Oval Narrow/Wide - anybody got one?

**jimmyjames11** · 03-14-2016, 07:57 PM

Absolute black was giving a 30 day trial, just a few days ago probably still going on. If you don't like it they will swap it for a round ring...you won't go back.

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-14-2016, 08:54 PM

iMHO, they are so good that every OEM 1x mountain drive train should come stock with them in a season (or two?).

I will never go back to round unless they wear out the clutch or some other detriment comes to light.

They even out the torque when you are grinding out a climb. I'm a good climber and have a round stroke. Unlike most I cannot feel the difference when getting on my mountain bike after riding my commuter or roadie with round rings, but there is no doubt at all I can maintain far better traction during technical grunt climbs than with a round ring. I have my doubts about any other claimed benefits (I've heard lower fatigue and faster acceleration and I really think those are bullshit).

**mntlion** · 03-15-2016, 08:19 AM

looking for an ovel for my M950 cranks in 32 ish for single speed use.

do any companies make one for this 5 bolt pattern yet?

**rod9301** · 03-15-2016, 08:31 AM

I have one, and I think the biggest benefit for me is easier peddling standing when it's steep.

**ticketchecker** · 03-15-2016, 09:20 AM

Any chainline concerns putting one on a race face cinch crank? Bolt and ride?

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-15-2016, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by mntlion

looking for an ovel for my M950 cranks in 32 ish for single speed use.

do any companies make one for this 5 bolt pattern yet?

I really doubt it as just not a big enough market to justify the cost of production.

I had inquired to wolftooth about an oval for a set of M985 and that was their response, so an even older model with such an obscure bolt circle diameter as your M950's would be even less likely I'm guessing.

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-15-2016, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by ticketchecker

Any chainline concerns putting one on a race face cinch crank? Bolt and ride?

Yes. Bolt and ride. Even better than that stock chainline. Stock RF are 51mm. AB rings are ~50mm. WT are 49mm. If the ellipse of the WT were similar to the AB I'd have gone with the WT for the 49mm line myself, but the AB's have a slightly more aggressive ellipse.

I think the chainline (again, this is jsut my opinion) should favour the bigger cogs and not just tried to be centered on the cogset.

Also, no offense to RF, they make great products, but the taller squared tooth profiles made by the likes of AB, WT and Blackspire are more durable (longer lasting before you start dropping chains) than the pinner tooth profiles on the RF rings.

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-15-2016, 10:24 AM

Oh, and anyone getting one of these, DO NOT get the next bigger ring size unless you want to turn a harder gear.

If you are running a 30 and like it, get a 30 oval. My first experience with ovals was after reading a lot of conjecture that you could turn a harder gear. You sort of can...once you get one you'll see what I mean: your cadence can almost be stalled to a stop and you can still push through. Anyway, I was used to, and really liked a 30 for around the north shore. I even rode a 28 for a while. My first oval was a 32 and it was doable, but just too much when out for longer (3 to 4 hour) rides. And that's with an 11-42. We have some really steep climbs around here.

**D(C)** · 03-15-2016, 11:54 AM

I've been running a OneUp traction ring for about a month on my AM bike, and I have a round ring on my hardtail. On the trails, I really don't notice much of a difference. I spin out in the same places, and I get just as tired. So, as OneUp has said themselves, there is no reason to throw away a perfectly good round ring, but there is no downside going oval when it's time for a replacement.

**critical-motion** · 03-15-2016, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by D(C)

there is no reason to throw away a perfectly good round ring, but there is no downside going oval when it's time for a replacement.

Exactly. And you might as well go oval if ditching the front derailleur while going 1x10 or 1x11. I have an oval ring on my mountain bike and the added smoothness in my pedal stroke helps most with climbing traction on loose surfaces. I ride flats. A 32t oval ring feels like the effort level required for a 30t ring, or fairly similar at least.

