anyone tried oval chainrings with SRAM-Etap

roger44

Active Member
Im thinking of trying an inner 34t OVAL chainring with the SRAM Etap system.

I need extra help getting up hills, I already have 32 ring, just need a bit more help.

before anyone starts, it is getting better, as I ride more, but Im 74 and only started riding a couple of years ago, and only have little leg muscles.
 

Cycleops

Legendary Member
Location
Accra, Ghana
I tried the Shimano oval chainrings in the eighties and quite honestly you aren't going to notice any difference. If you're struggling I suggest you get a power assisted electric conversion.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
It doesn't really help, you are better off training harder. A 32 round vs a 34 oval will actually be harder. 32 v 32 and I bet you won't notice. Really no point unless you change the gear ratios.
 

Smokin Joe

Legendary Member
This one claims 10% more energy and power for 10% less effort.
View attachment 459381
It looks like something went badly wrong during a production run and they decided they could still shift them with a load of marketing bollocks.
 
Location
Loch side.
Im thinking of trying an inner 34t OVAL chainring with the SRAM Etap system.

I need extra help getting up hills, I already have 32 ring, just need a bit more help.

before anyone starts, it is getting better, as I ride more, but Im 74 and only started riding a couple of years ago, and only have little leg muscles.
1 Joule of energy gives you one N elevated by a height of 1 meter. There is no ovaltine in that formula. That's why flywheels, gears, differentials, headgear, clocks and cranks all work with perfect circles.
 
Last edited:

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
PS Sticking on the 'old SKY kit' or the blooming 'coffee lot' (I can't say the name - I just vomit) in Manchester makes you 3000% cooler riders....

Just ride your bike, make sure it works, spend time on that... your rides will be fab..

I've kicked arses from riding a good 30 year old bike, compared to a new plastic bike - it's the rider, and a good maintained bike, not the cost.
 

ChrisEyles

Veteran
Location
Devon
I dunno, I've used oval vs round chain rings on MTBs and my impression is that the oval ring does somewhat even out the delivery of torque to the rear wheel throughout the pedal stroke, particularly when standing and mashing. I'd happily use oval chain rings again off-road for that reason. On road where rear wheel traction isn't an issue I can't see much point in them.

@Yellow Saddle, while you're clearly right from a physics point of view, it's surely possible that a non-round chainring of some shape could conceivably yield better (i.e. more efficient) bio-mechanics throughout the pedal stroke than a round ring? After all, crank length doesn't affect the physics you cite, but I wouldn't want to ride on 100mm or 250mm cranks!
 

ChrisEyles

Veteran
Location
Devon
@roger44, sorry that's not much help answering your question, is it? Afraid I'm probably in the "just ride more" camp, that's always made loads more difference to my climbing ability than switching between different bikes.
 
1 Joule of energy gives you one N elevated by a height of 1 meter. There is no ovaltine in that formula. That why flywheels, gears, differentials, headgear, clocks and cranks all work with perfect circles.
Isn't the reasoning behind an oval chainwheel that mechanical advantage changes with rotation and the position of your legs ?

You could argue that MA is irrelevant, but if you followed that argument to its logical conclusion, you would only need one gear on your bike.
 
Top Bottom