I tried them when I first started MTB. There was a definite improvement in traction on loose climbs.
Then I started getting an annoying squeak from the rear derailer as it moved back and forth. It’s related to the clutch that helps to reduce chain slap and dropped chains.
Anyway, I went back to round chainrings and found my pedal stroke was improving rapidly, eliminating the need to use them really.
Worth a try for sure.
This is my observations also (MTB only).
I’ve had the opportunity to test oval chainrings by Rotor on Rotor Aldue cranks. Shifting performance was significantly better than on Ultegra mechanical (both, 6800 and R8000). Pedaling felt weird for about 10 minutes and then was very natural. I really liked the feel, and will definitely consider replacing my current chain rings with oval ones once the current ones wear out.
Is this because you are using Absolute Black Oval and Nicolavoca was refering to Osymetric? From what I have read, AB Oval rings are a more slight oval shape where as Rotor q-rings are a lot more severve. From what am reading, people on AB Oval rings don’t complain of any shifting issues 
How does having a round and oval ring work? I am considering an Oval inner ring as it may help avoid any shifting issues and climbing (low interia pedaling) is where oval rings are meant to help most.
Q rings on both bikes. Position 3 on my road an 4 on my TT.
I’ve used osymmetric, rotor and absolute black although they all offer a very similar feel.
I found they were great for any steady state, high cadence riding such as TTs. But found they were detrimental, or at least less user friendly, when used in punchy situations like cyclocross racing.
Oval rings like a small 34Q aren’t dramatic feeling so you can go easily from oval to round without feeling weird.
That said, the bigger the chainring the more I feel the ovularity of a Q ring and if you go to something like a 53 QXL then for me it’s a totally different experience. May as well be riding alien technology and the pros/cons really define themselves around here. Shifting on a 53QXL is total ass, recommended only for dedicated home mechanics but that’s another story.
Feel free to stick a small oval ring on your inner and experiment. You might like it. I just find I get a touch higher cadence on it, it spins up faster or at least it feels that way.
The round large/oval small combo is the easiest on shifting - going to a smaller ring is easy for a front derailleur, it just dumps the chain and guides it laterally while the chain finds the ring. Shifting up is where the issues are - the derailleur pushes the chain against the ring until it catches (hence the ramps and pins on the large ring inner side). Doing the upshift on an oval ring means the derailleur/cain/ring contact point is moving up and down the derailleur fork all the time, hence the riskier shifts.
There are some interesting developments with the Q Rings. The new modular Aldhu 3D+ cranks have added 360 degrees of adjustment with the direct mount rings. This is very valuable to the TT crowd as well as the cranks being available 145-175mm lengths.
Whether or not it’s snake oil, you can use Garmin V2/V3 pedals and their cycling dynamics to measure the effective size of your power stroke on the 360 degrees of motion, and you can monitor your peak power position within that range (needs a garmin head unit as TR only show the peak range not the power stroke range). While the garmin v3 reads inflated watts about 4-5% it’s not a barrier to using the info to dial in the bike.
Basically with that combo you can dial in the orientation of the rings by viewing the telemetry. We just did that on two bikes and the results where great; the power stroke range is now better, and the peak power range is right where we want it to coincide with bike fit/position. The results in several benefits. The first two are subjective: the pedal pressure feel firm, consistent all the way around the stroke, and sustain power in sweet spot just down right comfortable . The others are measure-able, comfortable cadence jumped 5-8rpm for “self selected”, measure heart rate for well know Aerobic rides down 10bpm, peak power up 110 watts before spin out on the trainer, and and 1 we could measure.
We’ve used the product line for over 5 years; we always like them but there is a major delta between 5 adjustments (on a 110 BCD spider) and the 360 on the new direct mount. Even with the measurement tools we could not adjust the old product so precisely; and the final position selected what NOT obvious for either rider; and it wasn’t NOT obvious in the same way; lots of personal bike position preferences at play.
This N+2 people, N+4 bikes, info and $4US will get you a gallon of gas in CA. But maybe it will be useful to someone.
There’s also weight to consider, the setup was .75lbs lighter with the direct mount, and caused a corresponding reduction in the weight of my wallet.
