Ivanb

You will feel it different when you go back to regular round rings. The round rings feel harder to ride specially on the hills. Remember on spin bike the front wheel is weighted so it hard to get a good assumption of comparison as that has big influence in spinnig very different from riding a bike. No way will your pedal stroke get worse. It is only harder to ride round rings and you need to work harder to get through the dead spot. that is one aspect that immedialtey proves the benefits of Q Rings against round rings. It is always noticed when going back to the round rings.

I only wish those who ride them and voted either good or bad would comment and say why they are good or bad.

I would say of course look at the Rotor Agilis Cranks, SABB and q rings. www.impressions.co.za

just to be 100% sure ill be using my cranks with the Q rings? Yes you can use your own cranks the store will need to know which shimano, fsa compact or campag. We also have our own cranks. Agilis http://www.rotorbike.com/2006/agilis.htm

[weekend? The concept is not far off but there are a couple of considerations a) The Shimano version does exactly that too. The Q-Ring just moves the ring about 15 degrees further round. Is that going to make such a difference to a concept that Shimano dropped because it had no noticeable effect. b) W.r.t. the 1 speed vs 10 speed argument. This is more like 9.999 vs 10 spd and that is the whole question - does it make enough difference that it is even noticeable?? As far as I know and stand to be corrected. It was dropped because it hurt the knees and the feeling was very bouncy. They had the big portion of the blade in the dead spot unlike the Rotor System. Rotor also has the OCP which allows you to position the blade to suite your riding. see http://www.rotorbike.com/2006/q_previous.htm http://www.rotorbike.com/2006/qringgen.htm

A few years ago we set up financial planning and advise for pro athletes. This covered medical aids life insurance disablity etc. The most important was what athletes did with their money so they were advised on investments etc as one package. This was mainly with rugby and runners. We are now completing a general athletes profile: I would like to know some information: Are all pro cyclists only cycling or do you have other jobs? Have you had regular injuries or accidenst from cycling? Do you have adequate income form your soort as a profession? How many hours do you as a cyclist pro or social ride a week? What % of these hours are done on the road? Do you have adequate medical aid and life cover? What is an affordable premium for you on a medical aid?

This is an old coment see previously for many reasons why they not being used. They main is the power of the 2 big guys financially and not allowing another brand in combination with their products. Colnago Have them on their bikes, Sram allow them, and Cannondale has some on their TT bikes.

Ok then you will have to wait. Studies will not be long now. There are new ones being done and we are setting a few up here in SA.

Physics ?? Cmon Ivanb - you are in over your head here. The premise of your product is that standard elipsoidal chainrings do not transfer all the power of the rider to the wheel (apart from losses through drivetrain) and that somehow Q rings mysteriously free up this lost power and translate it into increased output and therefore increased speed. The problem is that there are no studies that demonstrate that strandard rings do not work efficiently. ''If there are no studies that say they are not effient are ther eany that sya they are? Then why the hype for studies that Q rings do.'' The other issue that you have not addressed is the amazing ability of Q rings to increase the output of a rider via a change in the phase of his/her pedal action despite the fact that their cardiovascular ability remains the same. '' We have told many times why they do 'I say this in simple not scientific terms' it is because of the more effecient and easier pedaling action, lactates are reduced.'' You can market this all you like but saying - "try it and you will see" even though you cannot explain why, just does not cut it IMO. I understand your point of veiw but if you are in the training business why not look at all possibilites to assist your athletes? I know you are in favour of Power tarining but then if you are saying laws of physics cannot be changed why use train to increase Power as most cyclists are doing when you ask them about Power??

. The reason why the laws of physics are called "laws" is because they cannot be violated. Not by your so-called "reality" either. Energy cannot be created, it can only change form. No amount of levers, gear ratio's etc, can ever change this. If these laws could be violated, then we would see things like perpetual motion! I am not a physicist. I tried to explain the workings in a simple way not physics But I thank you for the comments as you answered the questions in your terms showing here that the q rings do have a benefit and thats exactly what we have said.

i must say I am impressed with all the comments and they are all good for everyone and the end the cyclists will decide.

[quote name=Johan Bornman Fortunately this is not true. If the two of you were stomping on the same pedals yes' date=' 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. [/quote] Its amazing because a new kid is on the block they can't be good enough. I am sure if Shimano, Campag or BBB brought out this technology the opinions would be different.

The only advantage I can see in this BB is the fact that you can now drop in another bearing cartridge. All the hoohee about them offering longer bearing life is nonsense. Cartridge bearings, as used in most BBs nowadays are sufficiencly pre-loaded to not "hang" loose at the top with downward force on the crank, making maximum use of the bearing life available in this design. All this design has managed to do is just add another dynamic joint into the set-up, with the first being the B/BB cup threaded interface and the second the plain bearing added to the setup. Expect it to creak and become sloppy as it wears. The plain bearing there can't lubricate itself and will merrily grind away at itself. New, large-diameter BB axles are sufficiently stiff not to have to design a dynamic joint to compensate for its flex. I predict this design will not survice. You can have your opinions but don't call it nonsense until you have tried and tested.

I apologise for saying rounded and not stripped. I beg to differ because it does work. It is not a permanent solution but an option to revive old frames.

Bigger oval in the power stroke 56 teeth equivalent ther fore more gear ratio, producers more power more speed, smaller gear in dead spot which requires less power and benefits from a higher speed or acceleration through this spot which is usually the hardest part a cyclist pedals through, usually using most of his energy and or power. The results in an easier ride bigger power, less lactates and better effeciency. The dead spot is affectively trying to go forward while driving down vertically. simple enough ?

There are definite gains from physics. But the physicists here dont see and won't try them out to see. If we claimed 'physic'al advantages and they were not true imagine!!! Oh well science is science, reality is reality may the best result be for the cyclists.

Yes they are fully certified and all

yip I have to what canI say it all in the fun of it. I mean no harm but to stimulate the conversation andtaht I believe in what I do You will see results soon I hope from Hubbers Thanks for your input

mmmm willehond is lighter and stiffer better? You want lighter and stiffer look at the Agilis cranks and the N1 stem www.rotorbike.com