# Q Rings



## atimido (Jun 17, 2009)

I've been seeing a bit more about racing with Q rings. How do you feel about racing against an individual in a triathlon, crit, or road race using Q Rings?

I've been contemplating picking up a set myself, and wanted to know what others thought about those who use them since some data has shown the make you more efficient.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

atimido said:


> I've been seeing a bit more about racing with Q rings. How do you feel about racing against an individual in a triathlon, crit, or road race using Q Rings?
> 
> I've been contemplating picking up a set myself, and wanted to know what others thought about those who use them since some data has shown the make you more efficient.


My competition can use whatever they want. 

Every once in a while, I think about trying Q Rings. If I ever felt like my 53/39 wasn't enough, I'd consider trying some Rotor rings on my TT bike. Part of me doesn't want to try them since I've got so many years trained on conventional chainrings.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

They're legal, you're in a bike race not a fashion show. I know one of my teammates has them, but it's not something that really jumps out at me. His crank looks just a little weird.

Not having looked at the data or tried them myself, I'd have the usual reservations about it. Whose data? Was the methodology any good? Any weird side effects?

If you think they'll make you faster, enough so to justify paying for 'em, then do it.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

atimido said:


> I've been seeing a bit more about racing with Q rings. How do you feel about racing against an individual in a triathlon, crit, or road race using Q Rings?
> 
> I've been contemplating picking up a set myself, and wanted to know what others thought about those who use them since some data has shown the make you more efficient.


Been using them for a couple years. From time to time I go back and use round rings (just a few days ago) and I prefer the Q's. As to the 3% increase in power or lowered HR for the same effort I can not verify. Lost in the noise.

I don't know how you could try a set other than jumping on someones bike. If you're ever down my way you are more than welcome to jump on my bike for a short spin...


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

Hi .... .My thoughts on rotor q-rings, can't speak highly enough of them

FACT 1: 5.5 years on 175mm cranks with a 53/39 round rings and 11.23 rear cogs.

Always been the leadout man and getting run down in the last 30 or 40 metres byevery man and his dog.
Always in big gears and max cadence "sprinting" around 110/112. Avcad about 89rpm 
Sore/aching L hip for 3 years under extreme load.

FACT 2: Spent 6 months on 170mm cranks to reduce pressure on hip at tdc. Seemedto work as pain eased but my top end and hill climbing suffered badly.

FACT 3: Spent the last 6 months on a set of rotor q-rings, 50/42 with an 11/23rear. Back on 175mm cranks.
DIFFERENCE ... average cad up by 4rpm,
Av max cad in sprint up by 13rpm
Average HR down by almost 4 beats 
Av Max HR in a sprint is down 1beat.
BUT ..... my average top end sprint speed is up by 5km/hr ...... 60km/hr plusis now possible ( at times )without using the 12 or 11. ( quick for me ) 
No aching L hip 
I am now "winning" 1 in 2 sprints and if run down it's mostly by only1 or 2 riders
...... huge, huge improvement.

NOTE: Nothing has changed with my training, diet etc .... only the use of theQ-Rings.

I'm also finding that pushing a 42t small ring in strong head and crosswinds isbetter than grinding on a 53t or even a 50t ....... I feel much fresher in thelegs and appear to have a better sprint finish due to the increased cadence Ican muster, 135rpm +. I'm finding that it's all about the cadence at top endspeed.


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

really gotta use the search option...

Used one on the inside (since I climb a lot) for about a year and a half on two different cranksets. Straight to the conclusion, they had positive effects. Stroke could go smoother, although not necessarily easier. Big downside that made me quit on them is that they're not versatile with standing and sitting. One OCP setting was inclined to sitting (for me it was 3) while a delayed one (4) would be more inclined to standing. I couldn't change up how I could ride about the pedaling circle without there being an early or late lagging point...and there was no way I could adjust one form without compromising performance. Logic of the ring would insist this should be a limitation in the first place.

That being said, each to their own. Some people just don't have to be so particular about the change in their strokes.


----------



## tom_h (May 6, 2008)

This topic has been beat to death on the google "Wattage" forum.

