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.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@frank
Then there are those pedals which are mounted on crank arms. I forget their name but similar theory to oval rings I believe.
@frank
Tooth count is essentially an analogue for circumference which is directly related to the radius of the ring
@The Grande Fondue
What's worse, the none-slammed stem on a funny bike or the 3x spokes, especially on the low-profile front wheel?
@TommyTubolare
This. Ride in the position that makes you go mo'fasta, not in the position someone with a different physiology from you rode. There are merits to both styles of riding depending on how you done been stuck together.
@TommyTubolare
You are the only person who tells me that. And @minion but he's just taking the piss. I've actually raised it about 1cm from 2 years ago when the photo was taken. Just raised it another few mm earlier this week.
I can't recall for sure, but I may also have lowered it that day for riding the pavé. (That was my first day on Roubaix and that happens to be the Roubaix velodrome where the photo was taken.)
@DerHoggz (accidental half post)
Bigger chainrings have a larger radius, thus they have a larger circumference and more teeth. One rotation from a larger radius chainring pulls more links compared to one rotation of a smaller ring. Same for a half rotation, same for a quarter rotation. So for the larger radius part of a non-round, more links would be pulled through. Two equiangular sweeps on a non-round ring can yield different average number of links pulled, which would not happen on a round ring.
@DerHoggz
Tooth count isn't an analogue for anything, its the number of revolutions you get out of the wheel. By effective gear size, what I think they mean is that you get the same mechanical advantage as you do out of a bigger gear, meaning at the point where it is effectively a 56T (or whatever @TommyTubs said), you moved the chain (folcrum) out to where a 56T ring would be as your pulling the chain along. At the smallest effective gear, you're moving the folcrum to where the 51T would be.
@frank
Bicycle chain is half-inch pitch, so saying a ring has 53 teeth is the same is saying the ring has a circumference of 53x.5". Chainrings essentially come in quantum circumferences.
@frank
And now I'm being pedantic but the chain is he load, the bottom bracket would be the fulcrum. It is a class 2 lever.
@mcsqueak
If you keep a consistent foot to shin angle through your magnificent stroke, because of the way your foot is aligned to the knee as it rotates around and through, it will look like you are toes down. In reality, your foot to shin angle will be pretty close to when your foot is horizontal to the ground at the bottom of your stroke the whole way round. Look in the photo of Frank and Marco, the angle is pretty close. To get your foot horizontal to the ground over the front/power portion of the stroke, you would need to flex your toes up relative to your shins as your knee is flexed and forward of your foot, then flex them away from your shins so that it sits horizontal all the way to the bottom of the stroke.
You could do it, and I have read articles on 'ankling' on cyclingtips that suggest so, but I can't see it as comfortable for the majority of my pedalling. I chuck it in when tired to get a variation on muscle use, as Frank alluded to, when everything is hurting so bad, a change is as good as a holiday.
A physio also mentioned this foot angle is generally fairly static for most riders, the calves and ankles are used mainly to stabilise the foot/shin relationship than add power, hence it will look like you're pedalling toes down when really your foot angle is consistent all the way round.
YMMV
@DerHoggz
That's true, but the way the bicycle moves forward is by pulling 17 links through the system in order to rotate the wheel one revolution. That is the immutable fact of the sport. Everything else is a matter of finding the most efficient way to pull those links through. Changing the shape of the ring will pull no more or less teeth over the sprocket; if there is a gain in one spot, there is a loss in another.
I still think the concept makes sense, just not for the reasons you're saying. It must have to do with the dynamics of the motion and shifting the load around to (hopefully) make the stroke more efficient. But that also means it will work only depending on your pedaling style. You say you ride forward, as do Vos and JVS and others. You should try them and see if you find an advantage or not.