-
I'm pretty sure having an oval chainring doesn't help have smaller cranks...
Or in fact anything else for that matter, so I wouldn't bother.
-
Does anyone run Osymetrics on fixed? Is it ok from the chain's tension point of view?
Yes, and yes-ish. A properly centred oval chainring is no worse than many of the not-quite-round circular ones in terms of variation of chain slack around the crank revolution
Recently read that shorter cranks don't make you loose much power but give you a good aero advantage.
So far I've been unable to loose any worthwhile power with short cranks, but in general crank length is indeed an irrelevance except for when they are too long. The jury is out on the aero advantage. Just switching to shorter cranks makes little difference, if it frees up positional options which were barred by longer cranks there might be gains to be had.
Could this be the case for Osym.?
No, because oval chainrings are snake oil. They get reinvented approximately every time everybody who wasn't around last time has got old enough to be suckered into paying for something which clearly doesn't work. Don't you think that after about a century of charlatans trying to flog non-circular chainrings that they would by now be universal if they were any good?
You are reading a single comment by @Bugno and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Khornight2
gbj_tester
@Bugno
Does anyone run Osymetrics on fixed? Is it ok from the chain's tension point of view?
Recently read that shorter cranks don't make you loose much power but give you a good aero advantage.
Could this be the case for Osym.? I know they're supposed to increase power and many disagree, but couod they instead be a good way of making use of shorter cranks and improve aero?
Also, is the pedalling faster at 12:30 on the cranks and slower at 9:15? Would this make overall aero performance better, supposing 12:30 is less aero efficient and you spend a shorter total time on it? Anyone? @mdcc_tester?