The only "studies" that claim to show any kind of benefit have come from Rotor or Osymmetric -- the manufacturers.

The other independent studies have failed to show any persistent benefit, either in in "efficiency" or measured power delivered to the rear wheel, or performance in controlled environments (eg, track pursuit races).

It comes down to personal preference -- some may like the non-round feel.

Oh, and it will make front shifting more difficult.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

atimido said:


> I've been seeing a bit more about racing with Q rings. *How do you feel about racing against an individual in a triathlon, crit, or road race using Q Rings?*
> 
> I've been contemplating picking up a set myself, and wanted to know what others thought about those who use them since some data has shown the make you more efficient.


how do you feel about racing against someone that has been properly fit vs someone that hasn't? or someone that has coach? or that has more aerodynamic wheels than you? or is just plain faster? that's an advantage too, isn't it?


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

Love it.

Racing people faster than me has inspired me to attack earlier. Which sometimes works.


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

I agree with Ventruck about the climbing but its not such a big issue around here .... only rolling type hills or short power type climbs. I had a 3km "climb" I could handle out of the seat, now I'm lucky to make half way. My seated climbing is about the same. 
*My settings experience*: I tend to be a bit of a pusher and have trouble pulling up due to old knee injuries so I find setting 4 by far the best due to the later power stroke. Setting 2 brought the power stroke on to soon and aggravated my tdc hip issue. Setting 5 brought it on to late and I felt I was running out of push to soon. Setting 3 just didn't feel quite right.
*3% increase in power*: I think looking for an increase in power to justify the rings is to simplistic. I'm tending to think that its all about efficiency and conservation of energy with the higher cadence I'm able to achieve. I'm certainly able to maintain my "power" for much longer, feel fresher for surges and my sprint speed is quicker due to not having such tired legs. I believe that riding a 50t big chain is also beneficial to both those points .... I feel I can accelerate quicker than the guys on a 53t and can "sprint" for longer seated at a cadence of around 130, provided I manage to get in the right gear. ( doesn't always happen when the tounge is hanging out at the end of a ride )
.I am in the process of aquiring a 48t rotor ring to test out this "acceleration and increased cadence " theory I have. *NOT ALL GEAR INCHES ARE EQUAL*


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

So, what would a Rotor 53Q be roughly equivalent to in a round gear?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

spade2you said:


> So, what would a Rotor 53Q be roughly equivalent to in a round gear?


there is no single 'equivalent'...at the upper dead spot the 53 is like a 51, but as the pedal starts to go down it's like a 56.


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

cxwrench is right, a 53t q-Ring is almost a 56 on the power side and a 51t on tdc. With the the 50t outer I'm rarely in the 12 and never in the 11. Thats why I'm interested in the 48t. I believe it will spin even easier and my cadence hopefully go up another 2 or 3 rpm which will almost negate having to drop down a gear. At 130rpm+ in a sprint, you can still hit over 60km/hr seated in the 13 ..... much better for you than smashing yourself in the 13/12 at 115rpm. .... ONLY MY OPINION as I know guys who have tried them and gone back to round. I feel if its good enough for Trackies to ride a 48t ( and whatever on the back ) and ride surges/sprint etc between 40 and 60+ km/hr for over an hour its worth a try for us. No doubt at all in my mind that acceleration improves on the smaller chainring even if the gear inches are the same if using the 53t. Its all about the cadence I believe.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Q-ringer said:


> cxwrench is right, a 53t q-Ring is almost a 56 on the power side and a 51t on tdc. With the the 50t outer I'm rarely in the 12 and never in the 11. Thats why I'm interested in the 48t. I believe it will spin even easier and my cadence hopefully go up another 2 or 3 rpm which will almost negate having to drop down a gear. At 130rpm+ in a sprint, you can still hit over 60km/hr seated in the 13 ..... much better for you than smashing yourself in the 13/12 at 115rpm. .... ONLY MY OPINION as I know guys who have tried them and gone back to round. I feel if its good enough for Trackies to ride a 48t ( and whatever on the back ) and ride surges/sprint etc between 40 and 60+ km/hr for over an hour its worth a try for us. *No doubt at all in my mind that acceleration improves on the smaller chainring even if the gear inches are the same if using the 53t. Its all about the cadence I believe.*


if the gear inches are the same, the cadence is the same. period. the chainring size can be whatever, but the 'effective' diameter of the wheel is the same. i remember debating this at a track world cup in l.a. w/ a sprinter, a pursuiter(an engineer, also) and a mass start racer. we went on and on and on, then the engineer/pursuited convinced us it's the same.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

