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

The Grande Fondue says:

Mar 27 2014 at 5:52 pm

TT postions, TT bikes and TT cranks have always been a special case.
unversio says:

Mar 27 2014 at 6:08 pm

@The Grande Fondue Hence the term Funny Bike.
unversio says:

Mar 27 2014 at 6:10 pm

Still I would love to rescue and restore a great Funny Bike because of it's place in racing history.
Puffy says:

Mar 27 2014 at 6:44 pm

@frank

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.

That makes a lot of sense, and also confirm with what my coach tells me (85-100 rpm).

Thing is, it depends on the riding being done right? An group ride will see me returning 98 rpm average in post ride analysis. In a race, or doing hard intervals I tend to prefer to sit on 103 rpm. If the interval is long (2nd of a 2x20min) my cadence always drops off back to about 95. So what does that tell me? The 95-103 difference maybe isn't significant enough range to be worth while discussing but I am often wondering why prefer different cadences for different situation. I couldn't fathom sitting at 80 rpm... that is VERY low from where I stand.
Puffy says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:11 pm

@frank

You've got this backwards; you have to keep the gear size constant, so you'd be in big-big front to back, so there is less bending of the chain on both the front and back, not to mention a better mechanical advantage to turn the wheel while riding in a bigger sprocket on the back. If the theory isn't flawed, its win-win to stay in the big ring longer.

On a pure less drive chain loss basis, yes, staying the in big ring is more efficient, I agree. Based on that theory alone, you should be running a 55 (or more!) up front and a 32 out back.
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:12 pm

@mcsqueak

@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.

Nothing wrong with riding with your toes down, don't let anyone tell you different. If you start to really care, ask a coach or someone who knows your riding qualities intimately, not some guy sitting on your wheel. (I've been known to give people pointers while I'm sitting on their wheel.)

[dmalbum: path="/velominati.com/wp-content/uploads/readers/frank/2014.03.27.16.51.49/1//"/]
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:14 pm

@Optimiste

@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.
Puffy says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:17 pm

@frank

Seems to me that moving your ankle too much is just wasted energy.

I was reading something by a biomechanist last year who said a fused ankle is ideal for cycling. There is energy lost/used in keeping your ankle angle stable, then as they muscles that do that fatigue, you loose energey as the inital part of your stroke is lost as the ankle bends, same again on the upstroke. A coach by the name of Alex Simmons was amutated below the knee and now rides with a prothetic that does not have an ankle. I believe he has said something similar on his blog.
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:17 pm

@DerHoggz

@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.

I'd like to see this on video or test it out myself; the wheel has a sprocket with, say, 17 teeth on it. The chainring has, say, 53 teeth on it. The chain is pulled through tooth for tooth, causing the wheel to turn once every time 17 links are pulled through by the chainring. Simple as that; the shape doesn't change that.
unversio says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:19 pm

@frank

1 / 4

Slideshow:

Fullscreen:

Download:

Powered by DM Albumsâ„¢

Mercatone and a tiny devil in the background -- can't beat it!