Who killed Biopace?
Stephen R Daniels
wonder. As usual there's plenty of opinion and little hard fact going aroung
but I'd like to know why did biopace die so suddenly and completely? I used to
have a pair of oval Ultegra rings on my triathlon/time trial bike. I kept them
long after they were deemed uncool and they were often ridiculed despite the
fact that I went faster than those who laughed at them. I'm not saying that
Biopace made me any quicker but you'd have a hard time convincing me they made
it any worse. I certainly never encountered any shifting problems with them
and gear mashing on the big ring for 40k had this 'feel' to it that I just
don't get on my current bike.
I have this suspicion that Biopace was killed by the multitudes of
retro-grouchy roadies who resist innovation because they're afraid of having
to adapt in order to improve. I know they were outright rejected in the pro
peloton. (there's a surprise) I bet someday oval rings will make a comeback in
the triathlon scene where people are more relaxed and open to new ideas and
it'll be the same ol story as the Aero bars.
Does anyone agree?
_______________________________________________________________________________
S. Daniels
U of W - Waterloo, Ontario
Jeffrey R. Carlson
>have a pair of oval Ultegra rings on my triathlon/time trial bike.I kept them
>long after they were deemed uncool and they were often ridiculed despite the
>fact that I went faster than those who laughed at them. I'm not saying that
>Biopace made me any quicker but you'd have a hard time convincing me they made
>it any worse.
Hold that thought for a moment.
>I have this suspicion that Biopace was killed by the multitudes of
>retro-grouchy roadies who resist innovation because they're afraid of having
>to adapt in order to improve.
Are you deliberately trying to enflame? Most of the retro-grouchy roadies
I know (and I proudly consider myself one) are not afraid of innovating to
improve. However, we recognize that improvement doesn't come from emptying
your wallet everytime a new innovation comes along, it comes from training
and improving your fitness. Many of the innovations I have seen over the
last ten years are just so much snake oil. Time will weed out the wheat
from the chaff. And we retrogrouches have few qualms about adopting the
wheat. Biopace was, in my opinion, chaff.
So why did Biopace die? You answered your own question when you said you
didn't know whether it made you any faster or not. If Biopace, or any
other like product, doesn't provide demonstrable results, and the best you
can say is that it didn't make things worse, then it should come as no
surprise that it didn't survive in the marketplace. It is a little too easy
to blame retrogrouches just because we have a different philosophy in
equipment than you do.
Jeff Carlson
Terry Churchill
-Unruh,J.D.
Stephen R Daniels <SRDA...@MECHANICAL.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>There's been some stuff said about Biopace chainrings lately which makes me
>wonder. As usual there's plenty of opinion and little hard fact going aroung
>but I'd like to know why did biopace die so suddenly and completely?
Because Shimano decided to stop selling them. They had servet their
purpose. Shimano was yet another company that produced Campy clones.
They were reasonably but not incredibly successful. They came out with
BioPace with a bunch of inflated claims about performance improvement
and saving knees. Having BioPace rings became an important checklist item
on mid priced bikes. So important that others cloned them, with less
success. Shortly after that, Shimano introduced indexed shifting that
worked. Not very well in comparison to what you can buy today, but it
worked. They had cloned the Suntour derailleur since the patent had
just expired, and improved it so that it indexed. At this point, Shimano
took over the market. The Suntour indexing derailleurs that came out
to compete didn't work that well, and Campy Synchro was a joke. Campy
indexing didn't work well until they started using the Suntour originated
slant pantograph design a few years ago.
The BioPace claims turned out to be inflated, and the BioPace rings became
rounder each year. There was some opinion that BioPace, while hyped as
protecting knees, actually increased knee problems. At least one
competitor started hyping "RoundTech" rings. Shimano quitely killed
BioPace.
>
>I have this suspicion that Biopace was killed by the multitudes of
>retro-grouchy roadies who resist innovation because they're afraid of having
>to adapt in order to improve. I know they were outright rejected in the pro
>peloton. (there's a surprise) I bet someday oval rings will make a comeback in
>the triathlon scene where people are more relaxed and open to new ideas and
>it'll be the same ol story as the Aero bars.
>
>Does anyone agree?
>
If you go to the library and check out some books on bicycle history, you
will see pictures of the oval rings of the past. They didn't make it
easier. Lack of marketplace acceptance is not proof of a bad concept,
but repeated failure leads me to believe that the problem is not just
a bad implementation.
