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

tessar says:

Mar 26 2014 at 11:47 pm

Also, there doesn't seem to be too much of a correlation between round/oval preference and seating position. Rotor themselves give five mounting options for the rings to "fine tune and match your seat angle to the rings" as they put it.

I ride relatively forward (smack in the middle of an inline seatpost) and time-trial at an effective 85-90 degree angle and didn't appreciate my time on oval rings at all.
Teocalli says:

Mar 27 2014 at 2:37 am

There's been a bunch of comparison implying no dead spot in running. However, I suggest there is a significant dead area in the human running in that there is a slice of time when we are airborne. That is definitely a dead spot. The second dead point (in sprinting) is induced by the way the human form has evolved to land on the forefoot to absorb impact and tension up tendons for release as the stride develops. However modern footwear induces bad running practice of heavy heel strike padded by said footwear. As an aside though the human body has built in a point where age tells you not to run like that any more - that is where you try to run like you did at 25 and your achilles snaps as happened to me 3 years ago.

The Perfect Runner, behind the scenes in Extreme Slow Motion from Niobe Thompson on Vimeo.

@frank re 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).

Oddly I was thinking about this the other day while on a ride and the whole theory seems flawed for me. The flaw is that for a given net ratio if you are in a larger chainring then you will be in a smaller rear sprocket and that the net turn will cancel between chainring and cassette. Further though it appears to me that the change in turn effect would be greater at the cassette than the chainring. So for me if there was an effect it would appear it would support the opposite in that using a larger cassette sprocket combined with a smaller chainring would have the smallest net "bend".
the Engine says:

Mar 27 2014 at 2:46 am

@frank

@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.

3 / 3

Q'in it up

Slideshow:

Fullscreen:

Download:

Powered by DM Albumsâ„¢

She's using discs on her CX rig...
sthilzy says:

Mar 27 2014 at 3:11 am

Is it just me, or my observation see's that there's alot more chains dropping off than usual over the last couple of years or so? Biopace came and went, then oval is back and going? What next? Disc brakes on road bikes?!
Chris says:

Mar 27 2014 at 4:52 am

@VeloSix

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.

Your're correct that the energy required to move an object is always going to be the same but inefficiencies between the point of generation and delivery have to be taken into account. Excess friction and rolling resistance aren't the only inefficiencies that can affect that. Take a internal combustion engine for example; dead spots in the cycle have lead to the development of multiple cylinders firing in sequences. Without some serious genetic engineering to increase the number of available limbs, we can't up the number of cylinders available but we can try to limit periods of inefficiency in the cycle.
Ccos says:

Mar 27 2014 at 5:07 am

@frank I was a masher during the 80's and early 90's, and remained one upon my return to the fold in the early "aughts." My transition to being a spinner happened when I upgraded my cassette from 5 to 10 choices. Not sure why exactly, but it feels right and all goes to shit when I try to muscle it at a lower (<90) cadence.

Now, Charly Gaul was a spinner with only 5 choices and he was no doper. He was the "Angel" after all.
VeloSix says:

Mar 27 2014 at 6:09 am

@frank

@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.

I absolutely agree. I can understand how they might add an efficiency to the pedal stroke. If I tried "one leg drills" and used my left leg. (Which suddenly has me feeling like and uncoordinated babbling moron) There is a awkward gap, every other stroke of so, big dead zone... then kablam.. its back to powering the pedal... then not. Its a constant feeling of chasing the drivetrain when using my left leg only.

For my left leg to be so awkward alone, it must be somewhat inefficient in the pedaling on the road, although not consciously noticed with both gun pumping.

My expectation of the different shaped rings, is they might counter these such inefficiencies. This I can buy and reason out. If I had the opportunity to "test" these, my first test would be some one leg drills in the trainer.
VeloSix says:

Mar 27 2014 at 6:35 am

@Chris

@VeloSix

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.

Your're correct that the energy required to move an object is always going to be the same but inefficiencies between the point of generation and delivery have to be taken into account. Excess friction and rolling resistance aren't the only inefficiencies that can affect that. Take a internal combustion engine for example; dead spots in the cycle have lead to the development of multiple cylinders firing in sequences. Without some serious genetic engineering to increase the number of available limbs, we can't up the number of cylinders available but we can try to limit periods of inefficiency in the cycle.

Ture, so lets say the oval shape is doing one of two things. Either getting more use of the muscles during the weakest point of the pedal stroke, or extending the time the muscles in the most powerful part of the stroke are generating force. I certainly recognize there are pedaling inefficiencies, and maybe even brief increases in power outputs where they are eliminated.

My school of thought however is this. If you put real numbers to these rings, and indicate a power increase of some percentage. Your body itself is still only capable a making a certain power number for so long. If you're a Cat 3, who makes 3.6 Watts/kilo at threshold, that number is still going to be the same after you slap some oval rings on. So even though for a given gear and cadence you can point out an increase in your power output by installing these rings, you're not suddenly going to make that power for any additional period of time than you could previously, because your physiology is still the same. (This is just the way I see it, I'm not trying to prove what is ultimately just my personal theory)
The Oracle says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:19 am

Evolutionary transcendence is obviously the answer.
TomasESDK says:

Mar 27 2014 at 7:22 am

@VeloSix

@Beers

@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...

The only independent studies of this stuff that make sense are by non-cyclist engineers. They have no dog in the fight, eliminate all variables, provide all the research data and parameters, and are spending someone else's money.

I'm not saying its a total farce, but to me there may be a bit of a placebo effect to these things. If it works, someone can prove it with raw data. (not the people selling them, they have a vested interest, and I'm a skeptical kinda person when it come to that)

Missing all etiquette rules as this is my 1st post before even introducing myself...(who cares anyway for another fat as**)
Fully support above point: unless very controlled measurements are taken... we are talking about placebo effect.

And this said... after using q-rings on the trainer I moved them to the road bike and...they feel great: I improved my best TT time in 5 secs over 1h. Take that for marginal gains!!!

(Really, they feel great and they will stay on the #1 bike. For now...)