Stucky

Why is it that no one who rides oval rings is ever sure if they make any difference.....when these days, 99.825% of riders [virtually everyone but me] ride with all sorts of gadgets that keep scrupulous account of every little detail of their ride/performance? Believe me, if there were the slightest gain, they'd know about it, and would be shouting it from the housetops. "I'm not sure if there is really any difference"=no difference.

Antonio_V

Thanks for everyones opinion, i guess we'll have to send this to Froomey next time he has a Q&A.

rpenmanparker 

That's interesting, but I can't agree with your comment in bold. I've been riding 32 years and have never come across many folks that put in the miles and tackle the hills that I read about here. I think this is the crème-de-la-crème. Assuming it can all be believed, of course.

WalksOn2Wheels

I admire your optimism.

I do think you get the hardcore riders here because we're all essentially bike dorks. However, of all the riders I know locally that put in serious miles, only one of them frequents BF. And these are all "young" guys, so it's not a technology barrier. And I find the more they ride, the less they are involved in any social media.

Funny story: the manager at the bike shop I worked in has a communications degree, but dosen't use ANY social media. I always found that funny. And he runs Q-rings.

Stucky

Yeah, and the fox says he will keep the chickens safe, too.

WalksOn2Wheels

You are a special breed.

frankenmike 

I use both round and ovalized rings regularly. My take:
round rings=sweet!
oval rings=sweet!
shifting seems fine for both

noodle soup

Any change of opinion on Osymetric chainrings? It's time to replace my big ring, so I'm thinking about trying these.

katzenfinch

My Bridgestone MB-5 came with Biopace rings in 1989, and I have never noticed any difference in the pedaling feel compared to round rings.

noodle soup

did you do a lot of 40k TTs on your MB-5? I've had Bio-pace chainrings on a mountain bike, but never used some like these on a road bike.

K.Katso

Try them, if you don't like them you can always switch back. I switched to Q-rings about 2 years ago and I've now converted all of my bikes over to them except for my track bike. I'm not sure if I'll ever go back to round rings.

noodle soup

That's the plan. I'll test them on the road bike(because it gets more use). I was curious to see if any others here have converted(or changed back).

Is changing the small ring absolutely necessary? I almost never use it, so if shifting is still possible(even if less than ideal), I'd probably just buy the big ring.

Fox Farm

Pros ride what they have been sponsored to ride or what their team has a deal to use. So to say, 'x number of pros use Rotor style rings is small so they must not really work" is a stupid argument. For the OP, rather than asking the peanut gallery here on BF, do some web based searching and read the peer reviewed impact factor journal papers about Rotor rings. The author is a woman from a major research university who has conducted a lot of solid scientific testing of round vs non round.

For the recreational rider or lower CAT rider, will they make you faster? Are they necessary? Or are they more fun or an improvement on round rings?

noodle soup

Why does asking for the opinions of others that have tried them bother you? Isn't that one of the reasons for having a cycling forum?

Doge

Sometimes pros mask out brand names and use what they want. This is especially true for tires.

noodle soup

I was hoping you had some experience to share about these rings.

I used the last version of Shimano's Bio-pace back in the early 90s, but they were nothing like these.

Doge

I do. I have a Q-Ring in the box in the office.
I will likely buy a polish copy that has four bolts for DA cranks. I think there is an advantage when gear restricted (juniors), otherwise not so much.

noodle soup

Have you seen data that leads you to believe this, or is this from personal experience?

I'm not doubting you opinion, just wonder what it is based on.

Doge

I have not read anything current. "Personal" (son and coach and I adjust/record) experience of two riders - same ring. A strong low RPM master and a high rev junior. Both paired with power meters. Where it "helps" a junior is while they are limited to something like a 52X14 that gives them closer to a 54T in the power stroke. This was on a Di2 on both setups. It does not shift as well as round, but good enough.

I used the Shimano and elliptical way back, but did not ride this Q-ring. I prefer round.

Maelochs

I think you meant to say, "If the damn things actually really worked, a two-time Tour de France winner would be using them."

Because, yeah, obviously no Serious cyclist is having any success with them.

TexMac

I have one bike with one and others shimano...Can't tell a difference other than they can be sensitive shifting under load

Maelochs

Very True. No pro team is going to put its riders on sub-par equipment because then they would lose races and lose sponsorship and maybe lose WorldTour standing. That way they'd all have free asymmetrical chainrings but no bikes, jerseys, nutrition, wheels, or any place to race anyway .... but at least they'd have sponsored chain rings. So they cannot be crap.

If the factory only wants to sponsor one team (say, the team which has won the most races, or the TdF twice (not a bad place to get exposure, eh?)) but not any others ... or most teams are already sponsored by other manufacturers and are not looking to switch (for instance, if your team gets cash from Shimano, you'd have to find someone to sponsor shifters, brakes, cassettes, etc. if you dropped their drivetrain .... possibly,) could account for the limited number of teams which do use them. The fact that some WorldTour teams use these rings says more than the number of such teams says.

That is indeed the question we are discussing.

I am not in favor of or against these chainrings. However Chris Froome and Marianne Vos are about the peak of their respective gender classes in cycling and anyone who thinks they beat the entire rest of the cycling world on sub-par gear must be quite a fan.

I am not sure if the advantages are all psychological, or if they only suit certain rider styles, or only certain styles on certain courses.

I do know that we can read this thread and see why asymmetrical rings might not have caught on even if they are marginally better—look how many people completely crap all over them, despite never having used them. You’d think they were made of Chinese crabon fiber or something.

Scientific papers are interesting, but we can get some experimental data from ... well, reality seems like a good source. We know that cannot seriously hurt performance or top pros would not use them. Pros might ride whatever bike they are told, but if they don’t like the bike, the manufacturer will make a series of one-offs tailored to that rider. Brand identity and loyalty doesn’t extend to losing. Pro teams simply wouldn’t risk reducing performance and endangering their entire incomes for a small check from one small component sponsor.

On the other hand, we know that Chris Froome doesn’t always use them. Maybe they really are best suited to certain applications? Does he ride them on days when his legs feel tired, or when he needs a little more average speed? I don’t know. Apparently no one here does.

Lots of people here who actually Have tried them, like them a lot.

This is Data. Conclusions can only be substantiated by Data when there is sufficient data indicating the accuracy or error of the hypothesis. As far as I can tell, there is not enough data.

However, the answer to “Not enough data” is Not “Crap on a product before experimenting.” The solution is “Gather more data. Do more experiments.”

Based on the data collected so far, I’d certainly be willing to try a set ... except that I have zero budget and zero need, and at the level I ride, even a five-percent gain wouldn’t be significant. But for a rider who is already considering trying a set, I’d certainly suggest taking the plunge. Enough other riders have tried them and liked them to support that, I’d say.

You know what I haven’t heard? Someone saying “I tried them and they sucked flaming rhinos, ruined my cadence and destroyed my pedal stroke.”

Even if one rider said that, it would be only potentially significant, but if three said it ... except None ... Zero ... of the people here who have tried asymmetrical rings have said they were really bad.

To me the answer to the question, “Should I try these?” is “Yes.” Possible upsides, no apparent downsides. Sounds like a good experiment if you are already open to experiment.

rmfnla

I was wrenching back when Biopace were current, and we would rotate them one bolt hole (I think forward).

I seem to remember that making them work a bit better, but since I and nobody I know have used them for at least 25 years I guess it didn't do that much...

K.Katso

Nope. In fact, a lot of people use a round inner chainring. No problem with that. I'm using oval for both though, and I like it.

noodle soup

Thanks. That's good to know.