If there are 53 teeth on the chainring, then that's precisely how many chain holes the ring will move along per rotation, irrespective of its shape.


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

I guess my arguement is not with the actual distance travelled in the gear inches whether on large or small front rings at the same cadence. ( this can't change ). I'm feeling ( and it may all be in my mind ) that I can travel at the same speed/cadence on a smaller chainring ie. 50t or 48t rather thana 53t, with less effort applied to the pedals. This in turn equates to being fresher at the end of the ride for the run to the line. Maybe its only the q-ring effect? I do know that I have a 39t/53t q-ring on a heavier training bike and I feel I am working harder when on the 53t to cope with surges during a ride. *A 53x14 @95rpm ( around 45km/hr ) feels harder to push for me than a 50x14 @ 100rpm at the same speed. *


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

cxwrench said:


> there is no single 'equivalent'...at the upper dead spot the 53 is like a 51, but as the pedal starts to go down it's like a 56.


I read ya loud and clear. Makes sense. I might consider one some day, although I'd probably want a round inner ring.


----------



## JackDaniels (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm a big fan of chainstay mounted brakes and oval chainrings....


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

What about Mavic's electronic shifting system?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Q-ringer said:


> I guess my arguement is not with the actual distance travelled in the gear inches whether on large or small front rings at the same cadence. ( this can't change ). I'm feeling ( and it may all be in my mind ) that I can travel at the same speed/cadence on a smaller chainring ie. 50t or 48t rather thana 53t, with less effort applied to the pedals. This in turn equates to being fresher at the end of the ride for the run to the line. Maybe its only the q-ring effect? I do know that I have a 39t/53t q-ring on a heavier training bike and I feel I am working harder when on the 53t to cope with surges during a ride. *A 53x14 @95rpm ( around 45km/hr ) feels harder to push for me than a 50x14 @ 100rpm at the same speed. *


of course, now that you bring up a difference in cadence. there is no way you can have the same cadence if you use 2 different size chainrings and the same cog. you said, "even if the gear inches are the same if using the 53t". that can't happen. 
if the gear inches are the same, it doesn't matter what size gears you use, the acceleration will feel the same.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Is it necessary to adjust fit with Q Rings?


----------



## Ventruck (Mar 9, 2009)

spade2you said:


> Is it necessary to adjust fit with Q Rings?


It's not like a physical dimension actually changed, so really no fit adjustment really necessary. 

However, after thorough testing to determine which OCP setting, you may find yourself adjusting fore/aft saddle position a bit to perfect your position relative to the gear's "regulation point" (heaviest point where say, the 53 turns into a 56). Would emphasize "a bit" because ideally you shouldn't be compromising your position relative to the rest of the bike's actual geometry.

As far as equivalent gearing goes, what cxwrench said was right. You're doing the same about of work through the pedaling circle in the end, just possibly more comfortably/rhythmically. Rotor's rule of thumb is if you were using a 53t, get a 53t Q-ring. 

I've always debated getting a smaller ring than usual - like where the max gear inch matches that of a 53t instead of larger - and maybe I should've the second time around. Would make some sense in the approach you don't try to improve pace by putting emphasis on using maximum force strategically, but instead thrive more of the reduced dead-spot of the stroke to aid cadence. But of course that could just be the matter of shifting into another cog.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Gotcha. I figured about as much.


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

When I mentioned I felt that "all gear inches aren't the same" I don't think I said using the same size cog and same cadence with 2 different sized chainrings. eg. 53t x15rear cog @115rpm is basically the same gear inches as 48tx13rear cog @115rpm. Personally I would rather ride the 48t ring than the 53t ring ( assuming q-rings only ).

