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

frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:19 pm

@Ben

Would you like to try some of our amazing snake oil with your latest purchase of elliptical chain rings? It lubricates your arteries so there is less restriction for the blood to get to your muscles, giving you more efficient power output.

There was a great little half-pager in one of the local mags (or was it a national one) about diets and it basically had Beavis and Butthead's diagram for picking a band name, except it had all the rave food and dietary restrictions all over the page. The gist was to draw a line from one end of the page to another, and you had the next fad diet. Mine said something like "By eating only cat brains and cutting out squirrel cum, I was able to lose 20 pounds while regaining the sex drive of a 15 year old fox."

So that's basically what's happening now.
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:35 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)

I think you're cutting to the chase, but what your reasoning is missing is how those 400W (yeah, right) are being converted into velocity - which is the only thing we really care about. This brings about the efficiency of the system, which I'm sure you understand.

400W into my pedals on my Graveur on a 6% grade on loose gravel yields a different speed from 400W into my pedals on my Strada iR on a 6% grade on smooth tarmac. Same energy coming from the human engine, but 20-30% difference in output due to loss in the system.

So the question is, does the shape of the ring affect the efficiency of the system. I didn't get into this in the article because it was already a fucking thesis due to all the jokes I was busy telling, but the shape of the ring doesn't change the size of the gear, so it's unclear to me that it could matter at all in the end.

Yet, we universally agree that BioPace made us feel a swagger in our stroke, so it apparently does matter. At the same time, I've been unable to make or find a convincing position on my belief that riding in the big ring is more efficient than riding in the little ring (assuming the same gear size). Steve Westlake wrote a great article on this in Cyclist on the subject but the data from the field suggested that if there was an advantage, it was marginal and based mostly on chain tension and how much the links were bent going around a ring (less is better - i.e. the bigger the ring the more efficient but not so much that anyone but me can tell).

So if the 53 vs the 39 offers a marginal mechanical advantage, then what can a variation of a few percent in chainring diameter mean? I would have been fine with the Q-Rings because they felt fine pedaling them around; I didn't like how often I felt out of my comfort zone pushing the gear around and that's whey I dropped them.
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:38 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?

This is kindasorta what BioPace attacked and why they put the maximum effective gear on the deadspot. They felt that by putting the minimum effective gear on the downstroke it would accelerate the foot (and leg) and build momentum that would carry the unit through the dead spot.

It didn't work. If you need proof, go buy some BioPace rings off ebay for $0.02.
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:42 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.

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.)
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:51 pm

@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.

How fast are you riding when you're spinning at those RPM's? This high cadence stuff may work for some but all of us have to remember this is an artifact of the blood-doping era. Spinning offloads the strain of going batshit fast from the muscles to the cardiovascular system (conservation of energy, people).

The methods and drugs to rebuild muscles are slower than those that rebuild the cardio system. If you're taking EPO or getting an oil change every 10 days, then spinning a high gear is a great idea because you keep feeding the system, kind of like a credit card.

But for most athletes, there is a natural maximum efficient cadence and it will be somewhere between 70 and 100 RPM, depending on terrain. We should all train to be smooth enough that we can ride at a sustained 110 or 120 RMP, but our effective RPM should be found naturally and is likely a lot lower.

It's funny, I've always ridden at 80 rpm or thereabouts. I was considered a spinner in the 80's and 90's and now I'm considered a masher. But nothing has changed for me, I'm still just riding how it feels most awesome.
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:54 pm

@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!
scaler911 says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:00 pm

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.
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:04 pm

@HMBSteve

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.

This is a noble position to take, my man. Very noble indeed. And Vos is one crazy-ass bitch. She might be part cyborg, who knows. Bitches be crazy but that crazy works for that one.

Vos uses Q's on both her road and CX bike, and she's not sponsored by them. In fact, based on what I know of those types of deals, she's buying them and forcing the team to forgo a certain level of sponsorship because she's not even repainting the rings.

[dmalbum: path="/velominati.com/wp-content/uploads/readers/frank/2014.03.26.20.54.55/1//"/]
moondance says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:05 pm

@frank

(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 strokes can likely benefit greatly.)

Fixed it for you.

I promise to take the single speed out more often and work on it....
scaler911 says:

Mar 26 2014 at 9:10 pm

@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.