Oval chainring power test - do they really work?
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 12. 2020
- This question has been on my mind for the last two seasons, and know I have finally been able to put it to bed. To answer it, I have done comparative power meter testing with 2-3 simultaneous measurements to see if there is any unusual or skewed power data. The results were quite surprising!
Follow me on Strava and Instagram for more content:
/ strava
/ ronykuba - Sport
Glad you're checking them out, I usually go to your channel to see what tech is actually worth it or not. You're like the Dylan Johnson of bike tech lol.
Thanks for the support!
I love my absoluteblack ovals. Was recently riding with a friend who was on round rings and one could really see the difference in the "roundness" of the pedalstroke between us. Same cadence same power, same speed. Also when I was in his slipstream I noticed that his bike would make a small "jump" forward when his stroke was in the most powerful position, while I kept a very constant speed.
Been using them for more than 15.000kms now and I'm super happy!
Sounds good!
ovals for me as a 1600W sprinter definitely work as measured in back to back power test (+4% power), acceleration on lower cadence is way better and easier even in the saddle
Thanks! Always wanted to test oval rings, but was concerned about incompatibility with my Quarq PM.
Cheers!
The variation of each brand feels like a puzzle. I have a Vector 3 ( one pedal) and when I try to reach a new step in my research of the right set-up , I hit the wall and purchase nothing new. My Wahoo Kickr Core and my Vector have the same number with my personnal testing,. My goal to view your review is to find the right one and you do lot of stuff on the power meter in the last year.
Good job Ronald
Thanks for the comment!
13:40 the fact you can put out that much power pedalling backwards is darn impressive haha. nice video i've found same thing on new quarq oval read true across the board
Haha thanks
I like the feel of my Absolute Black ovals when climbing. That's enough for me even if there is no other benefit.
fair enough
very good info, thank you for doing this
Cheers!
Hi Ronald, right now im using giant power pro power meters (crank based), im wondering whether the reading will be inaccurate if i switch to Oval chainrings such as ROTOR Q rings? Thanks before. Looking forward to your reply.
The reading is inaccurate already, but likely won't get worse.
Cool Video! Now obviously we need you to do an FTP-Test with round versus oval rings!
Sounds good at the first minute, but would be quite pointless without a lab monitoring all of my physiological metrics
like your research, i did a step test compare with 170 & 175 mm cranks a few weeks ago ... everything was the same, just different crank lengths ... in terms of ppo i can say vo2max is vo2max ... but in terms of riding economy both have their advantages depenting on rider & fit & setup ...
True, there's no simple solution for this
With that out of the way, it would be interesting to see head to head all out Tempus Fugit tests in Zwift comparing both watts, times and feel (where do you feel the burn most) between the Arc and round chainrings. The AB would probably be too extreme to adjust to. I guess you would need a couple of days in between the two test runs. Great stuff :-)
the problem with this kind of "test" is that it is 100% subjective and unscientific. Regarding the adjustment period, there is none really
@@ronykuba I know :-) How will you decide to use ovals or not?
@@knutespenbergby3265 I have them on, so I'll use them for a while. It's more about the ratio for me - I will definitely go bigger on both bikes for racing.
I think that perception of gains due to oval chain rings is highly dependent on ones pedaling style. Maybe riders who has strong down stroke and weak upstroke or weak ability to push through dead spots are more predestined to take advantage of it. It is just speculation though. As you said there is no strong science behind it, or at least nothing solid I know about.
I’d like to hear Chris Froome’s reason then 🤣. Maybe marginal gains at that level and normal people like me will gain more by saving the money. I will stick to my round chainrings. Thank you for the video Ronald!
@@flipooh It fits his pedaling style 🤷♂️ Other Sky/Ineos guys didn't seem so enthusiastic about it.
@@michwoz I agree. I was using Rotor Q ring before and since selling and getting a new bike I don’t feel I miss it. Switching from 170mm to 165mm crank length I feel has more effect on my pedalling than the chainring effect. Have a good Christmas!
