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

stewartypie says:

Mar 26 2014 at 1:01 pm

The q rings are fabulously smooth over traditional round rings, so get them bought. Stop comparing your efforts with pro cyclists too. I am sure there is a rule for that.
VeloSix says:

Mar 26 2014 at 1:17 pm

@mcsqueak

With the obsession over maximizing output by getting rid of "dead spots", I'm left wondering if these dead spots don't actually give your legs a split second to recover from the previous downstroke effort, giving time to 'rest' before the next bit of work the following second. So while perhaps less time is spent powering the crankarm in total, each defined stroke actually gives more power because of the mini rest/recovery.

Any sports physios want to comment on the bio-mechanics of that?

If you eliminate a dead spot, it would be the result of causing another muscle group to work. While one larger/stronger group might get a split second of recovery, another is working. Still burning glucose and producing lactic whatever. It would ultimately add more work to the cardio system, robbing energy from the biggest muscle groups.

Can you strike the right balance, between more muscles in the stroke, energy produced, without overloading the cardio system. I think your body does that on its own. 400 watts is 400 watts, be it 75 RPM or 95 RPM, the workload is the same (all things equal, not in the saddle pulling up on the bars, or out of the saddle holding your upper body up from the hoods, blah blah, so on and so forth).

Unless the oval rings makes the actual power stroke more effective. Maybe the odd shape helps that stroke come on and finish smoother, getting everything out of the power stroke that in theory is possible.

I'm an electrical engineer, and once you put a power number on cycling, it instantly tells me that to increase that number, it must come from an energy increase from the human motor sitting atop the machine. However that power comes out, it comes from the human, and no increase in that number is made without the human making it. So RPM, oval rings, or some fucked up crank length, the energy load is soley on the living being taking in oxygen, and exhaling energy robbing junk. (which leads me to this, when you're breathing heavy, make sure you get all the air OUT. Its the forgotten part of the cardio activity)
HMBSteve says:

Mar 26 2014 at 1:23 pm

I get the thteoretical physics of this, but I would think that the oval spin would be so out of the ordinary as to be distracting. I favor the V-meter and the round ring for judging the cadence and the tempo. However, no denying that Ms. Vos knows whereof she pedals. Anyhow, this luddite will stick with tradition and slog up the hills Sur La Plaque in the round.....unless, of course, I need to drop into the weenie ring.
Teocalli says:

Mar 26 2014 at 1:52 pm

If I understand this right what you are really saying is that the evolution of the bike should have stopped at the hobby horse?
Kevin says:

Mar 26 2014 at 2:14 pm

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.

Insert "have to this point evolved" but imagine the evolution of humans over the next 100,000 years if we only rode bicycles (with round chain rings) for transportation. I fear, however, that humans will evolve closer to those fat fucks depicted in Wall-E. Remember the ones shaped like large grapes and no skeletal structure?
LIIIXI says:

Mar 26 2014 at 2:32 pm

To add to your bike position observation, Frank, much of the forward position makes a lot of sense for those riders with a forward position over/closer to the BB. An article from September of last year on Cyclingtips did a great job of discussing the power requirements, as well as pedal stroke, in the nuances between climbing and time trialing. What you've observed in the riders that predominantly use Qrings is spot on.

Here's a relevant quote:

What does this mean? Well the way you pedal in a time trial is different to the way you pedal when you're climbing. It might not seem obvious when you're pedaling, but it's all about motor pattern recruitment.

When you're time trialing, once you're up to speed you've got a lot of energy in the system and as the pedals go around they're merely topping up the energy required to sustain a fast pace. In a TT (high speed, flat road, high kinetic energy), the duration that your muscles have to fire is very small. You're basically firing the muscle for a very short period of time every pedal stroke, but very quickly.

When you're pedaling up a climb (low kinetic energy, traveling slowly, gravity holding you back), your legs impart force on the pedals for a much longer duration throughout the stroke, even though your cadence might the same as when TT'ing. In short, your motor patterns are significantly different between time trialing and climbing.

