Oval chain rings are the "airplane on a treadmill" of the bike world.

The whole problem with plane on a treadmill was that people got hung up on the wrong thing: namely, that if there is no airflow over the wings, there is no generated lift. They would gloss over the premise of the question. That is, does the airplane actually move. The nature of the question (or I should say the human brain) caused people to assume no motion. Some would even argue that it's stated in the question that the plane won't move, because of how strongly their minds bought into the assumption. So they keep arguing that the plane won't have lift, while those who are correct try to bring the debate back to the velocity, or rather the question on where the force is applied. (it takes off btw)

With oval chain rings, you're assuming that the distance the chain travels is greater, that the torque (angular force) is varying, based on angle of the chain ring - all based on the assumption that it is "longer" because visually hey, it IS looks like it would be. Take a step back and question those assumptions.

Prove that the chain varies speed with consistent crank speed. Put a drill with a hex bit in your crank and video in slo mo on your iphone or go pro. Mark a link or two, put a yard stick above it, and count inches per frame (it won't speed up).

Prove that the force varies based on chain ring angle - measure with chain ring installed correctly, then measure with it rotated 90 deg. Measure at the rear wheel, not a single point on the chainring (that would be structuring the test around your assumptions) (it won't change).

Prove that the ring is longer (edit: bigger gear ratio - longer is incorrect nomenclature and feeds your assumptions) in certain orientations. Does the derailleur move to take up the slack as you rotate the crank? Or remove the derailleur altogether and shorten chain to fit. If ring size varies, it won't rotate all the way around (but it will). EDIT: you stated the ring changes gear ratio

You think I'm coming off as hard headed, but I'm not hard headed. I'm actually convincing myself as I'm typing as this is the first time I've thought it through. I'm reading what you're typing, but it only makes sense based on your assumptions, which are incorrect (or so I'm currently convinced). The comment about being willing to think about an argument goes both ways. I mean in the end I don't care, I have nothing to prove. I don't sell round chain rings, and Works had them for the same price so it's not like I'm ashamed of my poorness... I hate losing traction on a climb as much as the next guy, and I do a lot of climbing. I would benefit from them if they worked, I just don't see how they would.