Would you recommend Q rings

[_C50_]

I just would like to know ... if it is more efficient (mechanically, physically, or whichever way)... why don't you see it applied in any "other" areas? Only in cycling?

 

Ivan dude, gimme a set to test at the SSI. Let's see if it actually helps an average joe wannabe cyclist!  ;-)

 

[CaptainDura]

Surely you can't produce more power' date=' only apply it more efficiently?  So if you fit a powermeter that displays pedalling efficiency and you compare ooutputs it should improve for the Q rings IF they are better?  I can't for the life of me figure out how you can get more power if you use the same two legs.

 

It might FEEL like you are getting more power because you apply it better due to an imprved pedalling efficiency, but you can't produce more power. Give us the stats

[/quote']

Willehond is correct here. No ways can you produce more power.

 

I think the win comes in the form of the same power BUT with the benfit of increased efficiency, which means that you will actualy be able to sustain the power you are able to produce for longer.

 

It is the same principle ALL good coaches teach to their students and have them do leg and pedal drills. to increase their pedal stroke efficiency.

 

my 0.02c

[fandacious]

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...

[_C50_]

If i fitted a Q-ring style sprocket to my motorcycle, woud it improve bottem end power? Or make the engine more efficient? 

[_C50_]

Darn, the motorcycle aint got no legs!    ;-) 

[pcarrasco]

 

I thought this was the best take I have seen on the whole Q ring concept;

 

"These Rotor Crank people do not recognize that work is FORCE x

DISTANCE and that their crank only changes the phase of the legs' date=' not

the work performed. This is basically a perpetual motion machine, one

that creates power with no additional effort.

 

If these people would ride up a long grade, they would notice that the

limitation is cardiovascular (assuming they were in condition to do

so) and that all the phase change mechanisms do not alter the work

performed or achieved. In fact smooth sinusoidal motion does that

best.

 

Jobst Brandt

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

 

[/quote']

 

I would like to read his comments when he reaches jobst.brandt@stanfordprofessor.org

 

The whole comment seems to make sense, trying the bring the easy science to everybody, but let's go directly to the experience.  Comparing a multi sprocket bike with a single speed one: First you use different gears, shifting due to the race conditions and terrain profile, and later you using the single speed bike, go for the same speed than before. Then the WORK is the same for both test, but the EFFORT... (depending of the course) can be huge different.

[liquid]

If its so great why aren't the pro teams ( not just the teams in the TDF ) but all over the world using them, if they worked  bet you that money would not be an option for them. All in the mind. Does Ivanb even cycle to know that it works or is it what he has been told ? just a question. Yes, I have tried, no I was not happy as you can tell. sorry.

[bruce]

bruce - Is it possible if you pedal more efficiently' date=' using more muscles that new energy gets introduced into the system that way? More into the system, all else stay the same more speed out of the system? [/quote']

 

I don't think new muscles would be introduced - in effect all that is happening is the gearing is being changed within the pedal cycle. 

 

in my mind the only improvement that is possible is in terms of efficiency.  The Q-rings cannot make the body suddenly produce more power, all they could "possibly" do is ensure more of the power that is produced by the body reaches the point where the rubber hits the road!  i.e. improve the efficiency of the overall drivetrain.

 

Gearing does not change the efficiency of the drive train.  What it does is allow the body to operate in it's most comfortable torque and cadence range.  That torque and cadence range I believe is far broader than the changes that would be introduced by the Q-rings, hence I can't really see this device having an effect.

 

However, I don't believe we should always write-off anecdotal evidence, but maybe investigate it a bit better to make sure our understanding of the system is correct.  We cannot violate the various laws of physics, but we ned to make sure we understand how the laws are being applied.

[FanieFiets]

ja, gee vir C50, Fandacious en bruce elkeen 'n paar. Hulle almal gaan mos op computrainers in die volgende 2 weke ry. 

[Broker]

Just a warning on fitting the Q-rings. Most of the new Carbon bicycles's front derailleur hangers are fixed to the frame. As part of the fitting process you have to move your front derailleur upwards to create space for the oval shape of the ring. On some bicylcle (ie Cervelo Soloist) the slot in the hanger is not long enough to move the derailleur high enough to clear the oval ring. Don't try and modify the derailleur hanger, as this will impact on your guarantee and weaken the structure of the hanger.

I've discussed this problem with Ivan as well as the Cervelo agents about 6 months ago - still waiting for an answer. So my set of Q-rings are gathering dust in the garage.

Broker2007-08-03 04:49:58

[pcarrasco]

Using different gears

you can adapt your effort to the power conditions, and it is exactly the same

with Rotor and Q-Rings: for each revolution we adapt the instantaneous gear

closer to your optimum for each pedal location.

 

And this instantaneous optimum gear is not only a statics result, which obviously shows that we can apply more torque at 90? (from Upper Dead Spot) than at 0? (just the UDS); we consider as well all the inertias involved when pedaling (total cyclist+machine inertia and the reciprocating legs inertias), and for that reason we suggest to have the maximum gear around 108? (this is #3 setting).

