SpeedofLite Thanks for posting this article! I'm a Biopace devotee.
Originally Posted by
sheddle
I don't know if this is my bad pedaling form, but i have them on my old MTB and can't tell
You could have one of the "milder" flavors of Biopace, possibly Biopace II and Biopace HP. HP was "high performance" oriented toward people who liked to spin, and II was just a general mellowing-out as far as I have read.
I find that the most immediately noticeable difference for me occurs when switching back from Biopace to round rings. I end up coasting a click or two of the freehub at the top of each stroke!
Originally Posted by
top506
My experience concurs that they are easier on the knees.
Me too! I have joint hypermobility - everything dislocates - so my knees dislocate a little at the top of the stroke (painless in the moment, but quickly leading to overuse) if I use too high a cadence or if my cranks are too long. I needed to switch to 165 cranks to stop this happening with round rings. Retrofitting Biopace rings allowed me to keep using my 172.5 TA Zephyr and TopLine Speed Stick cranks which have sentimental value to me on their respective bikes. I really went all-in for nice cranks thinking I was a 172.5 man, but turning 31 was a doozy for my knees. Biopace saved my bike parts investment.
Originally Posted by
bikemig
Chris Froome uses oval chainrings so it's not like this idea has completely gone out of style.
His chainrings are clocked such that the high gear is in the middle of the stroke, the opposite of Biopace. But he's an animal. I can't imagine my knees lasting five miles on a bike like that. This stuff is all so personal and quite possibly a lot of it is subjective! But I think there's real tangible benefit in them continuing to exist for people with joint problems.
