Categories: Accessories and GearExportNostalgiaTechniqueTechnology

The Roundness of Being

To Q or not to Q that is the Q.

Evolution doesn’t really seem to be part of the picture anymore, at least not where humans and our direct reports are concerned. We control an astounding number of genetic defects in ourselves, our pets, and agriculture while Science and Technology give Natural Selection swirlies in the locker room.

Take exercise-induced asthma, which is a condition I suffer from. Evolution suggests that if running from a predator invokes a crippling airflow obstruction, you were meant to be eaten. And even if capture was avoided through some staggering failure of circumstance, the predator should locate you wheezing away somewhere under a nearby bush and make a leisurely meal of you.

In my early teens, I saved my money to buy my first real race bike, a black and hot pink Cannonwhale SR600 with Shimano 105 and BioPace chainrings. BioPace chainrings weren’t the original non-round rings – they have been around since the turn of the twentieth century, shortly after some bright spark stumbled upon the fact that we were evolved to walk, not ride a bike.

I’m not a scientist, but I am given to understand that based on our complimentary pairs of muscles, as Cyclists our legs are only really good at pushing and pulling. The more lateral the movement involved, the less efficient we are at applying the strength of our muscles into the movement. This fundamentally flawed architecture results in a powerful downstroke and a strong upstroke, but with “dead spots” near the bottom and top of the pedal stroke. In other words, our muscles are designed to walk rather than ride a bike. Whoever made that decision should get fired, but it seems I don’t have the authority to “fire” Evolution. I think the Church is also trying to get it fired, also with no luck. Apparently Evolution is tenured.

To solve the problem of the dead spot, non-round rings seek to change the diameter of the chainring by ovalizing it so the rider experiences an effectively bigger gear at some points of the stroke and an effectively smaller gear at others. The problem with BioPace was that the rings weren’t the right shape and were set up so the effective chainring size was biggest where the lateral movement of the leg was also greatest. In addition to being a mind trip, they gave a peculiar feeling to the rider, as though they were riding on a perpetually softening tire. The rings went the way of the Dodo.

In Science and Technology’s ongoing effort to show Evolution the door, component manufacturers continue to experiment with non-round rings. Enter the modern incarnations: Q-Rings and Osymetric Rings. Q-Rings use a similar (but not identical) shape to BioPace but allow for changing the position of the rings based on the rider’s individual pedaling style with the idea that the largest effective gear aligns with the rider’s power stroke and the smallest effective gear with the dead spot. Osymetric uses an insane-looking shape which they claim better matches the irregular application of power caused by the dynamics of our poorly evolved legs.

I’ve spent the last month or so riding Q-Rings, and I have to admit you don’t feel any of the dreaded “biopacing” hobble. But in the long term, they also didn’t seem to offer any tangible advantage; after adjusting them according to their instructions (which takes some time), I found that depending on the day and the terrain, they were good, but never great. On any given ride, I might power up a grade with V in reserve for a surge at the top, and then find myself slipping into the little ring on a climb I normally ride sur la plaque. On the next ride, the scenario would reverse and I’d motor up a climb in the big ring that normally requires the 39 and little ring some faux plat into the wind a little later on. On balance, I found myself struggling to find power. One point to consider is all this is based on feel and knowing the gear ratios I use on familiar terrain – my use of a V-Meter and my avoidance of power meters means there is no tangible data to support or counter my conclusions. In other words, I’m not distracted by the facts.

I noticed that of the riders whose use of Q-Rings inspired my own experimentation – Marianne Vos and Johan Vansummeren – both have a relatively forward position with respect to their bottom bracket while I sit quite far back; maybe the rings favor such a position over mine. In any case, switching back to round rings, I’m able to find power more easily as well as being better able to maintain a cadence and accelerate. In other words, I’m more comfortable more often on round rings.

Maybe my pedaling style uses too wide a power band not suited for the Q’s, or maybe I have trascended evolution to favor rotational locomotion over bipedal. That last notion is not outside the realm of possibility because I can confirm I am pretty terrible at walking. The idea behind non-round rings continues to makes sense, but for me Q-Rings don’t do the job. I’ll give Osymetric a go if I get the opportunity but until then, I’m glad to be back in the round.

frank

The founder of Velominati and curator of The Rules, Frank was born in the Dutch colonies of Minnesota. His boundless physical talents are carefully canceled out by his equally boundless enthusiasm for drinking. Coffee, beer, wine, if it’s in a container, he will enjoy it, a lot of it. He currently lives in Seattle. He loves riding in the rain and scheduling visits with the Man with the Hammer just to be reminded of the privilege it is to feel completely depleted. He holds down a technology job the description of which no-one really understands and his interests outside of Cycling and drinking are Cycling and drinking. As devoted aesthete, the only thing more important to him than riding a bike well is looking good doing it. Frank is co-author along with the other Keepers of the Cog of the popular book, The Rules, The Way of the Cycling Disciple and also writes a monthly column for the magazine, Cyclist. He is also currently working on the first follow-up to The Rules, tentatively entitled The Hardmen. Email him directly at rouleur@velominati.com.

