Would you recommend Q rings

[pcarrasco]

 

 

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.

 

Q-Ring make the INSTANTANEOUS speed to vary approx ?5% at each revolution when the cadence is the same. Depending on the setting you choose, make you to pedal at faster or slower (cadence) than normal (or simply the same). I am collecting from the racers experience that climbing they don't feel the same necessity to reduce cadence as for round chainrings. As well they report that pedaling standing up when climbing is much easier, which makes sense because the way to pedal standing is not so continuous as seated (it is more like pistons).

[Ivanb]

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']

 

I think Pablo answered most of these questions. We do have pro's using them here or would you not call them pro's.

 

Everyone thinks that its only good if used by the pro's but you must know the expense and hassle to get on board only to be squeezed out by shimano and campag. So Sram are visionaries and are using q rings. See Colanago have also use on their top end bikes standard.

 

Yes I do ride not much any more but did do quite lot of 'dualthlon'. The biggest difference I felt was not when I was riding Q Rings but when I went back to round rings when we had  promo with a brand of bike and rode a standard dura ace for a while. It was damn hard to ride even up small hill as compared to Q Rings. Thats an honest answer as far as my power etc I don't know was looking at that myself, but definitely is easier to ride Q rings.

 

Richard Beswick has made that comment to, he now has them on his mtb, road and tandem. He finds better traction on the mtb as the power is produced in the right position and you do not use all the extra power to get through the dead spot.

 

Please tell me why you are nopt happy with them?

[bruce]

I can certainly understand that the Q-rings would even out the torque cycle - which should help mountain bikers with traction problems particularly on steep ascents.  Whether that translates to an improvement in overall efficiency, I am not convinced!

[pcarrasco]

 

I can certainly understand that the Q-rings would even out the torque cycle - which should help mountain bikers with traction problems particularly on steep ascents.  Whether that translates to an improvement in overall efficiency' date=' I am not convinced!

[/quote']

 

You are not convinced yet, but starting ;-)

 

Later you could agree that the resistance efforts for your quads are more uniform, instead of high at the start and decreasing while the downstroke, and this generate less fatigue for the muscles (due to the tension peaks value are smaller).

 

 

[_C50_]

Ivan,

 

Are you going to give me a set to test while i'm a lab rat at the SSI in 2 weeks time? Then we can see if it improves the performance for an avg Joe Soap cyclist?  ;-)

 

2 Trials with the rings, and 2 without them... Spin Scan then spits out the numbers for us to see.  

 

[Johan Bornman]

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

[The Saint]

 

Princess Writes:

 

"I ride with them and they GREAT...you save alot more energy !"

 

Princess' date=' 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

[/quote']

 

Dammit Johan now she is going to be tiered on her next ride, the secret of Q Rings is they are like a placebo

 

[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 Bornman

Johan Bornman2007-08-03 06:58:12

[Ivanb]

Princess Writes:

 

"I ride with them and they GREAT...you save alot more energy !"

 

Princess' date=' 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

[/quote']

 

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

 

I hear all the sceptics but they need to try to believe theory is not all practical!!

 

Amazing how weight is alway an issue and everyone thinks lighter better, compact cranksare the way, and so many other theories Q Rings are not a theory they work! 

[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

[Willehond]

Princess Writes:

 

"I ride with them and they GREAT...you save alot more energy !"

 

Princess' date=' 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

[/quote']

 

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

 

I hear all the sceptics but they need to try to believe theory is not all practical!!

 

Amazing how weight is alway an issue and everyone thinks lighter better, compact cranksare the way, and so many other theories Q Rings are not a theory they work! 

 

Johan, see you are making the mistake of trying to use physics and applied mathematics to argue against good, solid cutting edge marketing mumbo jumbo.  Face it mate, you are outgunned

[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

[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

[Ivanb]

Ivan' date=' 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

[/quote']

 

No one has asked about durability lately. But if a client has them for two years of 'pro' riding I'm impressed my rings or anyone elses. If thats due to good bike maintanence then all should learn from this.

 

I can get all the hardness tests etc if you want, but if you want run a survey here as to how long each Q Ringer has been riding and the km's you will be pleasantly surprised.

 

I wish they didnt last so long then I could sell more!! LOL

 

No seriously We had sets in last years Epic same set was used in this years Epic and in between. That is impressive in anyones book, even guys form other component brands are ridiing them and are exceptionally happy with the results in both riding and wear.

 

maybe what you are saying is that the guys who ride Q Rings are the best at maintaining bikes and use the best workshops, thats why they are getting good wear results ?

 

Have you fitted any to any bikes yet?

[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

[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