@@flipooh Thank you, you too :)
I’ve ran Rotor Qrings for a year now and as I recall, the diff was down to a few watts. Hard to quantify though, could have easily been a physical gain at the time. The feeling difference was there, esp. on high cadence on the climbs. Pedal stroke felt more consistent and stable. Definitely not a huge difference though.
A few watts between what and what?
@@ronykuba between round and oval chainrings of Rotor at the same 52-36. While power data can often be debated, I think the OCA concept is more interesting. Having monitored this before and after a year of training I could see my pedal stroke has moved from 3 to 4 on the OCA 5 point scale. That is surely due to position and core strength training. Perhaps something even more relevant for the triathlon/tt guys.
You mentioned that quarq power meters are accurate now with oval chainrings as they measure crank velocity continuously instead of assuming constant velocity. I was wondering where did you hear this as I can't find that info anywhere? Also when I messaged quarq yesterday they still say there's inflation with non-round chainrings.
They measure angular velocity.
Hi l have one question. On Quarq you putted black small ring premium l thing, but on Absolute black page they say that premium small ring isnt compatible with spider power meters that you should use silver non premium small chainring?
it is compatible as you can see
i have used Osymetric chainrings for many years, but got a new bike and decided to try round chainrings again, and i can honestly say that my legs fatigue faster now at the same power then they did on the osymetrics, i also feel i could climb better for longer on the osymetric compared to round. so after 1 year now on round, i have gon back to osymetric, and honestly i can feel the difference. but then again, osymetric chainrings are more extreme in shape then any of the ones you tested here. i find absolut black to be similar to round, on the flats, but better on longer climbs, but osymetric is even better in my opinion. and it does not have to do with higher power, but i can sustain the power for longer without fatiguing, then i can on round. so this is what i have found out. maybe they fit my riding style better, or it has to do with 1 leg being a little longer then the other, i don't know. but for me it is Osymetric all the way! you should maybe test them also? :)
The placebo effect is strong with this one 🙃
@@ronykuba it is not placebo, actual facts that my legs get less fatigued at same power on the same climb, might not be faster nor slower, just less muscle fatigue. :P i do not use ovals for power gains, there is none. but you have less stress on you'r smaler muscel groups, the muscels you use in the bottom to up part of the pedal stroke :)
@@WTC999 sounds like placebo to me.
Awesome video. Been a long time Rotor Q-ring user and love the pedal feel of ovals. Great to see your take on it.
My opinion on the subject of performance, does it make me faster? Don't think so. Doesn't make me slower, don't think so either. Does it feel like it takes longer to fatigue for long climbing rides? Maybe. (Possibly placebo or "dellusional" or whatever you want to call it). I think at the end of the day it's just personal preference, much like the many debates of SRAM vs Shimano vs Campag. I think the debate of oval vs round rings is no exception here.
Anyway, I've just installed AB ovals a few days ago and I have to say, it shifts very well as you mentioned. It appears the shift ramps design looks very similar to those from Shimano's big chain ring which is probably what's attributing to the good shifting performance. Rotor Q-rings on the other hand from my experience is a farcry behind in terms of shifting performance as it uses the traditional shift pins. I was thinking of jumping back to round rings due to poor shift performance(dropping chains) of the Q-rings but AB oval had kept me back in the oval camp. Happy days.
That´s exactly right, thanks for the comment!
What’s the effect on the rear derailleur’s spring since it’ll move back and forth? always had the this question, makes sense asking a mechanic 👨🔧
There's some added tension, but it's of a negligible effect
I have an oval chainring on my mtb. No problem after 5000km.
@@ronykuba with cyclists comparing +/- 5 grams between components and paying $$$ for marginal gains, the line between what's negligible and what is not has become too thin.
@@sepg5084 it has been tested, and as I said, it is negligible
I loved my oval rings, but the shifting was never comparable to round.
Yes that's a common issue
What are the tyres on your Rapides Rony?