Next Le Graveur: The Margins »

Previous « Velominati Super Prestige: Gent Wevelgem 2014

View Comments

TommyTubolare says:

Mar 27 2014 at 3:25 pm

@Ccos

First the tangent: The 80"²s-style more rearward position is the way to go. Your weight distribution is better and it's the one favored by LeMan, which is a great way to end debate on the subject (Vos et al not-with-standing). You also have more options in positions (moving forward on the saddle, since you can't hover off the back of the saddle). Now for the non-tangent: is the dead spot really an issue? When you're spinning at 105-120 rpm doesn't the momentum of the cranks count for anything? (Since I am not an engineer, feel free to insert a redneck accent when reading that last line).

I think it's the quality of the spin that matters whatever the hell your chainrings look like.

Lots of riders have saddle far forward and they are not slow as far as I can see. Lemond formulas worked for him but it doesn't mean they work for all of us.
DerHoggz says:

Mar 27 2014 at 3:39 pm

@TommyTubolare

I don't have much setback going, and when I tweak my saddle back, I just end up on the nose anyway. So I discovered there is a spot relative to the BB where I naturally go to and I just set my saddle to that.
mcsqueak says:

Mar 27 2014 at 3:53 pm

@frank

@DerHoggz

Seems to me that moving your ankle too much is just wasted energy. I generally try to keep my foot in its natural position, meaning that when I lift my foot, the toes are down a bit when my foot is relaxed. That's more or less the lowest my ankle gets when I pedal, though my heel comes up during the upstroke. Most good shoes these days provide that shape to the foot, so it seems we're getting away from the shoes with the more articulated sole.

That is a great photo and an interesting point you make about keeping your feet flat.

I was on a ride last summer with @scaler911 and one of his teammates, and his teammate was behind me in our 'paceline'. Later he mentioned that he noticed I was pushing down on the pedals with my feet angled down (toes down/heel up) rather than flat.

I think of that from time to time and try to pedal while keeping my feet flat, but it just doesn't feel right to me. Not sure if it's just sloppy form or how my body works.
Optimiste says:

Mar 27 2014 at 4:02 pm

@ChrissyOne

@Optimiste

But this got me thinking, if you were able to combine oval chainrings with the cam action of Powercam cranks and the offset pedal spindles of Zencranks (thanks @The Grande Fondue) one might either find pedaling nirvana or develop a pedal stroke like something from a spirograph:

If only one could mount a mechanical internal combustion motor as well.

Wait...

A motor? On a bike? A "motorbike" if you will? Now you're just talking nonsense. It'll never catch on. But this...this has potential, and would definitely eliminate the dead spots in your pedal stroke.
Rom says:

Mar 27 2014 at 4:12 pm

@frank

@the Engine

She's using discs on her CX rig...

Like most of them, they have two and oddly they seem to cross the finish line on the one with cantis.

Vos, VOS..."V" Over Supply?
DerHoggz says:

Mar 27 2014 at 4:31 pm

@Optimiste

That spiroghraph made me think Wankel, which would be great. But your elegant device is surely the answer.
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 4:51 pm

@mouse

@mouse

@frank

@tessar

Also, there doesn't seem to be too much of a correlation between round/oval preference and seating position. Rotor themselves give five mounting options for the rings to "fine tune and match your seat angle to the rings" as they put it.

I ride relatively forward (smack in the middle of an inline seatpost) and time-trial at an effective 85-90 degree angle and didn't appreciate my time on oval rings at all.

Good stuff - I'll read that article when I get a few minutes. I've also read the oval rings are less effective on tt bikes.

I think my overall struggle with understand and believing the notion is the concept that with a fixed crank being forced around a perfect(ish) circle, how the shape of the chainring would change the efficiency of the stroke - especially when the gear size doesn't change either. That said, if its true that it does impact it, then my theory about bigger rings having more leverage would also be true, so I kind of want it to be the case!

I believe that the oval ring actually does change the effective gear, making it larger at the apogee of the ellipse.