Go to a USCF TT. You will see aero bars on almost every bike. They
really add nothing to the competition other that uniformly higher
speeds, but since they aren't too expensive and can easily be added to
a bike for a day, they really don't hurt anything. I think it is pretty
obvious to anyone who has ridden a number of lower category crits why they
aren't allowed in mass start events.
Aero bars will be available as long as sales are sufficient. "Retro Grouch
Roadies" can only kill products if they are in positions of power in the
companies that produce them. Lack af a profitable market, competitive
pressure, manufacturability problems, and the need for new fads to drive
sales kill products.
John Unruh
Mike DeMicco
about 4 years ago was to replace your Biopace rings with round ones, and
to replace that 26 or 28 tooth Biopace inner ring with a 24 tooth ring
(pre-compact drive days). And Biopace never caught on with road bikes.
If we, the consumer, demanded Biopace I'm sure Shimano would still be
selling them to us. At my local bike shop, they were practically giving
those Biopace rings away about a couple of years ago, because they
couldn't sell them.
--
Mike DeMicco <demi...@llnl.gov>
King Henry V
And there is a good reason why roadies didnt like them, you ever try to
spin with oval rings? Its impossible, biopace forces a non smooth
rythem
>--
>Mike DeMicco <demi...@llnl.gov>
--
Ed Krafsur
kra...@iastate.edu
CRMUSE
round unless I am lightly pedaling like when I am coasting up too close to
my leader in a pace line. I live in a hilly area and think the eccentric
rings help there. I pedal 90-100 rpm on the flats and don't notice a
non-round pedal stroke there. The big ring is less oval than the small
ring so each seems more appropriate for it's intended use.
Bob Muse
Dave Wright
> Hull ML. Williams M. Williams K. Kautz S.
> Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Davis
> Physiological response to cycling with both circular and noncircular
> chainrings.
> Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 24(10):1114-22, 1992 Oct.
> Abstract
> The purpose of this study was to compare physiological variables of
> endurance-trained cyclists riding with four different chainring designs:
> round, Shimano Biopace, and two engineered ellipse designs.
> Heart rate, blood lactate, and cadence values also were measured.
This test measured the physiological variables (heart rate, O2 intake,
etc.) and they measured cadence (rpm of pedals) and they found that:
> None of the physiological variables including rates of
> oxygen consumption showed significant differences among the chainrings.
Ok... I agree with things up until now... all the guys felt the same
workout with the round and eliptical rings.
> Thus, the gross efficiency of cycling was not improved by any of the
> noncircular chainrings. For cycling events where efficiency is a
> determinant of performance, the noncircular chainrings do not offer any
> advantage over round chainrings.
Whoa! Wait a minute... one minute it is the efficiency of
physiological variables the next minute it is the GROSS efficiency!
There is more to a bike than the rider.
Doesn't this fit in with what I am trying to show? With the
eliptical ring... the rider works as hard but transmits more power to
the wheel (eg: goes faster)... So yes all the guys got the same work
out... but why doesn't the test report show any bike velocity? rear
wheel angular velocity? Power Transmission?
> So the answere to who killed biopace is Shimano did, they did so because
> it's not any better (or worse) than round. If you like the feel of
> biopace, use it, but don't expect to be any faster (or slower).
Well if they killed the Biopace because of this... well that's sad.
You can't say that Biopace isn't faster with this test as your
proof... this test doesn't show it. It says they all worked the same
amount. I agree.
Why didn't Shimano do this test BEFORE they 'introduced' it?... if it
is no different... why did they ever put it on the market in the first place?
They must have done tests that showed that it was superior to have an
eliptical ring... what happened to those?
Dave.
