Johan Bornman

Fortunately this is not true. If the two of you were stomping on the same pedals yes, but you're not, you each have your own crank and still exert one man's force per crank. You won't find better cranks than Shimano's. Besides, strong enough is strong enough.

Hey Jaws Supersport Cycles distributes Selle Italia. I just looked on their pricelist and the Rolls is not listed. I think it is extinct and you'll have to look at old bike shops to find some new old stock somewhere. If you like the Rolls, the old Selle Italia Turbo circa 1980s, will also appeal to you. Some have the gold, others are sans bling. All my bikes have Turbos on them. Actually I lie, some of my bikes (3) have Turbos on them. They are compatible with me.

Tim writes: Ithink the guilty party in this case is Mr Bornman who called the rise and fall of the bicyce chain an elastic system.. Johan: Tim, don't put words in my mouth to advance your crusade. If you look at my quote, I said "unlike an elastic system...."

Pablo writes: We hope sooner or later to have this complete study published, but of course, more research will be needed... For example real racing data instead lab. Johan: Please stick to the lab. Racing data cannot improve on a controlled environment. Pablo: Meanwhile, 20 years old Marianne Vos, Biomechanics student, will go on colecting tittles (I hope so) on Q-Rings. Now she is No. 1 in the world ranking and World Champion and European Champion... Johan: Marianne will win on Biopace rings, round rings, black rings and purple rings. Just because an athlete uses Nike, it doesn't mean he or she had the advantage because of the shoes. Lets not confuse sponsorship with science.

No No Willehond. Give Pablo some slack here. He's debating in his second or perhaps even third language and lots is lost in translation. His point is right if you give him lattitude for the language problem.

Pablo writes: I disagree again. You don't need am elastic system to have an energy return: throw a ball vertically up, and will go back in some seconds. Johan: Yes, but remember, the only way it can return energy is if that return energy can be converted into tension which is 90 degrees away from the directionof the ball (chain)'s travel. I.e. pressing down in the centre of a chainring does not put any energy into the chain. The reason you are right is because your chainring is oval. Since the return cycle then finds the chain's downward force perpendicular to the chain's direction of travel but in a position offset from the centre, energy is in fact returned. It is like pressing down on the slope of a cam. You are not right because of the inelastic example but because the chainring is oval. The poster who then raised this issue originally is wrong. We both argued as if the chainring is round but still lifting the chain up and down. Therefore the net energy expended in lifting the chain up and down is zero. Pablo writes: Anyway, if this energy lost is too small that can be covered by the bearings, seals, chain efficiency, freewheel etc, why to lose time in it? Johan: I talk about it because you devised an experiment to compare energy losses. Your experiment wont work because frictional losses are larger than the measured losses and therefore obscured. Like I said, it is was an argument of principle, not quantity.

Gruppo - slang for groupset. I'm referring to the FH 7801 rear freehub. It has a new aluminium body with large ridges that are supposedly more immune to cassette bite-in. Nic kel plating is very, very important. It makes the chain pretty and shiny, which makes you go much much faster. Nickel is a bit like chrome, but not as shiny. In the view of my limited pocket, shiny chains are a waste of money. They last just as short as dull non-plated chains and look terrible when they're oily. Cheap chains look terrible at all times. Johan Bornman2007-08-03 08:55:13

Ivan writes: Johan I must correct your comment they are not expensive. Expensive is in the eye of the beholder. In fact they are less expensive than some of the standard 'high'end chain rings available at present. But Q Rings have definite advatage no matter what you say. Johan: They are more expensive than the stuff I use - BBB. Ivan: May I ask if you have tried or fitted any or even seen them. If you have you will be impressed at the quality of the workmanship, engineering and style. Johan: I have seen them and ridden a distance with them. They feel like oval rings. Style is irrelevant in our discussion. Workmanship also, unless it affects the function. Engineering...kinda the same things as workmanship. There is no real engineering genius there, standard CNC stuff with some anodising which is superflous and adds to the cost. Ivan: If you are skeptical about Rotor systems are you open to any other advances in bicycling technology? Johan: I am open to advances. Unfortunately I have seen very, very few in the last 20 years. More gears is not an advance, just in case you ask. Ivan: It seems with cyclists weght , power, carbon fibre are okay to advances but where the real problems are i.e. in the pedalling action everyone is closed to the fact that this can be improved Johan: This is the thing. Q-rings are a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Yes you can. On the latest Dura Ace you cannot mix sprockets from other gruppos, because they've realised that to have an aluminium freehub body, you need large indents. But the rest is perfectly compatible. The only difference on the chain is the nickel plating. On Dura Ace all the links are nickel plated. On Ultegra only the outside ones and on lower end chains none.

I wish I could have jumped onto this wagon a bit earlier. But Vodacom's data lines were down for two days and I'am playing catch-up. Hence the flood of posts.

Ivan writes: mm Johan its not all perception, its fact. If you can you less force to move a distance you will use less energy. Your effeciency improves your lactates reduce and so on, so on, so on ,so on Effort = force times distance. If you apply less force over less distance, you put in less effort. No matter how you shuffle the equation, you'll get the same thing. But I tell you what. Explain to us how you improve the efficiency in this system by using oval rings. But, start with a definition of efficiency.

