I agree. I tried round outer ring with oval inner ring and it was more efficient than the opposite which I also tried. I found oval is more usefull on Mtb than road bikes.
Not only low cadence, but generally low inertia. I use Osymetrics on the road bike, but a regular round chainring on the TT bike. I feel like when the speed is higher, the advantage of the oval is much less and with more inertia, the dead spot is much less pronounced. That and my cadence is also higher on the TT.
I'm running AbsoluteBlack 48/32 on my road bike now. About 4500kms so far and won't go back to round. If anything I'm a minor heel dropper as I was taught this was a way to keep cadence and pedal stroke smooth, especially when climbing in the saddle. I find the slightly lower gearing for climbing assists me on the very steepest pinches, though I don't attack ascents like I used to, so tend to ascend slower and more 'easily' nowadays. Downside to that is I take longer getting up my regular climbs but I'm not fussed. OTOH, when riding flatter or rolling terrain I spend a LOT more time in the bigger 48 ring than I did in the 50, and can comfortably hold the 48 at a decent cadence most of the time without too much cross-chaining, therefore my average speeds have gone up a bit with the ovalised rings.
I am a mountain biker turned roadie they make a huge advantage on punchy climbs on the mountain bike so naturally just started using them on road. I found it smoothed out my pedal stroke
You didn't mention knee pain, Neill, but I went on to an oval 1X set up over five years ago when I was suffering from knee pain which turned out to be caused by arthritis - I've now had both knees done with total knee replacement inserts. That was on my road bike and it just felt easier and more comfortable than the 2X round rings on my old bike. Initially, I had 2X round rings on the bike I have permanently on my Kickr Core trainer and, to be honest, whichever of the three I rode, it didn't feel massively different so I guess I was adapted to both oval and round. Later, I changed the rings on my indoor bike to Rotor Q-rings and that meant less difference from the road bike, so I felt more at ease. However, I had lots of issues with the front derailleur and recently I have junked that and converted that bike to oval 1X. I did that just after restarting riding following my second knee replacement, having fitted (temporarily) a 150mm crank with a single oval ring to allow me to get my foot over the top of the pedal stroke with limited knee flexion. The reduced radius of the oval ring at the top of the stroke definitely helps if you have issues with bending the knee. Performance wise, the only difference I noticed back when I first started on the oval ring was when changing gear - it seemed to take less effort to bring the cadence back up to my comfort cadence when changing to a higher gear than it did with round rings. I don't think I'm a heel dropper but then again I have fairly flexible ankles.
I see a lot of comments saying that it works better with lower cadence.. I find it really interesting that Froome was basically the only WT Pro who was running ovals, whilst he was known for cycling with a very high cadence
I've used Q rings for many years, initially on a recommendation from my physio when recovering from a broken leg to build up the muscles. I think I spent about 6 weeks getting used to them and as far as I was concerned they were 'round' :-) I put the Q rings on my winter bike, and when I got on my race bike which did not have Q rings on I hated it. My seating position was wrong, I felt I wasn't ever in the right gear and I got odd little aches in my legs. As soon as I went over to Q rings, I was fine. I had all the power data from before and after the Q rings, and there was no difference, and I really mean nothing at all. I could produce the same output on the round rings vs the Q rings but it felt less ergonomic. As a result I've got Q rings on all my bikes, grave, MTB and road. However modern group sets really don't like Q rings. With the SRAM 11 speed red etap (I bought from new) I could run Q rings (53 39) once it was tuned it was perfect. That was back in 2016 and it was in use right up till I tried to get it working with SRAM 12 speed. No matter how hard I tried, the new SRAM front mech would not allow me to use a Q ring, so I had to go back to a round big ring, but I have a small ring in the Q ring. First time I rode this I really hated it, but I stuck with it. I'm 6'4" and 80 kgs, so I'm no climbing goat, but the q rings really help with the steep climbs. It's a bit weird at first having both on the bike but I've got used to it and don't even think about it. Interestingly I'm not a heal dropper or a pointer (twinkle toes !) I just like how the Q rings smooth out the power output. Interesting video, thanks for making it.
Back in 1987, I bought a Schwinn Tempo with 105 and Biopace chain rings. Everything about them felt better. They felt smoother and felt like they give a better stroke with more power. I still use oval today but the advantages that I feel they give me may be all in my head. - but that's not always a bad thing !
I have been on Q rings since 2007. Never had a problems with shifting. It does take a little more work settling up the derailleur. It does take some time to adapt to them. When I first got them, I was told that it will take some testing to find the right position of the ring has its like an old the points in a car distributor. If you get the gap right the car run if not it doesn't work. What found out for me in a TT I could run a big gear at the same cadence.
Hi Neil, it’s interesting hearing you talk about the adaptation. I used to run an oval ring on my small chainring for climbing purposes. I had read that they were better at lower cadence. The initial shift from large to small ring felt a little strange for the first few minutes of riding were but as the cadence dropped the Oval ring seemed to come into its own. You didn’t mention anything regarding cadence.
Thank you for the quality review you're really good information especially talking about being rigid with your feet and not dropping your heels when cranking. Also the adaptation time frame. Most reviews are lacking a lot of the in-depth scientific research
Neil does it again! As someone else stated here, I’ve never heard a better explanation of Q rings. When is the Neil and Cam world tour? Can we get a channel sponsor for that?!
It's interesting talking about adapting, because my MTB and Gravel bike have ovals (1x), and my road bike is good old round 105 (2x). I don't "notice" switching between them but then I'm probably riding and pedalling differently on them to some extent and the rest of the bike feels different too.
THANKYOU, for highlighting the uncertainty in this debate. These rings (oval in general) have been around in various permutations since before 1900. I have little doubt that if oval chainrings provided any kind of measurable and consistent performance improvement, they would have been more broadly accepted 100 years ago. I agree with your assessement that pedaling technique plays a huge roll. I've seen that typically, trained cyclists loose functionality on oval chainrings due to lack of ability to spin efficiently, whereas inexperienced cyclists or cyclists with choppy pedal strokes can benifit somewhat. AND, the big part missing in the whole oval debate, seems to me, the lack of recognizing the roll that our ankles can play in smoothing out our pedal stroke and functionally providing an on-the-fly adjustable ovalness to our pedal stroke if we use a round chainring. So, oval may be just trying to force us to pedal in a manner that, with training, we can do better and more dynamically with the use of our ankles? I have lots of anecdotal evidence, from technical climbing on mountain bikes, that the benifits of an oval chainring can be replicated or surpassed by using ones ankles appropriately.
Not road, but single speed mountain bikers rave about the oval helping with the type of riding you do on a single speed mountain bike - lots of slow cadence highwattage grinds where the top and bottom of the peddle stroke are extra deadly "dead zones," and then being able to have a larger chain ring at top speeds and still sort of a smaller chainring for hills...
Regarding heal dropping. I’ve noticed when building up my own arch support under my right inner sole, that if the arch support was placed too forward I would drop my heel. I slid it back towards my heel and I noticed I stopped dropping my heel. My stroke on that foot became more stable and stronger too.
Hi Neil, I have been using Q rings for about 8 years now in my road bikes. Also QXL (16% oval vs 10%) where the whip effect you mention feels a little more exaggerated. But also, have continue using round chain rings on my gravel bike and mountain bike regularly, so I do not notice any difference in the pedal stroke now whatsoever when I use one or the other. One thing you don’t mentioned is this concept which really convinced me: fatigue distribution, one of the information I found (do not know where, google certainly...) was the oval rings make big muscles used in the down stroke (quads and calves) work harder over time, whilst small muscles used in the upstroke work lighter. So, to me there is general misconception about what oval rings do: they do not improve power, they improve efficiency/endurance, besides the look AWESOME. Have you found any studies about this? I would like to get your opinion true or myth.
I had a friend do a dissertation in his sports science studies on oval chain rings. Was brilliantly done. To summarise the difference ended up being so minuscule it's barely relevant. Like changing your bolts to Ti bolts difference. You can argue it's lighter but.... Really. In theory yes.... But no. Lifting your head looking at the horizon has a bigger effect than the oval rings .
