Sounds good!

Thanks for the support!

Cheers!

Thanks for the comment!

Cheers!

Haha thanks

Sounds good at the first minute, but would be quite pointless without a lab monitoring all of my physiological metrics

The reading is inaccurate already, but likely won't get worse.

True, there's no simple solution for this

A few watts between what and what?

@@ronykuba between round and oval chainrings of Rotor at the same 52-36. While power data can often be debated, I think the OCA concept is more interesting. Having monitored this before and after a year of training I could see my pedal stroke has moved from 3 to 4 on the OCA 5 point scale. That is surely due to position and core strength training. Perhaps something even more relevant for the triathlon/tt guys.

They measure angular velocity.

fair enough

I’d like to hear Chris Froome’s reason then 🤣. Maybe marginal gains at that level and normal people like me will gain more by saving the money. I will stick to my round chainrings. Thank you for the video Ronald!

@@flipooh It fits his pedaling style 🤷‍♂️ Other Sky/Ineos guys didn't seem so enthusiastic about it.

@@michwoz I agree. I was using Rotor Q ring before and since selling and getting a new bike I don’t feel I miss it. Switching from 170mm to 165mm crank length I feel has more effect on my pedalling than the chainring effect. Have a good Christmas!

@@flipooh Thank you, you too :)

the problem with this kind of "test" is that it is 100% subjective and unscientific. Regarding the adjustment period, there is none really

@@ronykuba I know :-) How will you decide to use ovals or not?

@@knutespenbergby3265 I have them on, so I'll use them for a while. It's more about the ratio for me - I will definitely go bigger on both bikes for racing.

The placebo effect is strong with this one 🙃

@@ronykuba it is not placebo, actual facts that my legs get less fatigued at same power on the same climb, might not be faster nor slower, just less muscle fatigue. :P i do not use ovals for power gains, there is none. but you have less stress on you'r smaler muscel groups, the muscels you use in the bottom to up part of the pedal stroke :)

@@WTC999 sounds like placebo to me.

it is compatible as you can see

There's some added tension, but it's of a negligible effect

I have an oval chainring on my mtb. No problem after 5000km.

@@ronykuba with cyclists comparing +/- 5 grams between components and paying $$$ for marginal gains, the line between what's negligible and what is not has become too thin.

@@sepg5084 it has been tested, and as I said, it is negligible

SW Turbo Cotton 26mm

Yes that's a common issue

That´s exactly right, thanks for the comment!

No

Well, that testing must have been pretty flawed.

Well, I’m struggling to see how chainring shape affects bike fit issues to be honest.

Yep, beautifully made all around.

I run a bike business.

That would be true, if inertia didn't exist. The purpose of this test was to see if they distort power measurement, and we have a clear answer for that.

@@ronykuba Inertial is lost between each downstroke though, because there is almost no power being put down. You should still test it!

@@darkcoderuk there's nothing to test. You can't just gain speed out of nowhere, without putting more energy into the system (or reducing the resistances, but charging shape has zero influence on that).

@@ronykuba Power output isn't constant during a pedal stroke, so even at terminal velocity your speed goes up and down a little like a sine wave. Since there are many factors that go into speed, this leads to the possibility of there being an overall speed difference since each of these factors works slightly differently. Out of curiosity I just ran a simulation of a 300w rider with a TT setup like yours going at 49kph for 10 minutes (8.2km) at 60RPM with: A (constant power), B (a typical donut shaped torque effectiveness graph), and C (my guess of what an oval chainring torque effectiveness curve would look like). My results are that A is faster than B by 5.4mm, and C is faster than B by 1.5mm. So I guess there is some difference, but it's not worth considering in the slightest xD Good luck with your riding!

@@darkcoderuk well, that is just wrong. You have mass, thus inertia, so the speed doesn´t just fluctuate like that. Power is power, regardless of the pedal stroke. What you are referring to is force. If the PM says 300W, then that is the result of whatever type or shape of force delivery that is happening. If the oval chainrings produce an increase in force at some point in the stroke (without negatively affecting others), that will be represented in a higher indicated power.

not sure what do you mean by that

😢sorry

Well, they do and have been from the beginning

@@ronykuba link?

@@jabetajones www.sram.com/en/sram/models/pm-red-d1

@@ronykuba oh no i mean for 110 bcd 4/5 bolts thats dm

@@jabetajones there's a Quarq in both 5x110 and 4x110.

Makes sense

Zwift

@@ronykuba Not Zwift, the data analysis?

@@joshualindenthaler8468 zwiftpower.com

@@ronykuba Oh yeah I forgot about that.. Thanks

Been there, done that. The power you can do *is* the power you can do, regardless of any funky chainring shapes.

I agree, i have been on them for over a decade, an made all the experiments one can think of. It is crucial to get your position right ore you will loose power, set them up like biopace and loose a lot of power og set them up to agressive and it becomes hard to accelerate. I do also believe certain people( puchy riders) benefit the most. I also have a theory to that oval chainrings are effectively like going to a shorter crank, less deadspot and more torque needed at same cadance. Downside is that wear on chainline is worse on ovals

@@thomashald8000 what’s wear on the chainline?

@@ronykuba your chain and cassette will wear faster with Oval, due to all the constant mini accelerations that occur with every pedalstroke.

