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

DerHoggz says:

Mar 27 2014 at 8:48 am

Didn't read the whole article, but I have an interest in Osymmetrics. Not the point of this post though.

While I am loath to self-diagnose, I experience this strange shortness of breath often on longer rides. Maybe like 4hr in I get to where I can't inhale deeply, but have to take smaller breaths or it feels like I just can't get any air in. In the back of my mind that sounds like some sort of asthma, and I had an inhaler for like a week when I was a kid for some reason I can't remember. Who wants to fuel my hypochondriac-ness?
DerHoggz says:

Mar 27 2014 at 9:08 am

Also, how are your shoes that white?
VeloSix says:

Mar 27 2014 at 9:43 am

@TomasESDK

@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...)

This makes total sense. I've spent enough time staring at numbers in the trainer, that is the only place where I might determine and improvement. Its the single most controlled environment I have, except I'm still building muscle. I've only been doing this since August of 2012, so my numbers are still changing without switching any equipment.
Ccos says:

Mar 27 2014 at 10:00 am

@DerHoggz

Didn't read the whole article, but I have an interest in Osymmetrics. Not the point of this post though.

While I am loath to self-diagnose, I experience this strange shortness of breath often on longer rides. Maybe like 4hr in I get to where I can't inhale deeply, but have to take smaller breaths or it feels like I just can't get any air in. In the back of my mind that sounds like some sort of asthma, and I had an inhaler for like a week when I was a kid for some reason I can't remember. Who wants to fuel my hypochondriac-ness?

You certainly may have a variant of exercise associated asthma. Maybe it takes a while for your airways to become irritated, then become reactive. Is it worse during higher pollen times? That would be a clue. Having an inhaler is probably not a bad idea as long as it's used properly.

Hypochodriaism is more enjoyable when there's a little bit of real pathology to stoke the fire. A buddy of mine carries an epi-pen because he's had exercise associated anaphylaxis. He's super fun to be around when he starts wheezing.

I'm not a pulmonologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 10:41 am

@Nate

@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:

You win today.
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 10:51 am

@The Grande Fondue

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).

Baboosh. This.

@Optimiste

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:

Classic!!
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 10:56 am

@tessar

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.

Good stuff - I'll read that article when I get a few minutes. I've also read the oval rings are less effective on tt bikes.

I think my overall struggle with understand and believing the notion is the concept that with a fixed crank being forced around a perfect(ish) circle, how the shape of the chainring would change the efficiency of the stroke - especially when the gear size doesn't change either. That said, if its true that it does impact it, then my theory about bigger rings having more leverage would also be true, so I kind of want it to be the case!
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 10:59 am

@Teocalli

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".

You've got this backwards; you have to keep the gear size constant, so you'd be in big-big front to back, so there is less bending of the chain on both the front and back, not to mention a better mechanical advantage to turn the wheel while riding in a bigger sprocket on the back. If the theory isn't flawed, its win-win to stay in the big ring longer.

But have a look at your derailleur and check out how much the chain is bending there. That's why Fabian rides those enormous pulleys on his rear mech.
frank says:

Mar 27 2014 at 11:13 am

@the Engine

She's using discs on her CX rig...

Like most of them, they have two and oddly they seem to cross the finish line on the one with cantis.
ChrissyOne says:

Mar 27 2014 at 11:26 am

@Optimiste

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:

If only one could mount a mechanical internal combustion motor as well.

Wait...