I have run them three yrs now and love them but I run one ring up front. I’m a heal dropper so that explains a lot. The advantage I have noticed is when I spin instead of just crank down it feels more fluid and I increase speed with less effort. Personally I think there is a benefit for myself and will be sticking with them.
I’m on Q rings for about 10 years. It felt good right from the start and because I was faster than others, I figured it must be working. Nowadays I’m switching between 5 bikes and some of them have round rings. They also feel just normal to me and there’s no significant difference in power or speed. I’ve also experimented with the ocp settings. According to some tests I should go higher, but ocp 3 feels the best for me. Ocp 5 gave me instant knee pain that I’ve never had before. I think Q rings can benefit on steady state rides, but sprints feels better on round rings. I’ve never had a bad shift, so I really don’t understand where those stories come from. The engineering of Rotor is really good. They make a high quality and long lasting product.
I tried q-rings 15yrs ago when I was still racing. Started using them in the winter and found I liked them while steady state riding and doing some big gear, seated intervals. But when I transitioned to the Spring and started doing some jumps, standing hill accelerations, and form sprints in training, I found “jumping” into the larger gear was a challenge. It was noticeably harder to get a quick acceleration. Ended up taking them off. Regarding power numbers, I seem to remember some articles mentioning power meter readings with non-round rings would be off….can’t remember which way.
Loved the absolute black oval ring on my mtb, especially on steep climbs. Didn't seem to have much effect on the road. Perhaps because I don't do much out of the saddle climbing on the road bike as opposed to my mtb.
I have the same experience. Took about a year to learn how to get best out of the shape - rear wheel no longer loses traction on steep pinches or wet roots and I think it's because the torque is more even across the pedal stroke. I don't "mash" so much on arduous climbs either.
Very interesting and informative. My experience is not too dissimilar, and as a mechanical engineer, I obviously have this afinity to engineering principles of leverage. And naturally, as Cadence is the overriding force in the four bar linkage system in cycling. Not to mention the complexity of the human performance envelope. So here goes. I have a 36t oval on mtb (12 speed) with long cranks 180mm (I got long limbs okay). My acceleration is noticeably quicker than with a 34t round chain ring. Mostly because of the shorter duration gap between up changing with the later. Basically I felt that I could easily push a higher gear ratio more easily with the oval chainring. On top of that, my neuraplacisity adaptation to a faster cadence speed over the dead spots has improved my Road TT cadence, even and especially with, its round 54t ring. Believe it or not, this is now without the the bounce I used to experience.
I love how we can't even decide which axis of the oval (the short or the long) should be aligned with the crank arm or maybe something in between. In the video the crank arm seems to be more closely aligned with the short axis but maybe there is a slight angle. The original idea was to align with the short axis, but then biopace aligned with the long. I've seen reviews aligning either and claiming it is better :). Sheldon Brown is in favor of aligning the long axis like the biopace. Anyway, I bought a $7 chainring from Amazon just to experiment with both alignments and then almost surely will go back to a round chainring.
Have oval just on the inner ring for climbing, just like the smoother feel of them. Two different brands too, Absolute Black on one and Rotor on the other. Both feel good, any gains from it, hard to quantify but my legs feel ok after long climbs.
How much of the research is Oval/Q-rings vs Biopace rings? In other words, do you know for sure if the studies specify where the ellipse/cam action occurs on the pedal stroke? The oval chainring manufacturers today all say that Biopace had it backwards, but I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve. I haven't ridden either kind, but to me it would seem like Biopace was designed to homogenize torque transfer instead of amplifying each downward pedal stroke. Wouldn't it be beneficial when trying to drive monster gears and to smooth out forces through the hip at the bottom of the stroke instead of, for example, moving to shorter cranks? Am I completely wrong and is Biopace universally acknowledged as being detrimental?
I don't have data on Biopace, but I rode 'em for several years. Torque was indeed homogenized what I liked alot. But Biopace has caused a lot of knee pain (both left and right), for which I couldn't specify the source. I only got my answer when my 52T chainring wore out and looked like a shuriken. Then I got problems with the transmission/shifting/chain drops and for the lack of propositions on the market had to go back to round chainrings. Knee pain has gone instantly and never bothered me again. But I haven't got used to round chainrings. At all. They feel wrong to me. Too much of a dead spot and the power transfer feels like on/off cycle which I don't like. I want to go back to oval but must look closely into options because for unknown reason modern transmissions don't really favor oval chainrings.
I'm new to cycling and saw an oval-looking ring on another video. The idea seems brilliant to me, effectively giving you a ratio that varies throughout each cycle. I have found that uphill cycling (on round rings) feels very "lumpy" and bouncy, and I would think an oval one could well "feel rounder" by making the torque more uniform. I'll be keen to try one out...
I used Q-rings many years ago and experienced a small increase in performance up to two months after the switch. I guess the reduced resistance at the dead spot eventually made me weaker at that part of the phase, to a point where there was no longer any advantage over the round one. Maybe I would have needed to keep switching between them, where the round one would have been for the build phase and the oval for performance, but I never went that far. If you set the offset outside the recommended setting there was a chance your glutes would hit you with stabbing pain mid ride.
May I suggest using a wedge under your cleats, for a smoother transition period? I too use an oval ring, and by raising the back of the cleat. Eliminated the dead spot of transitioning back to a regular chainring.
Great video! Really informative as always. I switched to an oval chainring a couple months back. I have found that I am more efficient with the oval. I ride based on my heart rate not power metrics. On a flat, calm day I can ride about 0.3-0.5mph faster while maintaining my heart rate at normal range (while most likely in a deeper gear). I’ve found when riding hills and into the wind I can run one gear deeper than what I did with a round ring and still pedal the same cadence comfortably. Absolutely none of this is scientific by any means. I ride 800-1,000 miles per month and usually notice slight variations pretty easily. These were my findings after switching to an oval. I feel like my oval was well worth the money and a purchase I would make again knowing what I know now.
I did like the feel of them on my mountain bike on steep climbs at low cadence. A lot of mountain bikers say oval rings fixed their knee pain so maybe it prevents their knees from snapping straight so quickly toward the bottom of the pedal stroke from a saddle height that's to high? They sucked pedaling through rock gardens though as sometimes when your rear wheel falls into a hole right when your pedal position hits the bigger part of the ring or vise versa. Which makes it really hard to keep consistent drive through the rock garden. Pedal bob on a full suspension bike was also worse with the oval ring. I never understood the claim of power gains. They don't make your legs or cardio stronger overnight so why would you put out more power? Legs and lungs is what lets you produce the wattage minus drivetrain friction.
Most interesting video about oval chainrings I've ever seen. I also find that point about heel droppers liking oval rings also interesting because another cycling youtuber, vegancyclist, swears by oval chainrings. I've noticed that he is also a big heel dropper. Another point of interest is that he likes them in a 1x setup, he says the oval chainring smooths out the gaps in the gears. Would be curious about any objective merit to this claim.
Yes, Tyler's claim of smoothing the gear"gaps" in a 1x setup via using an oval chaining has me intrigued, because it's the perception of these sudden jumps in cadences that has me putting off going to 1x. I DO have bad knees, and basically believe all of the "physics" behind ovals, but I just cant find supporting evidence as to what Tyler says, so have never made the move, as much as I want to. Other considerations are my desire for my gravel bike for the SRAM 10-44 XPLR rear setup, which ideally requires a 1x front. IF I did this, then I'd LOVE to have the gaps "blended" as Tyler says..
A bit late to the party here but have been using Q rings for approx 10 years. However not exclusively. I find Neill’s comments on adaptation very interesting as I have 1 road bike with a rings and 2 road bikes with round and switch between them depending on my fancy or weather conditions at the time (i.e. mud guards or not). My findings are that I feel I can climb much better on the Q’s with a more even/continuous resistance through the cranks. With the round rings I experience a definite big increase in resistance through the peak/trough to then get over the gear to the power drive. Akin to a chopping motion, i.e. push, push one pedal, down and then push, push other pedal down and so on. H.T.H’s.
Oh yes I liked QRing and Im a heal dropper! But when I decided to stick to Quarq powermeter, they tend to read high with oval so I switched to normal rings.