I'm sure that this is covered off by someone else previously but the thinking is that that largest effective gear is pushed where the lever of your largest muscle group is utilised at the most efficient portion of the stroke. This provides a relative power surge in the stroke that allows the bio-mechanical dead spot to happen without any loss of momentum. It means that there is a small spike in power output that overcomes the much lesser output in the dead spot.

Maybe I don't understand the meaning of the term "effective gear" because the gear size does not change. What theoretically does change, however, is the fulcrum giving you better leverage at certain points of the stroke.

@mouse

How fast are you riding when you're spinning at those RPM's? This high cadence stuff may work for some but all of us have to remember this is an artifact of the blood-doping era. Spinning offloads the strain of going batshit fast from the muscles to the cardiovascular system (conservation of energy, people).

The methods and drugs to rebuild muscles are slower than those that rebuild the cardio system. If you're taking EPO or getting an oil change every 10 days, then spinning a high gear is a great idea because you keep feeding the system, kind of like a credit card.

But for most athletes, there is a natural maximum efficient cadence and it will be somewhere between 70 and 100 RPM, depending on terrain. We should all train to be smooth enough that we can ride at a sustained 110 or 120 RMP, but our effective RPM should be found naturally and is likely a lot lower.

It's funny, I've always ridden at 80 rpm or thereabouts. I was considered a spinner in the 80"²s and 90"²s and now I'm considered a masher. But nothing has changed for me, I'm still just riding how it feels most awesome.

Hi @Frank

Ok, I've seen you state your theory about high cadence being a result of the blood doping era quite a few times now and, with respect, it grates every time.

Developing leg speed as a training is something that has been around for long before the blood doping era. There's good reason why Cadets and Juniors are on restricted gearing. It's so that they can develop muscle memory of leg speed to aid them for the future when they are able to spin bigger gears. This makes them faster as they get older and progress.

Similarly for those who race on the track, the ability to develop high cadence is critical to success as you will know, you can't change gears in a points race. If you watch endurance events on the track, you will notice that riders are spinning usually in the 110-120 rpm range or more during the main portion of the race and when sprinting in the 160-180 rpm range. It doesn't follow that track riders are all blood dopers.

Some people are spinners, some mashers. I'm a spinner, you're a masher. Painting the other half of the riding population based on their leg speed as dopers isn't right in my opinion.

Being ABLE to spin and its utility under circumstances is obviously a fundamental principle of cycling and everyone should be able to spin (and practice it) up to 120-130 at least, and higher if you can.

What I'm saying about doping is a the influence of a rider of 2 meters and 80 kilos (Indurain) spinning up l'Alpe holding Pantani's wheel. To go fast uphill like that, a rider can put the load on their muscles, or their cardio. The muscles take days to recover from a hard effort, but if you're taking EPO or getting a transfusion, you can repair your cardiovascular system virtually overnight.

If you do any research at all into what Ferrari was doing, and why he was such an evil genius (surely he got his degree at evil medical school) it was precisely that: he sorted out that you can train yourself to spin at 100rpms up any climb and just keep toping off the blood levels. A non-doping rider can also do it, but you'll fry yourself after a few days of doing it.

My point is that the amazing amount of people riding up climbs in high cadences is an artifact of the Pros doing it but we're (hopefully) not doping so you should just find a cadence that works for you and if that's high, then great but if it's lower like 70 then that's great too.
DerHoggz says:

Mar 27 2014 at 4:58 pm

@frank

It depends on what you mean by gear size. In a round system gear inches would be constant for all intervals of the stroke. With non-round the rollout for two different arbitrary sections of equal angle could be different. It actually is picking up more chain for a given angle of rotation in the "power zone" compared to the low spot.
Optimiste says:

Mar 27 2014 at 5:04 pm

@DerHoggz

@Optimiste

That spiroghraph made me think Wankel, which would be great. But your elegant device is surely the answer.

The Wankel ...a great engine design indeed. I was going to add the animated gif here, but it made me nauseous.
Ron says:

Mar 27 2014 at 5:13 pm

Oh wow, a black & pink Cannondale! I didn't know this. My first true road bike was a 2nd hand mango Cannondale R800. Damn, that seemed like the best bike of all time when I got it, having never really ridden a true road machine.

I too try to let my foot stay in it's natural position when I pedal. When I get tired though, I vary things, try to pull up more than I push down, raise/lower my heel, etc. This is just to change things up, keep the legs and muscles happy.

Can someone remind me - why again are they allowing guys to wear all black or dark grey rain jackets? I though the point of the clear capes was to allow their jersey numbers to be seen. I sure as hell know it was hard as trying to figure out riders at MSR on Sunday with half the peloton in black jackets.