Alex_Simmons said "there are 53 teeth on the chainring, then that's precisely how many chain holes the ring will move along per rotation, irrespective of its shape." Very true, but my feeling ( I'm no rocker scientist so could be totally screwing this theory up) is that it is in the manner that the chainring engages those holes. For example, with the 53t q-ring, the long axis (power stroke when the pedals are at 3 óclock ) has 28 teeth to engage. When the chainring is on the short axis ( power off at tdc and bdc ) there are only 25 teeth to engage. 

if you are riding at 100 rpm you have 50 revs per min covering the 28t when in the power stroke and 50 revs per min in the non power side, which only covers 25t. Over a 2 hour ride that is 6000 revolutions over the shorter axis where I feel one can conserve energy for a sprint etc. ie. you dont need to apply as much force to the pedals to get over the shorter axis at tdc and bdc.

Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong in my understanding of the q-rings and the use of a smaller front chainring, I have found a measurable increase in average topend speed achieved in a sprint of 5km/hr over the last 6 months compared to almost 6 years of riding a 53t round ring. I am very, very happy with the rings ..... we are all different phsically and have different pedalling techniques, for me they apparently work.... for others maybe not.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Q-ringer said:


> When I mentioned I felt that "all gear inches aren't the same" I don't think I said using the same size cog and same cadence with 2 different sized chainrings. eg. 53t x15rear cog @115rpm is basically the same gear inches as 48tx13rear cog @115rpm. Personally I would rather ride the 48t ring than the 53t ring ( assuming q-rings only ).
> 
> Alex_Simmons said "there are 53 teeth on the chainring, then that's precisely how many chain holes the ring will move along per rotation, irrespective of its shape." Very true, but my feeling ( I'm no rocker scientist so could be totally screwing this theory up) is that it is in the manner that the chainring engages those holes. For example, with the 53t q-ring, the long axis (power stroke when the pedals are at 3 óclock ) has 28 teeth to engage. When the chainring is on the short axis ( power off at tdc and bdc ) there are only 25 teeth to engage.
> 
> ...


you're wrong. what matters is that there are the same number of teeth on the chainring, and that the chain makes the cog (and thus the wheel) turn the same number of revolutions per pedal stroke. doesn't matter to the rear wheel if it's round, oval, or square.


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

I'm not going to argue the point as I'm only throwing outideas here to try and find answers from you guys as to why I feel better on a50t q-ring and why I have increased my top end sprinting speed by 5km/hrwithout doing anything different in the last 6 months. Why can I produce a muchhigher cadence on the 50t in a sprint than I could on the 53t round ones? ( av13 rpm higher ) 
*Another question *..... can the pedaling eficiency beaffected by the shape of the q-rings enabling one to get over tdc quicker andwith less effort required and thus remain fresher?
I know guys who have tried the Q-rings for some time and gone back to round...... its obviously a personal thing depending on the phsyiology and pedalingtechnique of the individual .... for me, I'm very happy and can't see anyreason for ever going back to round. 
The 48t just arrived today so all will be answered concerning the small ringtheory I have believed in .... I'll either be able to keep up or I wont. If notthere will be a near new 48t q-ring up for sale on e-bay in the coming weeks.

thanks for your input<o></o>


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

Q-ringer said:


> I'm not going to argue the point as I'm only throwing outideas here to try and find answers from you guys as to why I feel better on a50t q-ring and why I have increased my top end sprinting speed by 5km/hrwithout doing anything different in the last 6 months. Why can I produce a muchhigher cadence on the 50t in a sprint than I could on the 53t round ones? ( av13 rpm higher )
> *Another question *..... can the pedaling eficiency beaffected by the shape of the q-rings enabling one to get over tdc quicker andwith less effort required and thus remain fresher?
> I know guys who have tried the Q-rings for some time and gone back to round...... its obviously a personal thing depending on the phsyiology and pedalingtechnique of the individual .... for me, I'm very happy and can't see anyreason for ever going back to round.
> The 48t just arrived today so all will be answered concerning the small ringtheory I have believed in .... I'll either be able to keep up or I wont. If notthere will be a near new 48t q-ring up for sale on e-bay in the coming weeks.
> ...