Jim Martin
I assume from your email address that you are in mechanical engineering,
and therefore I'm surprised that you have not bothered to go to the
biomechanics literatute to answer your own question. Maury Hull did a
study for Shimano, here is the abstract:
Hull ML. Williams M. Williams K. Kautz S.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Davis
Physiological response to cycling with both circular and noncircular
chainrings.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 24(10):1114-22, 1992 Oct.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare physiological variables of
endurance-trained cyclists riding with four different chainring designs:
round, Shimano Biopace, and two engineered ellipse designs. The ellipse
designated Eng10 had the crank arm oriented 10 degrees forward of the
major (i.e. longer) axis. Eighty degrees further forward, along the minor
axis, was the crank arm orientation for the second ellipse, Eng90. With
the major to minor axis ratio of 22.9 cm/16.8 cm (1.36), both ellipses
imposed a crank angular velocity variation of 27% relative to the highest
velocity assuming constant chain velocity. Best described as a skewed
ellipse (i.e., major and minor axes not perpendicular), the Biopace had a
major to minor axis ratio of 1.09 thus giving a crank angular velocity
variation of 8%. Eleven male cyclists rode at a high (80% of maximum VO2)
and a low (60% of maximum VO2) workrate using each chainring. The study
was conducted over four consecutive days with the presentation order of
the chainrings randomized. Open circuit spirometry was used to collect
continuous respiratory data. Heart rate, blood lactate, and cadence values
also were measured. None of the physiological variables including rates of
oxygen consumption showed significant differences among the chainrings.
Thus, the gross efficiency of cycling was not improved by any of the
noncircular chainrings. For cycling events where efficiency is a
determinant of performance, the noncircular chainrings do not offer any
advantage over round chainrings.
So the answere to who killed biopace is Shimano did, they did so because
it's not any better (or worse) than round. If you like the feel of
biopace, use it, but don't expect to be any faster (or slower).
Regards,
Jim
SRDA...@MECHANICAL.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen R Daniels) wrote:
>There's been some stuff said about Biopace chainrings lately which makes me
>wonder. As usual there's plenty of opinion and little hard fact going aroung
>but I'd like to know why did biopace die so suddenly and completely? I used to
>have a pair of oval Ultegra rings on my triathlon/time trial bike. I kept them
>long after they were deemed uncool and they were often ridiculed despite the
>fact that I went faster than those who laughed at them. I'm not saying that
>Biopace made me any quicker but you'd have a hard time convincing me they made
>it any worse. I certainly never encountered any shifting problems with them
>and gear mashing on the big ring for 40k had this 'feel' to it that I just
>don't get on my current bike.
>
Stephen R Daniels
are 'retro-grouches' and I always get a good response when I bug them about it
:)
Anyway, although I posted the thought without any prior research, the case
mentioned in this response reminds me of another similar study I once read. I
don't have it here and don't recall all the details but I think I got the
point of it. Eddie B (I forget his last name), former US national team coach,
wrote about the following study in a book about bike racing.
He was trying to find the optimum saddle height as a %age of inseam length.
The study used top-level amateurs riding in a lab and measured power output
and oxygen consumption for various saddle heights. The findings showed that
there is, very likely, an optimal height (96% I think) and that most of the
riders were already using a height close to that figure. What it also showed
however, was that regardless of how close the riders' accustomed height was to
the 96% figure, they were almost as efficient at their usual height as at the
'optimal' height. ie: they had adapted to the setup they were used to. I
believe subsequent tests after they had changed their saddle heights to the
'optimal' value showed gains in efficiency.
Perhaps the need for the body to adapt has been disregarded in the case of
Biopace chainrings. I assume that in the below mentioned study that the riders
were not accustomed to an elliptical-ring pedalling style. I would not expect
that a rider who is used to an even stroke would immediately benefit from a
radical change in cadence style. The fact that it does not immediately make
them worse leads me to believe that maybe there is something to be gained in
the long run.
Just a thought.
Steve
In article <48icf7$d...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Sheldon Brown
>From SRDA...@MECHANICAL.uwaterloo.ca Thu Nov 16 20:44:00 EST 1995
>
>>retro-grouchy roadies who resist innovation because they're afraid of having
>>to adapt in order to improve.
>
>I know (and I proudly consider myself one) are not afraid of innovating to
>improve. However, we recognize that improvement doesn't come from emptying
>your wallet everytime a new innovation comes along, it comes from training
>and improving your fitness. Many of the innovations I have seen over the
>last ten years are just so much snake oil. Time will weed out the wheat
>from the chaff. And we retrogrouches have few qualms about adopting the
>wheat. Biopace was, in my opinion, chaff.