SW Turbo Cotton 26mm
My left ears love this video🎉😂
Can the magene power crank uses oval chainring?
No
Soundtrack?
Absoluteblack are the best! In my opinion I think they could go 10 to 14% bigger. I love mine!
Yep, beautifully made all around.
Most of the oval chainring science seems to focus on the power a cyclist puts out, and it doesn't surprise me that these show nothing because almost all power is output in the downstroke which doesn't change between these chainring systems. However, what does change is the time spent in the 'dead zone' going between each downstroke, which is where speed is lost. I suspect if you maintained the same power then you would see increased speed with oval chainrings, but this difference would likely be very subtle, especially with these almost spherical ones. Perhaps with a 1x setup with a more extreme oval shape you would be able to see a difference at a velodrome, it would be great if you could one day test this.
That would be true, if inertia didn't exist. The purpose of this test was to see if they distort power measurement, and we have a clear answer for that.
@@ronykuba Inertial is lost between each downstroke though, because there is almost no power being put down. You should still test it!
@@darkcoderuk there's nothing to test. You can't just gain speed out of nowhere, without putting more energy into the system (or reducing the resistances, but charging shape has zero influence on that).
@@ronykuba Power output isn't constant during a pedal stroke, so even at terminal velocity your speed goes up and down a little like a sine wave. Since there are many factors that go into speed, this leads to the possibility of there being an overall speed difference since each of these factors works slightly differently.
Out of curiosity I just ran a simulation of a 300w rider with a TT setup like yours going at 49kph for 10 minutes (8.2km) at 60RPM with: A (constant power), B (a typical donut shaped torque effectiveness graph), and C (my guess of what an oval chainring torque effectiveness curve would look like). My results are that A is faster than B by 5.4mm, and C is faster than B by 1.5mm. So I guess there is some difference, but it's not worth considering in the slightest xD
Good luck with your riding!
@@darkcoderuk well, that is just wrong. You have mass, thus inertia, so the speed doesn´t just fluctuate like that.
Power is power, regardless of the pedal stroke. What you are referring to is force. If the PM says 300W, then that is the result of whatever type or shape of force delivery that is happening. If the oval chainrings produce an increase in force at some point in the stroke (without negatively affecting others), that will be represented in a higher indicated power.
I used these EXTENSIVELY!!!!! IN short, they will report higher power, but you will not go actually faster. I had these on 3 TT bikes and on 3 road bikes. The Osymetric ones. I dropped my chain more the bigger they got. IN THEORY AND CONCEPT they make sense, but as far a actually GOING FASTER, no you will not. I got rid of all of mine and went back to round rings. SOOOOO . . . expect larger numbers for the same effort, but the speed will not increase. BUT . . . that is just my experience
Well, that testing must have been pretty flawed.
Hey i have a question quarq does not make a 12s power meter is it okay to use a 11s power meter on 12s drivetrain
Well, they do and have been from the beginning
@@ronykuba link?
@@jabetajones www.sram.com/en/sram/models/pm-red-d1
@@ronykuba oh no i mean for 110 bcd 4/5 bolts thats dm
@@jabetajones there's a Quarq in both 5x110 and 4x110.
"If you feel there is a big difference, you are deluding yourself". There is not a significant power difference between oval and round. The feel is highly dependent on the rider. I stopped having knee problems after I went to Q-Rings. They felt great and my small chronic knee problems went away. So it does vary with the rider. Most riders do fine with round.
Well, I’m struggling to see how chainring shape affects bike fit issues to be honest.
Can you convert aerocoach chainrings to 2 speed?
not sure what do you mean by that
😢sorry
How do you afford all those bikes and equipment? Living the dream!
I run a bike business.
For me, I find the oval rings help with a full UCI legal TT position. However in a triathlon position with the saddle farther forward and a nice open hip angle, I don’t notice much difference between oval and round. I think if your pedal style or fit leads to a quad dominant pedal stroke, than oval may work well for you.