There is some thought that much of the training should be on round rings and then use the oval rings for adaptation & racing to get the best benefit from them.
Talk about good timing. Just got a new bike with Sram Rival. I am struggling to enjoy hills despite the gearing. My old bike has 2 rings from Absolute Black, oval. New bike, round. I find it rather difficult to find a cadence that I like versus the oval rings. What you have explained here makes sense. I still want the oval but they aren't available for Rival so I will have to try to get use to round again. Doesn't help that the old bike is my commuter and just feels so good when I ride to work! May have to dig out the old rings just so i can adapt quicker
I used the Rotor doubles on mountainbike maybe 12 years ago? I could feel the difference but the shifting off road wasn’t very good. I also used the rotor rings on my road bike around that time too. While I could feel the bike pedal differently at first but the feeling went away and I’d just ride. I also had a Oneup oval on another mountainbike for. Couple seasons. Got a new bike which came with a round ring. I was climbing better on the round ring and by that time my new road bike was also round. Long story short, made no real difference for me so I just go round now. I know off readers that ride oval with flat pedals and they really like them.
My steel 1987 Trek Elance, has stock oval rings. I notice the difference on hills over my modern road bike with regular chainrings. If I ever build a climbing bike, I’ll use ovals on it.
Interesting ... I have been using absoluteblack oval rings for a couple of years now, as I had knee issues and I felt a big dead-spot in my pedalling. The oval rings and shorter cranks seemed to help with the dead-spot thing. Couple of years and some issues later, it turns out I had a too high saddle, so the dead spot would mostly be due to that. Now I have a bike with oval rings, another with round ring that I ride back to back, can't feel a difference. If I am on round rings for a long time, when I get back to oval rings, I feel a difference for about 10 minutes ... Moving from oval to round, I never feel anything different.
I have these on both of my bikes, and YES, shifting g performance is not the best, but you can tweak the front derailleur to prevent chain dropping. I’m considering going back to regular rings, I’m not much of a heel dropper, or a twinkle toes, but I can say that when I initially changed to Qrings back in 2017 I noticed that my legs would stay looser after the rides, less fatigue…. But I’m not as fit as I was then, so once I change to regular rings, I’ll report back after adapting
Exactly like my experiences with these. I used q-rings for 8 years. Now I don't use them for two years. There is a feel difference and an adaptation, essentially i stopped using them since i was frustrated with chain issues and a switch to 12sp. But there is still two sets of 52-36 110x5bcd in a box somewhere. And even a QXL 53-39 on the old TT machine still.
I think the major effect would be the (in)tangible part of the setup - if the chainring feels better putting power down it 's going to motivate more bike time. I can resonate with the comment about crank arm length - I increased crank length by 10mm and it felt way better, but my output didn't change a bit.
your opening comment sounds like marketing nonsense. If your motivation to ride is affected by your sensation of how the chainring feels, you're not really motivated at all.
@scotth3354 Well then it's quite good that you've been able to see through my blatant attempt to not sell you on something I don't use that won't affect your personal perception of how riding a bicycle feels. Cheers.
would you notice any differences with cycling dynamics that are provided via power meter such as assiomas? so like pedal smoothness, torque effectiveness, pp start/end phase etc?
I always thought my deadspot on round chainrings was down to improper technique or leg strength but took the plunge on oval chainrings from Rotor and the deadzone pretty much disappeard. This has done wonders for my comfort on the bike but can't tell it has done anything else. Bought during sale so all in all was roughly $180. The comfort increase alone was well worth it imho. Went back to round chainrings for a few weeks and the old dead zone came back instantly. Switched over to oval again and it went away.
I have been riding Rotor Q rings for many years. I just like the way they feel, big chain ring on the number 4 position and the small on number 3. That’s the way I like them 😊.
I grabbed a bike with oval shape q ring. And it felt really good compared to my conventional ring use.. and I guess person who had it adjusted to stroke was spot on for me !
I used to be a terrible heel dropper until I got my position sorted. Watching your bike fit vids has changed my cycling life. Climbing is so much easier and I spin on the flats instead of mashing a huge gear
I used Q-rings for years, and then QXL rings, the even more ovalised version. I swore by them, especially the QXLs. My best ever performances, mainly in criteriums, were all on QXL rings. Was that to do with the chainrings, or with my overall fitness? I suspect more the latter than the former. I did like the feel though, feeling as though I had a greater sense of leverage during the power phase. I was then faced with a similar problem to Neill. I couldn't get them, or certainly not for a price that I'd call reasonable, and so I've been back on round chainrings for the last year. I'm definitely going slower these days, but I think that's more to do with having three years off the bike after having a daughter than the shape of the chainrings. Interesting I never had a problem with shifting. Maybe my mechanic was just awesome, or maybe I timed my shifts well. My SRAM set up throws the chain off the round rings far more than my Shimano set up ever threw the chain off my oval rings.
I ran ovals for two seasons (across 2 years) on gravel and road. Switched back to standard round rings no real gains or losses except on low speed steep gravel climbs I feel I need a smidge more effort but that’s a small % of ride time. The deal breaker for me was shifting performance as I run 2x on both road and gravel.
First, the quad doesn’t push down. Put a rider on a bike, stop the pedal at 3:00 and have them fire their quad. The resulting force on the foot is forward, the resulting movement at the hip is backwards. The knee is a pivot, if it’s directly over the pedal, extending the lower leg from the knee CAN’T push the pedal down. I’m gonna ask you to understand isolation of large muscle groups (because you’re a bike fitter). Glutes extend the femur down from the hip, glutes push down. It’s a very wide muscle group with a 1:1 mechanical advantage (upper and lower attachment points are about the same distance from the pivot) so glutes provide torque, but are limited in speed. Quads extend the lower leg from the hip. The system is designed like a kick-drum pedal where the muscle body is long, but there is a very short distance from pivot to lower connection - designed for foot speed, but not torque. If you look at a model of a rider, and you understand how the two large muscle groups extend from their pivots, you can find an efficient range of motion. Quads are 11:00 to 2:00, glutes are 1:00 to 4:00. So, you have more speed in one phase of the pedal stroke, and more torque in another phase - is this starting to make sense? I’ve watched dozens of videos about oval chainrings, none of them have gotten the engineering right. The ones who have tested oval chainrings have applied poor engineering and poor learning. People spend most of their time with weight on their feet, weight at the bottom of the pedal stroke is just normal. On an oval chainring, that flaw in the pedal stroke is amplified. The trick is to teach the rider to only apply downward force from 1:00 to 4:00, then put them on oval chainrings. In my own coaching I’ve taken this one more step. When doing muscle isolation drills, you will find an efficient cadence range for each muscle. In my case, high 60 isolating just glutes, high 80’s isolating just quads. The ratio of the two is the correct aspect ratio of the chainring.
Talking of allowing for adaptation... How long would Neill expect someone to adapt to the changes made during a bike fit? Had a fit last year which had a few alterations, I didn't like the new fit after a couple of weeks so promptly starting tweaking... Should I have given it longer? 😶
Knew a guy who used them, always seemed to be dropping his chain, used one on my MTB, it felt good on the steep stuff but ultimately that chain ring was too small and all my other rings were round, so that's what I have stuck with.
Biopace (oval rings) first appeared in the early 80s as part of shimano groups. Cycle products just go around in circles so you have new product to buy. Wire in the shoes instead of buckles and laces was the early 90s......
Love the q rings, they feel phenomenal, much smoother, and I've noticed a reduction in fatigue over time, on a tri bike configuration, possibly due to a more even actuation of leg musculature. Like you I am a bit of a flat foot/heel dropper type of rider
Greeting to RCA!!! Where Neil is right: cycling oriented research is in most cases designed without adaptation phase. What Neil misses: oval chainrings are supposed to make the best use of our force, which is far from being linear throughout the stroke. Usually the longer circumference is designed so that it “pulls” the chain when the force applied to the pedals is the largest (ca 125+/-5 deg). Usually the chainring should “bulk” at this very moment.
I tried on my mtb many years ago. First, they felt different and had some placebo effect I thought I’m faster on climbs… but actually, I wasn’t. After a while I switched back to normal and didn’t bother with oval anymore.
