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.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
@frank
I used to get some coaching from a chap who used to use those back in the day. He quite likes the Rotor QXL rings but had problems with the Osymetrics.
@frank
Hogg's article pretty much says that we pedal the way we pedal naturally (all processed through our central nervous system) and the trick is to do it in the most effective and efficient way possible. He also says that we can practice our pedal stroke, but we'll eventually we'll go back to what we naturally do under duress.
@cyclebrarian
Nice Wayne Stephenson mask, by the way. These days, you don't see too much l'hommage to Fort Wayne.
Hi @Frank
Ok, I've seen you state your theory about high cadence being a result of the blood doping era quite a few times now and, with respect, it grates every time.
Developing leg speed as a training is something that has been around for long before the blood doping era. There's good reason why Cadets and Juniors are on restricted gearing. It's so that they can develop muscle memory of leg speed to aid them for the future when they are able to spin bigger gears. This makes them faster as they get older and progress.
Similarly for those who race on the track, the ability to develop high cadence is critical to success as you will know, you can't change gears in a points race. If you watch endurance events on the track, you will notice that riders are spinning usually in the 110-120 rpm range or more during the main portion of the race and when sprinting in the 160-180 rpm range. It doesn't follow that track riders are all blood dopers.
Some people are spinners, some mashers. I'm a spinner, you're a masher. Painting the other half of the riding population based on their leg speed as dopers isn't right in my opinion.
@DerHoggz
Ok, athsma is actually the feeling that it is hard to breathe, your suck pipes are constricted. So like breathing through a straw. Often accompanied by wheezing noise, and straining to breathe. A relieving inhaler would fix this on the road.
This is different from straight out breathlessness, where you can't take in enough air to fuel the legs, which often forces you to rapid breathing. This could come about from many reasons, not least VO2max, fitness, heart strain (can be impacted by electrolyte balances too). Atrial fibrillation can come on when your physiology is stressed, and would lead to the breathless/dead legs feeling but would show on any HR monitor, and you'd be lying in a ditch.
Enough fuel for your hypocondriatic fire??? Go see a doc if concerned.
@frank
I believe that the oval ring actually does change the effective gear, making it larger at the apogee of the ellipse.
I'm sure that this is covered off by someone else previously but the thinking is that that largest effective gear is pushed where the lever of your largest muscle group is utilised at the most efficient portion of the stroke. This provides a relative power surge in the stroke that allows the bio-mechanical dead spot to happen without any loss of momentum. It means that there is a small spike in power output that overcomes the much lesser output in the dead spot.
@fignons barber
Thanks, man. I've been a diehard Flyers fan since I was a kid. I'm as obsessive about them as I've become about cycling. Both of which thrill my girlfriend.
@mouse
Of course it does.
"A 53T Q-Ring, around the upper dead-spot is equivalent to a 51T, but as the pedal goes down and more strength is applied (just passed the maximum power moment), the equivalent chainring tooth size reaches 56T."
http://www.rotoruk.co.uk/qrings.html#how
@frank
It's either the photo or your saddle was too low.
What if this is just a matter of; it doesn't matter how long your ring is, it matters how well you use it....