Rotor Q-ring vs ridea - biggest difference and my experience

Triathlon Forum
1

Rotor Q-rings have 5 positions to select the installation position. 3 is meant to be the default position for road bikes, 4 on TT bikes (due more vertical seat post).

Ridea has only one position, and on Rotor scale, this would mean either -1 or -2.

This means that the “power phase” in Ridea gear comes much earlier than in Rotor Q-ring gear, and also goes away much earlier.
When pedalling on Ridea I clearly felt this, the “easy gear” starts too early.

This difference is this position is much bigger difference than anything on the details of the oval forms has effect.

Then my own experience on power output:

2013-2014 I used Q-rings on some races.

On Winter 2015 I did lots of training on trainer during the winter with q-rings, and got nice improvements on my power output.

I switched to Ridea during May. I also reduced the amount of my indoor trainer exercise and did more exercise outside, without power meter.

On june I noticed I’m not practically at all faster with the Rideas that I was during 2013 and 2014 with Q-rings even though I had clear power output improvements during the winter due my trainer workouts. On may I was only couple of seconds faster on my own 26.6 km tempo test ride than I had been on 2013.

I did some trainer sessions to confirm this, there were interval sets I used to do with 320 watts with q-rings on april and on july I could not finish there with 310 watts in Ridea.

So, I decided to switch back to Q-rings, but do a tempo ride before and after the test.

So yesterday I did my last ride with the Rideas. Again the same 26.6 km tempo, time 45:33, average speed 35.0 km/h, average heartbeat 164.
This was over half minute faster than on May, so even though I was doing worse on trainer with ridea at July than I did on trainer with Q-rings on April,
my power output from may to august had improved.

Today morning I switched the big gear back to Q-ring, and did the same tempo ride again. Same route. Time 45:08, average speed 35.3km/h, average heartbeat 168.
And the wind was worse today and I had to waste few second at one intersection due car traffic.

So, 0.9% difference in speed between the rides on two consecutive days by switching the big gear from Ridea to Q-rings.
This should mean some 2-3% difference in power.

It seems that with Q-rings my anaerobic threshold gets higher (on both power and heartbear), I can pedal harder without lactatic acid killing my muscles.

So, to me it seems the Ridea guys messed up by having the bolt holes in wrong place in their gears. No hype about double-ovality helps when the double-ovality kicks in way too early and gives up way too early.

2

So, to me it seems the Ridea guys messed up by having the bolt holes in wrong place in their gears. No hype about double-ovality helps when the double-ovality kicks in way too early and gives up way too early.

It is not the ovality that is key, it is the adjustable positions on rotor rings that make them far superior than pretty much any other non-round rings. Without this adjustability, such rings are pretty much useless (unless you are very very lucky and and happen to be in the right spot). Because no company can make a chainring with the bolt holes in the “right place” for everyone and everyone’s set up. Because the “right place” for those holes is affected by a multitude of factors such as rider butt position on the saddle, the saddle type used, the saddle position relative to the seatpost, the frame geometry, the effective seat angle of the bike, the BB height, the chainstay length, the chainring sizes, the sizes of the cogs you’re using, the gearing combos that you favor, and that is just a short list. So you have to be able to customize your settings for your exact set up. There is no “one size fits all” here.

3

That is an excellent post. Real world experience. Chased down the difference. I bet you are right.

Not to hijack your thread, but has anyone seen a single-ring narrow-wide oval road chainring yet? I ran 1x11 all year on my road bike and it was great. Have an oval 1x11 on my MTB that is making me want similar on my road bike.

Andy

4

Also changed to a 1x11 set up on my TT bike. I searched high and low for a 54T single chainring with N/W teeth and couldn’t find any on retail. Eventually I had one custom made by guys in Australia - around then Sram announced the new 1x11 road groups, but still haven’t seent the chainrings for sale yet.

I got it made with an oval / Ossymetric design. Its fantastic - no longer use a FD / chain guide and I havent dropped a chain in 1000km+ riding (and I just use a normal road RD). Only downside is its quite noisy in the bigger sprockets do to chain angle and the larger teeth.

5

It is not the ovality that is key, it is the adjustable positions on rotor rings that make them far superior than pretty much any other non-round rings. Without this adjustability, such rings are pretty much useless (unless you are very very lucky and and happen to be in the right spot). Because no company can make a chainring with the bolt holes in the “right place” for everyone and everyone’s set up. Because the “right place” for those holes is affected by a multitude of factors such as rider butt position on the saddle, the saddle type used, the saddle position relative to the seatpost, the frame geometry, the effective seat angle of the bike, the BB height, the chainstay length, the chainring sizes, the sizes of the cogs you’re using, the gearing combos that you favor, and that is just a short list. So you have to be able to customize your settings for your exact set up. There is no “one size fits all” here.Chainstay length? BB height?

6

Chainstay length? BB height?

Yup, you bet. Strange, but true.

The key to understanding why: when you change q-ring settings based on your effective seat tube angle (say, you’re going from “roadie slack” to “triathlon steep” on your bike), it is clear that changing the STA makes a difference. But what is the STA changing relative to? What is the critical item that interacts with effective STA to change how rotor rings work?

7

Chainstay length? BB height?

Yup, you bet. Strange, but true.

The key to understanding why: when you change q-ring settings based on your effective seat tube angle (say, you’re going from “roadie slack” to “triathlon steep” on your bike), it is clear that changing the STA makes a difference. But what is the STA changing relative to? What is the critical item that interacts with effective STA to change how rotor rings work?So if you get a frame with the same dimensions but longer chainstays that changes fit? Nonsense.

And it’s disengenuous to claim BB height affects fit. Sure it does if you don’t move the saddle or bars on a bike with a different BB height, but who would do that? And once you do that, the fit relative to the cranks is the same.

8

No, you are totally correct, none of those change “fit” (fit of a rider’s body on the bike) if you make the proper adjustments.

But they do affect optimal q-ring placement. Again, for q-ring effectiveness, think about what is the STA changing relative to? What is the critical item that interacts with the rider’s STA to change how rotor rings work best?

9

No, you are totally correct, none of those change “fit” (fit of a rider’s body on the bike) if you make the proper adjustments.

But they do affect optimal q-ring placement. Again, for q-ring effectiveness, think about what is the STA changing relative to? What is the critical item that interacts with the rider’s STA to change how rotor rings work best?How about rather than questions, you say why or how a change to either BB height or chainstay length should change Q-ring placement. They don’t even change seat tube angle.

10

Again, this is not about bike fit, it is about how q-rings work, and how they work optimally.

Any change in body position that affects STA will directly impact the best chainring setting for that body position. But what is a little harder to notice is that there are some other things that also highly impact optimal chainring position. People think that since STA is measured relative to the ground or level, that that is all you need to consider. But for q-ring adjustments the level ground is mostly irrelevant. Because the critical factor on the rings effectiveness is the angle between the STA and the chainline (as seen from the side, not from the top). Because it the active (changing) radius of the q-ring wherever the chain is tangent is what make the rings work in the first place.

So anything that changes the chainline or the chainline tangent (remember this is not the traditional use of the word ‘chainline’, it is more the chainline angle as seen from the side) affects the active radius of the chainring. So if you have a high or low BB height, that changes the chainline relative to the rear hub and changes the chainline tangent. Short or long chainstays affect this angle as well (if BB height is held constant). If you use big or small chainrings with big or small cogs, that hugely affects chainline amgle. Even the gearing combos that you favor change the angle of the chainline a lot. And some of these change the chainline vs STA a lot more than a rider going from a slack to steep position.

11

Got it - thanks.