Touring - Bio-pace chainring opinions

I just bought an old touring bike with a Bio-pace chainring. I've read that some have strong opinions against the Bio-pace. I haven't ridden it enough to form an opinion yet, but was wonder what others thought about them.

I'd continue to ride it with an open mind to see if you like it - some are bothered by the slightly variation in cadence, others not.

There are some good technical reasons for bio-pace - it never caught on and eventually acquired a bad reputation, but I think its more of a deal where the advantages weren't apparent enough to sway the general masses to view it as a plus. IOW, it was more of a marketing failure rather than a technical failure.

- Mark

I also have an old touring bike (1986 Schwinn Voyageur) that had biospace rings and for some reason they didn't bother me unless I was using the granny ring.

they're a fun curiosity

If Shimano (or any other manufacturer) still made them I might be more convinced that there was merit in the claims made about them but Shimano stopped making them in 1993 and as far as I know no one else makes them anymore either which leads me to believe it's for good reason. My wife was a triathlete in high school and college and her first serious tri bike had biopace. But even though she is very aware of her body and what works and what doesn't over the years she found no real advantage to elliptical chainrings versus oval. As a bike shop owner, I ride them all the time when testing out my repair work and though I can detect some differences I find there's nothing telling me I should convert from a traditional crankset on my personal bikes.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Biopace is a gimmick as I believe Shimano was honestly trying to make a better system but I do believe that theories don't always pan out.

My 2 cents

I have an older road bike with a biopace double and I don't really notice much difference from my hybrid and ride similar distances on both bikes. Sheldon Brown was fond of them. I think a fair comparison would have to be made by switching out rings on the same bike.

I had a biopace double crankset in the brief time they were the rage in the mid-eighties. I never felt that there was an advantage to it, and I found the pulsing a little annoying. When I swapped to a triple crank I was happy to go back to "round tech" chainrings.

Speedo

Thanks all, that was helpful. I guess I'll keep them on for now since they're original equipment on this bike and try for myself.

I have used both extensively and currently run a set on my extrabike which is a cargo hauler and winter bike... the advantage is the most pronounced in lower gears when maintaining a steady cadence under load is desirable although they work just fine when you are cranking down the road at high speed and high rpm's too.

Used them on my old mtb and stunned the guys when I could climb anything on a 28:28 and this was due in part to being able to maintain some pretty smooth power delivery when things got vertical and where you don't want the back wheel to break loose.

There are 2 versions of Biopace rings and the "eccentricity" is less in the second version.

There is a lot of misinformation out there and especially prevalent is the notion that they are harmful to one's knees but I suggest that these are good for people with minor knee issues... the design helps one to spin through the highest load portion of the pedal stroke by essential gearing down through the crank's rotation.

Ride them for any period of time and you will forget that your chain rings are not perfectly round... there is no reason to remove them if they are in good condition as they tend to be well made chain rings.

I don't have full use of my left leg and am quite sure the Biopace is an asset when I am hauling cargo as it makes spinning with 1 leg a little easier and smoother.

Am building an ss mtb now and have been considering using a Biopace ring... they do work with ss and fg applications and Sheldon Brown was fond f using these on fixed gear bikes as he said they helped with high cadence spinning and reducing one's tendency to bounce in the saddle.

This was a guy who knew how to ride a bicycle as well as he could repair and build them and i joked with him on quite a few occasions that we were the only two guys on earth who liked and appreciated Biopace.

As to people still making them... check Rotor's q rings.

Many people love these and cite better climbing performance as their best advantage.

There is a lot of misinformation out there and especially prevalent is the notion that they are harmful to one's knees but I suggest that these are good for people with minor knee issues... the design helps one to spin through the highest load portion of the pedal stroke by essential gearing down through the crank's rotation.

yeah. When BioPace came out, I was a teen racing road bikes. I gave them a try but many people were against them, saying they cause knee problems. I gave them up for the reason not to risk it. I would think the only advantage for them would be use in the climbing gear (I lived in the flat lands of Florida at the time), otherwise I would rather have a round spin.

As to people still making them... check Rotor's q rings.

Many people love these and cite better climbing performance as their best advantage.

I picked up an 80's touring bike on ebay that came with biopace rings. They are coming off and into the junk bin. I tried them when they came out in the 80's and was not impressed. I was racing and they just weren't smooth and I could never get a rhythm with them. I wasn't a good climber, so I never really tried them in the mountains. If you look at the Pro peleton these days, non-round rings are making a comeback. I wonder how they'll do and if they'll filter back into the marketplace. Here's a LINK (http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/non-round-chainrings-making-headway-in-the-pro-ranks-17530).

I have a pair of biopace chain rings on my mid-80s road bike. I use that bike for groceries and errands where I wouldn't leave my nice sporty bike locked up by itself while I'm in a store. I am always switching between riding it, my sporty bike, and my touring bike for various reasons.

I can't tell the difference between the biopace rings and the normal round rings on my other bikes. Not in any gear or at any pace. I'd be curious to see a true double-blind test to see if anyone can really feel the difference. Lots of people claim they can, but I'd like to see those claims put to a double-blind test.

I can't tell the difference between the biopace rings and the normal round rings on my other bikes. Not in any gear or at any pace. I'd be curious to see a true double-blind test to see if anyone can really feel the difference. Lots of people claim they can, but I'd like to see those claims put to a double-blind test.

