# Wiggins Chainring



## Guy Noir

For a brief 3-4 second shot today at Wiggins chainring in the TT, I thought it was elliptical. Is that so?

If it was, how did that contribute to his win today and does any other rider use an elliptical?


----------



## Clyde250

Its an Osymetric. It is elliptical.


----------



## tetter

ROTOR Q-Rings increase power chain rings at twohubs.com - YouTube

all in the video


----------



## gusmahler

Yes, Wiggins uses an Osymetric chainring.

Wiggins Was Also Running O.symetric Chainrings On Both His Primary And Spare Bike. Photos | Cyclingnews.com










Their website really needs work. You'd think they'd be proud of the fact that the yellow jersey wearer uses their product. But no mention of it. 

Wiggins' Sky teammates Froome and Porte also uses those chainrings.

This site claims 5-15% increase in wattage with these chainrings.

Why I am Selling O-Symetric Oval Chainrings | King BikeFit


----------



## johnny dollar

Osymmetric, Biopace, Powerring and Q rings try to make the power stroke more ergonomic and reduce dead spots.
It effectively changes the gear ratio at certain angles of the stroke.


----------



## den bakker

Guy Noir said:


> For a brief 3-4 second shot today at Wiggins chainring in the TT, I thought it was elliptical. Is that so?
> 
> If it was, how did that contribute to his win today and does any other rider use an elliptical?


Oval, elliptical is so 1980s. It contributed to his win in that it helps transfer power from the crankset to a chain that passes over the oval chain rings. Through the chain the power is then transferred to the rear wheel which makes the bike move forward. 
If you ask if oval chanrings are more efficient, unless something has come up the last few years that has not been shown. 
Makes a nice buffer on some pro bank accounts though. 
by the way, sastre won the tour on oval chain rings as well. It's not new.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

Oh Lord, here we go.


----------



## den bakker

gusmahler said:


> yes, wiggins uses an osymetric chainring.
> 
> wiggins was also running o.symetric chainrings on both his primary and spare bike. Photos | cyclingnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their website really needs work. You'd think they'd be proud of the fact that the yellow jersey wearer uses their product. But no mention of it.
> 
> Wiggins' sky teammates froome and porte also uses those chainrings.
> 
> This site claims 5-15% increase in wattage with these chainrings.
> 
> why i am selling o-symetric oval chainrings | king bikefit


15% ?


----------



## loubnc

Clyde250 said:


> Its an Osymetric. It is elliptical.


Not quite elliptical. Look closer.


----------



## loubnc

I know I'm going to get jumped on for this, but I have one of the Osymetric rings on my single speed TT bike.:blush2:

(anecdotal evidence follows)
I can't explain why, but going from a 50x14 (round) to a 52x14 (Osymetric) feels much easier to turn over. My 10-mile avg speed and avg wattage has increased by about 9%. I also feel less fatigued after the same distance.
(anecdote over):thumbsup:

Yes, I know. Bigger gear=more speed (and probably watts) at the same cadence, but it doesn't explain why it seems easier to spin. The shape maybe? All in my head? Snake Oil? New toy=good? All I know is I like the different pedaling feel it gives and it seems to work for me.

I've not purchased one yet (borrowed), so don't give me the "fool and his money" speech. Just relaying my experience.


----------



## davidka

We all have large dead spots in our pedal stroke. The oval ring makes the leverage higher in these dead spots (12 o'clock) and lower in the powerful spots (3 o'clock). It really makes perfect sense. I've never tried it but everyone I have seen try it has stayed with it.


----------



## yurl

they've been around for a while. either it only works for some or it's just a placebo otherwise you'd see all the pros use them. even at 5% more power that's a huge advantage when you consider all the things they do to get less than 1% gain like water bottles, built in brakes, skin suits etc.


----------



## cda 455

johnny dollar said:


> Osymmetric, Biopace, Powerring and Q rings try to make the power stroke more ergonomic and reduce dead spots.
> It effectively changes the gear ratio at certain angles of the stroke.


