Windbreaker

From the study - "Even with the crank orientated in the optimal position the Q-Ring performances are disappointing and remain very weak."

Shamelessly hijacking the forum for your own personal financial gain. This is bullsh*t.

So how much you paying to keep this oner going?

And there are many in the cycling community that will argue that most of what Speed Devil describes with respect to pedal stroke makes no difference whatsoever. Any gains are as a result of concentrating/focusing and that alone causes you to keep your applied power on the pedals at a higher level. I am slowly coming to the same conclusion, but still not convinced .

www.analyticcycling.com Click on the speed & acceleration calcs

IvanB, I was seriously considering getting myself a set of Q-Rings Not because they will give me extra power. I know enough about the laws of physics to understand that is just not possible. But because I believe that there are some factors that are not completely/adequately addressed by looking at power in isolation (I have no studies to refer to - it's just the way I reason it all down) and that there may be an element of savings in the transfer of the power to the drive-train. My gut feel that any savings would be so low that they would not show above "noise". But I was tempted. After having read your last few postings (and GoLefty's crap too) I have changed my mind and no Q-Rings will come near a bicycle of mine. If you can make such blatantly false claims then simply try to deny responsibility for it then I can't trust a word of what you say.

I would love to see it.. You are more than likely referring to the study apparently put together by Jeroen at SSI - it has never seen the light of day (and I'll wager it never will) It's a bit like putting a study together to show that using your finger for measuring the temperature of liquid is more effective than using a thermometer So you've seen this study then since you can already discredit it as bogus science..This must be the most petty posting that I have come across this year - and there are lots on this forum. GoLefty if you have the study then point everyone to it. If not then ffs just let it be ....pleeeeeezzzzzeeeee!!!!

You have got me in stitches here imagining how the hell you manged to do that! They are kiddies bikes for f sakes! I really don't think that a little "under inflation" is going to be noticed. Listen bud, the wife is even passing advice here - she says that you should use the tube out of one of the training wheels. Windbreaker2007-08-08 13:33:54

don't waste your money. I went the polar route initially - lots of hassle & it don't work on the trainer. Also don't fall for the iBike thing - a gimmick. If you are serious about a power meter take the leap and get a Powertap pro. There are quite a few of them on the hub - guys upgrading to the wireless version. Should be able to get used one for about R5-5.5k

mmm ... never saw the rookie status. No need to make note to self. Hint taken. A powertap is a bicycle power sensor. If you don't know what that is then Google "powertap" it and you'll get enough to keep you busy all night. Or go here for the works http://www.bikemaxpower.com/training

So IvanB what is it you really want from this thread? Those are the typical comments that you will read on any forum dealing with Q-rings, Biopace, Osymetric or any other variation of them. At the end of the day it's all just personal opinion as there is no proof either way. If this is just 23 pages of punting and marketing then rather than re-ignite issues that have been discussed to death just come out and say it... "This is an endless punt for Q-rings"

I'll summarise it all for you. Good - "cause they make me go faster for less effort ... I can tell cause it just feels faster although no one can prove it" Good - "cause they look cool and besides I spent a lot of money so they must work" Bad - "cause they don't make a slight bit of difference to my performance" Bad - " ... and now my pedal technique is all f**ked up" Bad - "cause they look funny, and the serious cyclists mock me"

CC and WT have the right to charge whatever they wish. That's their business. But the issue here is that Colin Hegter has come out and stated that these small events do not cover CC's costs and that CC subsidise them. I'd like him to back that statement up. Secondly I do NOT believe that CC or WT can prevent any other person/company from placing a mat on the ground to detect the proximity of a sensor which is owned by a third party if that third party actively participates. And before anyone uses the DSTV argument - it is not the same thing. The out of court agreement was exactly that - an agreement not to compete with each other. What happens when you don't have competition?? Well .... the little guys are the first ones to get stiffed. What caused this thread in the first place??? "A little event that got stiffed".

Those are the charges. Colin stated that they subsidised the smaller events and the costs were not even covered. He made the statement so he should back it up. There is no additional "cost" per rider that crosses the mat. Now I am really done.

And as a final comment, although a unified seeding system makes good sense it will not happen in the near future because CC won't give up their database and nor will WT give up theirs. And as a result smaller, less lucrative events will suffer! p.s. Still would like to see the costs that Colin was referring to.

That is bullsh*t I would love to see this tested in a court of law. That piece of electronics was sold to the user and how they see fit to use it is up to them. It holds no intelligence or intellectual property that belongs to the company who sold it to the end user. It is exactly like saying that the same technology fitted to shipping containers may only be read when they pass through Cape Town but not Durban under threat that the CT port will sue the Durban port if it is. Come on, CC and WT have an arrangement not to trespass and that is the bottom line. The PC, software application at the timing mats is also not rocket science. The "database" (seeding etc) is what their businesses hang off. My feeling is that should be a CSA controled function anyway in the interests of the wider cycling community and the "timing companies" should compete for the actual service of timing the event.

The concept is not far off but there are a couple of considerationsa) 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??

Looks like there is a niche market for a small company to service small events. With the emphasis on service. I don't believe that it is uneconomical but simply not lucrative enough for Colin. Windbreaker2007-08-05 11:22:44

quite a statement. But we have no way to verify whether this is actually the case or not. Why not list the costs for timing a small event and enlighten us all? By that, I mean YOUR costs not your charges.

I started a similar posting and then gave up because I think that the same old attitude of "don't let facts get in the way of a good sales pitch" prevails here.