Rotor Q-Rings -- Opinions or Experiences?

[Keith A]

I have a friend who is interested in trying Rotor's Q-Rings. Before he makes the purchase, he wanted to hear from people who have actually used these and see if they really make a difference or if it is just marketing hype.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[eddief]

have never tried them on an upright bike. but without a doubt, in the recumbent riding position, it "feels" to me as if the mechanical advantage of the rings and how they are positioned "within" your pedal stroke makes a noticeable difference. Problem is I don't know how to measure it. Another thing I can say is I have changed the position of the rings at least once in order to get the them to feel good and then better.

Since there is no standing on the pedals with a recumbent, I try to get as much power in the sitting position as possible...without hammering my knees too much. With the "backrest" seat on a bent, you can apply an enormous a amount of pressure to the knees. So mine is geared really low for as much spinning up hill as possible and the Qrings seem to facilitate this pedaling style.

[azrider]

Got a buddy who rides them and says he thinks they've made a marginal improvement.....remember if you get 'em that you'll have to raise your front deraileur to accomodate larger ring. My particular bike didn't have the room to accomodate them, otherwise i would've tried them already

[flickwet]

try a set of biopace, same concept, they can be had real cheap, rotor are more subtle and offer more adjustability. For the record I like Biopace on my cross bike, the small ring is far more "out of round" and can feel odd sometimes but you get used to it and I gotta think it makes a difference.

[Bruce K]

Our local team's cycling coach says that all the data he has seen says there is no perceptable difference in power output or efficiency for these ovalized chainrings.

Apparently in theory it sounds good but in practice there's not much there.

BK

[eddief]

Rotor Q-Rings help to minimize the time spent in the dead spot while pedaling. While oval chainrings have historically been controversial, we believe that allowing a rider to fine tune the chainring position offers opportunities to minimize the dead spot never before realized with conventional chainrings. The Q-Rings are elliptical; the Biopace and O.SYMETRIC chainrings are asymmetrical. The specific elliptical shape of the Q-Ring provides a very smooth uniform pedaling stroke; there is no sudden acceleration movement. Biopace chainrings are designed so that the maximum equivalent tooth size is at the dead-spot. Q-Rings have the minimum equivalent tooth size at the dead-spot which enables you to pass through the dead-spot quicker and with less stress to your knees. Q-Rings take into consideration static forces from your legs and the inertia of the cyclist and the bicycle. This maximizes the efficiency and comfort of conventional cranks. The Rotor patented OCP System enables you to customize the position your Q-Rings to suit your individual riding habits, body geometry, strength and position on the bike.

[palincss]

What comes around, goes around. Again and again, it seems.

[wasfast]

Note the previous post that Biopace rings, while oval, aren't the same as rotor rings because of how the oval is located relative to the pedal stroke.

A teammate has a set on his TT bike. He says he can't perceive any difference. He's not invested in the purchase like some might (I have to like it because I paid real money for it). His TT bike is a new Cervelo P3C, Zipp crank with Quark power meter, Zipp wheels and USE Tula bar. Money isn't an issue for him:-)

Potentially with the Metrigear pedal power meter, you could do comparisions of power around the entire pedal stroke and actually measure any differences.

[Waldo]

I've been on Rotor rings -- both big and small, both 130 and 110 bcd -- for almost four years, and I am a firm believer.

[brokenladder]

i have rotor rings on road/cross/mtb bikes...

the price is curious. but i think that they work--in terms of lessening knees strain (and quite honestly i don't care if it's perception or reality). i have had the normal knee problems that lots share to include surgery on both. i race infrequently now, but i consider myself a fast recreational rider.

[Keith A]

Thanks for all good input! My friend's main reason for looking into these rings are just as brokenladder commented about them being more knee friendly. He has knee issues too and is hoping that these rings would make a difference.

[NeauDL]

I have used 27-tooth small, 30-tooth small and 40-tooth middle Q rings on a road bike for the past few years. The standard setting (#3) makes the hardest part of the pedal stroke a little farther around the circle than round rings, say from 2 to 5 o'clock rather than from 1:30 to 4:30. So when you're pushing the hardest, your knee is a little straighter with the Q rings. (You could look up the angles on the Rotor web site, but this is the way it feels to me.) I think my knees are a little less fatigued with the Q rings, especially when I have to grind out a climb in very low gears. I don't use the big chainring much and kept the original Shimano big ring on so that I wouldn't need to adjust the front derailleur height. But be aware of a setup problem, which may have been much greater for me with a triple than for someone with a double. The chain moves up and down in the front derailleur cage with every pedal stroke when on a Q ring. Triple FD shapes are complex, with different projections into the cage to make the chain shift up or down. I couldn't make the middle, 40-tooth Q ring work well with Ultegra 9, with either a 9-speed chain or a 10-speed chain. My brother, however, was able to make an Ultegra 10 triple crank and FD work well with small and middle Q rings. I don't think setup is much of a problem with a double crank; double FD shapes are very simple compared to triple, and racers obviously make the system work. Marianne Vos has been on Q rings for years and wins most racers she enters. Carlos Sastre has had good luck with Q rings as well.

With Ultegra 9 shifters, triple FD, chain and crankset on one bike, I just use a 30 tooth small Q ring and use the original 42 and 52 tooth Shimano rings. This works perfectly. On the other bike, I have 27-tooth small and 40-tooth middle Q rings with Campy Ergo shifters (the continuously variable ones with about 10 clicks from smallest to largest on a triple), with a Campy Centaur triple FD and either 9 or 10 speed Shimano cranks. I will try a compact double in the near future (10-speed).

The Rotor website lists only the 27 tooth, 74 mm BCD small Q ring for the triple inner position. This was, I believe, originally made for the 27-40 mountain double crankset. I believe the 30 is almost certainly still standard for road triples, and still available.

I'd be happy to provide more information concerning my experience to anyone who wants to send personal email to me. Kervin at Rotor is very helpful and with his help your mechanic can probably make the Q rings work perfectly.








I hop

[Waldo]

P.S. I use the 4 setting on big ring and 3 on small.