Very good summary.



If I were to use this chainring, for simplicity, I would probably go with the single chainring set up because of the difficulty in shifting due to its' shape. :shrug:


----------



## Fireform

I don't believe I know anyone using osymetric rings, but I do have roadie friends who use and like Q rings. I'm thinking I'll try a set when my DA 7900 big ring gets a little more worn. It's at around 16 k right now and costs as much as a pair of Q rings on its own.


----------



## Allthatflash

Well Wiggins was a whole lot faster then anyone on yesterdays TT so......IDK it might have been the chain rings.


----------



## grandprix

I bet it was the motor rather than the chainrings, as per always.

My very first 'real' road bike had biopace rings. Can't say I miss them.


----------



## cxwrench

johnny dollar said:


> Osymmetric, Biopace, Powerring and Q rings try to make the power stroke more ergonomic and reduce dead spots.
> It effectively changes the gear ratio at certain angles of the stroke.


except Biopace was the exact opposite of what the Q rings and Osymmetric are trying to do. and they were a totally different shape. only similarity was that they weren't 'round'. 
parts - Differences between Biopace and Rotor cranks - Bicycles


----------



## Bill Bikie

30+ years ago I purchased a new Klein Quantum frame which came with a Shimano spindle. I ordered a Shimano 600 crank set for the Klein. The chain rings ended up being the Shimano's Bio-Pace. I couldn't wait to toss them in the river. 

Wayne Stetina the former racer was Shimano's celebrity spokes person for Bio-Pace.
I recall meeting him at a display booth during a criterium, and he let me try out the rings on a trainer. They were interesting, and that's about all. Ironically I ended with these knee busters on my Klein. But not for long.

The original Seven-11 team was at this crit!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

gusmahler said:


> This site claims 5-15% increase in wattage with these chainrings.
> 
> Why I am Selling O-Symetric Oval Chainrings | King BikeFit


Aren't there laws against false and misleading advertising?


----------



## Guest

cxwrench said:


> except Biopace was the exact opposite of what the Q rings and Osymmetric are trying to do. and they were a totally different shape. only similarity was that they weren't 'round'.
> parts - Differences between Biopace and Rotor cranks - Bicycles


Interesting. So one school argues that having lower mechanical advantage (more teeth) during the dead-portion of the cycle is better to allow faster application of force dring the "power stroke". The other claims having higher mechanical advantage at the dead spot on the crank is better to make it easier to get past the dead spot. 

Sounds to me like the best option would be some sort of crank that could split the difference between these two extremes and offer the same mechanical advantage at all parts of the cycle. I wonder if anyone's ever made such a product...


----------



## vismitananda

Let's say those "state of the art" chain rings does gave Wiggo a thrust into winning the TT stage.

But who damn cares? He'd won and that's it.  

This is one of the reasons why I like cycling, Europeans are really serious on their job, and thus creating "science" in cycling. Awesome!


----------



## cxwrench

PhotonFreak said:


> Interesting. So one school argues that having lower mechanical advantage (more teeth) during the dead-portion of the cycle is better to allow faster application of force dring the "power stroke". The other claims having higher mechanical advantage at the dead spot on the crank is better to make it easier to get past the dead spot.
> 
> Sounds to me like the best option would be some sort of crank that could split the difference between these two extremes and offer the same mechanical advantage at all parts of the cycle. I wonder if anyone's ever made such a product...


they have...they're called 'round chainrings'. 

biopace was not designed as a 'performance' product. it was made with people that didn't know how to pedal smoothly in mind, if i remember correctly.


----------



## johnny dollar

...an opposite approach toward the same end goal.

Thanks for the link.


cxwrench said:


> except Biopace was the exact opposite of what the Q rings and Osymmetric are trying to do. and they were a totally different shape. only similarity was that they weren't 'round'.
> parts - Differences between Biopace and Rotor cranks - Bicycles


:lol:


PhotonFreak said:


> Sounds to me like the best option would be some sort of crank that could split the difference between these two extremes and offer the same mechanical advantage at all parts of the cycle. I wonder if anyone's ever made such a product...


