, we have not been able to make them, and while it is still in the plans, unfortunately they will not come anytime soon.
you could, in theory, dremel a TT ring so you can use the #4, but same thing, you would not be able to move it to use a different setting. if you know for a fact that you will end up at the #4 (like most on a TT bike), then its worth the risk, and while it certainly voids the warranty, we have had some shop do this successfully.
When I bought my q rings on a new bike (2006), we found that they didn’t quite fit on zipp cranks, so the very capable bike shop owner dremmeled a bit of material off the rings so I could use them. Worked erfectly, I’ve been using the rings ever since. Now I’m contemplating compact and was wondering if it would be necessary again. I guess so.
Wow, what a great informative set of replies. Thanks guys.
I am going to adjust by road bike and tt bike by making the inner blade a setting lower, based on what I have read.
About to get some for the MTB - any verdict on what do make these and is there any difference between the settings on a 26" vs a 29" bike? Our terrain here is very rocky, hardpack with layers of dust on the top so its quite slippery.
thanks. Raoul
Ideally, you would print the report after your ride and look at the ATA # for each leg and average them out. the #3 setting makes it hardest at 108 degrees and you can move the orientation in 5 degree increments (sooner by going to #2, and later by going to #4).
I usually recommend doing a good effort in the large ring in a gear similar to that which you would ride on a flat road with the wheels level and look at the report for the outer ring and then raise the front wheel a few degrees and do a good effort on a 5-6% climb so your chain would be positioned on the cassette on a cog that you would normally ride on such a grade with the wheel raised, and then look at the report for the inner ring. this way you can actually set the orientation for each ring individually as opposed to averaging the inner and outer ring. the key is that your wheels are in the correct position, and you have your chain in the correct cog, since some of you know that entry angle of the chain has something to do with it.
I hope this helps,
Thanks for the reply Kevin. Just to make sure I understand… if I do a ride and my report has an ATA of 90 degrees, then I want to use #3 because 108 is 18 degrees past 90. If I come back with an ATA of higher than 90 then I should consider moving up to #4 or #5, depending on how much higher than 90 I am. Do I have that correct?
I hope I didn’t resurrect a dead tread,Kervin,I tried your set-up 4 outer and 3 inner but I’m having issues with shifting from small to big ring,it will shift but felt grinding all the time,Im using a sram red front Der.,is this normal to this set up?,I was just thinking maybe the distance between cage and ring height is way too low,its 1mm right now,you guys had shifting issues as well??please help…
The issue is that when you are in the small ring, climbing a hill with the front wheel elevated, your power zone may come in a little earlier, but because your front wheel is raised (say 5 degrees), it pretty much rotates your pedaling clock. so, lets say you are climbing a 5% hill, moving the hardest part of the Q-Ring down 5 degrees will essentially put you at the desired position. while you will move back on the saddle, there is only so far back you can move.
HOWEVER, I personally ride the #4 on the outer and the #3 on the inner and ride #3/#2 on my road bike, but it has to do with the hills you usually ride. our hills in Colorado, while long, are usually not that steep; if I was in an area where the hills were shorter and steeper, I would probably stick with #4/#4 on the TT bike and #3/#3 on the road bike.
Look this small black box in Front Derailleur
I used a QXL with Sram Red Quarq and it’s perfect
Check this http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Front_Derailleur_How-To_3775.html
.
Look this small black box in Front Derailleur
I used a QXL with Sram Red Quarq and it’s perfect
Check this http://www.slowtwitch.com/...eur_How-To_3775.html
That shim you have is correct, but your FD is way way way too high above the big ring. 3-5mm. Yours looks about 15-20mm or more. When you shift to the small ring, your chain will grind on the laterally horizontal post that connects the outer and inner cages of the FD in the rear.
The big shim also has a little shim and the two combined gain you 6 different positions depending on how you orient them to find the correct placement of the FD. The further back you shim it, the further you will have to lower the FD to account for the FD moving away (rearward and subsequently upward) relative to the rings.
BTW, you know you resurrected a 2 yr old thread, right? 