@@thomashald8000 that’s drivetrain wear then… and I think that’s false as well. The “mini accelerations” happen anyway as the pedalling is cyclical in itself. The main factor in drivetrain wear is friction.

I can't really tell you that, but I'd guess between those

It's a time lapse

No offence, but these are exactly the kind of anecdotes I meant when I said "delusional". It is simply impossible for a chainring shape to increase speed or decrease muscle mass. The one thing that would be a reasonable metric is heart rate, but certainly not compared to "cruising speed".

@@ronykuba I wouldn't call 8,000 miles of testing delusional. I think there is a physiologic reason behind asymmetrical chainrings you may not be aware of. A ride or two on a stationary trainer is not enough time for your body to recognize what asymmetric rings are asking of it. The muscle spindles and Golgi tendon apparatus must coordinate with the proprioceptive receptors in the joints so the brain twill tell the legs to apply the appropiate amount of power at the proper time . This response has to be programmed by repetition so the brain can coordinate the movement and use as little muscle as possible to accomplish the task of turning over the pedals. Your body is very good at economizing force and motion. The Doval rings I used were 22 or 24 percent asymmetrical. You can feel the drop in tension at the top and bottom of the stroke just by pedaling them while clamped in a trainer. There has to be some decrease in tension under full pedal force resulting in an energy savings. One thing I forgot to mention was with round chainrings on One of my normal routes I used 1550 to 1575 calories according to my computer. Same route with the asymmetric rings was between 1350 and 1400 calories. Delusional? Could be .I am over 60 years old!!

@@johnhorgash9031 again, no offence but talking about this with the absolute lack of power measurement is downright silly. You talk about an increase in avg speed - in a world of physics, you have to increase the power output or decrease the total resistance to achieve that. Changing the shape of your chainrings can't do either of those. What they should be able to do is to improve the physiological responses (RPE, HR, waste metabolites, ventilation etc.). Without having power numbers in checks, it's purely fantasy. Your results are most likely a combination of placebo (more power for the same RPE) and changes in outdoor conditions.

@@ronykuba As a cyclist what's more important going faster or producing power? I think you have totally missed my point. My point is you have to train with asymmetrical rings for a while before you can make a judgement as to whether they work or not. I am a cynical and skeptical person! I have to see it and try it myself to be convinced about anything! When I first put the asymmetrical rings on my bike it felt strange for a hundred yards and I didn't feel anything "different" after that. There was no magical increase in speed or ease of pedaling. The increases came as I trained with the asymmetrical rings. Since I don't have a power meter I can't honestly say that they produce more power or not. They do produce more speed for me. They may even produce more power buy I can't say for sure. What I do know is that I did see muscle atrophy in my quads specifically my rectus femoris with the asymmetrical chain rings. The muscle came back after about 6 weeks of training on round rings! That's what got me thinking that other muscles are doing more work. Maybe the hamstrings or gluteal musculature? Maybe I can push a slightly larger gear with the asymmetric rings? The large portion of the ring is supposed to equal a 56 tooth ring and the smaller portion of the ring a 49 or 50 tooth ring. I don't know. I rode alot of miles in many different conditions with round chainrings and I know my capabilities. The asymmetrical rings are faster.......for me. But the drawbacks are decreases in my quads. The rings are noisy! There are some gear combinations you can't use because the chain rubs the chainring both in the small and large rings. Annoying! One thing I did notice was there was little muscle activity coming over the top of the pedal stroke from the quads that increased when coming past one o'clock on the down stroke the quads seemed to contract very quickly between one and 5 o'clock and just stop contracting at the 5 o'clock position. On round rings there is a longer period of contraction as you come up to 12 o'clock and push over the top that continues past 5 o'clock as you scrape across the bottom of the pedal stroke. Could this be the difference ? Don't know! I believe the asymmetric rings are faster but they don't fit my fitness plan. And if they save some energy in a 12 or 24 hour race I am all for it! A gain is a gain even if it is a placebo!

@@johnhorgash9031 sorry, but you are, and unfortunately you aren't really aware of the physics going on while you are riding along. Yes, going faster is the ultimate goal, but as I said you are failing to control the single most important objective variable (power). Without that, you don't have the faintest clue about what caused the difference in speed. Now 1.5mph is a huge difference. My TT speed on a fast flat course is around 48-49km/h. Increasing it by the amount you claim would mean that I would suddenly be able to produce an extra ~30W (10%). If non round rings were even remotely capable of producing such differences, do you still think there would be a debate whether to use them or not? Aerocoach claim that using ARC rings might help you produce "3-5W more", which is around 1%. Increasing your output by 1% will not result in a 1.5mph speed increases, at any speed. I will say it again, so hopefully you get around the fact: your speed is the result of the power you are putting out vs. the total resistance you're experiencing. The only thing chainring shape can do is to improve muscle utilisation for a slight improvement in power output (unproven). This makes you marginally faster (

I don't have any Sram groupset at the moment, but maybe in the future

If you mean my abs then yes

What exactly?

Some say oval chainrings are faster on climbs?

@@julsu. faster meaning?

It's easy on your knees..specially on the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock position 😊

@@rexbautista3198 which achieves...? Easy meaning? You just keep throwing around these empty phrases.