----------



## JackDaniels

it looked like his chain was skipping all over the place


----------



## 1LaneLam

His elliptical chainring also popped off during his Tour de Romandie's TT stage... However, he did manage to win the stage with 1 second in front of Talansky.


----------



## SFTifoso

How much of this is mental, or as it's know in the car world "butt dyno". Example: "I think that new oil is making more horse power!"


----------



## jlandry

Nah... his chainring is just worn-out on two sides.


----------



## Drummerboy1975

Remind me of the old Biospace that folks claimed to have caused knee injuries.


----------



## MattSoutherden

Biopace have the ovalisation at 90 degrees to the Rotor/Osym rings.

O-Symetric rings are designed to give the greatest gear at the point where you can apply most force in the pedal stroke, and the smallest gear at the deadspot. The point being to make it as easy as possible to spin the pedals.

The idea behind Biopace was to make power delivery to the wheel as smooth possible. So you had a bigger gear at the weak point, and a smaller gear at the strongest point. Having the big gear at the deadspot was what caused problems.


----------



## Allthatflash

This is really intriguing me more and more....I think I might try this out. Rotor has had a lot of development on this and seems to be a good start. They have both just the rings or a complete set depending on your budget but those Rotor look cool on top of that they might be something that can save the knees and give you more in the tank on long rides.


----------



## steel515

how do Rotor rings compare to Osymetric? Why do they cost so much?


----------



## ulrichw

SFTifoso said:


> How much of this is mental, or as it's know in the car world "butt dyno". Example: "I think that new oil is making more horse power!"


To respond with a rhetorical question: "How much of riding a time trial is mental?"


----------



## MattSoutherden

Some light reading.

Non Circular Chainring


----------



## ulrichw

MattSoutherden said:


> Some light reading.
> 
> Non Circular Chainring


Hmm... 

From: Comparative biomechanical study of circular and non-circular chainrings for endurance cycling at constant speed. Release 2.

(second of papers at this link)...

It looks like they're using an at best misleading and at worst fallacious definition of efficiency...

Specifically: "In the middle of the page, the performances with respect to criterion 2 are 
plotted (crank power development at equal joint moments, circular and noncircular). [...] The ratio between the mean non-circular crank power and the mean circular 
crank power is a measure for the efficiency gain of the non-circular chainring, 
compared to a circular one."

This is how they calculate their 15% "efficiency" gain.

So what they're saying, I believe, is that for a given force developed at the joints, using an non-circular chain ring can develop more power than a circular chain ring.

This however doesn't translate to a better performance on the bike, unless force at the joints is the limiting factor to performance. I believe other evidence shows fairly conclusively that the "aerobic" engine is the limiting factor, and therefore limiting the force that your muscles need to generate doesn't equate to going faster. (Look at the fairly significant variations in cadence used by top time triallers, and it should be evident that force generated on the pedals is not a primary determinant of performance).

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that these rings don't in some way improve performance. I'm just saying that those papers don't do a good job of proving the point (it doesn't help that the abstract for the second one reads so much like marketing literature).


----------



## DrSmile

davidka said:


> We all have large dead spots in our pedal stroke.


Mine covers about 360 degrees! :cryin:


----------



## MattSoutherden

ulrichw said:


> I believe other evidence shows fairly conclusively that the "aerobic" engine is the limiting factor, and therefore limiting the force that your muscles need to generate doesn't equate to going faster.


Yes, the aerobic engine is the limiter. But a reduction in the force also means a decrease in the amount of energy your muscles use on each contraction. Therefore you can a) save energy while still riding at the same pace, or b) ride faster for the same exertion.


----------



## KevinK2

PhotonFreak said:


> Interesting. So one school argues that having lower mechanical advantage (more teeth) during the dead-portion of the cycle is better to allow faster application of force dring the "power stroke". The other claims having higher mechanical advantage at the dead spot on the crank is better to make it easier to get past the dead spot.......