Makes sense
What software/app is that???
Zwift
@@ronykuba Not Zwift, the data analysis?
@@joshualindenthaler8468 zwiftpower.com
@@ronykuba Oh yeah I forgot about that..
Thanks
How much avality does arc and absolute black have? does anyone know. rotor for example has 12.5% in Qrings and 20% in the QXL.
I can't really tell you that, but I'd guess between those
Can you test out the new sram multiclics
I don't have any Sram groupset at the moment, but maybe in the future
wait, why are you pedaling backwards..?
It's a time lapse
Very interesting!
I used Doval 2g chainrings for 6 months. They are very asymmetrical. Disregarding the shifting. Not so great if you use STI shifters . I use bar end shifters on my aero bars and they shifted fine. Are they faster? Yes! I trained specifically on these rings and they were 1 to 1.5 mph faster than my round rings. This is based purely on my subjective analysis. I don't have a power meter.
What I did notice was a loss in muscle mass in my thighs! Very unexpected!
I then decided to abandon the rings altogether!
Upon going back to round rings I found that my muscle mass has returned but the average speed is still 1 to 1.5 mph slower than with the Doval rings.
I used my usual training program and training routes.
What I found interesting was that my heart rate was 5 to 10 beats slower with the Doval rings given the same cruising speed.
I think the non round rings were counter productive as far as training goes. But since my races were canceled due to tthe pandemic I can't say how the non round rings would have performed in a 24 hour race.
I was going to use them on race day. I suppose we will see next year.
My findings with the non round rings are subjective but I think valid considering the length of time I used them.
Would I train with them? No. Would I use them on race day ? Possibly. I will experiment in the Spring.
I do think the asymmetrical rings are faster and I felt less fatigued after a ride compared to the round rings.
Just my "feelings" concerning asymmetric rings. I will use them but not for training. Maybe race day!
No offence, but these are exactly the kind of anecdotes I meant when I said "delusional". It is simply impossible for a chainring shape to increase speed or decrease muscle mass. The one thing that would be a reasonable metric is heart rate, but certainly not compared to "cruising speed".
@@ronykuba I wouldn't call 8,000 miles of testing delusional. I think there is a physiologic reason behind asymmetrical chainrings you may not be aware of.
A ride or two on a stationary trainer is not enough time for your body to recognize what asymmetric rings are asking of it. The muscle spindles and Golgi tendon apparatus must coordinate with the proprioceptive receptors in the joints so the brain twill tell the legs to apply the appropiate amount of power at the proper time . This response has to be programmed by repetition so the brain can coordinate the movement and use as little muscle as possible to accomplish the task of turning over the pedals. Your body is very good at economizing force and motion.
The Doval rings I used were 22 or 24 percent asymmetrical.
You can feel the drop in tension at the top and bottom of the stroke just by pedaling them while clamped in a trainer.
There has to be some decrease in tension under full pedal force resulting in an energy savings.
One thing I forgot to mention was with round chainrings on One of my normal routes I used 1550 to 1575 calories according to my computer. Same route with the asymmetric rings was between 1350 and 1400 calories.
Delusional? Could be .I am over 60 years old!!
@@johnhorgash9031 again, no offence but talking about this with the absolute lack of power measurement is downright silly. You talk about an increase in avg speed - in a world of physics, you have to increase the power output or decrease the total resistance to achieve that. Changing the shape of your chainrings can't do either of those. What they should be able to do is to improve the physiological responses (RPE, HR, waste metabolites, ventilation etc.). Without having power numbers in checks, it's purely fantasy. Your results are most likely a combination of placebo (more power for the same RPE) and changes in outdoor conditions.
@@ronykuba As a cyclist what's more important going faster or producing power?
I think you have totally missed my point.
My point is you have to train with asymmetrical rings for a while before you can make a judgement as to whether they work or not.
I am a cynical and skeptical person! I have to see it and try it myself to be convinced about anything!
