The Roundness of Being
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.
Verification that Campagnolo rings are the true love.
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?
Occasional high cadence roller sessions seem to me to be a much better way to eliminate dead spots.
@Nate
+1
Seems like a layer of technology to deal with the problem would only ensure that it remains with you.
Elliptical kind of makes sense, more natural maybe. But the the idea of dead spots is just dumb, when we are running are legs are not propelling us in some sort of push pull motion with constant force being applied by both legs , I pretty sure there are greater ”dead spots” when we walk and run than when we pedal. Saying that I don’t know what I am talking about, but that’s never stopped me before.
First the tangent: The 80’s-style more rearward position is the way to go. Your weight distribution is better and it’s the one favored by LeMan, which is a great way to end debate on the subject (Vos et al not-with-standing). You also have more options in positions (moving forward on the saddle, since you can’t hover off the back of the saddle). Now for the non-tangent: is the dead spot really an issue? When you’re spinning at 105-120 rpm doesn’t the momentum of the cranks count for anything? (Since I am not an engineer, feel free to insert a redneck accent when reading that last line).
I think it’s the quality of the spin that matters whatever the hell your chainrings look like.
The idea of “dead spots” is why Obree built a weird push-pull pedal system for Beastie, his flawed but wonderful land speed machine.
It does strike me that the “scientific” teams such as Sky, Garmin etc can’t seem to come to any conclusion about their merits- I think Wiggo has been on and off Q-rings multiple times. That’s with every sensor possible being thrown at the problem.
Meanwhile, I saw a photo of ex trials rider Martyn Ashton- he of “Road Bike Party” and “falling from height and smashing his spine” fame- with his new handbike (have to love that level of not-quitting). That had Q-Rings on it, which is fascinating in itself.
I’ll stick to the graceful Campag rings that came with the bike for now though.
@mcsqueak
Ha! EddyB. sorta favors this: he would say, if you’re tired to “rest” one of your legs during a climb. It’s only partially idiotic.
I like the mini-rest idea though, damn smart of those first bike designers.
I’m glad I wasn’t drinking when I read this, otherwise I’d be cleaning up right now instead of typing. Wait… why am I not drinking right now?
Once I have conquered obesity, age, V deficiency and other defects of character and genetics I will look to replace my beloved Campagnolo crankset with these oblong monsters.
The q rings are fabulously smooth over traditional round rings, so get them bought. Stop comparing your efforts with pro cyclists too. I am sure there is a rule for that.
@mcsqueak
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 get the thteoretical physics of this, but I would think that the oval spin would be so out of the ordinary as to be distracting. I favor the V-meter and the round ring for judging the cadence and the tempo. However, no denying that Ms. Vos knows whereof she pedals. Anyhow, this luddite will stick with tradition and slog up the hills Sur La Plaque in the round…..unless, of course, I need to drop into the weenie ring.
If I understand this right what you are really saying is that the evolution of the bike should have stopped at the hobby horse?
Insert “have to this point evolved” but imagine the evolution of humans over the next 100,000 years if we only rode bicycles (with round chain rings) for transportation. I fear, however, that humans will evolve closer to those fat fucks depicted in Wall-E. Remember the ones shaped like large grapes and no skeletal structure?
To add to your bike position observation, Frank, much of the forward position makes a lot of sense for those riders with a forward position over/closer to the BB. An article from September of last year on Cyclingtips did a great job of discussing the power requirements, as well as pedal stroke, in the nuances between climbing and time trialing. What you’ve observed in the riders that predominantly use Qrings is spot on.
Here’s a relevant quote:
The complete article can be found here: http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/09/climbing-and-time-trialling-how-power-outputs-are-affected/
Overall, Qrings are very well suited for forward position riding, like time trialing, where the pedal stroke requirements are piston like and very vertical. Climbing tends to put us all further back in order to maintain a smoother and more consistent pedal stroke, which circular rings are more likely to provide.
Sorry if this isn’t the place to ask this but is it impossible to change my password from the one emailed to me?
I try it through site admin, doesn’t change; tried resetting it, just get ‘invalid key’.
nice to see the spider getting spanked at Volta a Catalunya even if it was by two cheats! Oh, and two young guns.
