# Rotor Q Rings



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

Hi all,
Looking for a bit of advice! Thinking about upgrading my chain rings to try the Rotor Q Rings as I quite like the idea behind them! 
But my question is... Do I need to get new crank arms to work with the Q Rings or will my current crank arm (shimano fc-r565) fit?

Also any advice on using oval chainrings would be much appreciated! 

Thanks guys!


----------



## Smokin Joe (8 Mar 2015)

Hi swh, I've cut and pasted my reply to this when you asked it in the components section as I would also be interested in other people's observations -

I've no idea about compatibility, but my neighbour is using Q Rings and he had a fair bit of trouble getting the front shift anywhere near smooth. The problem being that with the 53t outer ring the oval turns it into a 57 on the high point and a 48 on the low, with a similar difference on the 39t inner. Front mechs are designed to sit just above the outer ring to get the best shift and obviously with Q's that is only possible at one point in the revolution so most gearshifts are quite clunky and noisy with a few dropped chains (He's using Dura Ace, so it's not a problem with a cheapo mech).

He claims that they are better in use but he wasn't very convincing and I suspect he was trying to justify what he'd spent on them and regretted ever clapping eyes on the things. I'm just giving the one experience I know about however, so maybe someone who does actually use them will give a different perspective.


----------



## Citius (8 Mar 2015)

Any 5-bolt spider will take the Rotor rings, provided the BCD is the same. Q-rings are not necessarily an 'upgrade' though, the benefit is very much down to the individual - some love them some hate them.


----------



## jdtate101 (8 Mar 2015)

^ what he said...
I've used Q's for about 3yrs and they work for me. They can take a while to get used to and you will notice more work being done by your hamstring muscles, thus the first few rides can be quite tiring. It took me about 2 weeks of riding before I felt fully comfortable with them. Now I wouldn't go back to round rings, I run Q's on all my bikes apart from my fixed gear bike.


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

That's really interesting, thank you! And jdtate comment about more hamstring use really appeals to me because they are arguably strong than my quads! 

Have any of you had any problems with them, either setting them or or using them? 

Really appreciate the help guys!


----------



## screenman (8 Mar 2015)

swh1 said:


> That's really interesting, thank you! And jdtate comment about more hamstring use really appeals to me because they are arguably strong than my quads!
> 
> Have any of you had any problems with them, either setting them or or using them?
> 
> Really appreciate the help guys!



That is interesting, I always thought Quads would be stronger, is there a reason yours are different.


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

I am a cricketer for my job and we focus on hamstrings heavily for injury prevention, and this has resulted in making them stronger


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

But we also focus heavily on glutes which I assume would also assist!!


----------



## Citius (8 Mar 2015)

It's all about the downstroke really - that's why the jury is still out on things like q-rings.


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

Citius said:


> It's all about the downstroke really - that's why the jury is still out on things like q-rings.



Do you they they are any good though?


----------



## Citius (8 Mar 2015)

Not personally, no. Like I said though, the perceived benefit (or not) is very much down to the individual to decide on.


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

There seem to be a fair few drawbacks to this... But I still feel quite keen to try them


----------



## Citius (8 Mar 2015)

To be fair, trying them yourself is the only way you will know for sure. Some get on with them, some don't - and some can't really identify any meaningful difference, regardless


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

I have a Rotor RSX4 crankset. Whereas Q rings reduce the dead spot, the RSX4 eliminates it entirely. I like it v much, but there's a weight and cost penalty which prevented it from selling well. Now it's been discontinued and I don't know where to get spare rings. It's a great shame....the RSX4 was Rotor's core product, the only one which fully implemented their ideas. Q rings are just a compromise.


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

Would you be happy riding the q rings though?


----------



## PeteXXX (8 Mar 2015)

I don't know where you are geographically, but http://www.gorillafirmcycling.com/ in Oundle were offering a 'try before you buy' option.


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

I have a couple of stores where I can try them, but thank you for the link!


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

swh1 said:


> Would you be happy riding the q rings though?


I would fit them if my RSX4 disappeared into thin air.


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

If your day job makes big demands on your legs and your living depends on your body not wearing out too fast I'd say that Q rings are a no brainer. They are kinder to your knees when pushing a big gear or climbing. (Not as kind as the RSX4 mind you.)


