Would you recommend Q rings

[Ivanb]

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

[amdretard]

Sorry to intrupt such a fruitfull debate here. Butr are these Q-ringsUCI legal?

[Ivanb]

Yes they are fully certified and all

[Windbreaker]

So at the end of the day there is no doubt that there are no gains from a "physics" point of view but possibly some benefit from a physiological aspect and the question is just whether the gain is even enough to be seen above the "noise".

 

That is going to be VERY difficult to prove because other factors at play such as hydration, heat, motivation etc will probably have more impact than the gains of the Q-rings - especially as the gains are apparently more in cyclists with less efficient pedal strokes who would suffer more from the above than the pro's.

 

[Ivanb]

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.

[Johan Bornman]

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' date=' reality is reality may the best result be for the cyclists.

[/quote']

 

OK Ivan, last chance. Explain the physics behind the oval rings. In plain English

 

[Ivanb]

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 ?  

[Windbreaker]

Bigger oval in the power stroke 56 teeth equivalent ther fore more gear ratio' date='  producers more power more speed, smaller gear in dead spot[/Quote']

 

IvanB, I understand clearly what the effects of the oval rings on the drivechain. The physics of this are clear but whether there are any measurable benefits from this is what is in question.

 

You man from Spain(?) states that the report on the studies are not yet available for publication because of factors relating to doping and whatever else. When they are published, peer reviewed and found to support the manufacturers claims I'll buy a set immediately.

 

Till then it's just marketing hype.

 

[dylankeyter]

i personally think these are way way overrated... if they were really that good the riders in the tour would use them

[dylankeyter]

and you say the big blade equates to a 56 tooth , but for instance juniors are restricted to a 52tooth blade, do you provide 52 teeth blades?

[fandacious]

i personally think these are way way overrated... if they were really that good the riders in the tour would use them

 

Shimano/campag/sram wont let them

[bruce]

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' date=' reality is reality may the best result be for the cyclists.

[/quote']

 

Ivanb - this kind of statement does absolutely no good for your credibility.  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!

 

Bigger oval in the power stroke 56 teeth equivalent ther fore more gear ratio' date='  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 ?  

 

[/quote']

 

FYI, a bigger gear ratio does not produce more power.  This would violate the law of the conervation of energy.

 

The only possible way that these Q-rings can work is by improving the efficiency of the human motor, by providing a better interface between the human and the bicycle.  I.e. more of the work performed by the human is transferred to the cranks.  If the reduced torque experienced by the muscles when traversing through the dead spot causes the muscles to fatigue less, then yes, efficiency may be improved, but please, power is not suddenly created out of having a bigger gear ratio in the power stroke.

 

I may sound pedantic, but factually inaccurate statements destroy your credibility and cause people that do understand physics to discard all your statements.

[Windbreaker]

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.

[WorcesterWheelers]

Ivanb' date=' you don't stop do you?!

 

Anyway, for me the glowing anecdotal references from people like GoLefty, WorcesterWheeler and FanieFiets is way more convincing than any of the attempts to convince us of the improved power output (which I just don't buy).  I am really looking forward to getting power stat feedback from the Hub guys (and time improvements hopefully!). 

[/quote']

 

Next updates to follow will be Fandacius and Mdk555.

 

I'm also waiting for a piece by a friend of mines wife:

She is an occupational therapist, specialising in rehab.

 

Her husband was an avid cyclist, but has had many knee ops (old rugby injuries). After reading the brochure handed to Q-ring dealers, she ordered a set for him, and he has been so impressed that he has fitted a set to his indoor training bike and recently also to his mountain bike.

 

So I'll post her comments some time next week.

 

In the mean time, I'm patiently waiting for my Campy road rings to arive....

[BikeMax]

 

Bigger oval in the power stroke 56 teeth equivalent ther fore more gear ratio' date='  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 ?  

[/quote']

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

[Ivanb]

.  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!

 

Bigger oval in the power stroke 56 teeth equivalent ther fore more gear ratio' date='  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 ?  

 

[/quote']

 

FYI, a bigger gear ratio does not produce more power.  This would violate the law of the conervation of energy.

 

The only possible way that these Q-rings can work is by improving the efficiency of the human motor, by providing a better interface between the human and the bicycle.  I.e. more of the work performed by the human is transferred to the cranks.  If the reduced torque experienced by the muscles when traversing through the dead spot causes the muscles to fatigue less, then yes, efficiency may be improved, but please, power is not suddenly created out of having a bigger gear ratio in the power stroke.

 

 

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.