ultrazenith
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
I see non-round chainrings are back in fashion, with no science to back them up. Opposite to Biopace, these new rings give you a harder gear at the strongest part of your pedal stroke. The hype from the manufacturers and the magazines sounds good, but no studies have found conclusive evidence that using these rings does anything other than make pedaling feel a little bit smoother. Logically, round chainrings are unlikely to be the most efficient shape, but the challenge seems to be finding a better shape and then doing the scientific testing to see if it makes things better (faster, etc.?).
Which brings me back to the much maligned Biopace. People often say Biopace was wrong, but nobody ever says why, apart from the stories about bad knees. Sheldon Brown made a good argument that Biopace evens out the rate of power transmission to the rear wheel, which in turn *might* improve traction for off road riding. Has anyone experienced this effect?
The modern oval rings ought to make even larger the difference in power between the strongest part of the pedal stroke and the dead spot. If, as Leong et al. conclude, using a modern oval ring gives basically no improvement in performance (http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chai ... -let-them/), then *maybe* we'd be better off going with Biopace purely for the *assumed* improved traction? This might be bollocks, but how funny would it be if al the hype and testing of modern non-round chainrings led us back to biopace being faster?
Which brings me back to the much maligned Biopace. People often say Biopace was wrong, but nobody ever says why, apart from the stories about bad knees. Sheldon Brown made a good argument that Biopace evens out the rate of power transmission to the rear wheel, which in turn *might* improve traction for off road riding. Has anyone experienced this effect?
The modern oval rings ought to make even larger the difference in power between the strongest part of the pedal stroke and the dead spot. If, as Leong et al. conclude, using a modern oval ring gives basically no improvement in performance (http://trstriathlon.com/elliptical-chai ... -let-them/), then *maybe* we'd be better off going with Biopace purely for the *assumed* improved traction? This might be bollocks, but how funny would it be if al the hype and testing of modern non-round chainrings led us back to biopace being faster?