[pcarrasco]

 

Just a warning on fitting the Q-rings. Most of the new Carbon bicycles's front derailleur hangers are fixed to the frame. As part of the fitting process you have to move your front derailleur upwards to create space for the oval shape of the ring. On some bicylcle (ie Cervelo Soloist) the slot in the hanger is not long enough to move the derailleur high enough to clear the oval ring. Don't try and modify the derailleur hanger' date=' as this will impact on your guarantee and weaken the structure of the hanger.

I've discussed this problem with Ivan as well as the Cervelo agents about 6 months ago - still waiting for an answer. So my set of Q-rings are gathering dust in the garage.

[/quote']

 

If your hanger accepts a regular 56 you can use a Q53, if 55 then Q52, and so... You need approx 6mm to raise the front derailleur to fit a Q(same size)

 

[bruce]

Using different gears you can adapt your effort to the power conditions' date=' and it is exactly the same with Rotor and Q-Rings: for each revolution we adapt the instantaneous gear closer to your optimum for each pedal location.

And this instantaneous optimum gear is not only a statics result, which obviously shows that we can apply more torque at 90? (from Upper Dead Spot) than at 0? (just the UDS); we consider as well all the inertias involved when pedaling (total cyclist+machine inertia and the reciprocating legs inertias), and for that reason we suggest to have the maximum gear around 108? (this is #3 setting).
[/quote']

 

So in other words, you should change your Q-Rings when moving from an indoor trainer to the road?  Due to the signficant difference in inertial load between the two environments?

 

My feeling is that optimum cadence and torque of the human body machine is a range and not a point.  Do you guys have any good research that shows what these ranges are?  My guess is that they would be of the order of 15% - 20% e.g. cadence range of 80rpm to 100rpm.

 

What is the percentage change in effective gearing when riding Q-rings?  I believe that they would fall inside the optimum human range and would hence provide very little benefit.

[pcarrasco]

 

If its so great why aren't the pro teams ( not just the teams in the TDF ) but all over the world using them' date=' if they worked  bet you that money would not be an option for them. All in the mind. Does Ivanb even cycle to know that it works or is it what he has been told ? just a question. Yes, I have tried, no I was not happy as you can tell. sorry.[/quote']

 

1.- At ProTour, they are not allowed by Shimano, Campagnolo and SRAM to use our products.

 

2.- For other professionals, only cyclists sponsorized by SRAM are autorized to use Q-Rings, and when the team authorizes them as well, many are riding Q-Rings successfully. Examples: Marianne Vos, Ben Jacques-Maynes, Daniel Ramsey, Marcel Beima, Andrea Bosmann. As well there are pros using Q-rings for particular races but they are not authorized for that, and I can not disclosure their names, but sometimes you can see them at cyclingnews photos.

 

3.- Q-Rings are not good for everybody. You have to choose a compromise solution for the setting, performing more acceleration vs. more speed (less acceleration). And mainly people who pedal quite different with L&R legs, find these chainrings working "strange" for one of their legs resulting no value for them.

 

The benefits from Q-Rings are small, then they are more evident for big efforts like sprints (big accelerations) or TT.

 

Regarding Computrainer and other Lab tests:

The inertias involved are different than real cycling, so the benefits use to be different and at different settings. For example using Computrainer you can perform better with setting #2, but for real with #3.

 

[WorcesterWheelers]

Ok' date=' here's my take on the Q-rings.

While I'm no scientist, the above comment from Mr. Brandt, I'd like to ask the following question.

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?

I'm patiently waiting for my Campy rings, also have them on my TT bike and on the Tandem (where I definately can notice a real benefit, especially while climbing) and if they fitted on my FSA carbon cranks, I'd fit a pair on the MTB too.

[/quote']

 

Unfortunately FSA have a very thick crank arm where it meets the spider. Why i don't know. The guys riding those cranks have modified the Q Rings (officially not recomended)in that area. But now with the Agilis cranks and SABB you can ride Q rings on all on all bikes !!!!

 

No more pimping your bike rather 'Rotorize It' Q rinsg Agilis Cranks, SABB, and N1 stem 

 

So are you going to give me a decent Dealer discount on the whole mtb package....  PLEASE !!!!

[Ivanb]

Just a warning on fitting the Q-rings. Most of the new Carbon bicycles's front derailleur hangers are fixed to the frame. As part of the fitting process you have to move your front derailleur upwards to create space for the oval shape of the ring. On some bicylcle (ie Cervelo Soloist) the slot in the hanger is not long enough to move the derailleur high enough to clear the oval ring. Don't try and modify the derailleur hanger' date=' as this will impact on your guarantee and weaken the structure of the hanger.

I've discussed this problem with Ivan as well as the Cervelo agents about 6 months ago - still waiting for an answer. So my set of Q-rings are gathering dust in the garage.

[/quote']

 

My apologies. I thought you were sorted please call or send me a pm so we can solve your problem.

 

It seems that on each bike the  derailleur is set differently as we have fitted to carbon soloist plenty.