I (and others) see no value for the biopace ring, the first one described above. But the Q-ring allows the legs and feet to accelerate through the inactive zone (with the minor dia) for added inertial loading into the power zone.

The bottom line is does it increase the kinematic efficiency in creating torque, vs the round ring. Hopefully, one of these high dollar teams did some testing to validate the Q-ring, and will *publish it. *I could see one test on a real bike to get ave kw vs heart rate for a steady speed. And then another test for the Qring.


----------



## Allthatflash

I'm not a rocket scientist but from the info on the Rotor Q rings and Osymetrics it seems to be logical... we don't walk in a circle nor do we pedal that way naturally .......so this might be a good thing.


----------



## thechriswebb

I'm intrigued as well but I can't help wondering if oblong chainrings are one of those things like airless tires that pop back up every several years and then fade away again when they turn out to be hokey.


----------



## Allthatflash

If u really look at it similar to a rotary engine, which had a triangular piston in a oval case. Power is delivered in a different way then the conventional engine that has a up and down power to a crank ( which also have dead spots) just like when we peddle


----------



## DrSmile

Allthatflash said:


> If u really look at it similar to a rotary engine, which had a triangular piston in a oval case. Power is delivered in a different way then the conventional engine that has a up and down power to a crank ( which also have dead spots) just like when we peddle


You're definitely peddling something there...


----------



## KevinK2

loubnc said:


> ... (anecdotal evidence follows) ... I can't explain why, but going from a 50x14 (round) to a 52x14 (Osymetric) feels much easier to turn over. My 10-mile avg speed and avg wattage has increased by about 9%. I also feel less fatigued after the same distance.(anecdote over).


Now if "anecdote" had an averaged bpm that was at least equal for both runs, then that's a good data point for the Osy ring.

Is there any real test data, like described above, for the effectiveness of the ring? Looking for more watts/heart-rate


----------



## KevinK2

Allthatflash said:


> If u really look at it similar to a rotary engine, which had a triangular piston in a oval case. Power is delivered in a different way then the conventional engine that has a up and down power to a crank ( which also have dead spots) just like when we peddle


Very poor analogy, worthy of forgetting. Wankel-Rotary power is delivered in the *same way *most every other 4 stroke otto cycle engines do it: no torque at tdc and bdc, max torque about 40% of down stroke. Wankel takes 3 revs to pop all pockets, mustang 5.0's take 2 revs to pop them all.


----------



## Allthatflash

KevinK2 said:


> Very poor analogy, worthy of forgetting. Wankel-Rotary power is delivered in the *same way *most every other 4 stroke otto cycle engines do it: no torque at tdc and bdc, max torque about 40% of down stroke. Wankel takes 3 revs to pop all pockets, mustang 5.0's take 2 revs to pop them all.


It wasn't the 4 stroke anology I was getting at it was the way the power delivery and torque which you just explained it. But a rotory motor uses a oval engine case unlike a v8 which was also another point I was getting at. So non-circular pattern do work It's just a different application.


----------



## ziscwg

steel515 said:


> how do Rotor rings compare to Osymetric? Why do they cost so much?


ding Ding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The cost is why there is there's less adoption and skepticism. Really, $270 for a road set??? I think even a set of SRAM Red replacement rings cost less.

If rotor wants more people to use them, they are going to have to figure out how to get the price bellow the Ultegra replacement ring cost.


----------



## KevinK2

ulrichw said:


> Hmm...
> 
> From: Comparative biomechanical study of circular and non-circular chainrings for endurance cycling at constant speed. Release 2.
> 
> (second of papers at this link)...
> 
> It looks like they're using an at best misleading and at worst fallacious definition of efficiency...
> 
> .... This is how they calculate their 15% "efficiency" gain.


