The Roundness of Being

To Q or not to Q that is the Q.
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.

Related Posts

149 Replies to “The Roundness of Being”

  1. Also, there doesn’t seem to be too much of a correlation between round/oval preference and seating position. Rotor themselves give five mounting options for the rings to “fine tune and match your seat angle to the rings” as they put it.

    I ride relatively forward (smack in the middle of an inline seatpost) and time-trial at an effective 85-90 degree angle and didn’t appreciate my time on oval rings at all.

  2. There’s been a bunch of comparison implying no dead spot in running.  However, I suggest there is a significant dead area in the human running in that there is a slice of time when we are airborne.  That is definitely a dead spot.  The second dead point (in sprinting) is induced by the way the human form has evolved to land on the forefoot to absorb impact and tension up tendons for release as the stride develops.  However modern footwear induces bad running practice of heavy heel strike padded by said footwear.  As an aside though the human body has built in a point where age tells you not to run like that any more – that is where you try to run like you did at 25 and your achilles snaps as happened to me 3 years ago.

    The Perfect Runner, behind the scenes in Extreme Slow Motion from Niobe Thompson on Vimeo.

    @frank re 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).

    Oddly I was thinking about this the other day while on a ride and the whole theory seems flawed for me.  The flaw is that for a given net ratio if you are in a larger chainring then you will be in a smaller rear sprocket and that the net turn will cancel between chainring and cassette.  Further though it appears to me that the change in turn effect would be greater at the cassette than the chainring.  So for me if there was an effect it would appear it would support the opposite in that using a larger cassette sprocket combined with a smaller chainring would have the smallest net “bend”.

  3. @frank

    @HMBSteve

    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.

    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.

    3 / 3
    Q’in it up

    Slideshow:
    Fullscreen:
    Download:

    She’s using discs on her CX rig…

  4. Is it just me, or my observation see’s that there’s alot more chains dropping off than usual over the last couple of years or so? Biopace came and went, then oval is back and going? What next? Disc brakes on road bikes?!

  5. @VeloSix

    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.

    Your’re correct that the energy required to move an object is always going to be the same but inefficiencies between the point of generation and delivery have to be taken into account. Excess friction and rolling resistance aren’t the only inefficiencies that can affect that. Take a internal combustion engine for example; dead spots in the cycle have lead to the development of multiple cylinders firing in sequences. Without some serious genetic engineering to increase the number of available limbs, we can’t up the number of cylinders available but we can try to limit periods of inefficiency in the cycle.

  6. @frank I was a masher during the 80’s and early 90’s, and remained one upon my return to the fold in the early “aughts.” My transition to being a spinner happened when I upgraded my cassette from 5 to 10 choices. Not sure why exactly, but it feels right and all goes to shit when I try to muscle it at a lower (<90) cadence.

    Now, Charly Gaul was a spinner with only 5 choices and he was no doper. He was the "Angel" after all.

  7. @frank

    @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)

    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.

    I absolutely agree.  I can understand how they might add an efficiency  to the pedal stroke.  If I tried “one leg drills” and used my left leg.  (Which suddenly has me feeling like and uncoordinated babbling moron)  There is a awkward gap, every other stroke of so, big dead zone…  then kablam.. its back to powering the pedal… then not.   Its a constant feeling of chasing the drivetrain when using my left leg only.

    For my left leg to be so awkward alone, it must be somewhat inefficient in the pedaling on the road, although not consciously noticed with both gun pumping.

    My expectation of the different shaped rings, is they might counter these such inefficiencies.  This I can buy and reason out.  If I had the opportunity to “test” these, my first test would be some one leg drills in the trainer.

  8. @Chris

    @VeloSix

    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.

    Your’re correct that the energy required to move an object is always going to be the same but inefficiencies between the point of generation and delivery have to be taken into account. Excess friction and rolling resistance aren’t the only inefficiencies that can affect that. Take a internal combustion engine for example; dead spots in the cycle have lead to the development of multiple cylinders firing in sequences. Without some serious genetic engineering to increase the number of available limbs, we can’t up the number of cylinders available but we can try to limit periods of inefficiency in the cycle.

    Ture, so lets say the oval shape is doing one of two things.  Either getting more use of the muscles during the weakest point of the pedal stroke, or extending the time the muscles in the most powerful part of the stroke are generating force.  I certainly recognize there are pedaling inefficiencies, and maybe even brief increases in power outputs where they are eliminated.