My Giant Innova hybrid had a Biopace triple. I recall getting acclimated to it fairly quickly. However, the "oval-ness" was very pronounced when using smallest ring up front.
Oval rings just make pedaling more efficient, specially on climbs where we are fighting gravity (deceleration ) so reducing the dead spot in the pedaling, improves the pedaling fluidity and reduce leg fatigue. I've been using an inner q-ring for years now. I'm a climber, also a heel dropper! and I did notice climbing is easier with the oval ring. I did a non-scientific personal test on my trainer on the same virtual climb and it was noticeably easier using the oval ring, I managed to hold more power for longer. The large ring I kept it round as I didn't notice any benefit on the flats but the number one reason was chain drops. The outer oval ring is notorious for chain dropping. If someone is trying these, just swap the inner ring!
Oval rings were big on mountain bikes in the 90's. I liked them. Went back to round on a new bike. Didn't really seemed to (anecdotally) make much difference in performance on local climbs. So I stuck with round ever since.
Really good stuff, and timely for my cycling journey. I recently put an oval on my small ring and have liked it for the steep climbs. Coincidentally, I have a heel down pedal stroke 😊
I did race on Rotor Q rings and Osymetric for years, but stopped using them in 2017. If it was not for the regular chain drop I would choose Osymetric. The Q rings did not feel as good as the regular round rings. Froome used Osymetric and not Rotor Q rings.
My 2 cents. At 1.90 meter (6ft2.8) I like using 180mm cranks. Even tough nowadays lots of people advocate shorter ones. They feel more snappy accelerating out of corners and climbing as well. However I never liked the cadence on long smooth level rides. I want to be around 90-95 but with the 180's it somehow stays around 85-90. Until I started using Q-rings. The speeding up on the dead spots make it more natural and gives me that slightly higher cadence. At the moment I'm back at normal rings on 175 just to try it out and I didn't like the shifting. Lets see how that feels again for a while
I run rotor q rings. Felt weird at first for 10mins or so, but then love them ever since. I heard they also work the calf muscles less or you get less fatigue, dunno tho, I don't drop heels really they feel good for me🤷🏻♂️
When you are a time trialing and pushing as big a gear as possible I find I can use one gear bigger for the same cadence as a round ring. So in other words go faster.
Hi. I transitioned to Ossymetric last year. They're great. I am a toe pointernot a heel dropper but with round rings I always felt a prominent dead zone. After a bit of a setup effort and setting the limit stops carefully, they shift great, just as I want them. I'm not faster with them but I can climb better. So, for me, sliced bread has nothing on these oval rings.
Can a 'heel dropper' work on her/his pedalstroke, to become an efficient 'ankle stabilizer' without losing power? Or is the pedal stroke preference individually tied to composition of muscle fibres all through our legs?
Great summary. I've been on ovals for 8 years, on both mtb (10%) and road (12%). If I ride a round ring now, it feels horrid and I blow through the power phase way too quickly. As said, shifting is pants but I'm on 1x on everything now so that's irrelevant to me.
Question rather than a statement: someone mentioned that oval rings can be particularly helpful for riders who run longer cranks, for the very reason of reducing the deadzone. This point seemed to be based on an assumptions that longer cranks have a larger pedal arc and therefore larger deadzone. Does this make sense?
It takes about three months for your body to use that power directly and the number of strokes also affects endurance! This is late 80s these bad boys on a mountain bike with 90 psi 2 inches wide much like a motorcycle tire thanks to working at a bike shop long before the Internet I think there is only three or four larger than the one I had
Interesting stuff. I ride the absolute blacks, my rationale being that the smaller dead zone would help with hip impingement issues. When I first started, my weaker leg felt like it had never been worked so hard in its life. Wondering if anyone with a power imbalance has any before / after experience...
I'm on ovals for a few years now, I've got them gradually for both my road bikes and also for my gravel bike. I feel same like you, adaptation to ovals is almost unnoticeable, but going back to round, they feel strange and unround. In terms of shifting performance, both Rotor and Absolute black I have shifts perfectly. There is only bigger chance to chain drop from small ring towards the frame, so chain catcher is necessary 😉 from my experience.
Thanks for this, and the chain dropping makes sense given the constant need for the derailleur cage to keep moving to keep tension on the chain. I am concerned that with time it would wear my derailleur - does anyone else share this concern?
Not a bad explanation. Good that it is from your own personal experience. Yes, it is hard to quantify the difference. Could just be one of those things..... you'll either love em or hate em. Nice vid guys.
I think the focus is not really the power you apply on yhe downstroke, because we use our gears to adjust that. But the little power we have to move the pedal to the next power downstroke is way lower. I myself don't use 360° of power on the pedals. 90% of my force is applied on the downstroke, so Oval helps a lot to always be ready to put power down, not wasting so much force and time on setting the pedal for the next downstroke. I have 1x12, so front shifting is not an issue
I’ve been using AB oval for few years and I love it, but I can see the Rotor oval has a different set up position arms, so can you get any gain using that different set up? Thanks
I've been using oval chain rings for about 2 years now. Can't say I've seen any performance benefit, but the pedal stroke just feels nicer to me. It just feels good.
Ive got doval rings on a bike and there a mid level oval not the very ovalised version of some brands including Doval. I like oval ring and Ive got best times on the rings herexabd there.
I've been using Q-rings for almost 7 years, and as a heel-dropper myself here are my thoughts: 1. the "feel" of the stroke will largely depend on the OCP position on which you mount the crank arm to the chainring (I'm surprised this was not covered in the discussion). You may end up spinning more on certain OCP setting but when the road points upwards, it slows down your cadence (or vice versa...) It took me about a year of trial and error to dial in my ideal OCP setting 2. I get less apparent knee pain presumably because my cadence generally increased therefore less overloading my knee joints with high torque as a consequence 3. Agreed shifting quality on the FD can be finicky sometimes, but after awhile though the technique/shift timing just becomes 2nd nature... I think this also depends on the FD setup, chain tension and how bumpy the road surface gets when you shift... It's the only reason I have not bitten the QXL bullet because of potentially more pronounced effect on shift quality 4. Going back to the round rings I actually find that my legs are slightly less fatigued, presumably the dead-spot gives the legs a longer recovery duration after the power-phase on each pedal-stroke 5. I seem to have developed more sensitivity to my cadence since moving over to ovalised rings... maybe that explains why I have resisted going into the 1x bandwagon for gravel rides lol Just my 2c + GST k thx bai... 🙂
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I think I could listen to Neill for hours on just any subject. It's ridiculous how good a storyteller he is.
For me, climbing at low cadence feels a lot better with oval rings. Round rings feel better at high cadence.
This
Interesting point. I rode them for 5-6 years and love climbing out of the saddle
Yeah, I was just thinking that the "dead spot" is pronounced for low cadence riders.
I agree. I tried round outer ring with oval inner ring and it was more efficient than the opposite which I also tried. I found oval is more usefull on Mtb than road bikes.
Not only low cadence, but generally low inertia. I use Osymetrics on the road bike, but a regular round chainring on the TT bike. I feel like when the speed is higher, the advantage of the oval is much less and with more inertia, the dead spot is much less pronounced. That and my cadence is also higher on the TT.
This is probably the best and the most sensible explanation about Oval chainring available online…Great work 👌🏼
I could listen to Neill talking for hours! And I guess I have haha!
I’m working on a Möbius Strip chainring. LMK if interested. 😂
I'm running AbsoluteBlack 48/32 on my road bike now. About 4500kms so far and won't go back to round. If anything I'm a minor heel dropper as I was taught this was a way to keep cadence and pedal stroke smooth, especially when climbing in the saddle. I find the slightly lower gearing for climbing assists me on the very steepest pinches, though I don't attack ascents like I used to, so tend to ascend slower and more 'easily' nowadays. Downside to that is I take longer getting up my regular climbs but I'm not fussed. OTOH, when riding flatter or rolling terrain I spend a LOT more time in the bigger 48 ring than I did in the 50, and can comfortably hold the 48 at a decent cadence most of the time without too much cross-chaining, therefore my average speeds have gone up a bit with the ovalised rings.