>
Since my 1950's Raleigh Sports features a 1930's top tube "Quadrant" shifter,
instead of a modern handlebar-mounted trigger, just 'cause it is cool, even
though it doesn't work as well, my retro credentials are beyond reproach. ;-)>
I don't blame true retrogrouches for the demise of Biopace, I blame racer-wannabe
magazine writers who picked the anti-Biopace crusade as a no-lose bandwagon to
jump onto. Shimano bashing is great fun, I do it myself; they are an easy
target. The big rap against Biopace was that it was not conducive to spinning
at really high rpms (over 100). This is a true disadvantage for someone who
does mass-start racing, for tactical reasons. For other cyclists, there is no
reason to ever spin that fast, it is quite inefficient.
>So why did Biopace die? You answered your own question when you said you
>didn't know whether it made you any faster or not. If Biopace, or any
>other like product, doesn't provide demonstrable results, and the best you
>can say is that it didn't make things worse, then it should come as no
>surprise that it didn't survive in the marketplace. It is a little too easy
>to blame retrogrouches just because we have a different philosophy in
>equipment than you do.
I too have not found any speed advantage; nevertheless, Biopace has two major
advantages over round or old-style oval chainrings:
1. It is easier on the knees.
B. It provides improved off-road climbing in loose surfaces.
I have a longish article on this subject on my hard disk. Anybody who would
like a copy should email me.
Sheldon "Retromellow" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Fashion exists for those people who have no style of their own. |
| --John Moore |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Robert A. Mina
form any cyclist could develop. The assymetrical shape of the ring would
lead the leg of a cyclist to actually WORSEN his/her dead spots in the
pedal stroke, rather than allowing the body to learn to adapt and smoothen
out over time, and with practice.
Even on rollers, the uneven "woosh-WOOSH" of a Bio-egg chainring makes my skin
crawl. Bottom line: If you practice enough, be it on rollers or trainer,
you will eventually gain souplesse...the ability to flow smoothly and quickly
with power from a round chainring. The pros rejected it, not because it was
different, but because they didn't need some piece of machined poop to
simulate what they all already had: A nearly-perfect spin, regardless of
gear ratio, grade, or expense involved.
Money & Gadgetry can never replace skill & experience.
- R. Mina
RPI cycling alumni (almost!)
John Stevenson
carlson thinks Biopace didn't have a proven advantage, Dave Wright likes
his Biopace a lot, thinks it makes him go faster and reckons the bike
industry killed it off, while Mike Dimicco reckons consumer power killed it
off>
There were a couple of other factors too, I think. Most mountain bikers
want to run the lowest possible bottom gear on their bikes and Biopace's
minimum 28t inner ring was a hill-climbing disaster for the off road set.
Mixing bio and round works fine mechanically but feels real odd.
Interestingly, a Shimano marketroid once claimed in my presence that the
combination of Dual SIS 'Hyperglide' chainrings and Biopace had proved
impossible to engineer, so Bio had been dropped. Sounded like a lame excuse
then and still does.
John
John Stevenson
Edior, Australian Mountain Bike; Cycling World
Timothy J. Lee
Biopace rings are available on the 600 Ultegra and 300EX cranks.
The '95 Giant catalog shows a picture of the Giant Perigee road
bike with Shimano 300EX components. The chainrings are a bit oval
and have a "biopace" label on them.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee tim...@netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
David Tan
>Perhaps the need for the body to adapt has been disregarded in the case of
>Biopace chainrings. I assume that in the below mentioned study that the riders
>were not accustomed to an elliptical-ring pedalling style. I would not expect
>that a rider who is used to an even stroke would immediately benefit from a
>radical change in cadence style. The fact that it does not immediately make
>them worse leads me to believe that maybe there is something to be gained in
>the long run.
Perhaps. But this and your previous speculation about retrogrouches
being too traditional to accept new ideas make me wonder. Besides
the fact that oval chainrings are not a new idea (it seems to resurface
every decade or so), not all new ideas are rejected. Clipless pedals,
indexed shifting, aero bars, aero wheels, nonferrous frames all come to mind.
Certainly at least aerobars forced the body to adapt to a new position.
And certainly almost all innovations face initial resistance (not
necessarily a bad thing, IMO) But if the idea has sufficient merit,
it will probably be accepted. Oval chainrings have yet to show that.
Of course, it didn't help that Shimano's claims for the advantages of
Biopace were rather...overinflated, let's say. It didn't help that
despite said claims, they spec'd their top line racing set with Biopace
for all of one year, before going back to round rings; nor that Biopace
rings became rounder and rounder until they were altogether dropped.