    My school of thought however is this.  If you put real numbers to these rings, and indicate a power increase of some percentage.  Your body itself is still only capable a making a certain power number for so long.  If you’re a Cat 3, who makes 3.6 Watts/kilo at threshold, that number is still going to be the same after you slap some oval rings on.  So even though for a given gear and cadence you can point out an increase in your power output by installing these rings, you’re not suddenly going to make that power for any additional period of time than you could previously, because your physiology is still the same.  (This is just the way I see it, I’m not trying to prove what is ultimately just my personal theory)

  9. @VeloSix

    @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)

    Missing all etiquette rules as this is my 1st post before even introducing myself…(who cares anyway for another fat as**)
    Fully support above point: unless very controlled measurements are taken… we are talking about placebo effect.

    And this said… after using q-rings on the trainer I moved them to the road bike and…they feel great: I improved my best TT time in 5 secs over 1h. Take that for marginal gains!!!

    (Really, they feel great and they will stay on the #1 bike. For now…)

  10. Didn’t read the whole article, but I have an interest in Osymmetrics.  Not the point of this post though.

    While I am loath to self-diagnose, I experience this strange shortness of breath often on longer rides.  Maybe like 4hr in I get to where I can’t inhale deeply, but have to take smaller breaths or it feels like I just can’t get any air in.  In the back of my mind that sounds like some sort of asthma, and I had an inhaler for like a week when I was a kid for some reason I can’t remember.  Who wants to fuel my hypochondriac-ness?

  11. @TomasESDK

    @VeloSix

    @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)

    Missing all etiquette rules as this is my 1st post before even introducing myself…(who cares anyway for another fat as**)
    Fully support above point: unless very controlled measurements are taken… we are talking about placebo effect.

    And this said… after using q-rings on the trainer I moved them to the road bike and…they feel great: I improved my best TT time in 5 secs over 1h. Take that for marginal gains!!!

    (Really, they feel great and they will stay on the #1 bike. For now…)

    This makes total sense.  I’ve spent enough time staring at numbers in the trainer, that is the only place where I might determine and improvement.  Its the single most controlled environment I have, except I’m still building muscle.  I’ve only been doing this since August of 2012, so my numbers are still changing without switching any equipment.

  12. @DerHoggz

    Didn’t read the whole article, but I have an interest in Osymmetrics. Not the point of this post though.

    While I am loath to self-diagnose, I experience this strange shortness of breath often on longer rides. Maybe like 4hr in I get to where I can’t inhale deeply, but have to take smaller breaths or it feels like I just can’t get any air in. In the back of my mind that sounds like some sort of asthma, and I had an inhaler for like a week when I was a kid for some reason I can’t remember. Who wants to fuel my hypochondriac-ness?

    You certainly may have a variant of exercise associated asthma. Maybe it takes a while for your airways to become irritated, then become reactive. Is it worse during higher pollen times? That would be a clue. Having an inhaler is probably not a bad idea as long as it’s used properly.

    Hypochodriaism is more enjoyable when there’s a little bit of real pathology to stoke the fire. A buddy of mine carries an epi-pen because he’s had exercise associated anaphylaxis. He’s super fun to be around when he starts wheezing.

    I’m not a pulmonologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express…

  13. @Nate

    @frank

    @ChrissyOne

    @Nate

    Occasional high cadence roller sessions seem to me to be a much better way to eliminate dead spots.

    +1

    Seems like a layer of technology to deal with the problem would only ensure that it remains with you.

    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.)

    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:

    You win today.

  14. @The Grande Fondue

    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).

    Baboosh. This.

    @Optimiste

    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:

    Classic!!

  15. @tessar

    Also, there doesn’t seem to be too much of a correlation between round/oval preference and seating position. Rotor themselves give five mounting options for the rings to “fine tune and match your seat angle to the rings” as they put it.

    I ride relatively forward (smack in the middle of an inline seatpost) and time-trial at an effective 85-90 degree angle and didn’t appreciate my time on oval rings at all.

    Good stuff – I’ll read that article when I get a few minutes. I’ve also read the oval rings are less effective on tt bikes.

    I think my overall struggle with understand and believing the notion is the concept that with a fixed crank being forced around a perfect(ish) circle, how the shape of the chainring would change the efficiency of the stroke – especially when the gear size doesn’t change either. That said, if its true that it does impact it, then my theory about bigger rings having more leverage would also be true, so I kind of want it to be the case!

  16. @Teocalli

    Oddly I was thinking about this the other day while on a ride and the whole theory seems flawed for me. The flaw is that for a given net ratio if you are in a larger chainring then you will be in a smaller rear sprocket and that the net turn will cancel between chainring and cassette. Further though it appears to me that the change in turn effect would be greater at the cassette than the chainring. So for me if there was an effect it would appear it would support the opposite in that using a larger cassette sprocket combined with a smaller chainring would have the smallest net “bend”.