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

Eurostar said:


> If your day job makes big demands on your legs and your living depends on your body not wearing out too fast I'd say that Q rings are a no brainer. They are kinder to your knees when pushing a big gear or climbing. (Not as kind as the RSX4 mind you.)



The injury prevention component to it is incredibly attractive. Have you had any issues with shifting between rings on them?


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

I'd also recommend this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pruitts-Complete-Medical-Guide-Cyclists/dp/1931382808 Dr Pruitt is the brains behind the Specialized Body Geometry range and one of the world's leading authorities on bicycle fitment.


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

swh1 said:


> The injury prevention component to it is incredibly attractive. Have you had any issues with shifting between rings on them?


I've not used Q rings. The RSX4 doesn't have shifting issues because it has normal round rings.


----------



## Citius (8 Mar 2015)

swh1 said:


> The injury prevention component to it is incredibly attractive. Have you had any issues with shifting between rings on them?



Are you prone to injury on normal round rings?


----------



## midlife (8 Mar 2015)

Its possible to run true elliptical rings on a fixed gear, ask any old timer 

Shaun


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

Citius said:


> Are you prone to injury on normal round rings?



No not at all... But always looking for preventative measures


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

But also the perceived benefits have caught my eye


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

I'm not injury prone either. I did once inflame my knees very badly because of poor cleat alignment, in the early days of clipless pedals when they had no float. It was quite scary - it happened very suddenly at the top of a col. I could hardly walk and had to call a taxi to rescue me. Since then I've been a bit more aware of such things. I want to keep cycling into my 80s without damaging myself. Any company which preaches injury prevention gets my attention. Seems to me it's more important than the usual stuff about lightness or marginally quicker shifting or whatever.

When assessing Rotor's products you have to remember that they are a small Spanish company which grew out of some university research. They don't have the hype or the marketing muscle of Shimano etc, so they tend to get overlooked as weird, outside the mainstream, unproven etc etc. Whereas they actually are very well proven if you seek out the research.


----------



## shadow master (8 Mar 2015)

I can imagine shifting problems with the front mech height always moving, but only wimps use the small ring anyway!


----------



## swh1 (8 Mar 2015)

It really does sound like the way to go! Very keen!

Thank you for all your help guys!


----------



## Eurostar (8 Mar 2015)

Take a look at that book - lots of detail in there to chew over with your physios at the office!


----------



## Rob3rt (9 Mar 2015)

Can any of you that are pro Rotor quantify the benefit/gain? 

How much more power can you produce in a 20 or 60 minute maximal effort than on a round ring? 

How sure are you that the difference in power measured is not an artifact of the power measurement process?


----------



## ColinJ (9 Mar 2015)

Eurostar said:


> I have a Rotor RSX4 crankset. Whereas Q rings reduce the dead spot, the RSX4 eliminates it entirely. I like it v much, but there's a weight and cost penalty which prevented it from selling well. Now it's been discontinued and I don't know where to get spare rings. It's a great shame....the RSX4 was Rotor's core product, the only one which fully implemented their ideas. Q rings are just a compromise.


I had never heard of that system. It sounds like an interesting idea - REVIEW.


----------



## oldroadman (9 Mar 2015)

There's a lot of mind games involved. In the end you pedal smooth, apply power, go fast. Whether it's 53x11 on round rings or oval, the ratio is the same and requires the same power. Can't see the fuss, except as a strategy to sell more kit!


----------



## Eurostar (9 Mar 2015)

You're completely wrong about the ratio being the same. These products vary the ratio and power requirements. That's the whole point.


----------



## jdtate101 (10 Mar 2015)

shadow master said:


> I can imagine shifting problems with the front mech height always moving, but only wimps use the small ring anyway!


In fact it's as smooth as butter if setup correctly. I'd equate it to the best that da9000 can offer, and way smoother than my older DA7900 rings. you can get some shifting issues with the qxl rings as they are quite extreme, but again, with correct setup and a bit of testing it's normally extremely smooth.


----------



## jdtate101 (10 Mar 2015)

Rob3rt said:


> Can any of you that are pro Rotor quantify the benefit/gain?
> 
> How much more power can you produce in a 20 or 60 minute maximal effort than on a round ring?
> 
> How sure are you that the difference in power measured is not an artifact of the power measurement process?