@VeloSix
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…
@VeloSix
Is this right? I’ve just climbed off the rollers after an hour of trying to smoothen out my stroke an deliver more power so oxygen is in short supply, so it’s possible that I’ve misunderstood you but my (unqualified) understanding was that power readings decrease the further you get away from the source of power generation hence slight differences between crank and hub based power meters on bikes and between measurements at the flywheel (IIRC) and the wheel for cars etc. Power is lost through inefficiencies in the drive train and the interface between the legs and the crank is part of that. At certain points in the stroke, we’re expending the energy, therefore creating the watts but they are not getting to the back wheel. Oval rings seek to minimize the time spent expending energy in return for no gain.
Would you like to try some of our amazing snake oil with your latest purchase of elliptical chain rings? It lubricates your arteries so there is less restriction for the blood to get to your muscles, giving you more efficient power output.
As a physio (another life now) and taking all the above comments into account, including motor patterns, the “dead spot” is also that short period when one muscle group (either up or downstroke) finishes contracting and as it does so places the opposing muscles on stretch, the optimum position for them to then start to contract from; and so the cycle (ha – no pun intended) continues. I suspect that with practice, as indeed we experience, the change becomes faster and smoother. dead spots are in a sense necessary for these transitions to happen, and attempts to smooth them out without placing opposing muscle groups in a stretch position may have no advantage.
I remember years (decades) ago when I switched from BioPace (which I had ridden for several years) back to round rings. It felt sooooo good! Have never been tempted to go non-round since.
Since it’s listed under “keeper sites” in the footer, I submit this link which is a good read on the topic and includes comments from Mr Osymmetric, Jean-Louis Talo, himself. Personally I like the idea, but given my prefered cadence seems to have me changing rings frequently, I value front shift quality too much to try them.
@VeloSix
”
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) ”
That pretty much sums up what my tiny little brain was thinking but couldnt put to words, I thank you for that.
Agree though that a benefit for any given individual on any given day may only be that the stroke is more efficient. The idiot ( refer – me) on the bike still makes the power.
This is the idea.
In running it is well known you can prove your running economy – essentially develop more power from the same cardio-vascular load (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_economy).
When Lance Armstrong came back from cancer he “was able to increase his muscle efficiency by 8 percent through hard and dedicated training. ” (http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html)
Err.. anyway. The idea with oval rings is that they improve your peddling economy. This isn’t entirely impossible.
Related, a review of the (very weird!) with some attempts to measure efficiency: Zencranks: http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/09/bikes-and-tech/reviews/reviewed-zencranks-pas-crankset_301441
@Chris
Only from the aspect of reducing friction. I don’t see it as possible to slap a different shaped ring on a bike, and all of a sudden it is now easier to make the same 400, or you magically gained 25 more watts. All things equal, changing the shape of your rings (in my understanding) will not do much of anything.
If anything, from the “dead spot” to the “prime hot spot” there is an added efficiency to the transition. Not really trying to bring more muscle groups into the mix, but getting the most out of the strongest. Just my theory.
But, what I do know, and is not theory; the energy to move the machine forward is always the same. There is no magic fix (other than reducing friction/resistance) to make more power (or even the same power easier) with less energy from its rider. An oval ring is not reducing friction or rolling resistance.
@Beers
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)
@beatarmy
I’d say stick with the beloved Campa kit until all us morons spend loads of cash and time proving out everything and verifying that round is actually better.
Myself, I’m just a little old retiree who has only returned to riding a couple of years ago. My entry bike had a compact triple. Now I’ve got quite the mash up, a 20 year old titanium frame of unknown origin with a Osymetric 52 and Qring 36, with Campy Record shifting it all. The science of the Osymetric intrigued me. Having barely any experience to compare, I will say that the Osymetric seems to give me better power when mashing, say 75-80 rpm. Trying to spin closer to 100 seems to be a wash at best. The feel (again given my lack of years riding) seems the same. The cranks still go in a circle, don’t they?
I wish there were some loaner program so people could try them and compare. Otherwise, all is just supposition and guessing, isn’t it?