The impression was that Shimano did not have much conviction in the
design of the product, that it was a high-tech marketing feature;
and if Shimano didn't believe in Biopace, why should the consumer?
It has yet to be shown that oval chainrings improve cycling efficiency
in real situations, AFAIK. If you like the feel of them, great, buy
them up while they're still around. But to claim that they were killed
by hidebound traditionalists (who I'm sure have killed other things)
is a real stretch.
Dave
MO
rings more round. It just wasn't obvious enough that it had any effect so
people didn't like it. Personnelly as i remember it cut up by rythmn a
little then again i spin at about 110rpm slighlty higher than average for
a mountain bike. Even on most off road situations.
MO
MO
>I have this suspicion that Biopace was killed by the multitudes of
>retro-grouchy roadies who resist innovation because they're afraid of having
>to adapt in order to improve. I know they were outright rejected in the pro
>peloton.
One of the french pro squads tried oval rings this season and if i
remember the UCI banned them so no more oval rings through mainstream
road racing.
What is the UCI's problem
MO
Mike Iglesias
Sheldon Brown <Capt...@aol.com> wrote:
>I am a bit of a retrogrouch myself, except not grouchy enough to really qualify.
I'm grouchy enough...
>I too have not found any speed advantage; nevertheless, Biopace has two major
>advantages over round or old-style oval chainrings:
>
>1. It is easier on the knees.
Not mine. I got rid of biopace 7 years ago because it made my knees hurt.
--
Mike Iglesias Internet: igle...@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine phone: (714) 824-6926
Office of Academic Computing FAX: (714) 824-2069
Sheldon Brown
>... Most mountain bikers
>want to run the lowest possible bottom gear on their bikes and Biopace's
>minimum 28t inner ring was a hill-climbing disaster for the off road set.
You used to also be able to get a 26, I've got one on my Fat Chance.
>Mixing bio and round works fine mechanically but feels real odd.
If you mix, it is better to have the larger rings Biopace, with smaller
round rings, though this loses you the traction benefits of Biopace if
you go to a round granny.
I do have a couple of my road bikes set up this way, 42/52 Biopace with a
24 tooth round bail-out gear.
Sheldon "Not Completely Eccentric" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Check out the Shostakovitch 24 Preludes & Fugues for Piano, Op. 87. |
| Sort of like "Das Wohltempierte Klavier" on drugs. Way cool! |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
rx8...@mcvax4.d48.lilly.com
> In <demicco1-171...@mdemicco.s1.gov> demi...@llnl.gov (Mike DeMicco) writes:
> And there is a good reason why roadies didnt like them, you ever try to
> spin with oval rings? Its impossible, biopace forces a non smooth
> rythem
>
I get the impression that many of the disscusants here do not know what Biopace
is. My 1994 Trek 370 (with 300 EX cranks) is Biopace and you have to look VERY
closely to determine that it is not round. In fact, I can only tell that it is
not round when I am riding and I look down at the crank and notice a slight
movement when I am spinning. If you stand and look at the bicycle profile, it
actually looks round. I think that many of you picture this egg-shaped
chainring. Personally, I cannot tell any difference between Biopace and round.
Bryan
William Kellagher
>I have this suspicion that Biopace was killed by the multitudes of
>retro-grouchy roadies who resist innovation because they're afraid of having
>to adapt in order to improve. I know they were outright rejected in the pro
>peloton. (there's a surprise) I bet someday oval rings will make a comeback in
>the triathlon scene where people are more relaxed and open to new ideas and
>it'll be the same ol story as the Aero bars.
>
>Does anyone agree?
>
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>S. Daniels
>U of W - Waterloo, Ontario
Nope.
Bill Kellagher
Boulder, CO
Jason Goff
I would have to say that Biopace killed itself. There were too many
problems inherent in the design. These include:
Difficulty adjusting front ders. to allow for such a radical difference
between low and high parts of the elliptical sections. This also caused
much undesired noise and excess wear on the derailleur since very few
were correctly adjusted.
Knees were becoming trashed from the jerkyness of the rings. I rode
biopace on my road bike and then on my commuting bike for about 5 years.
