Take the 2-minute tour ×
Bicycles Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who build and repair bicycles, people who train cycling, or commute on bicycles. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have seen competitive (amateur) cyclists with oval chainrings (front). What is the deal? Are they just for showing off, or is there a practical gain from it (different force transfer).

share|improve this question
2  
possible duplicate of Differences between Biopace and Rotor cranks –  Dana the Sane Jan 29 '11 at 22:34
1  
Also, see tplunket's excellent answer. –  Dana the Sane Jan 29 '11 at 22:34
    
See noncircularchainring.be –  user1153 Feb 26 '11 at 17:49

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

In theory they are more efficient.

Throughout the pedal stroke your leg doesn't give an equal amount of force - ideally you want to spend most of the time pushing down with the big thigh muscles and a minimum time in the horizontal movements at the top and bottom of the stroke.

Elliptical front cogs give you a more up-down leg motion, so more time with the big muscles and more power - not sure how much it actually works in practice, or how much practice it takes to make it work.

share|improve this answer
    
sheldonbrown.com/biopace.html –  DC_CARR Jan 27 '11 at 22:09
    
That article's making me want to get one for my touring bike. –  Neil Fein Jan 28 '11 at 4:05
    
We been seeing an average of a 5-7 watt gain, on similar courses, over the 6 months following a switch to Rotor Q-rings form our customers. That doesn't sound like much, but that is an effective gain for competition. Whether it is enough to justify the cost for your personal riding, especially if you compete for fun, not profit? Well, that's up to you. –  zenbike Jul 14 '12 at 4:22

I cannot trot out the studies from memory now, so take my answer with a big grain of salt. Or as an invitation to do more in-depth research.

When I was actually researching these things several years ago, my conclusions were than the classic oval chainrings were ineffectual in whatever goal they were attempting to reach, while the newer Rotor system actually provided some small benefit on the order of 1-2% better average power.

It seems that right thing to strive for is minimizing the maximal force exerted by the muscles, because the maximal force is correlated with utilization of glycogen (the bigger the force exerted, the greater the proportion of glycogen burned via the inefficient anaerobic pathway). Rotor succeeds in this by flattening the power delivery curve, while the immovable ovals just phase-shift the curve.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.