As a masher and one who does not have great technique pedaling through the top and bottom I think Q rings help me to be smoother at those times. I believe those habits can be trained away over time with round rings, drills and coaching. Not having a coach, video, or other tools necessary to really change my technique I view the rings as reducing my deficiency more than elevating my performance above those that don't have them. Sort of a poor mans coach...just my opinion.


----------



## AndrwSwitch (May 28, 2009)

You don't give yourself a lot of credit.

I have a high cadence and pretty smooth stroke. I've never worked with a coach or video and haven't even had a cadence sensor for most of the last thirteen years.

Drills are free to do and described all over the internet. My favorite three are spin-ups, sustaining elevated cadences (without bouncing) and, not really a drill, paying attention to riding the lowest gear that lets me develop power.

Given the expense of Q rings, I'd hardly call them a "poor man's" anything. Self-coaching and the published literature are the poor man's coach.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Q-ringer said:


> I'm not going to argue the point as I'm only throwing outideas here to try and find answers from you guys as to why I feel better on a50t q-ring and why I have increased my top end sprinting speed by 5km/hrwithout doing anything different in the last 6 months. Why can I produce a muchhigher cadence on the 50t in a sprint than I could on the 53t round ones? ( av13 rpm higher )
> *Another question *..... can the pedaling eficiency beaffected by the shape of the q-rings enabling one to get over tdc quicker andwith less effort required and thus remain fresher?
> I know guys who have tried the Q-rings for some time and gone back to round...... its obviously a personal thing depending on the phsyiology and pedalingtechnique of the individual .... for me, I'm very happy and can't see anyreason for ever going back to round.
> The 48t just arrived today so all will be answered concerning the small ringtheory I have believed in .... I'll either be able to keep up or I wont. If notthere will be a near new 48t q-ring up for sale on e-bay in the coming weeks.
> ...


given an 'average' sprint speed of 38.0mph, in a 53/11 your cadence is 101. in 50/11 it's 107. that is obviously a difference of 6rpm just from the difference in chainrings. i have no idea where your 13rpm difference is coming from. more/better training? Q-rings? different conditions? who knows...it could be purely mental...you spend a bunch of $$ on new parts and you _just know they're going to make you faster_. maybe you are fresher when you get to your sprint and it could be the rings. you'd have to do a lot of testing to know for sure.


----------



## Q-ringer (Jan 10, 2013)

this is what I've found over the last 6 months.

*53 round: 5.5 years of riding*. Av spd in sprint=50.2 km/hr in all conditions
Av HR = 128 over ride
Av cadence = 89
Av Max sprint cad = 111
*53 Q-ring: 6 months riding*. Av spd in sprint=54.9 km/hr in all conditions 
Av HR = 124 over ride
Av cadence = 92
Av Max sprint cad = 121 
*50 Q-ring: 6 months riding.* Av spd in sprint=55.4 km/hr in all conditions 
Av HR = 124 over ride
Av cadence = 93
Av max sprint cad = 122
*42 Q-ring: 6 months riding*. Av spd in sprint=48.1 km/hr head =strong cross wind 
Av HR = 124 over ride
Av cadence = 94
Av max sprint cad = 124 

I probably should point out that I'm almost 62 and as such don't have the leg strength of you younger guys. Could this be having an impact on why I feel better spinning on the q-rings and getting over tdc with perhaps less effort than on the round? The 4 rpm quicker cadence is almost 1 gear down on where I would normally be riding on the 53t round but still doesn't explain the quicker cadence in a sprint. Maybe I'm now just a bit smarter and can pick the correct gear to sprint in..... this might be the most logical as I was never overly conscious of what gear I was riding in pre q-rings. 

Having my first hitout tomorrow on the 42t/48t q-ring combination ..... hope its not a big mistake.


----------