    You’ve got this backwards; you have to keep the gear size constant, so you’d be in big-big front to back, so there is less bending of the chain on both the front and back, not to mention a better mechanical advantage to turn the wheel while riding in a bigger sprocket on the back. If the theory isn’t flawed, its win-win to stay in the big ring longer.

    But have a look at your derailleur and check out how much the chain is bending there. That’s why Fabian rides those enormous pulleys on his rear mech.

  17. @Optimiste

    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:

    If only one could mount a mechanical internal combustion motor as well.

    Wait…

  18. @DerHoggz

    Also, how are your shoes that white?

    They are new, for one thing. Also I always cover them in the wet.

    As for your asthma, I have that same thing especially in the cold. Its actually a sign that I’m getting in shape; I always felt it was that I’m hitting a deep part of my lungs and it only “feels” like you’re not getting a full lung – you’re still breathing as deeply as usual, you’re just not breathing as deep as your newfound capacity.

    I don’t think that makes sense.

    Also, inhalers are easy to get and lightweight. Go see your doctor, see what he says, and get one. In the cold I puff up on the way out the door and take it with me in case. In the summer I leave it at home.

  19. Funny that no one mentioned the craziest of them all : http://www.ogivalring.com/epages/fe4eca74-8a5d-11df-ad56-000d609a287c.sf/fr_FR/?ObjectPath=/Shops/fe4eca74-8a5d-11df-ad56-000d609a287c/Categories/Principe

  20. @frank

    @Ccos

    First the tangent: The 80″²s-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.

    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″²s and 90″²s and now I’m considered a masher. But nothing has changed for me, I’m still just riding how it feels most awesome.

    Have you ever read this, Frank? http://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/pedalling-technique-what-is-best/ Pretty interesting.  I think I’m a heel dropper (good to know that The Prophet was one too) or Average Joe (Hinault…I think Tommeke is one as well ) according to this.

  21. @DerHoggz

    My VMH has asthma and just makes sure she brings her inhaler with her when we go out. We ride in 90+ heat and humidity during the summer and she can go for hours – not fast, but she rides.

  22. @frank

    Would that make me a Cat.4 with a TUE?  Not sure how I feel about that.

    @cyclebrarian

    I think the drop of your shoe also has a lot to do with how you position your feet throughout the pedal stroke.  Not in any way I could actually explain, but I got shoes with less drop and it definitely felt like I was doing something different with my heel angles.

  23. @DerHoggz

    Seems to me that moving your ankle too much is just wasted energy. I generally try to keep my foot in its natural position, meaning that when I lift my foot, the toes are down a bit when my foot is relaxed. That’s more or less the lowest my ankle gets when I pedal, though my heel comes up during the upstroke. Most good shoes these days provide that shape to the foot, so it seems we’re getting away from the shoes with the more articulated sole.

  24. @unversio

    @cyclebrarian We’re all supposed to keep our heels down.

    Not according to Jacques Anquetil – he was a notorious toes-down, heel up kinda guy.

    At the end of the day, it’s what works for each of us an individuals.

  25. @frank

    Lest we forget about these.

    I used to get some coaching from a chap who used to use those back in the day. He quite likes the Rotor QXL rings but had problems with the Osymetrics.

  26. @frank

    Hogg’s article pretty much says that we pedal the way we pedal naturally (all processed through our central nervous system) and the trick is to do it in the most effective and efficient way possible. He also says that we can practice our pedal stroke, but we’ll eventually we’ll go back to what we naturally do under duress.

  27.  

    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″²s and 90″²s and now I’m considered a masher. But nothing has changed for me, I’m still just riding how it feels most awesome.

    Hi @Frank

    Ok, I’ve seen you state your theory about high cadence being a result of the blood doping era quite a few times now and, with respect, it grates every time.

    Developing leg speed as a training is something that has been around for long before the blood doping era.  There’s good reason why Cadets and Juniors are on restricted gearing.  It’s so that they can develop muscle memory of leg speed to aid them for the future when they are able to spin bigger gears.  This makes them faster as they get older and progress.

    Similarly for those who race on the track, the ability to develop high cadence is critical to success as you will know, you can’t change gears in a points race.  If you watch endurance events on the track, you will notice that riders are spinning usually in the 110-120 rpm range or more during the main portion of the race and when sprinting in the 160-180 rpm range.  It doesn’t follow that track riders are all blood dopers.

    Some people are spinners, some mashers.  I’m a spinner, you’re a masher.  Painting the other half of the riding population based on their leg speed as dopers isn’t right in my opinion.

