I know there was some discussion recently about the benefit of q-ring and osymetric rings and have been using Q-rings for about a year but recently got some Osymetrics to try them out.
So what protocol should I use to determine any differences between them?
I’m hoping someone smart chimes in (and you have to be truly smart, not a smart ass).
My thought was to do it on a trainer with a HRM and do a 10 to 20 minute test at 90-100% FTP, keeping the cadence the same (or close) and then compare HR’s.
I believe doing it outside would add in more variables, though I do have a descent section of road along the coast that has a pretty consistent wind and early in the morning is usually non-existent.
I’m not smart, but just got a osymetric ring and was thinking how I could quantify a benefit. I think on a trainer with a controlled HR,Cadence and gear. Then look for a difference in watts between the 2.
For me they felt like I could push a lower gear at the same cadence and produce more watts.
Set the trainer up and do 3 or 4 intervals at specific gears with a constant cadence. Compare power output, and you’ll have an idea. Make sure that you use the same bike and trainer setup, and that the rings on both cranks are exactly the same. Don’t touch anything on the trainer either.
I’m not sure that’s correct, I’d have to read over each companies claims again to confirm but I believe their performance increase is due a claimed physiological benefit, i.e. instead of turning a 54t ring the in the upstroke/ non-power phase your turning a 49 (or whatever it is) and turning a 56 on the power stroke.
If I’m understanding you correctly, your assuming that the oval rings produce more power with the same cadence and gearing, but, and an engineering type please correct me if I’m wrong here, the gearing is still the same. I believe your theory the result would be the same because the gear ratio would be same, a 54t ring turning a whatever sized cog.
I’d have to agree with Rover 24, only no HR.
Set the trainer up and do 3 or 4 intervals at specific gears with a constant cadence. Compare power output, and you’ll have an idea. Make sure that you use the same bike and trainer setup, and that the rings on both cranks are exactly the same. Don’t touch anything on the trainer either.
I didn’t have a power meter when I did my testing between standard and the q-ring, but here is what I did.
On the trainer I kept speed constant between trials and tested with the standard and q-ring one day, and q-ring and standard the next day. I looked at the HR with the different setups and the q-rings gave me 3-4 beats lower HR both times at different speeds.
Because you have power, you can keep power constant and see the difference in HR.
Nobody cares about HR too much. Nobody will take your results serious if you conclude with “fells easier”. I’m already glad you asked for suggestions.
So… Unless you bought them for knee problems or for fun the only thing that’s of interest is a maximum power output over a given duration. No 2x20’s, no HR, no intervals at a target power. Only new PBs that proof that they work is what we want. I’d switch them over 2-3x times a week for 3-4 weeks long and go do a bunch of all out efforts every 2days. Be it 1min, 5min, 10min or 20min (we wouldn’t make you ride a 1h true max effort). Only problem: You’ve ridden them for 1 year already so you may do worse on round rings because you’re not used to them. But I’m not sure how eliminate that variable (unless you have 10people and ton of time available).
Nobody cares about HR too much. Nobody will take your results serious if you conclude with “fells easier”. I’m already glad you asked for suggestions.
So… Unless you bought them for knee problems or for fun the only thing that’s of interest is a maximum power output over a given duration.** I originally bought the Q-rings to see if they would help a dead spot that I had “developed” in my pedal stroke, I cant say if it fixed it because I also changed a few other things but the dead spot went away so I kept them.**
No 2x20’s, no HR, no intervals at a target power. Only new PBs that proof that they work is what we want. I’d switch them over 2-3x times a week for 3-4 weeks long and go do a bunch of all out efforts every 2days. Be it 1min, 5min, 10min or 20min (we wouldn’t make you ride a 1h true max effort). This is a good idea, I’ll think about a way I can do something like this and provide some feedback on it.
Only problem: You’ve ridden them for 1 year already so you may do worse on round rings because you’re not used to them. But I’m not sure how eliminate that variable (unless you have 10people and ton of time available). **I don’t think there is much of an adaption that occurs here. I use round rings on my road bike, and don’t feel a difference, but either way your right, I can’t undo it. **
Just do a 20’ all-out test on the round rings. A few days later, do the same with Osymetrics. Repeat a couple times and see if there is any significant difference in power or speed.
Not fun, but after a few weeks of this regimen at least you’ll have improved your 20’ power
Just do a 20’ all-out test on the round rings. A few days later, do the same with Osymetrics. Repeat a couple times and see if there is any significant difference in power or speed.
Not fun, but after a few weeks of this regimen at least you’ll have improved your 20’ power
+1. Optimally do it on a trainer and make sure the bike is setup up the exact same way each time. And use the same PowerTap wheel for all the tests. HR, cadence, and speed is not important, what’s important is whether or not the rings will make your output (watts) higher.
I don’t know your normal schedule, but let’s say you can do a 20 min all-out Tuesday and Thursday. Then you can do something like:
Week 1
Tuesday: Q rings
Thursday: Round rings
Week 2
Tuesday: O.symetric
Thursday: Q rings
Week 3
Tuesday: Round rings
Thursday: O.symetric
Week 4
Tuesday: Q rings
Thursday: O.symetric
Week 5
Tuesday: Round rings
Thursday: Q rings
Week 6
Tuesday: O.symetric
Thursday: Round rings
This way you will have four tests of each chain ring and can hopefully see if any of them offer a measurable benefit. Each ring is tested two times on a Tuesday and two times on a Thursday to take into account you might be consistently less fatigued, in a better mood, etc. on a specific day of the week. If you do all tests with one chain ring and then all the tests with the next chain ring you can get the issue that you might be better and better (or conversely worse due to more fatigue) due to the training and not due to the chain rings.
Non-round rings “work” by changing pedal velocity during each pedal stroke. On the road, bike+rider inertia leads to nearly constant road speed, thus the non-round ring can significantly vary the foot speed. In contrast, on a trainer only the rear wheel and flywheel creat inertia - not nearly as much as your bike+body on the road. Consequently, the non-round ring cannot enforce significant variation in foot speed as intended.
Instead you need the high-inertia of the road or a good ergometer.
I didn’t see Christie O’Hara’s test protocol for non-round rings brought up? Maybe you could copy parts of that?
I guess he should do it on the road or, preferably (for the sake of consistency), on a trainer/ergometer with an inertia as close to the body+bike system as possible.
Maybe a lead disc PowerTap wheel should do the trick? :-p
I know there was some discussion recently about the benefit of q-ring and osymetric rings and have been using Q-rings for about a year but recently got some Osymetrics to try them out.
So what protocol should I use to determine any differences between them?
I’m hoping someone smart chimes in (and you have to be truly smart, not a smart ass).
My thought was to do it on a trainer with a HRM and do a 10 to 20 minute test at 90-100% FTP, keeping the cadence the same (or close) and then compare HR’s.
I believe doing it outside would add in more variables, though I do have a descent section of road along the coast that has a pretty consistent wind and early in the morning is usually non-existent.
Thoughts and idea’s are welcomed.
My suggestion is to find a hill with around an 8% or more grade and do timed intervals up the hill. It doesn’t have to be long, I would think that even a 5 minute hill would be sufficient to show any kind of power differences. By using a hill you take a good majority of the wind resistance out. Look at time and power. You should be able to use Analytic Cycling to normalize the results. Make sure you get an accurate total weight of you plus your bike so that it does not skew the results.