I'm still working on it, but I find the linked pdf's to be masterpieces of mathcad ... 1st and 2nd derivatives of curve fittled 4th order polynomials, based on instrumented pedal data ... yikes! And lots of references to prof Hull's work (UC-Davis), that I also used in the design of the Specialized 3-spoke.

I don't think this paper claims the 15% gain, that comes from a ring maker. And this paper is based on pro endurance cycling, and the values don't approach any heart or muscle limit, as I read it. More later.


----------



## brblue

*wiggo's chainrings*

.. are not something new, he's been using them for a long time. So he's obviously been losing races on them as well as winning them. I'm not sure if he's been using them before the 2009 giro d'italia where he "became" a climber... if he didn't, maybe we've got something.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST

KevinK2 said:


> Now if "anecdote" had an averaged bpm that was at least equal for both runs, then that's a good data point for the Osy ring.
> 
> Is there any real test data, like described above, for the effectiveness of the ring? Looking for more watts/heart-rate


Watts/HR s not a good measure. And efficiency is a red herring (besides, the only way to measure efficiency is to measure power output and energy metabolism and that's got nothing to do with HR. Typically measured in lab via gas exchange analysis).

*All that matters is sustainable power over durations of interest. *

If power output is improved, then performance will too.

Keep in mind that use of such rings artificially inflates the recorded power by an SRM by several percent, a factor often misunderstood when people see a "lift" in power.

There is no substantive evidence to suggest that use of such rings leads to an improvement in power output. These are in the same category as crank length, ride what you like if it feels good to you, but don't expect miracles. 

Power is power and it has to be paid for.


----------



## cda 455

davidka said:


> We all have large dead spots in our pedal stroke.





DrSmile said:


> Mine covers about 360 degrees! :cryin:



:lol: :lol:


----------



## KevinK2

"the only way to measure *efficiency* is to measure power output and energy metabolism and that's got nothing to do with HR."

So theoretically pure efficiency can't be measured quantitatively with HR? But, what about qualitative improvement and heart rate? Example: for a single, well trained pro, doing a 1 hr breakaway simulation, repeated several times under well controlled conditions. Also assume he is visually controlling his speed against a perfect dynamommeter. If he showed consistently lower averaged heart-rates, using an oblong ring (that has been shown to be theoretically more efficient in delivering power) vs a round ring, that does not mean he is more efficiently delivering power to the rear wheel?

"All that matters is sustainable power over durations of interest."

But one must differentiate whether you are talking human power vs power delivered to the rear wheel. Hexagonal chain rings are very likely to deliver less power to the wheel, vs a round ring, and that could be quantified qualitatively with heart rate.


----------



## Cableguy

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> Keep in mind that use of such rings artificially inflates the recorded power by an SRM by several percent, a factor often misunderstood when people see a "lift" in power.


This is curious, do you know how specifically a power meter such as an SRM is tricked into reporting more power than there really is with an elliptical style chainring?


----------



## cda 455

According to a write up, it's a real b!tch to set up. 

That includes highly modifying/tweeking the front derailleur.


Like I said earlier, if I ever get the itch to try one I'll do a single chainring set up with a used crankset. I love the idea of eliminating/reducing dead spots of the crank rotation.


----------



## KevinK2

Yup, I think there would be obvious sweet spots for shifting ... another reason it's a TT thing. Based on the elaborate math model in the linked paper, it uses the dead zone to develop inertial leg mass loads that help push the pedal. Don't expect 15% gains, more like 2-4% per the paper.


----------



## KevinK2

Cableguy said:


> This is curious, do you know how specifically a power meter such as an SRM is tricked into reporting more power than there really is with an elliptical style chainring?


 I wondered about the same. Given a strain gauge system, you have the potential to use a processor to provide power readings at hundreds of increments of one revolution. Existing meters, to be able to measure quick power changes, must have some minimum sample rate to get the average/mean power delivered per rev. I see nothing in this logic that would suggest an eror due to the oblong sprocket.


