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

Barracuda says:

Mar 27 2014 at 8:51 pm

Maybe turning a bigger gear would take out the dead spot at 6 and 12?
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 8:58 pm

@tessar

It is so hard to do a meaningful test on these sorts of things, which is why I'm always so skeptical of them. But this one is very solid and very carefully laid out.

For anyone who hasn't read it, here it is again, and the spoiler alert is:

So, there you have it...my suspicion is that a good majority of the power "improvements" claimed with non-round rings are merely mis-measurements of the actual power. It's important to note that this sort of power inflation is not anything that can be "calibrated out". It will be present even if the PM torque calibration is perfect since it's a result of the power calculation algorithm itself andANY power meter that employs an "event-based" calculation as described above will suffer from it.

Now then...on the question of whether or not non-round rings have the potential to actuallyincrease pedaling power output...well, I have my opinions on that, but I'll leave that for another blog post....

Read it all here:

http://bikeblather.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/whats-up-with-those-funky-rings.html
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 9:02 pm

@Beers

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.

To me it seems like loss; there is also the argument that you get more power by articulating your ankle and it may well be true, but it seems like you're using a very week muscle (shin/calf) compared to your quad/hamstring to "gain" power. My ankle does move, just not as much as others. I definitely scrape the mud off my toes though.
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 9:03 pm

@TommyTubolare

@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.

Love that guy but this long sock thing has to stop, for fucks sake.
sthilzy says:

Mar 28 2014 at 2:08 am

@Beers @frank Took Hinault 10 years to find his Magnificent Stroke.

An interesting little read about "The four phases of pedaling". (Winning No.29, December 1985)

[dmalbum: path="/velominati.com/wp-content/uploads/readers/sthilzy/2014.03.28.01.54.47/1//"/]
the-farmer says:

Mar 28 2014 at 3:03 am

@Puffy

@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.

I'm half way there then as one ankle is fixed in position. However I see a flaw in the argument as that leg now has next to no calf muscle whereas cycling is developing the other one nicely so obviously the ankle and therefore calf muscle is contributing to power somewhere or other!
Teocalli says:

Mar 28 2014 at 3:28 am

@Puffy

@frank

Lest we forget about these.

Then there are those pedals which are mounted on crank arms. I forget their name but similar theory to oval rings I believe.

I always thought these things were invented on April 1. I simply didn't and don't understand the logic other than someone having a joke. The thing is fixed to the crank so would be just as effective if it was a triangular plate (right angle triangle). Oh wait then I could lighten it by sawing of the right angle chunk and just leaving the hypotenuse - oh I have a conventional crank back just at a different "o'clock" to the square on the crank which makes net bugger all difference. It's a bit like the wiggly golf club prank of some years ago.
Dr C says:

Mar 28 2014 at 3:29 am

@frank

@Beers

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.

To me it seems like loss; there is also the argument that you get more power by articulating your ankle and it may well be true, but it seems like you're using a very week muscle (shin/calf) compared to your quad/hamstring to "gain" power. My ankle does move, just not as much as others. I definitely scrape the mud off my toes though.

Worth bearing in mind that your calf muscles are actually contracting and relaxing when your knee sweeps through a circle, so are actually working quite hard when your foot to ground angle is constant - having loose ankles seems mighty inefficient, and may actually reduce your power output...??
Deakus says:

Mar 28 2014 at 3:36 am

This is all voodoo-magic and completely anti-V. I am not a scientist and this is precisely why I intend to embarrass myself here in front of a bunch of people who have far larger brains (and probably guns) than I do...however.

Using logic rather than relying on scientists who for the most part have vested interests or are funded by manufacturers here goes:

I don't understand the point that somehow our muscles are not designed for cycling? As far as I can determine they are not designed for sprinting (you need a long achilles and arched back - go see the cheetah) and they are probably not designed for endurance either (er 2 legs not 4? go see the wolf). It appears to me we are largely designed to try and convince our fellow beings that we are actually cleverer than we are, or come up with some new fangled contraption to overcome our shortcomings.

Don't get me wrong I am not a luddite, I personally believe the chain catcher to be an invention up there with the invention of the biro...opposable thumbs and fire (but that is a whole other subject). Question: Surely there is exactly the same dead spot in walking. The point at which your weight transfers from one leg to the other is a natural dead spot that occurs each stride. I have yet to see so much investment go in to this for the benefit of those long distance athletes that look like they are chewing toffee up their arses as they waddle!

As far as I can tell, pedalling ovals is a bit like pedalling squares but without the sharp corners to open up your shins in a crash.

I will continue in my blissful ignorance with my circular chainrings and slightly belaboured stroke and hopeful a few more pennies in my pocket to fund the next piece of V kit!

VLVV.
Teocalli says:

Mar 28 2014 at 3:58 am

@Deakus After all, the triangular wheel was an improvement on the square wheel as it eliminated one bump per cycle.