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
Surely there are some disadvantages to non-round chainrings? If you set up the front derailleur to change optimally when the effective radius of the Q-Ring is in the middle of the range, won't it change less well if you happen to change when the maximum or minimum effective radius is passing the derailleur at that moment?
And what about the rear derailleur - doesn't that have to constantly adjust itself to compensate for the different length of chain being wrapped around the Q-Ring as it rotates? If that's true, doesn't that constant movement of the rear derailleur use up a small amount of energy, because it is resisted by the chain-tensioning springs and friction in its pivot?
Substituting round rings for non-round rings must change a smooth (constant angular velocity) pedalling motion into one consisting of accelerations and decelerations. How can this "make your spin cycle smoother", as Rotor suggest it does?
@DerHoggz
I think I'm finally starting to get what's going on - the ring is moving faster and slower while the crank moves at constant velocity. Still, the question for me is still if you wind up on the same average and you've therefor gained and lost throughout the revolution, what real tangible gain could there be.
So it comes down to economizing the use of the muscles in specific points of the stroke where they are most effective (if the ring is shaped right) which then still makes sense in principle.
But it also means it will be highly tuned to one kind of pedaling and less effective to others. Which explains why it didn't work for me as I spin in some cases and mash in others as determined by the terrain and how hard I'm going. But if you always pedal in a similar pattern throughout, then maybe it will work for you.
@frank
Yeah it is essentially about optimizing the different parts of the stroke.
I still haven't read the article, so I had no idea what direction you were approaching this from.
@frank
Presumably that's why there are a bunch of mounting holes rather than the usual five. They're just hoping that you'll pedal in the same way each time you go out.
If you do go out an mash one day and spin the next, this could open up a whole new range of N+1 opportunities, a bike set up in each of the OCP positions.
@Chris
Thta's like...911 times a hundred!
I'm not going anywhere near this, as I've been trying to justify/set aside funds to swap out a Campa compact crankset on one of my bikes for a few years. It works, but my legs hate, but...I could use this, that and this first...
@frank I've always wondered about this... I started watching and getting into cycling during the era of a certain cantankerous Texan, so when emulating the pros I began to look like a wind turbine. Of course, I learned from running as a youth that footspeed is key, so maybe there's a good reason for it? Then there's the VMH, who just mashes in the big ring no matter what.
I'm definitely of the opinion as a non-engineer that these sorts of things are just snake oil. But maybe they increase the amount of apparent V due to something going on in one's head. More V isn't a bad thing in that case, even if they look horrid.
The solution to avoiding dead spots in your pedalling action is obvious but requires a rethink of the drivetrain. Simply use fixed gun platforms with embedded piezoeletric materials. As you apply direct pressure a voltage is generated that is linked to to an electric motor in the rear hub. No one should have an issue with a motor as they're already employed in electronic derailleurs, and no one cares about them.
Now as you're just applying pressure there is no risk of dead spots. Dont need to use those weaker minor muscles now. Want to go faster? Push harder.
I'm an Electronics Engineer so am well qualified to offer this solution.
Also having done a common first year of engineering I'm uniquely qualified to offer my opinion on all things bike related; mechanical engineering, materials science, and civil engineering (a bike frame is just a moving span bridge).
You're welcome.
@DerHoggz
Hi Hogz,
I had this breathing problem myself, and read somewhere that it could be exercise induced asthma which could be cause by loss of magnesium during exercise. Long story short, I started taking mg supplements after each ride (about 400 mg), and use a diluted isotonic drink (isostar) from time to time during the ride, and this never bothered me any more.
Good luck!