UKC

Any reason why not ? (other than price), From the reviews it looks like most cyclists with a half decent bike could benefit from them.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I remember running oval rings for a while years ago. Were the in-thing for a short time.

You getting some?

In reply to ChrisJD:

I was thinking about it - cheaper than a second wheel upgrade .

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I read something recently that said that while the new type were way better than the original design, to really get a benefit from oval rings they would need to be tailor made to your legs size/dimensions and pedal stroke.

If they look nice on your bike and you think they might work I'd get them, otherwise look at other shiny bits or gadgets that might make you even happier when riding. (what else could you get for the money?

Cheers

Toby

In reply to Jim Hamilton:
I've been riding 52-36 q rings on my road bike for six months. I got them for 30 quid so it was worth a punt. First ride I could feel a sort of pull over the top of the pedal stroke, this may have been placebo. After a ride or two they feel totally normal, I cannot feel any difference now at all. I don't feel less tired after a long ride, how you could actually quantify that I don't know. But I like them and have no complaints. It occasionally unships the chain after a quick descent that goes into something steep, so the gear change is quick from something large to small. Round rings on the same bike and set up doesn't do this, I imagine with some tweaking I could fix it but it on,y does it in that scenario so it is hard to recreated (that's with sram force 22 front mech or 5700 105 depending on bike -I swap my cranks from bike to bike as I have a power meter).

I have a fairly fluid pedalling stykle and ride with a high cadence, I can't say whether they have improved it, only that they are at least as good. I liked them straight away, adapted very quickly and also soon couldn't tell the difference. I ride them with the neutral position 3. Would I spend full RRP on them? Probably not, I think I'd rather spend the money on something else as they feel fine but I can't really say whether they making any discernible difference, but of course they were worth it for 30 quid. I do get lots of comments on them though!

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

absolute mare to fit

In reply to IMA:

Oh no, I was thinking it looked like an easy fit !

Thanks for replies all. RRP £170 ? I'm happy to spend a bit more than £30 as, seemingly, reviews all good, so will keep an eye out for some sort of deal.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I stumbled across this yesterday looking for something unrelated: http://lefthandedcyclist.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/why-hill-climbing-is-hard-o...

jk

In reply to Escher:

If you have a Power meter I assume you have a computer too? Have you not noticed any difference in stats since you got them, i.e. average cadence, speed up hills, ave. speed etc.? If not they wouldn't seem to confer any advantage (besides being a talking point) and come with the rather large disadvantage of an unshipping chain, which I seem to remember happened to Wiggo in a TT too (assume his bike was tuned as well as possible)?

In reply to jkarran:



I think you may need a certain sort of 'analytical' mind to wade through this!

In reply to Arms Cliff:

There are too many variables to control to be able to draw any firm conclusions. I trained to peak mid year and saw my fitness increase until July then saw a decline in my FTP then onwards. I also ate one too many pies so my weight increased and therefore my power to weight also went in the wrong direction. So unless all those things remained the same it is impossible to tell what effect Q-rings had. I expect that that would be the case for most cyclists, fitness is not static, cadence is easily trained just by focussing on a target number and average speed is hugely variable (one thing you notice when riding with power is how different average speed can be even when you are outputting the same).

If I was to blame what happened on the rings then I would say that they resulted in a decline in fitness, a reduction in average speed and a reduced ability to ride uphills but that wouldn't be true.

I haven't had any unshipping of the chain for quite a while. Whether thats coincidental or its down to a bit of fettling, I don't know. Wiggo was using a Osymmetric rings not Rotor Q-rings (as does Froome) and they have a much more extreme shape.

In reply to Escher:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I guess these things are meant to improve pedaling efficiency by reducing the dead spot? Sounds like you had a good pedaling technique to start with, and one would need those Vector style power meters (one on each crack) to see if there had been an improvement in this?

In reply to Arms Cliff:

I don't think Vectors would tell you how efficiently you pedal. The sampling rate is one or two times a crank revolution so doesn't tell you whether you putting out even power throughout the crank turn, and anyway if you watch the straight power number it jumps all over the place so to pace by power when riding you need to look at 3 or 10 second average.

In my opinion to improve pedalling efficiency you need to work on it specifically on the turbo or rollers and ride at a cadence above 100rpm. Getting feedback from power numbers isn't going to help all that much. Because of the all around the stroke resistance on a turbo or that you need to have a fluid pedaling style to balance on the rollers it encourages you to not stomp but apply it all round the stroke especially if you consciously think about pedaling in circles. I find after a good winter of proper turbo training that I can deliver a lot more power through high cadence efficient pedaling. Starting from my natural cadence I then increase the number by 5% over a month or so. Seems to work for me. So in my opinion oval rings may compliment a good pedaling style but to get one in the first place you should train it on the turbo.