----------



## ulrichw

KevinK2 said:


> I wondered about the same. Given a strain gauge system, you have the potential to use a processor to provide power readings at hundreds of increments of one revolution. Existing meters, to be able to measure quick power changes, must have some minimum sample rate to get the average/mean power delivered per rev. I see nothing in this logic that would suggest an eror due to the oblong sprocket.


Here's a guess:
While the sampling rate is definitely quite high for the SRM, it doesn't have a very sensitive position sensor. I don't know for sure how many reed switches it has to detect position, but I believe it's at most two. (see: SRM Training System Edition Track for quote "NEW: The Powermeter has two reed switches for a shorter lag time until recording data." - this is for the track version, but I assume the road version is likely to be similar).

I believe that it assumes a constant rotation speed in between each reed switch, which is probably not a bad assumption with a circular chainring.

Obviously the elliptical chainring perturbs this somewhat.

The only thing that confuses me about this is that I would have thought that this would result in *underreporting* the power, rather than overreporting, because the current elliptical rings would cause the "power portion" of the pedal stroke to be proportionally longer.

There may be other types of fudging going on to account for acceleration, etc. that may be getting fooled by the inconsistent speed of the pedals.


----------



## tom_h

There have been some independent, academic lab studies of non-round chainrings. Small sample sizes of cyclists on ergometers, measuring power outputs, etc.

IIRC, the cyclists adapted to each style of chain ring relatively rapidly, and there was no measurably significant difference of round vs non-round rings.

I suspect it's in same category as crankarm length. Lab studies have shown there's no significant relation between power output & crank length, even over a wide range of ~20mm.

Likely comes down to personal preference, IMO.


----------



## KevinK2

tom_h said:


> There have been some independent, academic lab studies of non-round chainrings. Small sample sizes of cyclists on ergometers, measuring power outputs, etc.
> 
> IIRC, the cyclists adapted to each style of chain ring relatively rapidly, and there was no *measurably* significant difference of round vs non-round rings.
> 
> I suspect it's in same category as crankarm length. Lab studies have shown there's no significant relation between power output & crank length, even over a wide range of ~20mm.
> 
> Likely comes down to personal preference, IMO.


The difference the excellent theoretical analysis predicted was just a few percent, not sure what was measurable in the testing you noted. More important imho, the ~fastest time trialer in the world chose to use a non circular ring in the TDF (we will see what he uses in the final TT), risking some less than elegant shifting and possible trouble, vs a round ring. When Armstrong won his many TT's over the years, he was usually using the 3 spoke composite wheel (that I designed) up front because of the team's testing results. Hard to ignore that reality.


----------



## Local Hero

You designed that wheel? 

(Have you got any extras lying around in your garage?)


----------



## tom_h

KevinK2,
"_no measurably significant difference_" in many of those lab studies is typically a statistical analysis, "2-tailed t-test @ 95% confidence" 
Student's t-test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe in Wiggins' case they did some extensive ergometer/power testing demonstrating a benefit for his pedaling style or biomechanics or whatever ... but for a representative cross-section of trained cyclists, there was no power benefit for the non-round chainrings in the independent study I read ... will try to find that reference again.

As always, you have to be careful to discover who was sponsoring, directly or indirectly, the research. It's no surprise that investigators will try very hard to interpret data into a form that pleases their financial benefactor and assures a future revenue stream ;-)

Added:
here's a partial list of technical articles and abstracts having the keyword "chain ring" :
chainring - PubMed - NCBI

Some of the abstracts claim there is a performance benefit, others say there is not -- but a quick scan of the first page of abstracts seems to mostly skew toward "no benefit".


----------



## Local Hero

KevinK2 said:


> Yup, I think there would be obvious sweet spots for shifting ...


Surely it is ramped/gated.


----------



## KevinK2

It went like this:

2 guys/~cyclists in Dupont's Composite Group saw the very cheap Trispoke wheel, and knew they could do better with real design. They got the final "shape" from Prof Chester Kyle ('84 olympic bike wiz) and Steve Hed helped with wind tunnel testing.