When I first put the asymmetrical rings on my bike it felt strange for a hundred yards and I didn't feel anything "different" after that. There was no magical increase in speed or ease of pedaling. The increases came as I trained with the asymmetrical rings. Since I don't have a power meter I can't honestly say that they produce more power or not. They do produce more speed for me. They may even produce more power buy I can't say for sure.
What I do know is that I did see muscle atrophy in my quads specifically my rectus femoris with the asymmetrical chain rings. The muscle came back after about 6 weeks of training on round rings!
That's what got me thinking that other muscles are doing more work. Maybe the hamstrings or gluteal musculature?
Maybe I can push a slightly larger gear with the asymmetric rings?
The large portion of the ring is supposed to equal a 56 tooth ring and the smaller portion of the ring a 49 or 50 tooth ring. I don't know.
I rode alot of miles in many different conditions with round chainrings and I know my capabilities. The asymmetrical rings are faster.......for me.
But the drawbacks are decreases in my quads. The rings are noisy! There are some gear combinations you can't use because the chain rubs the chainring both in the small and large rings. Annoying! One thing I did notice was there was little muscle activity coming over the top of the pedal stroke from the quads that increased when coming past one o'clock on the down stroke the quads seemed to contract very quickly between one and 5 o'clock and just stop contracting at the 5 o'clock position. On round rings there is a longer period of contraction as you come up to 12 o'clock and push over the top that continues past 5 o'clock as you scrape across the bottom of the pedal stroke.
Could this be the difference ? Don't know!
I believe the asymmetric rings are faster but they don't fit my fitness plan.
And if they save some energy in a 12 or 24 hour race I am all for it!
A gain is a gain even if it is a placebo!
@@johnhorgash9031 sorry, but you are, and unfortunately you aren't really aware of the physics going on while you are riding along. Yes, going faster is the ultimate goal, but as I said you are failing to control the single most important objective variable (power). Without that, you don't have the faintest clue about what caused the difference in speed. Now 1.5mph is a huge difference. My TT speed on a fast flat course is around 48-49km/h. Increasing it by the amount you claim would mean that I would suddenly be able to produce an extra ~30W (10%). If non round rings were even remotely capable of producing such differences, do you still think there would be a debate whether to use them or not? Aerocoach claim that using ARC rings might help you produce "3-5W more", which is around 1%. Increasing your output by 1% will not result in a 1.5mph speed increases, at any speed.
I will say it again, so hopefully you get around the fact: your speed is the result of the power you are putting out vs. the total resistance you're experiencing. The only thing chainring shape can do is to improve muscle utilisation for a slight improvement in power output (unproven). This makes you marginally faster (
If you don't believe that oval really works, place it in wrong position (larger diameter at vertical cranks position) to see if your cycling performance would stay the same.
Been there, done that. The power you can do *is* the power you can do, regardless of any funky chainring shapes.
I agree, i have been on them for over a decade, an made all the experiments one can think of. It is crucial to get your position right ore you will loose power, set them up like biopace and loose a lot of power og set them up to agressive and it becomes hard to accelerate. I do also believe certain people( puchy riders) benefit the most. I also have a theory to that oval chainrings are effectively like going to a shorter crank, less deadspot and more torque needed at same cadance. Downside is that wear on chainline is worse on ovals
@@thomashald8000 what’s wear on the chainline?
@@ronykuba your chain and cassette will wear faster with Oval, due to all the constant mini accelerations that occur with every pedalstroke.
@@thomashald8000 that’s drivetrain wear then… and I think that’s false as well. The “mini accelerations” happen anyway as the pedalling is cyclical in itself. The main factor in drivetrain wear is friction.
You should try that on the mountain..just saying 😊
What exactly?
Some say oval chainrings are faster on climbs?
@@julsu. faster meaning?
It's easy on your knees..specially on the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock position 😊
@@rexbautista3198 which achieves...? Easy meaning? You just keep throwing around these empty phrases.
At 8:37 i see a tummy ?
If you mean my abs then yes