@Ben
There was a great little half-pager in one of the local mags (or was it a national one) about diets and it basically had Beavis and Butthead’s diagram for picking a band name, except it had all the rave food and dietary restrictions all over the page. The gist was to draw a line from one end of the page to another, and you had the next fad diet. Mine said something like “By eating only cat brains and cutting out squirrel cum, I was able to lose 20 pounds while regaining the sex drive of a 15 year old fox.”
So that’s basically what’s happening now.
@VeloSix
I think you’re cutting to the chase, but what your reasoning is missing is how those 400W (yeah, right) are being converted into velocity – which is the only thing we really care about. This brings about the efficiency of the system, which I’m sure you understand.
400W into my pedals on my Graveur on a 6% grade on loose gravel yields a different speed from 400W into my pedals on my Strada iR on a 6% grade on smooth tarmac. Same energy coming from the human engine, but 20-30% difference in output due to loss in the system.
So the question is, does the shape of the ring affect the efficiency of the system. I didn’t get into this in the article because it was already a fucking thesis due to all the jokes I was busy telling, but the shape of the ring doesn’t change the size of the gear, so it’s unclear to me that it could matter at all in the end.
Yet, we universally agree that BioPace made us feel a swagger in our stroke, so it apparently does matter. At the same time, I’ve been unable to make or find a convincing position on my belief that riding in the big ring is more efficient than riding in the little ring (assuming the same gear size). Steve Westlake wrote a great article on this in Cyclist on the subject but the data from the field suggested that if there was an advantage, it was marginal and based mostly on chain tension and how much the links were bent going around a ring (less is better – i.e. the bigger the ring the more efficient but not so much that anyone but me can tell).
So if the 53 vs the 39 offers a marginal mechanical advantage, then what can a variation of a few percent in chainring diameter mean? I would have been fine with the Q-Rings because they felt fine pedaling them around; I didn’t like how often I felt out of my comfort zone pushing the gear around and that’s whey I dropped them.
@mcsqueak
This is kindasorta what BioPace attacked and why they put the maximum effective gear on the deadspot. They felt that by putting the minimum effective gear on the downstroke it would accelerate the foot (and leg) and build momentum that would carry the unit through the dead spot.
It didn’t work. If you need proof, go buy some BioPace rings off ebay for $0.02.
@ChrissyOne
Bien sûr, 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.)
@Ccos
How fast are you riding when you’re spinning at those RPM’s? This high cadence stuff may work for some but all of us have to remember this is an artifact of the blood-doping era. Spinning offloads the strain of going batshit fast from the muscles to the cardiovascular system (conservation of energy, people).
The methods and drugs to rebuild muscles are slower than those that rebuild the cardio system. If you’re taking EPO or getting an oil change every 10 days, then spinning a high gear is a great idea because you keep feeding the system, kind of like a credit card.
But for most athletes, there is a natural maximum efficient cadence and it will be somewhere between 70 and 100 RPM, depending on terrain. We should all train to be smooth enough that we can ride at a sustained 110 or 120 RMP, but our effective RPM should be found naturally and is likely a lot lower.
It’s funny, I’ve always ridden at 80 rpm or thereabouts. I was considered a spinner in the 80’s and 90’s and now I’m considered a masher. But nothing has changed for me, I’m still just riding how it feels most awesome.
@Ccos
Eddy B. Awesome. Its only as crazy as the idea that standing if you’re tired sitting and sliding forward if you’re tired siting back or sliding backward when you’re feeling tired sitting forward is stupid. You get to engage different muscles for a moment and that might be enough!
You wanna get rid of the “dead spot”, and start hating your bike at the same time? Ride some Powercranks for awhile and get back to me.
@HMBSteve
This is a noble position to take, my man. Very noble indeed. And Vos is one crazy-ass bitch. She might be part cyborg, who knows. Bitches be crazy but that crazy works for that one.
Vos uses Q’s on both her road and CX bike, and she’s not sponsored by them. In fact, based on what I know of those types of deals, she’s buying them and forcing the team to forgo a certain level of sponsorship because she’s not even repainting the rings.
[dmalbum: path=”/velominati.com/wp-content/uploads/readers/frank/2014.03.26.20.54.55/1//”/]
@frank
Fixed it for you.
