s4one

Rotor/Osymetric, specifically Osymetric because my LBS can get them easily. I am thinking of trying these out because 1. the gear ratio will help me when I climb and 2. no dead spots. Pretty much the positives outweigh the negatives (cost). By the way, does anyone know how fast these wear out?

Some of you know, the gearing is different on Osymetric rings, for example a 54/44 will equal a 50/40 or 52/42 = 48/38. Subtract 4 from the rings and that is the gear ratio.

I did a 50mile ride yesterday with a total of 800m elevation, first was 500m then it went down hill then the next climb was 300m. I was suffering.... on my current 53/39 12-25.

I am thinking of trying a Osymetric 54/44 paired with a 12-27 or 11-28. What do you guys think?

Thanks

Shuke

I'm curious about this as well.

M_FactorX19

ive always wanted to try Rotor rings but i havent do to the fact im afraid i wont like them and will just be throwing money away.

s4one

The good thing is that I just need to change rings and that I do not need to change to a compact spider, im on a standard.i can use my current force cranks lets put the cost aspect aside.. Haha

chadteck

I've never used them myself, but the few people I've known that have used them switched away because they either felt they encouraged mashing or didn't make a difference.

scirocco

So that is the equivalent of a 40 tooth small ring. Why do you think that going to a ring that is larger than a standard double 39 or a compact double 34 will have a gear ratio that will "help me when I climb"?

I don't think you will see an improvement in shifting quality, either.

colombo357

I thought this fad died in the 90s?

travkat

loved my Rotors. The new bike doesn't allow for them due to some clearance issues, but they were awesome and I definitely notice a difference without them. Also, I never had any shifting issues when I rode them.

s4one

Sorry I could be wrong on this part. Experts please chime in!!! haha

Kimmo

So what, these rings are meant to be good for four free teeth? Cause you're still pulling so many links of chain per crank rev, no matter what the shape of the ring.

I saw a pretty comprehensive thread about non-round rings a few months back; included a link to a study showing such rings being good for 6-7% at best, IIRC... and that was at impractically large degrees of ovality. I think the Rotors came in at 3-4% or so.

Which is more like two free teeth. Still, an extra inch of chain pulled every rev for the same effort is nothing to sneeze at.

I predict this easily makes enough sense to finally catch on.

Because Shimano did it precisely arse-about, increasing the effort at its hardest point. Also, the degree of ovality on Biopace was pretty insignificant.

Trakhak

You've got it backwards. Biopace decreases the effort at the hardest point. Rotor Rings, and all the other oval ring designs going back to the 1930s, do the opposite. With Biopace, the legs spin quickly through the 9 o'clock position and get a bit more recovery time at the top and bottom of the stroke. Brilliant design, replicating as it does a runner's momentary foot strike followed by a comparatively lengthy period before the next strike.

The bike magazine writers were uniformly enthusiastic when Biopace came out but changed their minds collectively after 6 months or so, probably because a few members of the local bike racer royalty complained about an unnaturally choppy feel when sprinting. Biopace was never intended for sprinting, but never mind. The magazines had spoken, and that was that.

tknesel

Here is a fairly recent link on BF on rotor-Q-rings
https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...ing-Acceptance

Also found this on Hinaults Ogival chainrings:
https://www.ogivalring.com/epages/fe4...ories/Principe

Homebrew01

The gear ratio will not change ... a 42 is a 42, no matter what shape it is. A non-round ring will distrubute the effort differently around the pedal stroke, perhaps giving the "feeling" of a lower gear at specific points, but then it has to get made up at another point in the stroke, but the gear ratio is the same.

There was a Rotor pro/con thread here last week. (I've never tried them)

BigBlueToe

I had Biopace on my old touring bike (bought in 1992.) I thought they were good. I think they helped a little. They did feel a bit weird when I was using my granny; in the other two rings I didn't notice anything. I'll bet racers could feel the weirdness. I can understand why they wouldn't like them, but I think it's a shame they died out. They would be beneficial for tourers and old guys (like me).

Having said that, I'll also say that I don't miss them enough to make me want to whine too loudly. I think having a triple with a nice low granny is plenty beneficial to tourers and old guys (like me) so I'm very happy with my cranksets.

Looigi

The concept of oval chain rings with various phasing with respect to the cranks has been around for 100+ years. If there was a general advantage to their use, everybody would be using them. Periodically you'll see them on the occasional pro bike, but that's about it. Apparently, there is no universal benefit and it boils down to individual preference.

Garfield Cat

To look at it objectively, I think Rotor is claiming it does have a mechanical benefit, not a universal benefit whatever that means. And for the 100 plus years, it doesn't mean the previous 99 years proves anything about now.

ericm979

What, is there a new type of "oval" that was undiscovered until recently, like seven dimensional spheres?

The marketing claims smell like bs. The gear ratio at some part of the pedal circle will be lower, but that's made up for it being higher elsewhere. You still need to power the cranks around the entire circle, and your legs are the only source of that power.

If you're struggling on climbs you need lower gearing, not higher gearing. I suggest a compact crank with 50/34 or 50/36 chainrings. You can get a decent one for about the same price as those expensive oval chainrings.

achoo

+1.

You just have to get your ego out of the way.

travkat

I think the OP should basically disregard anyone who posted on the use of oval chainrings who has never actually used them.

ericm979

The people who have bought oval chainrings are the ones who bought into the hype. Of course they are going to say that they are great, because that validates their purchase. And they'll think that the chainrings help performance because of new component syndrome, not actual measurement. What's needed is a double blind test with the same size round and oval rings, done by an independent party and not sponsored by someone with an interest in oval chainrings.

If they were even a 5% improvement you'd see the entire pro peloton on them. 5% is a lot to those guys. But very few pros have used them... Bobby Julich is the only one I can think of and he used them only on his TT bike.

achoo

If they were a 0.5% improvement you'd see the entire pro peloton on them.

If there were any magical mechanical bullet already being made that would make anyone go faster on a bike, it'd get widespread use - FAST.

But there's no mechanical contraption that can make your muscles generate more energy in a period of time - otherwise known as power. And climbing hills is all about how much power you can generate compared to the amount of weight you gotta lug up that hill.

Simple physics - how much weight, and how fast you want to lift it.

StephenH

On the other hand, there's three responses from people who have used them and liked them but NONE of them are using them now. I think that answers the question rather handily.

plpete

I have used them and still am using them. Im sure it boils down to a personal preference but i have been very happy with my rotor q ring. I actually purchased one with a hassle free return policy and was told that if I didn't like it I could return it for a full refund, even if its used. I ended up getting just the large ring and kept a regular round small ring. It definitely made my pedal stroke a lot more fluent and as others said i can push one gear lower easily. I can really tell where the oval ring shines as soon as I downshift to a small round ring. During every pedal stroke I feel where the "dead zones" are and can feel my legs slow down at that specific point. Shifting has been a PITA to set up on my SRAM drivetrain. It takes a lot of micro adjustments but I had finally got it to a point where it shifts perfectly.

Looigi

So human physiology and basic physics has changed recently?

travkat

Like I posted before, my new frame has some clearance issues due to the way my FD mounts so I can't use them. Otherwise I would. And to answer regarding the hype. I purchased mine at cost while working at a shop just to try them out. I wouldn't say I was generating any more in wattage. The effect of the Rotors was more like not using as much energy to maintain the same speeds. It was not a huge gain, but it was there. I also saw a lot of people with square pedal strokes get theirs smoothed out from switching to Rotors.