The complete article can be found here: http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/

Overall, Qrings are very well suited for forward position riding, like time trialing, where the pedal stroke requirements are piston like and very vertical. Climbing tends to put us all further back in order to maintain a smoother and more consistent pedal stroke, which circular rings are more likely to provide.
Rhodri says:

Mar 26 2014 at 3:13 pm

Sorry if this isn't the place to ask this but is it impossible to change my password from the one emailed to me?

I try it through site admin, doesn't change; tried resetting it, just get 'invalid key'.
piwakawaka says:

Mar 26 2014 at 3:39 pm

nice to see the spider getting spanked at Volta a Catalunya even if it was by two cheats! Oh, and two young guns.
Beers says:

Mar 26 2014 at 4:24 pm

@VeloSix

@mcsqueak

With the obsession over maximizing output by getting rid of "dead spots", I'm left wondering if these dead spots don't actually give your legs a split second to recover from the previous downstroke effort, giving time to 'rest' before the next bit of work the following second. So while perhaps less time is spent powering the crankarm in total, each defined stroke actually gives more power because of the mini rest/recovery.

Any sports physios want to comment on the bio-mechanics of that?

If you eliminate a dead spot, it would be the result of causing another muscle group to work. While one larger/stronger group might get a split second of recovery, another is working. Still burning glucose and producing lactic whatever. It would ultimately add more work to the cardio system, robbing energy from the biggest muscle groups.

Can you strike the right balance, between more muscles in the stroke, energy produced, without overloading the cardio system. I think your body does that on its own. 400 watts is 400 watts, be it 75 RPM or 95 RPM, the workload is the same (all things equal, not in the saddle pulling up on the bars, or out of the saddle holding your upper body up from the hoods, blah blah, so on and so forth).

Unless the oval rings makes the actual power stroke more effective. Maybe the odd shape helps that stroke come on and finish smoother, getting everything out of the power stroke that in theory is possible.

I'm an electrical engineer, and once you put a power number on cycling, it instantly tells me that to increase that number, it must come from an energy increase from the human motor sitting atop the machine. However that power comes out, it comes from the human, and no increase in that number is made without the human making it. So RPM, oval rings, or some fucked up crank length, the energy load is soley on the living being taking in oxygen, and exhaling energy robbing junk. (which leads me to this, when you're breathing heavy, make sure you get all the air OUT. Its the forgotten part of the cardio activity)

I agree, 400w is 400w, but you are looking at systems that aim to more efficiently lay down that 400w through the machine. Therefore just as fast for less power, or go faster for your 400w. Whether they do or not is up for debate. I know guys who swear by them, but feel isn't real, the figures tell all, and no one that I have seen really has any good, independent research...
Chris says:

Mar 26 2014 at 4:33 pm

@VeloSix

I'm an electrical engineer, and once you put a power number on cycling, it instantly tells me that to increase that number, it must come from an energy increase from the human motor sitting atop the machine. However that power comes out, it comes from the human, and no increase in that number is made without the human making it. So RPM, oval rings, or some fucked up crank length, the energy load is soley on the living being taking in oxygen, and exhaling energy robbing junk. (which leads me to this, when you're breathing heavy, make sure you get all the air OUT. Its the forgotten part of the cardio activity)

Is this right? I've just climbed off the rollers after an hour of trying to smoothen out my stroke an deliver more power so oxygen is in short supply, so it's possible that I've misunderstood you but my (unqualified) understanding was that power readings decrease the further you get away from the source of power generation hence slight differences between crank and hub based power meters on bikes and between measurements at the flywheel (IIRC) and the wheel for cars etc. Power is lost through inefficiencies in the drive train and the interface between the legs and the crank is part of that. At certain points in the stroke, we're expending the energy, therefore creating the watts but they are not getting to the back wheel. Oval rings seek to minimize the time spent expending energy in return for no gain.