I promise to take the single speed out more often and work on it….
@frank
Eddy B also had the fabulous “rocket bottle”. As I recall, you were to put flat Coke (a cola, not blow), a shot of whiskey, and some espresso in the bidon, to be consumed about 10K from the finish.
Booze n cycling, like peas n carrots since forever.
@frank
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:
@scaler911
Somehow I knew you were going to bring those things into the conversation.
@scaler911
Sounds like a weak approximation of pot belge , minus the speedball. Shall we call that a pot hollandaise?
@ChrissyOne
++1
Enter Powercam cranks:
I remember seeing these things advertised in cycling mags in the early 80s. When one crankarm was at 6 o’clock, the other was advanced to 1 o’clock. Basically, an over-engineered way to avoid developing a smooth stroke.
And don’t get me started on BioPace chainrings! Too late. After trying them for part of a season, I bought an entire new bike because the old one had been so defiled. So BioPace rings, Q-Rings, Isometric Rings or hyperbolic paraboloid rings, unless there is incontrovertible proof of their benefits, I’m sticking with my round rings.
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:
This
That isn’t true.
http://jeb.biologists.org/content/213/3/487.full.pdf shows that muscular coordination is a large limiting factor in power output. It’s easy to imagine that some movements for your limbs may be easier to co-ordinate than others.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1300991/ shows different muscle types produce different amounts of power using the same energy. It’s easy to imagine that a different pedal action may activate different muscles.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2506833 shows different cyclists have widely varying degrees of efficiency (how much energy is needed to produce the same power). It’s easy to imagine that a different pedal stroke may change efficiency.
I don’t know how well oval rings work. But I can see mechanisms which may let them work.
Personally I think the effect of them is probably so small that other things hide any effect they have which makes measurement close to impossible.
For example, any study of power/heart rate relationship will show that this hardly ever remains constant. If that doesn’t remain the same, how can one measure how hard someone is working for a given power level. Blood lactate might be a possibility, but that’s not an easy thing to do.
@frank
Best part. Fun and profitable article for this exact reason.
Not to minimize the significance of your experiments.
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).
@Chris
As oxygen deprived as you are, I believe you are right. That is the theory anyway.
@Brianold55
This is interesting; you are saying that with practice and with the right cadence a rider can eliminate the dead spot? That was indirectly what I found, I suppose – after riding for 30 years I am good a pedaling rounds, not ovals,
@scaler911
Wow, cool. When I was in grad school and had little kids I was often faced with tough deadlines and short periods of time to work. My “amateur speedball” consisted of two ounces of Jack Daniels and two ounces of espresso. Exactly those amounts. It was good (no, excellent) for two hours of intensive production. No more. More recently, I’ve experimented with such a thing on mountain bike rides, but it has never been nearly as effective as it was for getting some writing done–usually the opposite, sadly. I still recommend it for certain occasions off the bike, though.
We’re all sitting here raising conjectures and theories, but here’s a guy who tested things. He’s an engineer and one of the most obessive people around when it comes to drivetrain friction, responsible for the most comprehensive rolling-resistance database around – so much that Specialized sent their new tyres straight to him for an opinion.
Long story short (or long): Oval rings don’t really improve power output, even though a crank-based measurement system might say otherwise – because power is the same, but the way it’s calculated changed. At the same time, you’re no longer moving the feet at a constant circular velocity, which means you might be accelerating and slowing them down a tad, fighting more inertia than with round rings (which might explain Frank’s seemingly random Jour Sans). Most independent research and most more scientific anecdotal data seems to agree that oval rings aren’t any better – though they aren’t any worse usually, either. They’re just a bit more expensive.
There’s a dead spot inherent to all human movements. When we (well, I) run, about 90% of my stroke feels like a dead one – kicking back for propulsion and moving the foot forward for the next step are just about the only movements that serve a purpose by themselves, the rest just support the first two.
As long as humans pedal via two crankarms that drive a rotating cylinder, there will be a “top of the stroke” and “bottom”. An efficient rider will apply some power there as well – recruit your quads at the top and hamstrings at the bottom – or spin fast enough (as in, above 60rpm…) to get over it soon enough.