I am a mountain biker turned roadie they make a huge advantage on punchy climbs on the mountain bike so naturally just started using them on road. I found it smoothed out my pedal stroke
You didn't mention knee pain, Neill, but I went on to an oval 1X set up over five years ago when I was suffering from knee pain which turned out to be caused by arthritis - I've now had both knees done with total knee replacement inserts. That was on my road bike and it just felt easier and more comfortable than the 2X round rings on my old bike. Initially, I had 2X round rings on the bike I have permanently on my Kickr Core trainer and, to be honest, whichever of the three I rode, it didn't feel massively different so I guess I was adapted to both oval and round. Later, I changed the rings on my indoor bike to Rotor Q-rings and that meant less difference from the road bike, so I felt more at ease. However, I had lots of issues with the front derailleur and recently I have junked that and converted that bike to oval 1X. I did that just after restarting riding following my second knee replacement, having fitted (temporarily) a 150mm crank with a single oval ring to allow me to get my foot over the top of the pedal stroke with limited knee flexion. The reduced radius of the oval ring at the top of the stroke definitely helps if you have issues with bending the knee. Performance wise, the only difference I noticed back when I first started on the oval ring was when changing gear - it seemed to take less effort to bring the cadence back up to my comfort cadence when changing to a higher gear than it did with round rings. I don't think I'm a heel dropper but then again I have fairly flexible ankles.
How good is Neil, can explain everything so well 👏
I see a lot of comments saying that it works better with lower cadence.. I find it really interesting that Froome was basically the only WT Pro who was running ovals, whilst he was known for cycling with a very high cadence
I've used Q rings for many years, initially on a recommendation from my physio when recovering from a broken leg to build up the muscles. I think I spent about 6 weeks getting used to them and as far as I was concerned they were 'round' :-) I put the Q rings on my winter bike, and when I got on my race bike which did not have Q rings on I hated it. My seating position was wrong, I felt I wasn't ever in the right gear and I got odd little aches in my legs. As soon as I went over to Q rings, I was fine.
I had all the power data from before and after the Q rings, and there was no difference, and I really mean nothing at all. I could produce the same output on the round rings vs the Q rings but it felt less ergonomic.
As a result I've got Q rings on all my bikes, grave, MTB and road. However modern group sets really don't like Q rings. With the SRAM 11 speed red etap (I bought from new) I could run Q rings (53 39) once it was tuned it was perfect. That was back in 2016 and it was in use right up till I tried to get it working with SRAM 12 speed.
No matter how hard I tried, the new SRAM front mech would not allow me to use a Q ring, so I had to go back to a round big ring, but I have a small ring in the Q ring. First time I rode this I really hated it, but I stuck with it. I'm 6'4" and 80 kgs, so I'm no climbing goat, but the q rings really help with the steep climbs. It's a bit weird at first having both on the bike but I've got used to it and don't even think about it.
Interestingly I'm not a heal dropper or a pointer (twinkle toes !) I just like how the Q rings smooth out the power output.
Interesting video, thanks for making it.
My SRAM Red front mech has worked flawlessly with 52/36 AB oval chainrings… just have to set it up right.
Back in 1987, I bought a Schwinn Tempo with 105 and Biopace chain rings. Everything about them felt better. They felt smoother and felt like they give a better stroke with more power. I still use oval today but the advantages that I feel they give me may be all in my head.
- but that's not always a bad thing !
I have been on Q rings since 2007. Never had a problems with shifting. It does take a little more work settling up the derailleur. It does take some time to adapt to them. When I first got them, I was told that it will take some testing to find the right position of the ring has its like an old the points in a car distributor. If you get the gap right the car run if not it doesn't work. What found out for me in a TT I could run a big gear at the same cadence.
I’ve used oval chainrings and finds them useful for climb and mostly for MTB. Round chainring would be best for roadbike on flat.
Hi Neil, it’s interesting hearing you talk about the adaptation. I used to run an oval ring on my small chainring for climbing purposes. I had read that they were better at lower cadence. The initial shift from large to small ring felt a little strange for the first few minutes of riding were but as the cadence dropped the Oval ring seemed to come into its own. You didn’t mention anything regarding cadence.
Thank you for the quality review you're really good information especially talking about being rigid with your feet and not dropping your heels when cranking. Also the adaptation time frame. Most reviews are lacking a lot of the in-depth scientific research
Neil does it again! As someone else stated here, I’ve never heard a better explanation of Q rings. When is the Neil and Cam world tour? Can we get a channel sponsor for that?!
It's interesting talking about adapting, because my MTB and Gravel bike have ovals (1x), and my road bike is good old round 105 (2x). I don't "notice" switching between them but then I'm probably riding and pedalling differently on them to some extent and the rest of the bike feels different too.
Thank you for the awesome review between the round and the oval chainrings! Very precise!
THANKYOU, for highlighting the uncertainty in this debate. These rings (oval in general) have been around in various permutations since before 1900. I have little doubt that if oval chainrings provided any kind of measurable and consistent performance improvement, they would have been more broadly accepted 100 years ago. I agree with your assessement that pedaling technique plays a huge roll. I've seen that typically, trained cyclists loose functionality on oval chainrings due to lack of ability to spin efficiently, whereas inexperienced cyclists or cyclists with choppy pedal strokes can benifit somewhat. AND, the big part missing in the whole oval debate, seems to me, the lack of recognizing the roll that our ankles can play in smoothing out our pedal stroke and functionally providing an on-the-fly adjustable ovalness to our pedal stroke if we use a round chainring. So, oval may be just trying to force us to pedal in a manner that, with training, we can do better and more dynamically with the use of our ankles? I have lots of anecdotal evidence, from technical climbing on mountain bikes, that the benifits of an oval chainring can be replicated or surpassed by using ones ankles appropriately.
Not road, but single speed mountain bikers rave about the oval helping with the type of riding you do on a single speed mountain bike - lots of slow cadence highwattage grinds where the top and bottom of the peddle stroke are extra deadly "dead zones," and then being able to have a larger chain ring at top speeds and still sort of a smaller chainring for hills...
Regarding heal dropping. I’ve noticed when building up my own arch support under my right inner sole, that if the arch support was placed too forward I would drop my heel. I slid it back towards my heel and I noticed I stopped dropping my heel. My stroke on that foot became more stable and stronger too.
Neill's voice is like honey in my ears. Wish I could get a bike fit from him. Any chance you're coming to Canada, Neill?
Hi Neil, I have been using Q rings for about 8 years now in my road bikes. Also QXL (16% oval vs 10%) where the whip effect you mention feels a little more exaggerated. But also, have continue using round chain rings on my gravel bike and mountain bike regularly, so I do not notice any difference in the pedal stroke now whatsoever when I use one or the other. One thing you don’t mentioned is this concept which really convinced me: fatigue distribution, one of the information I found (do not know where, google certainly...) was the oval rings make big muscles used in the down stroke (quads and calves) work harder over time, whilst small muscles used in the upstroke work lighter. So, to me there is general misconception about what oval rings do: they do not improve power, they improve efficiency/endurance, besides the look AWESOME. Have you found any studies about this? I would like to get your opinion true or myth.
I had a friend do a dissertation in his sports science studies on oval chain rings. Was brilliantly done. To summarise the difference ended up being so minuscule it's barely relevant. Like changing your bolts to Ti bolts difference. You can argue it's lighter but.... Really. In theory yes.... But no. Lifting your head looking at the horizon has a bigger effect than the oval rings .
@@playmoreguitar5393can you post the results?
Love my Rotor Q-ring, helped me with knee pain and it just feels so correct
I have run them three yrs now and love them but I run one ring up front. I’m a heal dropper so that explains a lot. The advantage I have noticed is when I spin instead of just crank down it feels more fluid and I increase speed with less effort.
Personally I think there is a benefit for myself and will be sticking with them.