  28. @DerHoggz

    Didn’t read the whole article, but I have an interest in Osymmetrics. Not the point of this post though.

    While I am loath to self-diagnose, I experience this strange shortness of breath often on longer rides. Maybe like 4hr in I get to where I can’t inhale deeply, but have to take smaller breaths or it feels like I just can’t get any air in. In the back of my mind that sounds like some sort of asthma, and I had an inhaler for like a week when I was a kid for some reason I can’t remember. Who wants to fuel my hypochondriac-ness?

    Ok, athsma is actually the feeling that it is hard to breathe, your suck pipes are constricted. So like breathing through a straw. Often accompanied by wheezing noise, and straining to breathe. A relieving inhaler would fix this on the road.

    This is different from straight out breathlessness, where you can’t take in enough air to fuel the legs, which often forces you to rapid breathing. This could come about from many reasons, not least VO2max, fitness, heart strain (can be impacted by electrolyte balances too). Atrial fibrillation can come on when your physiology is stressed, and would lead to the breathless/dead legs feeling but would show on any HR monitor, and you’d be lying in a ditch.

    Enough fuel for your hypocondriatic fire??? Go see a doc if concerned.

  29. @frank

    @tessar

    Also, there doesn’t seem to be too much of a correlation between round/oval preference and seating position. Rotor themselves give five mounting options for the rings to “fine tune and match your seat angle to the rings” as they put it.

    I ride relatively forward (smack in the middle of an inline seatpost) and time-trial at an effective 85-90 degree angle and didn’t appreciate my time on oval rings at all.

    Good stuff – I’ll read that article when I get a few minutes. I’ve also read the oval rings are less effective on tt bikes.

    I think my overall struggle with understand and believing the notion is the concept that with a fixed crank being forced around a perfect(ish) circle, how the shape of the chainring would change the efficiency of the stroke – especially when the gear size doesn’t change either. That said, if its true that it does impact it, then my theory about bigger rings having more leverage would also be true, so I kind of want it to be the case!

    I believe that the oval ring actually does change the effective gear, making it larger at the apogee of the ellipse.

    I’m sure that this is covered off by someone else previously but the thinking is that that largest effective gear is pushed where the lever of your largest muscle group is utilised at the most efficient portion of the stroke. This provides a relative power surge in the stroke that allows the bio-mechanical dead spot to happen without any loss of momentum.  It means that there is a small spike in power output that overcomes the much lesser output in the dead spot.

  30. @fignons barber

    @cyclebrarian

    Nice Wayne Stephenson mask, by the way. These days, you don’t see too much l’hommage to Fort Wayne.

    Thanks, man. I’ve been a diehard Flyers fan since I was a kid. I’m as obsessive about them as I’ve become about cycling. Both of which thrill my girlfriend.

  31. What if this is just a matter of; it doesn’t matter how long your ring is, it matters how well you use it….

  32. @Ccos

    First the tangent: The 80″²s-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.

    Lots of riders have saddle far forward and they are not slow as far as I can see. Lemond formulas worked for him but it doesn’t mean they work for all of us.

  33. @TommyTubolare

    I don’t have much setback going, and when I tweak my saddle back, I just end up on the nose anyway.  So I discovered there is a spot relative to the BB where I naturally go to and I just set my saddle to that.

  34. @frank

    @DerHoggz

    Seems to me that moving your ankle too much is just wasted energy. I generally try to keep my foot in its natural position, meaning that when I lift my foot, the toes are down a bit when my foot is relaxed. That’s more or less the lowest my ankle gets when I pedal, though my heel comes up during the upstroke. Most good shoes these days provide that shape to the foot, so it seems we’re getting away from the shoes with the more articulated sole.

    That is a great photo and an interesting point you make about keeping your feet flat.

    I was on a ride last summer with @scaler911 and one of his teammates, and his teammate was behind me in our ‘paceline’. Later he mentioned that he noticed I was pushing down on the pedals with my feet angled down (toes down/heel up) rather than flat.

    I think of that from time to time and try to pedal while keeping my feet flat, but it just doesn’t feel right to me. Not sure if it’s just sloppy form or how my body works.

  35. @ChrissyOne

    @Optimiste

    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:

    If only one could mount a mechanical internal combustion motor as well.

    Wait…

    A motor?  On a bike?  A “motorbike” if you will?  Now you’re just talking nonsense.  It’ll never catch on.  But this…this has potential, and would definitely eliminate the dead spots in your pedal stroke.

  36. @frank

    @the Engine

    She’s using discs on her CX rig…

    Like most of them, they have two and oddly they seem to cross the finish line on the one with cantis.