I very much doubt I could re-produce the exact same conditions for two tests to be worth a comparison. The gain rotor claims is a small one, so might be very hard, if not impossible, for the avg person to spot. I was curious about Q's so tried them out on a trial and they felt more comfortable to me, so I stuck with them. At the end of the day it may be a placebo, but the perceived extra comfort is good enough reason for me.


----------



## oldroadman (10 Mar 2015)

Eurostar said:


> You're completely wrong about the ratio being the same. These products vary the ratio and power requirements. That's the whole point.


You are obviously better informed than me. All I ever did was push pedals round. A few teams experimented with oval rings (as Sky did, or at least BW) but in the end everyone was back to "normal" rings. On which basis I guess either the marketeers would not pay enough or they didn't have any specific or perceived advantages. But of course, we may all have been wrong, nothings certain.


----------



## gds58 (5 Apr 2015)

Eurostar said:


> You're completely wrong about the ratio being the same. These products vary the ratio and power requirements. That's the whole point.


Complete and utter nonsense!! this is not the point of Q rings at all. The ratio over the complete pedal revolution cannot possibly change (if the number of teeth are the same) but it's the way in which the power is applied throughout the stages of the pedal stroke that varies. Contrary to some of the nonsense which has been put on here, Rotor 'Q-Rings' do not give you more power. Your power output is what it is and cannot be increased by equipment but it can change the way in which your power is delivered and Q rings will help to smooth out the delivery of your power throughout the pedal stroke, thus utilising more of the stroke to deliver the power which in turn can have a (roughly) 7% gain in efficiency. I use Q-Rings on all my bikes (except my track bike!!) including cyclo-cross and I would definitely not go back to round rings again. They help to reduce the build up of Lactic acid in the muscles and will smooth out your pedalling if you have a slightly 'choppy' style. Velotech are the sole UK distributor for Rotor products and they are currently offering a trial period whereby you can buy Q rings and try them for 30 days and if you don't get on with them you can swap them back for round ones. There are positively no down sides to Q rings as some will feel more benefit than others, so I would urge anybody to try them. If you haven't tried them then please don't make misleading or speculative comments on here which will give incorrect advice to those who haven't yet tried them.
With regards to the shifting on the front mech' it is very slightly compromised but if set up correctly is hardly any different to normal. In any case how many times do you shift at the front compared to the rear!!
I am a qualified BG Fit technician (as authorised by Dr Andy Pruitt mentioned earlier) and I have seen how Q-Rings have benefitted many riders. In short, give them a try, you have nothing to lose and plenty, possibly to gain.
Thanks for taking time to read this rather lengthy post!
Graham


----------



## gds58 (5 Apr 2015)

oldroadman said:


> You are obviously better informed than me. All I ever did was push pedals round. A few teams experimented with oval rings (as Sky did, or at least BW) but in the end everyone was back to "normal" rings. On which basis I guess either the marketeers would not pay enough or they didn't have any specific or perceived advantages. But of course, we may all have been wrong, nothings certain.


Teams didn't experiment with 'oval' rings but some individual riders such as Brad Wiggins and Chris Froome did use Osymetric Rings which have the power phase in a different position to Rotor Q Rings. Wiggins changed back to round rings as they didn't suit his pedalling style but Froome still used Osymetrics. There is currently only one rider on the Pro Circuit who is sponsored to use Rotor Q rings and that is Marianne Vos and her performances are way beyond question. No other UCI level pro riders use them simply because they are contracturally bound to use products from their own sponsors such as Shimano, Campagnolo, SRAM etc. You will notice that the Osymetrics used by Froome are devoid of any markings and product branding in order to comply with his contracts and sponsors. Go to any lower level pro race such as one with domestic UK pro teams and Elite level riders and you will see plenty of riders using Q rings as they are not bound by restrictions on contracts and have a much more free range with regards to products that they can use. 
All this info is not my own opinion, it is fact as is that in my previous post. I work in the industry and I have close links with companies and persons concerned.
Hope this all helps.
G


----------



## oldroadman (5 Apr 2015)

gds58 said:


> Teams didn't experiment with 'oval' rings but some individual riders such as Brad Wiggins and Chris Froome did use Osymetric Rings which have the power phase in a different position to Rotor Q Rings. Wiggins changed back to round rings as they didn't suit his pedalling style but Froome still used Osymetrics. *There is currently only one rider on the Pro Circuit who is sponsored to use Rotor Q rings and that is Marianne Vos and her performances are way beyond question*. No other UCI level pro riders use them simply because they are contracturally bound to use products from their own sponsors such as Shimano, Campagnolo, SRAM etc. You will notice that the Osymetrics used by Froome are devoid of any markings and product branding in order to comply with his contracts and sponsors. Go to any lower level pro race such as one with domestic UK pro teams and Elite level riders and you will see plenty of riders using Q rings as they are not bound by restrictions on contracts and have a much more free range with regards to products that they can use.
> All this info is not my own opinion, it is fact as is that in my previous post. I work in the industry and I have close links with companies and persons concerned.
> Hope this all helps.
> G


I have a feeling that Marianne Vos would win if she was using square rings with extra fur attached from combing her cat! But your point is well made.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Apr 2015)

The increase in efficiency is a biomechanical one, as such for the same power delivered to the rear wheel, the physiological cost should be reduced. This is in keeping with what you are saying about the build up of lactic acid (which is not quite accurate btw, but that is just nit picking, we both know what you actually meant), if the build up of lactic acid is what is limiting your ability to produce power, and through one mechanism of another the chainrings reduce this build up, in theory, you should be able to produce more power over a given duration when using said chainrings.


----------



## montage (16 Apr 2015)

Ridden oval rings for a year. Went back to round.

Why? - compatibility across bikes, having oval on one bike, circular on the next is a pain. Accelerations felt slow, sprinting was noticeably impacted. Shifting wasn't much worse. Only real benefit was out of the saddle, low cadence on really steep stuff as you don't get to get stuck in the deadspot. Didn't have a power meter at the time so cannot give an indication on this data. My conclusion of oval rings? - they're a fad.

Spend the money on a good bike fitter instead, it will have three times the performance increase.


----------



## gds58 (29 May 2015)

montage said:


> Ridden oval rings for a year. Went back to round.
> 
> Why? - compatibility across bikes, having oval on one bike, circular on the next is a pain. Accelerations felt slow, sprinting was noticeably impacted. Shifting wasn't much worse. Only real benefit was out of the saddle, low cadence on really steep stuff as you don't get to get stuck in the deadspot. Didn't have a power meter at the time so cannot give an indication on this data. My conclusion of oval rings? - they're a fad.
> 
> Spend the money on a good bike fitter instead, it will have three times the performance increase.


I think you kind of answered your own question here where you stated that you have oval on one bike and round on another. In order for there to be a proper benefit you need to have the same on all your bikes whether round or oval. Q rings are not a 'fad' at all. A 'fad' is a short term following or enthusiasm for an idea or style and this cannot ever apply to Q rings. They have been around for a good few years, they are constantly increasing in their use and they will be around for a long while yet. i.e. Not a fad!


----------



## montage (29 May 2015)

gds58 said:


> I think you kind of answered your own question here where you stated that you have oval on one bike and round on another. In order for there to be a proper benefit you need to have the same on all your bikes whether round or oval. Q rings are not a 'fad' at all. A 'fad' is a short term following or enthusiasm for an idea or style and this cannot ever apply to Q rings. They have been around for a good few years, they are constantly increasing in their use and they will be around for a long while yet. i.e. Not a fad!



To be honest, describing them as a fad was a bit hasty. I did do 95% of my riding on the bike with the oval rings on, so it was a pretty fair test. The science does make sense....but they just did not feel right. I may have the opportunity to try out a range of Q rings in the near future - if that arises, I'll be sure to try and establish some kind of fair test and try them out.

I maintain that seeing a good bike fitter should remain a priority over Q rings though!


----------



## derrick (29 May 2015)

They work for me. You need to try them, they may suit you they may not. I won't be going back to round rings.


----------



## gds58 (4 Jun 2015)

[QUOTE The science does make sense....but they just did not feel right.
I maintain that seeing a good bike fitter should remain a priority over Q rings though![/QUOTE]

Yes I agree, I am a qualified bike fitter too, so I can vouch for that advice as well!! Are you aware that Rotor Q-Rings have multiple positions (OCP) to enable you to fine tune them to suit your own riding style etc. Older ones had 5 positions and the newer ones have 4. This might help if you try them again.


----------

