Any experience with Q Rings

Cdiangelo

 So I am looking at moving to a compact crank set, and have seen a lot of exposure on Q Rings of late. Does anyone have any experience using them? Do they deserve a place in my setup? A lot of the articles appear to point to the positive, but wanted to see if anyone had firsthand experience.

Dino Sarti

I don't have any first hand experience, but would love to get some. I do have a Rotor crank set, but it has compact with round rings - don't let the paint job fool ya.  The picture below says it all.  

One thing I can offer is that what I have read, say they are not a new idea, but like bell bottoms, they seem to be be back in fashion....  I blame Wiggins!

Peter Wick

I run them on my road bike and had them on my tri bike this season. Front end shifting is a little wonky and I threw the chain several times this season during races. The worst time was when I was chasing down Keith Wick in the closing miles of the bike leg at the Hunter Mountain 70.3. Dang it! ;-) I got him on the run though...

Gene

I have been using Qrings since August.

I stayed with a compact setup 50/34 SRAM Red > 50/34 Q Rings OCP 3. 

Generally I really like them.  I do notice a much more fluid pedal stroke.  The adaption period only took less than one ride for me.  I could feel a difference but it was not performance limiting.  I did make the unscientific decision (but economical) to alter two things at once.  I also switched to a 165mm crank length from a 170mm simaltaniously.  Changing the crank length caused some trickle down differences in fit position which needed to be worked out. 

If it is possible to just evaluate the Q rings independent of the crank length: I would do it again.  I am happy with them.  When I'm sitting upright on the bull horns (fully open hip angle, negating the shorter crank length) doing single leg stuff playing around, I feel a much more even distibution of effort and smoother turnover.

If you are using a compact crank you may be limited to OCP 3 position of the Q rings.  I know that with a Quarq this is true, I'm not sure if the limit applies without a Quarq.  Check into that.  The OCP position initiates when the maximum amount of power will be applied during the revolution.  Rotor recommends an OCP of 4 as a good starting point for triathletes (anyone riding a steep effective seat tube angle).  They have guidlines on their website for setting this OCP position up.  Luckily the OCP 3 works for me with a Quarq.  But being the OS I want to try the OCP 4.  I'm going to acuire one and have it machined down to fit around the quarq.  I'll let you know if it is better or not. 

In full disclosure: I road with Dave Corsa from Canada once (he is/was also the fitter/mechanice of Peter Reid) and he told me Peter Reid did not like them for Tri.  Reid discovered that the lack of dead spot in his cycling revolution eliminated the ability for his legs to flush the lactic acid.  He could never run as good coming off teh Qrings.  Just a story from a guy who know a guy... But to this day Dave fits over half of his road bikes he sells today with Qrings.  He says the OCP3 position helps almost all of his clients eliminate their dead spot. 

-Gene

 

John Withrow

Hey Craig, I have been thinking the same thing. I think Coach P raced on them in Kona this yr. Interested to hear his thoughts.

I might be hijacking your thread here, but have been strongly thinking about getting a set of Osymetric Chainrings to add onto my SRM. Same concept as the Q-Rings, but even funkier looking and much more specific shape than the simple oval of the Q-Rings: http://osymetricusa.com/site/?page_id=5

Curious to hear if anyone has opinions on these as well to "broaden" the topic a bit...

John Withrow

Couple of good articles to read:
http://www.competitivecyclist.com/whats-new/the-curious-case-of-osymetric-chainrings.415.html
http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/09/osymetric-gimmick-or-miracle/
http://www.noncircularchainring.be/

Cdiangelo

John - I'd heard of the Osys before but not seen a lot about them online, etc.

I'm a gear head and the bio-mechanics of this are really interesting to me. I come from almost 20yrs of rowing, and spent a bunch of time rigging...and that is all about leverage and load change.

I haven't seen any blowout sales on these yet, otherwise I'd get a set to try. But they are still a bit $$ for me to take the plunge. If Coach P has raced I'd definitely want to hear his feedback.

John Withrow

FWIW, I sent my bike mechanic the following email (...my mechanic is totally awesome btw):

Eric--
http://osymetricusa.com/site/?page_id=5
If I bought these, do you think you are capable of making my front deraileur actually shift somewhat smoothly with them (on my P3 but more importantly on my P5)?
This is a serious question... Please let me know your honest thoughts.
--Withrow

And here was his response:

I don't think they work. There are independent tests showing that the mechanical advantage is less than .1 percent over time.
Your body may feel it at first but over time your body adapts just like any other equipment. I believe in traditional training in terms of pedaling efficiency.
I did do some testing with the Paralympic hand cycle team and they had an advantage because they had a true dead spot.
Those chainrings to me solve a problem that didn't exist. As for shifting I can make anything work especially with Di2 so if you wanna do it go for it.