     

     

    Vos, VOS…”V” Over Supply?

  37. @mouse

    @mouse

    @frank

    @tessar

    Also, there doesn’t seem to be too much of a correlation between round/oval preference and seating position. Rotor themselves give five mounting options for the rings to “fine tune and match your seat angle to the rings” as they put it.

    I ride relatively forward (smack in the middle of an inline seatpost) and time-trial at an effective 85-90 degree angle and didn’t appreciate my time on oval rings at all.

    Good stuff – I’ll read that article when I get a few minutes. I’ve also read the oval rings are less effective on tt bikes.

    I think my overall struggle with understand and believing the notion is the concept that with a fixed crank being forced around a perfect(ish) circle, how the shape of the chainring would change the efficiency of the stroke – especially when the gear size doesn’t change either. That said, if its true that it does impact it, then my theory about bigger rings having more leverage would also be true, so I kind of want it to be the case!

    I believe that the oval ring actually does change the effective gear, making it larger at the apogee of the ellipse.

    I’m sure that this is covered off by someone else previously but the thinking is that that largest effective gear is pushed where the lever of your largest muscle group is utilised at the most efficient portion of the stroke. This provides a relative power surge in the stroke that allows the bio-mechanical dead spot to happen without any loss of momentum. It means that there is a small spike in power output that overcomes the much lesser output in the dead spot.

    Maybe I don’t understand the meaning of the term “effective gear” because the gear size does not change. What theoretically does change, however, is the fulcrum giving you better leverage at certain points of the stroke.

    @mouse

    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″²s and 90″²s and now I’m considered a masher. But nothing has changed for me, I’m still just riding how it feels most awesome.

    Hi @Frank

    Ok, I’ve seen you state your theory about high cadence being a result of the blood doping era quite a few times now and, with respect, it grates every time.

    Developing leg speed as a training is something that has been around for long before the blood doping era. There’s good reason why Cadets and Juniors are on restricted gearing. It’s so that they can develop muscle memory of leg speed to aid them for the future when they are able to spin bigger gears. This makes them faster as they get older and progress.

    Similarly for those who race on the track, the ability to develop high cadence is critical to success as you will know, you can’t change gears in a points race. If you watch endurance events on the track, you will notice that riders are spinning usually in the 110-120 rpm range or more during the main portion of the race and when sprinting in the 160-180 rpm range. It doesn’t follow that track riders are all blood dopers.

    Some people are spinners, some mashers. I’m a spinner, you’re a masher. Painting the other half of the riding population based on their leg speed as dopers isn’t right in my opinion.

    Being ABLE to spin and its utility under circumstances is obviously a fundamental principle of cycling and everyone should be able to spin (and practice it) up to 120-130 at least, and higher if you can.

    What I’m saying about doping is a the influence of a rider of 2 meters and 80 kilos (Indurain) spinning up l’Alpe holding Pantani’s wheel. To go fast uphill like that, a rider can put the load on their muscles, or their cardio. The muscles take days to recover from a hard effort, but if you’re taking EPO or getting a transfusion, you can repair your cardiovascular system virtually overnight.

    If you do any research at all into what Ferrari was doing, and why he was such an evil genius (surely he got his degree at evil medical school) it was precisely that: he sorted out that you can train yourself to spin at 100rpms up any climb and just keep toping off the blood levels. A non-doping rider can also do it, but you’ll fry yourself after a few days of doing it.

    My point is that the amazing amount of people riding up climbs in high cadences is an artifact of the Pros doing it but we’re (hopefully) not doping so you should just find a cadence that works for you and if that’s high, then great but if it’s lower like 70 then that’s great too.

  38. @frank

    It depends on what you mean by gear size.  In a round system gear inches would be constant for all intervals of the stroke.  With non-round the rollout for two different arbitrary sections of equal angle could be different.  It actually is picking up more chain for a given angle of rotation in the “power zone” compared to the low spot.

  39. Oh wow, a black & pink Cannondale! I didn’t know this. My first true road bike was a 2nd hand mango Cannondale R800. Damn, that seemed like the best bike of all time when I got it, having never really ridden a true road machine.

    I too try to let my foot stay in it’s natural position when I pedal. When I get tired though, I vary things, try to pull up more than I push down, raise/lower my heel, etc. This is just to change things up, keep the legs and muscles happy.

    Can someone remind me – why again are they allowing guys to wear all black or dark grey rain jackets? I though the point of the clear capes was to allow their jersey numbers to be seen. I sure as hell know it was hard as trying to figure out riders at MSR on Sunday with half the peloton in black jackets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.