The 2 guys came to me, an ME consultant in Dupont, that worked in a group of the top Eng'g dogs that solved problems at the plants that they could not handle. The two guys had the plywood prototype from the windtunnel, and wanted me to do the structural design, but also wanted me the use a loser fabrication process ..... I declined. They came back, agreeing to use a proper fab method, and I started, drooling a bit as I was a closet hard core cyclist.

I first got a 2" stack of published papers from Prof Hull at UC-Davis, all about strain gage work he had done to determine loads on the frame. I then established a design basis for the wheel, including matching the lateral stiffness of a 32 spoke wheel. I used this main model to optimize the layup:

Basic model

I threw away the guy's usless sketches for the alum hub and rim, and did my own optimized designs for both, using two more sub-models.

Two young ladies did a great job of getting the fabrication process designed, and I helped with my model when the first wheels were trilobal, and gave you a butt massage when used on a bike.

I then spent a lot of time ($$$) in the lab doing fatigue testing, destructive testing, developing an acoustic emission method of non-destructive testing of the hub to composite bond, and basic verification of the model vs the actual wheel.

This is an Article from Bicycling magazine, 1990, abut the wheel. The "two-guys" took credit for my work, using the Cray Supercomputer (they may have made nice drawings with Cray-ons). I predicted this so I put my name in large font on the Monitor pic of the stressed wheel ;-)

Article and Stressed FEA Model

Sorry, extras were given to freinds long ago.


----------



## DrSmile

Debunked so many times it's ridiculous to even argue about. The truth through actual real science (these are legitimate journals listed in Medline, not bogus non-peer reviewed cycling rags):

Effects of a noncircular chainring system on muscle activation during cycling. Dagnese F. Carpes FP. Martins Ede A. Stefanyshyn D. Mota CB. Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology. 21(1):13-7, 2011 Feb. 
"The present results do not support effects of the noncircular crank system on variables of performance and muscle activation"

The influence of elliptical chainrings on 10 km cycling time trial performance. Peiffer JJ. Abbiss CR. International journal of sports physiology & performance. 5(4):459-68, 2010 Dec. 
"Elliptical chainrings do not appear to provide a performance benefit over traditional circular chainrings during a mid-distance time trial."

Cycling performance and mechanical variables using a new prototype chainring. Belen L. Habrard M. Micallef JP. Perrey S. Le Gallais D. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 101(6):721-6, 2007 Dec.
"We conclude that despite the theoretically benefits proposed by the inventors the new PC investigated in our study failed to improve cycling performance or mechanical variables during a supramaximal test when compared with SC. "

The performance and efficiency of cycling with a carbon fiber eccentric chainring during incremental exercise. Belen L. Habrard M. Micallef JP. Le Gallais D. Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness. 47(1):40-5, 2007 Mar. 
"The carbon fiber EC tested in this study failed to enhance cycling performance and efficiency throughout an incremental exercise."

Physiological responses during cycling with noncircular "Harmonic" and circular chainrings. Ratel S. Duche P. Hautier CA. Williams CA. Bedu M. European Journal of Applied Physiology. 91(1):100-4, 2004 Jan.
"In conclusion, although the design of the Harmonic chainring was based on optimization analysis, comparison of the physiological response in this study did not translate into an advantage of the Harmonic over circular chainring during submaximal and maximal pedaling in trained cyclists. "

Physiological response to cycling with both circular and noncircular chainrings. Hull ML. Williams M. Williams K. Kautz S. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 24(10):1114-22, 1992 Oct. 
"... the gross efficiency of cycling was not improved by any of the noncircular chainrings. For cycling events where efficiency is a determinant of performance, the noncircular chainrings do not offer any advantage over round chainrings. "


----------



## thechriswebb

KevinK2 said:


> I then spent a lot of time ($$$) in the lab doing fatigue testing, destructive testing, developing an acoustic emission method of non-destructive testing of the hub to composite bond, and basic verification of the model vs the actual wheel.
> 
> This is an Article from Bicycling magazine, 1990, abut the wheel. The "two-guys" took credit for my work, using the Cray Supercomputer (they may have made nice drawings with Cray-ons). I predicted this so I put my name in large font on the Monitor pic of the stressed wheel ;-)