When I only ride my road bike (after switching the biopace rings to my
commuter) I had no knee problems whatsoever. As soon as I started using
my townie I would have tremendous knee strain. I have heard this
complaint echoed by every racer I've ever talked with about it. Notice
that biopace was never used on Dura-Ace and that the suntour version
(oval-tech) was never used on XC-PRO or Supurbe Pro. These companies
knew that it was not an idea that would be sucked up by real cyclists, so
they only put the stuff on less expensive bikes which would be bought by
people who they could unload their crock of advertising upon.
There is no speed advantage given by the use of Biopace rings. Therefore
there was no real reason to buy them. There were too many reasons not to
use biopace and no real reason to use it. That's why biopace died.
Steve Surtees
than most people realise - I read somewhere last week that one of you characters
in this group thought that it had been around for between 10 - 15 years.
I've got an old cycling book at home written in 1923 that shows an American
copy of an English chainring set dated 1892 (the original English set were made
10 years earlier in 1882!!!!!!).
So you see what goes around goes around & around..................
Steve Surtees
PS I still like to use my Biopace on my touring bike - but prefer the round ones
on my Slingshot MT3.
Laura
through six months of physio for chrondromalacia patella before switching
to round rings. I haven't had a spot of trouble since...
Joshua_Putnam
>> In <demicco1-171...@mdemicco.s1.gov> demi...@llnl.gov (Mike DeMicco) writes:
>> And there is a good reason why roadies didnt like them, you ever try to
>> spin with oval rings? Its impossible, biopace forces a non smooth
>> rythem
>I get the impression that many of the disscusants here do not know what Biopace
>is. My 1994 Trek 370 (with 300 EX cranks) is Biopace and you have to look VERY
>closely to determine that it is not round. In fact, I can only tell that it is
>not round when I am riding and I look down at the crank and notice a slight
>movement when I am spinning. If you stand and look at the bicycle profile, it
>actually looks round.
You have a very late-model Biopace. As originally introduced the
rings were very visibly irregular, not at all close to round. The
longer the system was on the market, the more Shimano refined the
shape, gradually approaching the ideal shape, a circle. You
could spot a first-generation Biopace ring instantly at quite a
distance -- they were so out of round they looked bent.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
Bike parts for sale: finger Joshua...@WolfeNet.com for list.
ko...@shaysnet.com
Jason Goff <jg...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>I would have to say that Biopace killed itself. There were too many
>problems inherent in the design. These include:
>
and it makes sense that in relatively flat terrain, mostly very high RPMs, the
action would make little difference in speed while being harder on knees.
(Couldn't help but notice the .uiowa. in the address---where abouts?)
But, I too rode Biopace (on a Cannondale) for 5 years in Massachusetts,
Vermont, and New Hampshire (mostly hills along the Connecticut River, roughly
2200 miles per season) and the Biopace made a big positive difference with no
discernible effect on my old knees.
Wore out the Biopace last year and replaced them with what my local shop
carries---the round rings. After a full season with the rounds I can
sincerely say the ellipses helped in attack on those hills.
-Steve
Donald P Perley
>>> spin with oval rings? Its impossible, biopace forces a non smooth
>>> rythem
Yeah, with my 1987 vintage biopace its a bitch trying to get over
about 160 rpm. When spinning up hills I usually stay between 100 and
120 (in the smaller ring, which is more excentric). That 160 is, of
course, just when I am just trying to spin fast, not maximize power.
My new bike will have round rings. How much increase can I expect?
-Don Perley
--
Mark Hickey
> Wore out the Biopace last year and replaced them with what my local shop
> carries---the round rings. After a full season with the rounds I can
> sincerely say the ellipses helped in attack on those hills.
C'mon - admit it! You just hate to admit you're not as fast as you
were when you were younger.....
;-)
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
Timothy J. Lee
| Wore out the Biopace last year and replaced them with what my local shop
|carries---the round rings. After a full season with the rounds I can
|sincerely say the ellipses helped in attack on those hills.
If you like the elliptical rings, try calling the bike shops to see
if they have any in the back room. Some have rather large stacks
of elliptical rings gathering dust. If not, maybe they'll order a
Biopace equipped 600 Ultegra or 300EX crank for you.
lhol...@gmu.edu
Each new generation got rounder and rounder until the ended up with
"roundtech" chainrings. What a hoot to try to make good old reliable
and functioal round chainrings technical. Biopace does make good
sense as a granny gear on some bikes when you find your cadence
slowing up super steep hills.