I am surpised of the posters that claim they can't feel a difference. I recall it was very noticable. If you are not using clipless pedals with firm sole riding shoes then maybe that could be a reason. The oblong rings rely upon the push down / pull up force that mashers like in a slow cadence. But, if you don't have the right pedals and shoes to make the most of that motion than maybe the difference would not be noticable if say you were riding on platforms with sneakers.

As to people still making them... check Rotor's q rings.

I stand corrected, thanks for the information.
Cheers!

The only time I've ever suffered knee problems related to cycling was with a mid 80's Schwinn touring bike that had those things. Took them off, replaced them with similar sized round rings, pain went away almost immediately. For those racing enthusiasts, I think Bobby Julich used to time trial on those things right up until he retired.

I bought a vintage touring bike that had Biopace chainrings.

Not a big deal -- I would agree with those above who say try them, see if you like them.

They bothered me a little bit, and I got tired of wondering whether they were going to annoy me, so I switched to "normal" chainrings. I sold the BioPace chainrings on eBay for a pretty good price -- people who like them will buy them from you.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html

Sheldon Brown seemed to favor them, and thought they were particularly good on touring bikes. It appears they were no longer made by Shimano, not because of their defects, but because of marketing. That is, most riders are heavily influenced by the bicycle racing scene and not by what really works.

Read about it at the above link.

If any of my bikes had biopace, I'd stick with them.

I bought a tourer in 1992 that had them. I liked them. They seemed like a smart idea for tourers. The only time I noticed the weirdness was in the granny gear, but it wasn't bad weird, just weird. However, the marketplace rejected them, and manufacturers usually go with what will sell over what is a good idea.

I am surpised of the posters that claim they can't feel a difference. I recall it was very noticable. If you are not using clipless pedals with firm sole riding shoes then maybe that could be a reason. The oblong rings rely upon the push down / pull up force that mashers like in a slow cadence. But, if you don't have the right pedals and shoes to make the most of that motion than maybe the difference would not be noticable if say you were riding on platforms with sneakers.

Mine have SPD clipless pedals attached. I ride them with Shimano SPD sandals as well as two other pair of bike shoes. One of the pair of shoes is very, very stiff soled. I'm a moderate cadence sort of rider, but not scientifically so. My cadence varies quite a bit. I ride a few thousand miles a year, so I get enough experience to know what each bike feels like.

I can't tell the difference between the biopace rings and the normal rings of my other bikes. I also can't tell the difference between one of my bikes with 175mm cranks and two others with 170mm. :eek:

My Ironman has a biopace double on it. I believe they're from the second generation, which means that they're less eccentric than the originals. The difference is there, but it's pretty subtle. If I hadn't been looking for a difference, I may not have noticed it.

I think the main difference is that, for instance, a 42 ring will feel more like a 40 tooth ring while maintaining the cadence of a 42 toother.

Am building an ss mtb now and have been considering using a Biopace ring... they do work with ss and fg applications and Sheldon Brown was fond f using these on fixed gear bikes as he said they helped with high cadence spinning and reducing one's tendency to bounce in the saddle.

My first FG build was with a Biopace ring because I didn't have anything else to stick on there. It came off an old tandem. I can't say that I noticed any positives or negatives, although the bike did help me improve my pedalling style... so there might have been a positive.

any bike with biopace that has been ridden for anybit will need the rings replaced anyhoo. that's about 20 years ago now, isn't it, that biopace was stamped out? cheap aluminum chainrings don't last forever....

a good substitute is the sungino supershift 110-74 chainring set, pinned and ramped in touring sized 46-36-26 if i remember correctly.

One of the reasons cited for Shimano's failure to market Biopace was because they were offered at every level when they have traditionally used a trickle down approach by offering new products at a higher spec level...

Biopace rings seem to have been made to a pretty good quality standard at the higher levels... the set on my cargo bike has seen 5000 miles of all season mileage on them and aren't showing much wear and running smoothly. They live on a nice Deore crank and I have a good number of spare BP rings for whenever these ones finally wear out.

One of the reasons cited for Shimano's failure to market Biopace was because they were offered at every level when they have traditionally used a trickle down approach by offering new products at a higher spec level...

You may be right. However, Sheldon seemed to think it was because of the racing world's influence on cyclists. In other words, rumor had it that biopace rings weren't good at a higher, racing cadence. This translated into every hobby cyclist - you know, the ones who will never race in their lives and have 20 pounds to lose, but have the $5000 bike with titanium skewers and carbon fiber wheels because it's much more practical to spend the extra money on reducing bike weight than to actually lose weight... that are out in full spandex force on nice days, but don't dare get their bikes wet from the rain - they didn't want something that was shunned by racers, because just maybe they were the next Lance Armstrong.

Perhaps with utility cycling, commuting, and the like seeing a re-surgance, Shimano would be able to sustain the biopace concept in today's more practical-oriented marketplace.

My touring bike came with biopace rings, but after a few years of commuting use, the 48T ring wore out and was replaced with a standard one. I can definitely tell the difference when I shift between the 38T biopace and the 48T round.

Not many bikes are ridden much more than 500 miles, hence the ability of many of this thread to pick up those with still-serviceable rings.