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

andrew says:

Mar 28 2014 at 4:01 am

@Deakus

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.

From what little I understand, in mild to hot conditions, humans are among the best endurance animals on earth, as we can cool efficiently by sweating and our breathing rhythm is not physiologically linked to our running (a dog's or cheetah's diaphragm expands and contracts once per stride cycle).

That said, good, efficient endurance running technique is essentially controlled falling, and the actual activation of the leg muscles is a very short part of the process, so the activate-rest-activate-rest rhythm of cycling seems to me to fit that pretty well. The critical thing might be making sure muscle activation comes at the most effective point of the rotation, and ideas like 'wiping the ball of your foot on the ground' or even oval chain-rings could help that, I guess.

Forgive me, O Merckx, for talking so much guff about running...
Deakus says:

Mar 28 2014 at 4:30 am

@Teocalli

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

Bravo! Now we are in tandem!!
Deakus says:

Mar 28 2014 at 4:33 am

@andrew

@Deakus

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.

From what little I understand, in mild to hot conditions, humans are among the best endurance animals on earth, as we can cool efficiently by sweating and our breathing rhythm is not physiologically linked to our running (a dog's or cheetah's diaphragm expands and contracts once per stride cycle).

That said, good, efficient endurance running technique is essentially controlled falling, and the actual activation of the leg muscles is a very short part of the process, so the activate-rest-activate-rest rhythm of cycling seems to me to fit that pretty well. The critical thing might be making sure muscle activation comes at the most effective point of the rotation, and ideas like 'wiping the ball of your foot on the ground' or even oval chain-rings could help that, I guess.

Forgive me, O Merckx, for talking so much guff about running...

There you go with all that science stuff again! My brain is starting to ache the only thing I can do is consult this fella...
Ccos says:

Mar 28 2014 at 4:52 am

@TommyTubolare Well LeMan does have abnormally long femurs.
andrew says:

Mar 28 2014 at 4:58 am

@Deakus Cute doggie...
Optimiste says:

Mar 28 2014 at 5:21 am

@frank

@DerHoggz

@frank

@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.

Tooth count is essentially an analogue for circumference which is directly related to the radius of the ring

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.

@DerHoggz

@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"³. Chainrings essentially come in quantum circumferences.

If I could interject, it was my understanding there wasn't going to be any math involved.

". . . all this is based on feel. . . . In other words, I'm not distracted by the facts."
DerHoggz says:

Mar 28 2014 at 5:47 am

@frank

@DerHoggz

@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"³. Chainrings essentially come in quantum circumferences.

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.

I think we were originally discussing the "effective" gearing at different points on a non-round ring? Yes, a 54 ring of any kind will always pull 54 rollers through in one revolution. With non-round ones there is not a constant pull for a constant angular velocity of the crank. So at one section the ring is pulling the equivalent of a 56 for so many degrees, which is balanced out by pulling the equivalent of a 51 at another point. It averages out to 54 over one revolution.

I don't think we're disagreeing so much as we're both running into different walls repeatedly.
KW says:

Mar 28 2014 at 5:50 am

@Deakus

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.

I must say that I'm in agreement with @Deakus on this one. This is all akin to my view on electrial engineering: it's all magic and voodoo and none of it makes any sense (I'm a mechanical guy).

I certainly don't discount the value of technological advances, but I believe there is a point where the discussion becomes overwhelming for our tiny little brains (well, mine anyway), and no longer helpful. When that happens, I believe it's a clear violation of Rule #6.

Here's where I think the bottom line is: if you like it, ride it. If you feel that oval rings give you more efficiency and power then please by all means, use them. If you like traditional round rings, that's great too. As has been pointed out, it's very difficult to find concrete evidence one way or the other.

For me personally, if I want to go better/faster/stronger, I will continue my reflections on Rule #5 and Rule #10.

VLVV, indeed.
DerHoggz says:

Mar 28 2014 at 5:52 am

@andrew

@Deakus

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.

From what little I understand, in mild to hot conditions, humans are among the best endurance animals on earth, as we can cool efficiently by sweating and our breathing rhythm is not physiologically linked to our running (a dog's or cheetah's diaphragm expands and contracts once per stride cycle).

That said, good, efficient endurance running technique is essentially controlled falling, and the actual activation of the leg muscles is a very short part of the process, so the activate-rest-activate-rest rhythm of cycling seems to me to fit that pretty well. The critical thing might be making sure muscle activation comes at the most effective point of the rotation, and ideas like 'wiping the ball of your foot on the ground' or even oval chain-rings could help that, I guess.

Forgive me, O Merckx, for talking so much guff about running...

I did read an article addressing the evolutionary biology of why we have sweat glands (did you know boobs are essentially a highly specific sweat gland?) a while back. Compared to other primates we are much better endurance runners, and the upright posture allows us to fall over a lot better (fast runners often have higher navels which are pretty close to the COG). We moved the hair mostly to the tops of our head because that is where most of the sun was hitting, and that opened up a lot of free space to sweat which helps with cooling for endurance activities.
DerHoggz says:

Mar 28 2014 at 6:03 am

@tessar

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, butthe 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.

@frank

@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

I can't debate the results, but I don't quite understand the explanation. If it is taking averages of torque and angular velocity, I would think it wouldn't effect the result. Yes you would move slower or faster throughout the stroke more with a non-round, but if it is calculated on per revolution basis I think the varying torques and velocities should cancel each other out. This may be down to sampling resolution or something about a larger standard deviation from average. Statistics is one of my weak points though so I couldn't really say