EJP

Pina

I'm pretty sure there's no objective data that says these asymmetrical rings are "xx" times better. Yet, the more and more I speak to people with them they seem to never switch back and this's the camp I fall into. THe challenge is that so many of us go through a drivetrain and geometry overhaul never truly knowing what did what. In my case, new Qrings, switch to compact, shorter cranks, power meter, lower front end to decrease my torso angle. After 6 months, with changing training philosophy too, FTP jumped 65 watts, PR'd IM bike split by 31 minutes.

What was it??? Did the Qrings help? Would I have been faster with symmetrical rings? I guess I'll never know, but I am certain I won't be switching back anytime soon.

John Withrow

I just pulled the trigger on a set of Osymetric chain rings last night... I'll let you know what I think of them once I get them all setup. It will be the "only" thing I am changing, so maybe I'll try to get myself back to a "steady state" as far as my biking fitness goes before I put them on and see if either my seat of the pants or my powermeter can tell a difference.

Coach Patrick

Here's the other thread going on in here if you want to cross reference: http://members.endurancenation.us/Training/TrainingForums/tabid/101/aft/4757/Default.aspx

JeremyBehler

John - I know this thread is a few months old, but couldn't find any of your thoughts after switching to Osymetric rings.  Maybe it was lost in the move to EN 5.0? 

So...what are your thoughts?  Pros?  Cons?  Would you recommend?

John Withrow

I put them on but only used them on my rollers. I had a REALLY good FTP test with them on and I'm not sure if I should attribute any benefit to the Osymetric rings or just better fitness from hard training. On my P3, the front deraileur adjustment took me like 2 minutes and it seemed to shift flawlessly. So I don't have a real verdict yet because I've been outside a grand total of zero times on them.

But... Funny you posted this question now, because just yesterday I took the Osymetric rings back of of my SRM. I am doing a couple road bike races this spring so I switched to my road bike a couple of weeks ago. The front shifting was dreadful and I spent at least an hour at my LBS with the best bike mechanic I know (have trusted him for yrs). It took him that long to get the shifting to work on the front (was literally an 1/8 of a turn of the set screw that would make it either not shift, or overshoot and drop the chain to the outside. While riding on my rollers, I could get it to shift in the front, but barely... I didn't want to deal with that in the heat of a bike race... I actually then bought a new road bike (different story altogether) that has Ultegra Di2 shifting. Even with this brand new bike and Di2 Shifters, shifting from the small chainring to the big one in the front was a mess. I could get it to shift, but it took patience... I think it was so easy on my P3 because with the TT shifters, they are friction based and I could gradually push it forward until it shifted, then back it off a hair with zero issues. But on the road bike, it's just a click that has to be timed perfectly with the spot on the big ring. Downshifts are a piece of cake, it's the upshift that is a pain... So I took off the rings and will stay with the round compact rings for the next month or so. I think I'll put the Osymetric Rings back on when I switch back to my tri bike and head outside. I'll be riding my P5 for the rest of the yr which has Di2, so hopefully I can get it to work. But shifting on the tri bike for me is always under less load than on a road bike. So if you don't hear back from me by early May, bump this thread again and I'll hopefully have a more through analysis for you.

JeremyBehler

What are your thoughts on combining a large Q Ring/Osymetric ring with a small (34) round ring? Is that even possible mechanically without creating shifting issues? I am finding that I spin out way to early on my 50/11 so I'd like to increase my big ring to maximize speed on modest decents. I don't spend a lot of time in my small ring, so didn't know if it would be worth switching for the limited climbing.

John Withrow

If you mean a Standard (53 tooth) to big ring and a Compact (34 tooth) small ring, it will not work. A standard chainring has a 130mm Bolt Center Diameter (BCD) whereas the typical Compact has a 110 BCD. So you can't generally put them on the same crank without special modifications. Also, this would be too big of a jump in size and you'd likely have a ton of shifting problems particularly going from the small ring to the big ring, especially if the big ring was an Ossymetric. Many bikes now come spec with a 52/36 combo which seems to be a nice compromise between the two. If you currently have a Compact, the Ossymetric rings actually come in two different combinations in the 110 BCD, a 50/38 and a 52/38. The numbers don't perfectly match with the typical round sizes because you are getting leverage from the odd shape. I went with the 52/38 to try to solve the exact issue you described. It's kind of like a Standard crank in the middle of the power phase and kind of like a Compact when you are at the top/bottom of your pedal stroke.

I also don't recommend mixing a round small ring with an Oval/Ossymetric big ring regardless of the sizes because of the shifting issues. It's hard enough to shift from the small ring to the big ring as it is with the Ossymetric rings, and that is with a matched shape. I think if you mis-matched the shapes, you'd be asking for real problems.

JeremyBehler

Thanks John. I get the difference between 110/130 BCD. I have a 110 BCD compact with standard 50/34 rings. I was thinking about keeping the 34 small round ring and moving to the 52 tooth large oval ring. Sounds like not a good plan. I'll look for a set of 52/38 rings to give it a whirl.