Q Rings

As a doctor, I am frequently bombarded with new products that in theory are better than the old ones, and the sales reps will give me lots of reasons why their product should be better but I won't beleive any of it until they show some real world evidence that there is a benefit.

Similarly with these rings, irrespective of what the theory, the anecdote, the wind tunnel or the power meter says, I want to see some real world data, comparing to traditional rings in a scientific way before I believe any of it.

I have a biopace ring on my SS beater, simply because I had an 80s crankset lying around. No noticeable difference. Chain tension varies so I wouldn't want to try it fixed, even though Sheldon says it's okay.

As a doctor, I am frequently bombarded with new products that in theory are better than the old ones, and the sales reps will give me lots of reasons why their product should be better but I won't beleive any of it until they show some real world evidence that there is a benefit.

Similarly with these rings, irrespective of what the theory, the anecdote, the wind tunnel or the power meter says, I want to see some real world data, comparing to traditional rings in a scientific way before I believe any of it.

But surely real world data is impossible to get because it involves a human rider using both and that rider is another variable.

Have they tired? If they know which ring is fitted are they (even subconciensly) modifying their pedalling technique because they expect something to be different? Etc etc etc...

No, I think it would be possible to do a real world trial. Something along the lines of this:

Take a group of say, 20 cyclists and get them to do 2 time trials over a same course, say of 10 miles on identical bikes, half of which have Q rings and the other half conventional rings, but all the rings covered up so you can't tell which bike has which. Then randomise 10 cyclists to ride the conventional bike followed by the Q ring bike and 10 the other way round. Thus each cyclist acts their own control, blinded to which type of ring they are using, and by randomising the order, compensating for any changes in weather or rider fitness between the 2 runs.

Obviously, the only measurement which counts would be the time taken. You could have split times for any climbs so see if there is any benefit there. The possibilities are endless but a scientific approach is certainly possible.

my GF's bike has biopace rings and they're horrible, feeling 'choppy' (stupid description, but the uneven feel when pedalling is best summed up this way) though the pedal stroke. Bizarrely she doesn't notice it, but to me they're weird and of no real benefit.

Scuttlebutt at the time (early 90's) was that if you rotated the biopace rings round a bit they worked a lot better.

bought a q_ring 2 weeks ago, no idea how to explain that its very good

Then let me explain it for you; you just spent a shedload of cash on something in the belief that it would improve your performance. To justify this to yourself, you persuade yourself that you can feel the good it's doing you.

my GF's bike has biopace rings and they're horrible, feeling 'choppy' (stupid description, but the uneven feel when pedalling is best summed up this way) though the pedal stroke. Bizarrely she doesn't notice it, but to me they're weird and of no real benefit.

might be obvious but check the little notch on the inside of the chainring is installed so it's hidden by the crank.

got a biopace triple and when i got it i didn't notice the little ring was rotated round so the extra 'push' was at the wrong part of the pedal stroke and it felt really odd, like you described.

Then let me explain it for you; you just spent a shedload of cash on something in the belief that it would improve your performance. To justify this to yourself, you persuade yourself that you can feel the good it's doing you.

If you start pushing too high a gear, at too low a cadense. You can feel them. You start ignoring the concept of circular pedaling, and just stamp up and down to get through the higher geared section.

Not that I should be doing that anyway.

At a higher cadense they incourage you to use the full pedal stroke. Plus you get a tiny boost when putting your foot down, climbing out of the saddle. As your gearing in this section is slightly higher. A well calculated gear shift would have the same effect though.

So for a less skilled roadie like myself. They seem to aid technique. For a roadie with half decent technique, you probably have to look at alledged fatige reduction claims.

The stiffness of the aero rings, and the chunky CNC'd arms. Is very real indeed though.

i have some rotor RS4x cranks for sale if anyone wants Qrings but in a much more complicated fashion

:)

http://www.lfgss.com/thread74258.html

http://www.mtbr.com/cat/drivetrain/crankset/rotor/rs4x-st/prd_412520_115crx.aspx

More self delusion from somebody with sunk investment

ftfy

Meh. The bike needed stiff porn cranks and IMHO, thats what it got.

Of all the cranksets I liked (not want ing to mix campag with Shimano or Sram), it was the only one I could find in 165mm. The matching chainrings were an exuberant buy. But I paid half RRP on Spainish Ebay.

Pretty much everything on that bike, is there as a middle age indulgance. No delusions here.

might be obvious but check the little notch on the inside of the chainring is installed so it's hidden by the crank.

got a biopace triple and when i got it i didn't notice the little ring was rotated round so the extra 'push' was at the wrong part of the pedal stroke and it felt really odd, like you described.

Nice one, I didn't know about the tab thingy, will check shortly.