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

Nate says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:13 pm

@frank

@ChrissyOne

@Nate

Occasional high cadence roller sessions seem to me to be a much better way to eliminate dead spots.

+1

Seems like a layer of technology to deal with the problem would only ensure that it remains with you.

Bien sÃ»r, monsieur et mademoiselle. Or, ride a fixie for on one interval session per week.

And then, like me, you will transcend evolution. (I was probably too modest to make it clear that my conclusion is I have too much of a Magnificent Stroke for those sorts of rings. Others with crappier rings can likely benefit greatly.)

Merckx himself brought rollers down from Mt Velomis so we could transcend the kinesthetic frailties of our bipedal evolutionary inheritance. Pedalwans, behold the glory and pedal in his Path:
Nate says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:17 pm

@scaler911

You wanna get rid of the "dead spot", and start hating your bike at the same time? Ride some Powercranks for awhile and get back to me.

Somehow I knew you were going to bring those things into the conversation.
Nate says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:20 pm

@scaler911

@frank

@Ccos

@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?

Ha! EddyB. sorta favors this: he would say, if you're tired to "rest" one of your legs during a climb. It's only partially idiotic.

I like the mini-rest idea though, damn smart of those first bike designers.

Eddy B. Awesome. Its only as crazy as the idea that standing if you're tired sitting and sliding forward if you're tired siting back or sliding backward when you're feeling tired sitting forward is stupid. You get to engage different muscles for a moment and that might be enough!

Eddy B also had the fabulous "rocket bottle". As I recall, you were to put flat Coke (a cola, not blow), a shot of whiskey, and some espresso in the bidon, to be consumed about 10K from the finish.

Booze n cycling, like peas n carrots since forever.

Sounds like a weak approximation of pot belge , minus the speedball. Shall we call that a pot hollandaise?
Optimiste says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:50 pm

@ChrissyOne

@Nate

Occasional high cadence roller sessions seem to me to be a much better way to eliminate dead spots.

+1

Seems like a layer of technology to deal with the problem would only ensure that it remains with you.

++1

Enter Powercam cranks:

I remember seeing these things advertised in cycling mags in the early 80s. When one crankarm was at 6 o'clock, the other was advanced to 1 o'clock. Basically, an over-engineered way to avoid developing a smooth stroke.

And don't get me started on BioPace chainrings! Too late. After trying them for part of a season, I bought an entire new bike because the old one had been so defiled. So BioPace rings, Q-Rings, Isometric Rings or hyperbolic paraboloid rings, unless there is incontrovertible proof of their benefits, I'm sticking with my round rings.

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:
The Grande Fondue says:

Mar 26 2014 at 10:31 pm

If anything, from the "dead spot" to the "prime hot spot" there is an added efficiency to the transition. Not really trying to bring more muscle groups into the mix, but getting the most out of the strongest. Just my theory.

This

But, what I do know, and is not theory; the energy to move the machine forward is always the same. There is no magic fix (other than reducing friction/resistance) to make more power (or even the same power easier) with less energy from its rider. An oval ring is not reducing friction or rolling resistance.

That isn't true.

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/213/3/487.full.pdf shows that muscular coordination is a large limiting factor in power output. It's easy to imagine that some movements for your limbs may be easier to co-ordinate than others.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1300991/ shows different muscle types produce different amounts of power using the same energy. It's easy to imagine that a different pedal action may activate different muscles.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2506833 shows different cyclists have widely varying degrees of efficiency (how much energy is needed to produce the same power). It's easy to imagine that a different pedal stroke may change efficiency.

I don't know how well oval rings work. But I can see mechanisms which may let them work.

Personally I think the effect of them is probably so small that other things hide any effect they have which makes measurement close to impossible.

For example, any study of power/heart rate relationship will show that this hardly ever remains constant. If that doesn't remain the same, how can one measure how hard someone is working for a given power level. Blood lactate might be a possibility, but that's not an easy thing to do.
PeakInTwoYears says:

Mar 26 2014 at 10:37 pm

@frank

...because it was already a fucking thesis due to all the jokes I was busy telling...

Best part. Fun and profitable article for this exact reason.

Not to minimize the significance of your experiments.
The Grande Fondue says:

Mar 26 2014 at 10:38 pm

As an aside, I find it fantastic that people are paying more attention to what Vos does than what Wiggins did.

Detractors of women's cycling take note. Sponsors, too.

(Although I guess Vos is a pretty special case).
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 10:40 pm

@Chris

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.

As oxygen deprived as you are, I believe you are right. That is the theory anyway.

@Brianold55

As a physio (another life now) and taking all the above comments into account, including motor patterns, the "dead spot" is also that short period when one muscle group (either up or downstroke) finishes contracting and as it does so places the opposing muscles on stretch, the optimum position for them to then start to contract from; and so the cycle (ha - no pun intended) continues. I suspect that with practice, as indeed we experience, the change becomes faster and smoother. dead spots are in a sense necessary for these transitions to happen, and attempts to smooth them out without placing opposing muscle groups in a stretch position may have no advantage.

This is interesting; you are saying that with practice and with the right cadence a rider can eliminate the dead spot? That was indirectly what I found, I suppose - after riding for 30 years I am good a pedaling rounds, not ovals,
PeakInTwoYears says:

Mar 26 2014 at 10:55 pm

@scaler911

Eddy B also had the fabulous "rocket bottle". As I recall, you were to put flat Coke (a cola, not blow), a shot of whiskey, and some espresso in the bidon, to be consumed about 10K from the finish.

Wow, cool. When I was in grad school and had little kids I was often faced with tough deadlines and short periods of time to work. My "amateur speedball" consisted of two ounces of Jack Daniels and two ounces of espresso. Exactly those amounts. It was good (no, excellent) for two hours of intensive production. No more. More recently, I've experimented with such a thing on mountain bike rides, but it has never been nearly as effective as it was for getting some writing done--usually the opposite, sadly. I still recommend it for certain occasions off the bike, though.
tessar says:

Mar 26 2014 at 11:36 pm

We're all sitting here raising conjectures and theories, but here's a guy who tested things. He's an engineer and one of the most obessive people around when it comes to drivetrain friction, responsible for the most comprehensive rolling-resistance database around - so much that Specialized sent their new tyres straight to him for an opinion.

Long story short (or long): Oval rings don't really improve power output, even though a crank-based measurement system might say otherwise - because power is the same, but the way it's calculated changed. At the same time, you're no longer moving the feet at a constant circular velocity, which means you might be accelerating and slowing them down a tad, fighting more inertia than with round rings (which might explain Frank's seemingly random Jour Sans). Most independent research and most more scientific anecdotal data seems to agree that oval rings aren't any better - though they aren't any worse usually, either. They're just a bit more expensive.

There's a dead spot inherent to all human movements. When we (well, I) run, about 90% of my stroke feels like a dead one - kicking back for propulsion and moving the foot forward for the next step are just about the only movements that serve a purpose by themselves, the rest just support the first two.

As long as humans pedal via two crankarms that drive a rotating cylinder, there will be a "top of the stroke" and "bottom". An efficient rider will apply some power there as well - recruit your quads at the top and hamstrings at the bottom - or spin fast enough (as in, above 60rpm...) to get over it soon enough.