It sucks to do a lot of work for something and have somebody else take the credit for it. It has happened to me many times (partially because of my B-type personality and lack of aggression to fight for recognition). I will get no credit for the role that I played in getting cross nats here in Asheville where I live. I guess that I don't have anything real to gain for it but it is a little weird to me when people ask me if I know that cross nats are going to be in Asheville and when I started to see other people getting credit for the work. If I really had reason to fight it, there is evidence; there are even a couple of old threads here in RBR from a couple of years ago that I started, asking for advice from people because I had been thinking that the old 8,000 acre estate that I worked on would be an incredibly awesome place for a cyclocross race and I wanted some advice on how to start and promote a race. I was very vocal about it and inquired of my superiors to try and make it happen. Early last year, my boss approached me because I was the resident bike/cycling expert in the company to ask for my help b/c the company wanted to have "some sort of a mountain bike race" on the estate and they didn't know anything about what it was or how to plan it. He asked if he could make me a p.o.c. for them to communicate with and I told him to give them my email. The next day, I got an email from USA Cycling with a manual listing the requirements for hosting cyclocross nationals and I was asked to map potential courses and write a proposal. I used my GPS and rode three potential race courses and wrote a proposal that explained why the estate would be a good place to host the race and where the facilities/podium ceremonies should take place. I also recommended what I thought was the best route of the three that I mapped. My wife is a GIS technician so I got her to make professional quality maps that outlined everything and showed how the race could be organized logistically. I actually sort of expected (knowing the nature of the company) that I would be discarded from the process after they got what they needed from me so I put my name all over the documents and my wife put her name on the maps and stated that they could not be used without her permission. I submitted my proposal to the company and that was the end of it for me. A few months later, I learned second hand that Asheville had won the bid for cross nats and that the race would be held in the spot that I recommended and that the facilities that I designated as appropriate for use were going to be used as I recommended. People in my department that had nothing to do with the process were getting media attention for it and I continue to hear about it second hand from people who don't know that I have any knowledge of it whatsoever. If I wanted to, I guess I could prove my role in the process but I don't want to come across as a whiny DB trying to get my name in the paper for all of the work that I did. 

I know that this has nothing to do with Wiggin's chainring but your story of working hard to do something important and then seeing it develop to mass approval with other people's names attached to it reminded me a lot of this.



Edit: Here it is: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/cyclocross/has-anyone-here-ever-organized-promoted-race-193301.html


----------



## KevinK2

thechriswebb said:


> It sucks to do a lot of work for something and have somebody else take the credit for it. It has happened to me many times ...


I showed you how I at least got my name in. Type A-Z it doesn't matter, you need to take charge and get your recognition. Program Update emails cc'd to anything that moves is a start!


----------



## KevinK2

DrSmile said:


> Debunked so many times it's ridiculous to even argue about. The truth through actual real science (these are legitimate journals listed in Medline, not bogus non-peer reviewed cycling rags):
> 
> > results do not support
> 
> > do not appear
> 
> > during supramaximal test
> 
> > throughout an incremental exercise
> 
> > did not translate into an advantage
> 
> > the gross efficiency of cycling was not improved


I'm with you on pier reviewed published papers. I was asked to review many papers on various topics in the "analysis of bolted joints" for the ASME, and my rejection rate was about 80%. I clipped some phrases from all the papers listed, and all but one raised an eyebrow as to whether it delt with a typical TDF 30 mile TT, and what was considered "significant". The prior posted link to a excellent theoretical paper that predicted gains (and losses) for several non-round rings, based mostly on taking advantage of mass inertial effects. The gains were like 2-4% ... was that a significant magnitude in that group of papers?

I'd really like to read the most definitive paper that reflects a long TT, if that can be arranged?

You brought up very good points !


----------