I’m on Q rings for about 10 years. It felt good right from the start and because I was faster than others, I figured it must be working. Nowadays I’m switching between 5 bikes and some of them have round rings. They also feel just normal to me and there’s no significant difference in power or speed. I’ve also experimented with the ocp settings. According to some tests I should go higher, but ocp 3 feels the best for me. Ocp 5 gave me instant knee pain that I’ve never had before. I think Q rings can benefit on steady state rides, but sprints feels better on round rings. I’ve never had a bad shift, so I really don’t understand where those stories come from. The engineering of Rotor is really good. They make a high quality and long lasting product.
Hey Neil, great video - curious what were those plastic cable tie things sticking out of your helmet around 1:20?
Cable ties to deter magpies 😂
we need answer for this question :DD
I tried q-rings 15yrs ago when I was still racing. Started using them in the winter and found I liked them while steady state riding and doing some big gear, seated intervals. But when I transitioned to the Spring and started doing some jumps, standing hill accelerations, and form sprints in training, I found “jumping” into the larger gear was a challenge. It was noticeably harder to get a quick acceleration. Ended up taking them off. Regarding power numbers, I seem to remember some articles mentioning power meter readings with non-round rings would be off….can’t remember which way.
i was on qring 52, i tried 50 round, it actually felt heavier during pedal, and with oval chainring, i can easily go up to 9x rpm.
Loved the absolute black oval ring on my mtb, especially on steep climbs. Didn't seem to have much effect on the road. Perhaps because I don't do much out of the saddle climbing on the road bike as opposed to my mtb.
I have the same experience. Took about a year to learn how to get best out of the shape - rear wheel no longer loses traction on steep pinches or wet roots and I think it's because the torque is more even across the pedal stroke. I don't "mash" so much on arduous climbs either.
Very interesting and informative. My experience is not too dissimilar, and as a mechanical engineer, I obviously have this afinity to engineering principles of leverage. And naturally, as Cadence is the overriding force in the four bar linkage system in cycling. Not to mention the complexity of the human performance envelope. So here goes.
I have a 36t oval on mtb (12 speed) with long cranks 180mm (I got long limbs okay). My acceleration is noticeably quicker than with a 34t round chain ring. Mostly because of the shorter duration gap between up changing with the later. Basically I felt that I could easily push a higher gear ratio more easily with the oval chainring. On top of that, my neuraplacisity adaptation to a faster cadence speed over the dead spots has improved my Road TT cadence, even and especially with, its round 54t ring. Believe it or not, this is now without the the bounce I used to experience.
I love how we can't even decide which axis of the oval (the short or the long) should be aligned with the crank arm or maybe something in between. In the video the crank arm seems to be more closely aligned with the short axis but maybe there is a slight angle. The original idea was to align with the short axis, but then biopace aligned with the long. I've seen reviews aligning either and claiming it is better :). Sheldon Brown is in favor of aligning the long axis like the biopace. Anyway, I bought a $7 chainring from Amazon just to experiment with both alignments and then almost surely will go back to a round chainring.
Have oval just on the inner ring for climbing, just like the smoother feel of them. Two different brands too, Absolute Black on one and Rotor on the other. Both feel good, any gains from it, hard to quantify but my legs feel ok after long climbs.
How much of the research is Oval/Q-rings vs Biopace rings? In other words, do you know for sure if the studies specify where the ellipse/cam action occurs on the pedal stroke? The oval chainring manufacturers today all say that Biopace had it backwards, but I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve. I haven't ridden either kind, but to me it would seem like Biopace was designed to homogenize torque transfer instead of amplifying each downward pedal stroke. Wouldn't it be beneficial when trying to drive monster gears and to smooth out forces through the hip at the bottom of the stroke instead of, for example, moving to shorter cranks? Am I completely wrong and is Biopace universally acknowledged as being detrimental?
I don't have data on Biopace, but I rode 'em for several years. Torque was indeed homogenized what I liked alot. But Biopace has caused a lot of knee pain (both left and right), for which I couldn't specify the source. I only got my answer when my 52T chainring wore out and looked like a shuriken. Then I got problems with the transmission/shifting/chain drops and for the lack of propositions on the market had to go back to round chainrings. Knee pain has gone instantly and never bothered me again.
But I haven't got used to round chainrings. At all. They feel wrong to me. Too much of a dead spot and the power transfer feels like on/off cycle which I don't like. I want to go back to oval but must look closely into options because for unknown reason modern transmissions don't really favor oval chainrings.
I'm new to cycling and saw an oval-looking ring on another video. The idea seems brilliant to me, effectively giving you a ratio that varies throughout each cycle. I have found that uphill cycling (on round rings) feels very "lumpy" and bouncy, and I would think an oval one could well "feel rounder" by making the torque more uniform. I'll be keen to try one out...
I used Q-rings many years ago and experienced a small increase in performance up to two months after the switch. I guess the reduced resistance at the dead spot eventually made me weaker at that part of the phase, to a point where there was no longer any advantage over the round one. Maybe I would have needed to keep switching between them, where the round one would have been for the build phase and the oval for performance, but I never went that far.
If you set the offset outside the recommended setting there was a chance your glutes would hit you with stabbing pain mid ride.
May I suggest using a wedge under your cleats, for a smoother transition period?
I too use an oval ring, and by raising the back of the cleat. Eliminated the dead spot of
transitioning back to a regular chainring.
Great video! Really informative as always.
I switched to an oval chainring a couple months back. I have found that I am more efficient with the oval. I ride based on my heart rate not power metrics. On a flat, calm day I can ride about 0.3-0.5mph faster while maintaining my heart rate at normal range (while most likely in a deeper gear).
I’ve found when riding hills and into the wind I can run one gear deeper than what I did with a round ring and still pedal the same cadence comfortably. Absolutely none of this is scientific by any means. I ride 800-1,000 miles per month and usually notice slight variations pretty easily. These were my findings after switching to an oval.
I feel like my oval was well worth the money and a purchase I would make again knowing what I know now.
I did like the feel of them on my mountain bike on steep climbs at low cadence. A lot of mountain bikers say oval rings fixed their knee pain so maybe it prevents their knees from snapping straight so quickly toward the bottom of the pedal stroke from a saddle height that's to high? They sucked pedaling through rock gardens though as sometimes when your rear wheel falls into a hole right when your pedal position hits the bigger part of the ring or vise versa. Which makes it really hard to keep consistent drive through the rock garden. Pedal bob on a full suspension bike was also worse with the oval ring.
I never understood the claim of power gains. They don't make your legs or cardio stronger overnight so why would you put out more power? Legs and lungs is what lets you produce the wattage minus drivetrain friction.
For me, climbing felt much better and the overall feel was much better. Looking for some now for my titanium Lemond build.
Most interesting video about oval chainrings I've ever seen. I also find that point about heel droppers liking oval rings also interesting because another cycling youtuber, vegancyclist, swears by oval chainrings. I've noticed that he is also a big heel dropper. Another point of interest is that he likes them in a 1x setup, he says the oval chainring smooths out the gaps in the gears. Would be curious about any objective merit to this claim.
Yes, Tyler's claim of smoothing the gear"gaps" in a 1x setup via using an oval chaining has me intrigued, because it's the perception of these sudden jumps in cadences that has me putting off going to 1x. I DO have bad knees, and basically believe all of the "physics" behind ovals, but I just cant find supporting evidence as to what Tyler says, so have never made the move, as much as I want to.
Other considerations are my desire for my gravel bike for the SRAM 10-44 XPLR rear setup, which ideally requires a 1x front. IF I did this, then I'd LOVE to have the gaps "blended" as Tyler says..
A bit late to the party here but have been using Q rings for approx 10 years. However not exclusively. I find Neill’s comments on adaptation very interesting as I have 1 road bike with a rings and 2 road bikes with round and switch between them depending on my fancy or weather conditions at the time (i.e. mud guards or not). My findings are that I feel I can climb much better on the Q’s with a more even/continuous resistance through the cranks. With the round rings I experience a definite big increase in resistance through the peak/trough to then get over the gear to the power drive. Akin to a chopping motion, i.e. push, push one pedal, down and then push, push other pedal down and so on.
H.T.H’s.
Oh yes I liked QRing and Im a heal dropper!
But when I decided to stick to Quarq powermeter, they tend to read high with oval so I switched to normal rings.
There is some thought that much of the training should be on round rings and then use the oval rings for adaptation & racing to get the best benefit from them.
