Categories: Accessories and GearExportNostalgiaTechniqueTechnology

The Roundness of Being

To Q or not to Q that is the Q.

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.

frank

The founder of Velominati and curator of The Rules, Frank was born in the Dutch colonies of Minnesota. His boundless physical talents are carefully canceled out by his equally boundless enthusiasm for drinking. Coffee, beer, wine, if it’s in a container, he will enjoy it, a lot of it. He currently lives in Seattle. He loves riding in the rain and scheduling visits with the Man with the Hammer just to be reminded of the privilege it is to feel completely depleted. He holds down a technology job the description of which no-one really understands and his interests outside of Cycling and drinking are Cycling and drinking. As devoted aesthete, the only thing more important to him than riding a bike well is looking good doing it. Frank is co-author along with the other Keepers of the Cog of the popular book, The Rules, The Way of the Cycling Disciple and also writes a monthly column for the magazine, Cyclist. He is also currently working on the first follow-up to The Rules, tentatively entitled The Hardmen. Email him directly at rouleur@velominati.com.

Next Le Graveur: The Margins »

Previous « Velominati Super Prestige: Gent Wevelgem 2014

View Comments

Ben says:

Mar 26 2014 at 4:47 pm

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.
Brianold55 says:

Mar 26 2014 at 5:04 pm

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.
uptitus says:

Mar 26 2014 at 5:37 pm

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.
Puffy says:

Mar 26 2014 at 6:35 pm

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.
Barracuda says:

Mar 26 2014 at 6:56 pm

@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.
The Grande Fondue says:

Mar 26 2014 at 7:55 pm

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.

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
VeloSix says:

Mar 26 2014 at 7:57 pm

@Chris

@VeloSix

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)

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.

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.
VeloSix says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:10 pm

@Beers

@VeloSix

@mcsqueak

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?

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 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...

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)
frank says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:15 pm

@beatarmy

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.

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.
moondance says:

Mar 26 2014 at 8:18 pm

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?