Rotor Q Rings

swh1

Active Member
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

Legendary Member
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

Guest
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.
 
Last edited:

jdtate101

Ex-Fatman
^ 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.
 
OP
swh1

swh1

Active Member
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

Legendary Member
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.
 
OP
swh1

swh1

Active Member
I am a cricketer for my job and we focus on hamstrings heavily for injury prevention, and this has resulted in making them stronger
 
OP
swh1

swh1

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

Citius

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

Citius

Guest
Not personally, no. Like I said though, the perceived benefit (or not) is very much down to the individual to decide on.
 
OP
swh1

swh1

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

Citius

Guest
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

Veteran
Location
Brixton
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.
 
Top Bottom