I have Shimano Biopace on my fixed Wheel the logic being it is nicer on your knees during breaking (Biopace are 90° rotated from Q and osymetric).
On the TT I have Q rings in different positions: 4 for outer and 3 inner. I can definitely feel the difference between the two even at the same power/wheel speed. Not convinced it is much more than a ‘feel’ though. My FTP didn’t change after I got them. When these wear out I’ll just go back to cheaper round ones.
The biggest benefit I can see is hypothetical: to people with knee problems. I don’t have knee problems though.
There looks to be 2 threads on this topic (the other here: Oval Chainring on Road and MTB Bike - Pros/Cons - #19 by eerke). Perhaps they should be combined.
So here’s my experience and thinking on this.
I have 3 Absolute Black rings now.
My road bike needs a new big ring, hence revisiting this subject.
I have read from many sources (including AB staff) that Oval big rings and Sram YAW FR don’t work the best together. Hence researching the potential gains here and if it is worth it.
Experience
I was surprised how subtle the AB inner rings were. I had to look down to check I put the AB ring on rather than putting my round ring back on. As I do better on flat terrain than climbing, I think the AB inner rings do help my climbing. Obviously no shifting issues at all being just the inner ring.
Thoughts
A premise for my thoughts. The purpose of non-round rings is to make it easier to get through the “dead stop”, the part of the pedal stroke you at your weakest.
So my thinking is non-round rings only help with low inertia pedalling, ie while climbing. The reason for this is, while climbing, you need to put torque through the pedals for more of the pedal stroke, including your dead spot otherwise you lose a noticeable amount of speed, or on more steep terrain, the bike falls over. However, on high inertia pedalling, ie flats and downhill, you don’t need to put toque through the pedals through the dead spot, but rather, can put torque down at any part of the pedal stroke you please, as the bike won’t lose any noticeable speed and certainly won’t fall down. So as a result, being non-round or round would only alter the way you pedal but once accustomed to either, you could be putting torque down through a small or large part of the pedal stroke, how it suits you, regardless of the ring shape.
So with that, wouldn’t you only gain benefit from the small, inner ring being non-round and nearly no benefit from a non-round larger, outer ring? AB staff said you will see “…when you climb the oval advantage is by far the most visible.” However, I see people saying non-round rings are good for time trialling (I assume mostly flat terrain). This puts a hole in this theory, but why would TT racing suit non-round rings?
Looking forward to people’s thought. @chad?
@DaveQB and everyone reading…
I’ll try to find the study but, in a nutshell, they found that no matter the shape of the ring, a human will “nullify” the shape with how they adjust pedaling action from the knees and ankles. It might have included the hips, but, this was years ago and I can’t recall. I’m sorry that’s all I have and not helpful however, the non-round ring is sort of like reinventing the wheel. So far it seems we are seeing what we want to see. Just give it some research before you spend a lot of hard earned money on this. I still feel there is no free lunch on this one.
I have been switching between rounds (53-39) and ovals (53-39 absoluteblack) a couple of times.
The difference is not massive but there is one.
I slightly prefer the oval ones.
Front shifting is pretty good.
I think it’s really a personal thing, you have to try it for yourself.
I tried Osymmetric but they were too extreme.
Especially weird out of the saddle.
Front shifting is average.
I’ve been out on my fat bike in the snow today and oval chainrings are just ace in those conditions as you get really smooth power delivery. I only got stopped when the snow got to 20cm or so in depth.
I also have oval chainrings on my HT and FS mountain bikes. All are Absolute Black in various sizes. All bikes are 1x.
I do think that 1x, off road is a no brainer. I didn’t think twice about putting an AB oval ring on my gravel bike.
So front shifting isn’t as good? What FD are you using with the AB rings?
Front shifting is almost as good as with standard shimano rings, still very good.
I’ve used them with ultegra and dura-ace FD.
Thanks
_JG
When you say “almost as good” what does that mean? Every shift is
90% as good or 90% of the shifts are 100% but 10% are slow to
pick up or drop the chain?
Thanks!
Every shift is 90% as good.
Your FD needs to be well adjusted, I needed a couple of small tweaks on my first ride