Seemed to generate more power for me but I developed knee pain with extended use which faded with round chainrings.
Talk about good timing. Just got a new bike with Sram Rival. I am struggling to enjoy hills despite the gearing. My old bike has 2 rings from Absolute Black, oval. New bike, round. I find it rather difficult to find a cadence that I like versus the oval rings. What you have explained here makes sense. I still want the oval but they aren't available for Rival so I will have to try to get use to round again. Doesn't help that the old bike is my commuter and just feels so good when I ride to work! May have to dig out the old rings just so i can adapt quicker
I have an absolute black oval on a rival one by setup, and it works great.
I used the Rotor doubles on mountainbike maybe 12 years ago? I could feel the difference but the shifting off road wasn’t very good. I also used the rotor rings on my road bike around that time too. While I could feel the bike pedal differently at first but the feeling went away and I’d just ride. I also had a Oneup oval on another mountainbike for. Couple seasons. Got a new bike which came with a round ring. I was climbing better on the round ring and by that time my new road bike was also round. Long story short, made no real difference for me so I just go round now. I know off readers that ride oval with flat pedals and they really like them.
I can't help but think of altering the orientation of the ring on the crank to increase or decrease the downforce 🤔
The video I’ve been waiting for! I run absolute black oval chain rings.
My steel 1987 Trek Elance, has stock oval rings. I notice the difference on hills over my modern road bike with regular chainrings.
If I ever build a climbing bike, I’ll use ovals on it.
Interesting ... I have been using absoluteblack oval rings for a couple of years now, as I had knee issues and I felt a big dead-spot in my pedalling.
The oval rings and shorter cranks seemed to help with the dead-spot thing.
Couple of years and some issues later, it turns out I had a too high saddle, so the dead spot would mostly be due to that.
Now I have a bike with oval rings, another with round ring that I ride back to back, can't feel a difference.
If I am on round rings for a long time, when I get back to oval rings, I feel a difference for about 10 minutes ...
Moving from oval to round, I never feel anything different.
Did you show or mention in detail, the best position to fit the rings on your crank arms?
If so, I missed it both times I watched your video.
I'd love to hear your opinion on biopace chainrings from the 1980's.
I have these on both of my bikes, and YES, shifting g performance is not the best, but you can tweak the front derailleur to prevent chain dropping. I’m considering going back to regular rings, I’m not much of a heel dropper, or a twinkle toes, but I can say that when I initially changed to Qrings back in 2017 I noticed that my legs would stay looser after the rides, less fatigue…. But I’m not as fit as I was then, so once I change to regular rings, I’ll report back after adapting
Exactly like my experiences with these. I used q-rings for 8 years. Now I don't use them for two years. There is a feel difference and an adaptation, essentially i stopped using them since i was frustrated with chain issues and a switch to 12sp. But there is still two sets of 52-36 110x5bcd in a box somewhere. And even a QXL 53-39 on the old TT machine still.
I think the major effect would be the (in)tangible part of the setup - if the chainring feels better putting power down it 's going to motivate more bike time.
I can resonate with the comment about crank arm length - I increased crank length by 10mm and it felt way better, but my output didn't change a bit.
your opening comment sounds like marketing nonsense. If your motivation to ride is affected by your sensation of how the chainring feels, you're not really motivated at all.
@scotth3354 Well then it's quite good that you've been able to see through my blatant attempt to not sell you on something I don't use that won't affect your personal perception of how riding a bicycle feels. Cheers.
@@stefanbehrendsen330 🤪 I'm not saying you're trying to sell anything, my comment was more about what motivates people.
Thanks Neil, great discussion, that is quality content here!
Can you get the RS4K offset cranset. I ran one over the summer of 2007/2008 and they definitely improved climb performance.
I have never really adapted to round chainrings after oval. These are hard to find in BCD of your cranks.
Neil can you elaborate bit more on q ring and sprinting please?
would you notice any differences with cycling dynamics that are provided via power meter such as assiomas?
so like pedal smoothness, torque effectiveness, pp start/end phase etc?
I always thought my deadspot on round chainrings was down to improper technique or leg strength but took the plunge on oval chainrings from Rotor and the deadzone pretty much disappeard. This has done wonders for my comfort on the bike but can't tell it has done anything else. Bought during sale so all in all was roughly $180.
The comfort increase alone was well worth it imho.
Went back to round chainrings for a few weeks and the old dead zone came back instantly. Switched over to oval again and it went away.
I have been riding Rotor Q rings for many years. I just like the way they feel, big chain ring on the number 4 position and the small on number 3. That’s the way I like them 😊.
I grabbed a bike with oval shape q ring. And it felt really good compared to my conventional ring use.. and I guess person who had it adjusted to stroke was spot on for me !
Got them on all my bikes. Heel dropper here. Just prefer the ‘feel’. Shifting is an art form though.
I used to be a terrible heel dropper until I got my position sorted. Watching your bike fit vids has changed my cycling life. Climbing is so much easier and I spin on the flats instead of mashing a huge gear
I used Q-rings for years, and then QXL rings, the even more ovalised version. I swore by them, especially the QXLs. My best ever performances, mainly in criteriums, were all on QXL rings. Was that to do with the chainrings, or with my overall fitness? I suspect more the latter than the former. I did like the feel though, feeling as though I had a greater sense of leverage during the power phase.
I was then faced with a similar problem to Neill. I couldn't get them, or certainly not for a price that I'd call reasonable, and so I've been back on round chainrings for the last year. I'm definitely going slower these days, but I think that's more to do with having three years off the bike after having a daughter than the shape of the chainrings.
Interesting I never had a problem with shifting. Maybe my mechanic was just awesome, or maybe I timed my shifts well. My SRAM set up throws the chain off the round rings far more than my Shimano set up ever threw the chain off my oval rings.
I ran ovals for two seasons (across 2 years) on gravel and road. Switched back to standard round rings no real gains or losses except on low speed steep gravel climbs I feel I need a smidge more effort but that’s a small % of ride time. The deal breaker for me was shifting performance as I run 2x on both road and gravel.
First, the quad doesn’t push down. Put a rider on a bike, stop the pedal at 3:00 and have them fire their quad. The resulting force on the foot is forward, the resulting movement at the hip is backwards. The knee is a pivot, if it’s directly over the pedal, extending the lower leg from the knee CAN’T push the pedal down.
I’m gonna ask you to understand isolation of large muscle groups (because you’re a bike fitter). Glutes extend the femur down from the hip, glutes push down. It’s a very wide muscle group with a 1:1 mechanical advantage (upper and lower attachment points are about the same distance from the pivot) so glutes provide torque, but are limited in speed. Quads extend the lower leg from the hip. The system is designed like a kick-drum pedal where the muscle body is long, but there is a very short distance from pivot to lower connection - designed for foot speed, but not torque. If you look at a model of a rider, and you understand how the two large muscle groups extend from their pivots, you can find an efficient range of motion. Quads are 11:00 to 2:00, glutes are 1:00 to 4:00. So, you have more speed in one phase of the pedal stroke, and more torque in another phase - is this starting to make sense?
I’ve watched dozens of videos about oval chainrings, none of them have gotten the engineering right. The ones who have tested oval chainrings have applied poor engineering and poor learning. People spend most of their time with weight on their feet, weight at the bottom of the pedal stroke is just normal. On an oval chainring, that flaw in the pedal stroke is amplified. The trick is to teach the rider to only apply downward force from 1:00 to 4:00, then put them on oval chainrings.
In my own coaching I’ve taken this one more step. When doing muscle isolation drills, you will find an efficient cadence range for each muscle. In my case, high 60 isolating just glutes, high 80’s isolating just quads. The ratio of the two is the correct aspect ratio of the chainring.
Talking of allowing for adaptation... How long would Neill expect someone to adapt to the changes made during a bike fit? Had a fit last year which had a few alterations, I didn't like the new fit after a couple of weeks so promptly starting tweaking... Should I have given it longer? 😶
Knew a guy who used them, always seemed to be dropping his chain, used one on my MTB, it felt good on the steep stuff but ultimately that chain ring was too small and all my other rings were round, so that's what I have stuck with.