Fandacious writes: The q-rings is more about the motion of your legs, rather than cycling. If you look @ steam trains some of them moved over to eliptical shaped gears... " Ok, perhaps you can find a picture of such a gear for us somewhere? I am no steam train driver, but all the steam trains I have seen have no gearbox. The piston connects to a wheel via a conrod. It is a direct drive system with the one gear - the wheel - being perfectly round. Johan Bornman

Fanie writes: Bikemax - . Obviously work = Force x distance. But q-rings enables you to generate that force more effectively thus higher force = higer work ceteris paribus " Fanie, there is no increase in efficiency in the system. The efficiency remains the same, all that's happing is that you're pedalling somewhat easier (that's to an effective lower gear) in some spots. Work = force times distance, no matter what colour you paint it. SAying otherwise is crimen falsi. Johan Bornman

Ivan says: "Bikemax. This article is relating to Rotor Cranks NOT Q rings. Rotor Cranks is a complete system where the crank arms'move' eliminating the deadspot. It sounds like this guy has not ridden a set but rather hides behinds theories which have been proved otherwise. The Rotor Crank riders climb better faster and easier than normal cranks. Are you guys willing to do some testing on Q Rings or Rotor Cranks? I am willing to loan you a set to prove the workings thereof." Ivan, it is exactly the same thing - a reduction in leverage at a certain point. If you do that with a crank that gets longer and shorter with each cycle, an elliptical chainring, an elliptical rear sprocket or a gearbox that shifts up and down with each revoltion (or several times per revolution), it is the same concept. Q-Rings are non-round. There's no other magic to it other than that single fact. THEY ARE NON ROUND. Lending someone a pair will not do the trick. The physics is clear and people's perceptions don't come into it. Johan Bornman

Worchester Wheelers says: "As he says, to go up a hill, FORCE x DISTANCE. If you become more pedal efficient (either by improving your pedal stroke, or a set of Q-rings in this case) surely you will be producing more FORCE at the same effort, or vise versa, you would need less effort to produce the same FORCE? Efficiency is not used in its right context here. You're not becoming more efficient in the flat spot of the ring, you're just pedalling easier. However, you're also going forward slower in that part of the cycle. But you already know this, in a big sprocket at the back (same as a flat spot on a chainring) you pedal easier but don't go as fast. You're not gaining anything, just varying your speed. There is no perpetual motion and that's it. Forget about the poll, do the math. Opinions are just that. You're right about no-one bing unhappy with their Q-Rings. They're expensive and Newton's Fifth Law states that Expresses Happiness is directly proportional with the cost of the item. Johan Bornman

Ivan, they may not look like Biopace, but non-round is non-round. Their intention is the same - to reduce the leverage at one or other point in the rotation. No matter how you phrase it, that's their purpose. Johan Bornman

Pablo, I have to disagree with your assessment of energy returned when that chain is dropped the 30mm. It is not returned to the system, but actually lost. Unlike an elastic system such as a tyre or wheel that gives when you're pedalling, this is an inelastic loss. We're talking minute quanties of energy lost here, but it's the principle that's being argued here, not the quantity. Your example of spinning the crank is totally bogus. Since the energy lost is so small, friction in the system (bearings, seals, chain efficiency, freewheel etc) is far, far larger than the energy lost due to the chain being dropped and picked up each revolution. You cannot prove it by your method. Johan Bornman

Ivan, I'm afraid all your examples of longevity are anecdotal. Durabiltiy in chainrings is a direct function of material hardness, chain hygiene and distance. None of the examples you mention help us in understading how durable those rings are. The fact that Richard or Cashandra has then and are happy is meaningless. I'd like to see proper comparative tests, not subjective stories. One way of avoiding the test is simply to do a Rockwell hardness test on each of the rings and compare. The hardest will last the longest. Johan Bornman

Ivan, you missed the Guy in Pink's point completely. He argued that lifting a 100g chain X amount of times consumes a certain amount of energy. This lifting action comes from the high/low vertical position of the chain. You are arguing output power, something completely different. He's talking fatigue over a distance, you're talking immediate output. Johan BornmanJohan Bornman2007-08-03 06:58:12

Princess Writes: "I ride with them and they GREAT...you save alot more energy !" Princess, they don't save you energy, you're just imagining it. Calculating the energy required to move a known mass over a known distance is an easy scientific calculation. To move you and your bike forward with Q-rings, hiking boots, by pulling yourself along a rope or using standard round rings all require the same energy. They merely feel different and therefore you perceive an energy saving but I assure you, there is none. Johan Bornman

It is not only used on womens' bikes, but also on bikes with unusual frames, such as the guitar frame, Y-frame and other crazy inventions. It has a cutesy name like a T-bone or something. Just go to your friendly Bike Caddy shop and ask for a t-bone-thingy. They'll know exactly what you're talking about. JB

>>>>Honestly though, how many guys go out and buy something because a pro rides it? In my club, about 25%. They won't admit it but they will tell you that these wheels/cables/tyres are the same as pro XYZ rides or rode in the Giro or tour. When it comes to trying to sell people sensible wheels, they always hanker after the silly stuff the pro's ride. What is really interesting is looking at the stuff the pro teams fit to their bikes for the Paris Rubaix. When last have you seen 36-spoke box-section rims, steel forks and the like? In the 90's. No, in the PR in April. JB

Do these have freewheels or are they fixies? JB

That doesn't surprise me. Their reviews of products are equally stupid. some of the reviewers there claim they can feel the difference between a 72 degree and 73 degree head tube angle. When challenged to explain how they felt it, i.e. what are the symptoms, they were stunned and chose to leave it at that. JB