Biopace (oval rings) first appeared in the early 80s as part of shimano groups. Cycle products just go around in circles so you have new product to buy. Wire in the shoes instead of buckles and laces was the early 90s......
Love the q rings, they feel phenomenal, much smoother, and I've noticed a reduction in fatigue over time, on a tri bike configuration, possibly due to a more even actuation of leg musculature. Like you I am a bit of a flat foot/heel dropper type of rider
Greeting to RCA!!!
Where Neil is right: cycling oriented research is in most cases designed without adaptation phase.
What Neil misses: oval chainrings are supposed to make the best use of our force, which is far from being linear throughout the stroke. Usually the longer circumference is designed so that it “pulls” the chain when the force applied to the pedals is the largest (ca 125+/-5 deg). Usually the chainring should “bulk” at this very moment.
Neil is rght, as always. I like qring better that round and Iam big heal dropper, so spot on. Thank for another amazing video.
I tried on my mtb many years ago. First, they felt different and had some placebo effect I thought I’m faster on climbs… but actually, I wasn’t. After a while I switched back to normal and didn’t bother with oval anymore.
My Giant Innova hybrid had a Biopace triple. I recall getting acclimated to it fairly quickly. However, the "oval-ness" was very pronounced when using smallest ring up front.
Biopace are clocked differently to modern oval chainraings.
@@derekhobbs1102 so you rotate them slightly on the five arms of crank arm and they become excellent correctly mounted rings.
The key factor is also cadence and crank length. Shorter cranks mean higher cadence and less dead spots. That can be achieved without oval chainring
Agreed
Oval rings just make pedaling more efficient, specially on climbs where we are fighting gravity (deceleration ) so reducing the dead spot in the pedaling, improves the pedaling fluidity and reduce leg fatigue. I've been using an inner q-ring for years now. I'm a climber, also a heel dropper! and I did notice climbing is easier with the oval ring. I did a non-scientific personal test on my trainer on the same virtual climb and it was noticeably easier using the oval ring, I managed to hold more power for longer. The large ring I kept it round as I didn't notice any benefit on the flats but the number one reason was chain drops. The outer oval ring is notorious for chain dropping. If someone is trying these, just swap the inner ring!
Oval rings were big on mountain bikes in the 90's. I liked them. Went back to round on a new bike. Didn't really seemed to (anecdotally) make much difference in performance on local climbs. So I stuck with round ever since.
Really good stuff, and timely for my cycling journey. I recently put an oval on my small ring and have liked it for the steep climbs. Coincidentally, I have a heel down pedal stroke 😊
I did race on Rotor Q rings and Osymetric for years, but stopped using them in 2017. If it was not for the regular chain drop I would choose Osymetric. The Q rings did not feel as good as the regular round rings. Froome used Osymetric and not Rotor Q rings.
My 2 cents. At 1.90 meter (6ft2.8) I like using 180mm cranks. Even tough nowadays lots of people advocate shorter ones. They feel more snappy accelerating out of corners and climbing as well. However I never liked the cadence on long smooth level rides. I want to be around 90-95 but with the 180's it somehow stays around 85-90. Until I started using Q-rings. The speeding up on the dead spots make it more natural and gives me that slightly higher cadence.
At the moment I'm back at normal rings on 175 just to try it out and I didn't like the shifting. Lets see how that feels again for a while
I run rotor q rings. Felt weird at first for 10mins or so, but then love them ever since. I heard they also work the calf muscles less or you get less fatigue, dunno tho, I don't drop heels really they feel good for me🤷🏻♂️
Oval chainrings were previously released as a new thing in the late 80s. They first came out around 30 years before that...
I’m a heel dropper. You just sold me on oval chainring.
I’m gonna buy some rotor Q ring
When you are a time trialing and pushing as big a gear as possible I find I can use one gear bigger for the same cadence as a round ring. So in other words go faster.
Hi. I transitioned to Ossymetric last year. They're great. I am a toe pointernot a heel dropper but with round rings I always felt a prominent dead zone. After a bit of a setup effort and setting the limit stops carefully, they shift great, just as I want them. I'm not faster with them but I can climb better.
So, for me, sliced bread has nothing on these oval rings.
Can a 'heel dropper' work on her/his pedalstroke, to become an efficient 'ankle stabilizer' without losing power?
Or is the pedal stroke preference individually tied to composition of muscle fibres all through our legs?
Great summary. I've been on ovals for 8 years, on both mtb (10%) and road (12%). If I ride a round ring now, it feels horrid and I blow through the power phase way too quickly. As said, shifting is pants but I'm on 1x on everything now so that's irrelevant to me.
Question rather than a statement: someone mentioned that oval rings can be particularly helpful for riders who run longer cranks, for the very reason of reducing the deadzone. This point seemed to be based on an assumptions that longer cranks have a larger pedal arc and therefore larger deadzone. Does this make sense?
Yes
It takes about three months for your body to use that power directly and the number of strokes also affects endurance! This is late 80s these bad boys on a mountain bike with 90 psi 2 inches wide much like a motorcycle tire thanks to working at a bike shop long before the Internet I think there is only three or four larger than the one I had
Interesting stuff. I ride the absolute blacks, my rationale being that the smaller dead zone would help with hip impingement issues. When I first started, my weaker leg felt like it had never been worked so hard in its life. Wondering if anyone with a power imbalance has any before / after experience...
I'm on ovals for a few years now, I've got them gradually for both my road bikes and also for my gravel bike. I feel same like you, adaptation to ovals is almost unnoticeable, but going back to round, they feel strange and unround. In terms of shifting performance, both Rotor and Absolute black I have shifts perfectly. There is only bigger chance to chain drop from small ring towards the frame, so chain catcher is necessary 😉 from my experience.
Thanks for this, and the chain dropping makes sense given the constant need for the derailleur cage to keep moving to keep tension on the chain. I am concerned that with time it would wear my derailleur - does anyone else share this concern?
Not a bad explanation. Good that it is from your own personal experience. Yes, it is hard to quantify the difference. Could just be one of those things..... you'll either love em or hate em. Nice vid guys.
I am a heal droper, my heal hurst bad... I wil give it a try
I think the focus is not really the power you apply on yhe downstroke, because we use our gears to adjust that. But the little power we have to move the pedal to the next power downstroke is way lower. I myself don't use 360° of power on the pedals. 90% of my force is applied on the downstroke, so Oval helps a lot to always be ready to put power down, not wasting so much force and time on setting the pedal for the next downstroke. I have 1x12, so front shifting is not an issue
I’ve been using AB oval for few years and I love it, but I can see the Rotor oval has a different set up position arms, so can you get any gain using that different set up? Thanks
I've been using oval chain rings for about 2 years now. Can't say I've seen any performance benefit, but the pedal stroke just feels nicer to me. It just feels good.
Ive got doval rings on a bike and there a mid level oval not the very ovalised version of some brands including Doval. I like oval ring and Ive got best times on the rings herexabd there.
I've been using Q-rings for almost 7 years, and as a heel-dropper myself here are my thoughts:
1. the "feel" of the stroke will largely depend on the OCP position on which you mount the crank arm to the chainring (I'm surprised this was not covered in the discussion). You may end up spinning more on certain OCP setting but when the road points upwards, it slows down your cadence (or vice versa...) It took me about a year of trial and error to dial in my ideal OCP setting
2. I get less apparent knee pain presumably because my cadence generally increased therefore less overloading my knee joints with high torque as a consequence
3. Agreed shifting quality on the FD can be finicky sometimes, but after awhile though the technique/shift timing just becomes 2nd nature... I think this also depends on the FD setup, chain tension and how bumpy the road surface gets when you shift... It's the only reason I have not bitten the QXL bullet because of potentially more pronounced effect on shift quality
4. Going back to the round rings I actually find that my legs are slightly less fatigued, presumably the dead-spot gives the legs a longer recovery duration after the power-phase on each pedal-stroke
5. I seem to have developed more sensitivity to my cadence since moving over to ovalised rings... maybe that explains why I have resisted going into the 1x bandwagon for gravel rides lol
Just my 2c + GST k thx bai... 🙂