**xyz** · 03-21-2016, 01:42 PM

I recently put a oneup traction ring on my hardtail. After just a few rides I'm calling it legit. I've torqued up and over super tech climb moves with surprising ease compared to using a round ring. Noticeable benefit to me.

I also smashed out a few strava climbing PR's too. Pretty sure the oval ring was responsible for it as it was my first ride of the season, on a heavy steel hardtail.

I'm sold on it and just put a traction ring on my FS rig.

**Dee Hubbs** · 03-21-2016, 03:01 PM

I run an Absolute Black direct mount on my SRAM XX1 cranks. I run a 28t, 30t or 32t depending on where I'm riding and the time of year.
I bought a 30t and used it on and off last fall, I really like the smooth pedal stroke it gave me.

**jm2e** · 03-21-2016, 03:15 PM

Anyone know a good all in one source for chainlink offset numbers between the different ring options? I'm with Sizzler on this, and have especially struggled with the Shimanon 11sp on my wife bike, especially in terms of it falling off the two largest cogs when back pedaling and being generally noisy on climbs. Right now using a NSB round ring because it had the largest offset among the ones I saw when looking around. Seems to have smoothed things out a little bit compared with the MRP one on there previously.

**DasBlunt** · 03-21-2016, 05:52 PM

I remember biopace it sucked balls on the road, off-road it just felt wrong but no real effect. I removed them after a few months.

with rear suspension now, I'm not sure it is even useful or helpful, unless you are not pedaling correctly?

**ghosthop** · 03-21-2016, 07:01 PM

The new oval rings are the opposite of biopace.

**TahoeJ** · 03-21-2016, 09:21 PM

I find this intriguing... but can't quite wrap my head around it just yet. So... the key is that the oval is in the "long" position when you step on your pedals, maximizing rotation during your step downs but minimizing it during the less efficient part of your pedal stroke? I'm thinking of making the leap from 2x10 to 1x11 - should I go standard first to get the feel or consider going straight to the oval up front?

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-21-2016, 09:35 PM

TahoeJ, I can see no downside at all in getting the oval to begin with.

A good riding buddy of mine claims to notice little if any difference between oval and round. D(C) on the board here posted up that he too notices little difference. To me it is not night in day feel wise, but it really is a very noticeable difference in a positive way under slow cadence high torque situations.

jm2e, there is no one source for chainring chainlines between makers. Google and the manufacturer's websites are about it.

Suffice it to say 50mm is about the norm for the middle ring position on a standard 104BCD crank capable of taking 3 rings.

SRAM 1x's are 49mm and Shimano are 50.4mm.

Most of the aftermarket players doing direct mounts (SRAM direct mount or RF cinch) are 49mm. I really do not know anyone going less than 49. That would be dictated by mounting an offset ring in the middle slot on the triple or mounting a smaller BCD ring on the inner spot on same.

**jono** · 03-21-2016, 10:01 PM

+1 on not noticing except at low rpm, but I've talked to several people who say they love them for high rpm, so I figure it must not hurt there, either. It does seem like everyone who hated Biopace should hate round after getting used to a proper oval, so that sort of makes sense. Evening out chain tension a little has an obvious benefit for stabilizing the rear end that usually goes unmentioned, too.

All in all, Shimano really screwed us with that crap--I hope when they finally start mounting ovals on OEM they have the balls to call theirs Biopace3.

**SchralphMacchio** · 03-22-2016, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

I'm thinking of making the leap from 2x10 to 1x11 - should I go standard first to get the feel or consider going straight to the oval up front?

Just do it, and do it all at once while you have your crankset taken apart, etc. I personally haven't tried oval rings but I see no reason to doubt it, as the mechanics of new-school oval clocking to maintain constant torque and improve traction on steepish, loose-ish rocks etc. all seems very sound to me.

Sizing ...
For Bay Area and Tahoe I found a 30t round up front and 11-40 in the back to be just right on. I used 40 instead of 42 because factory 10x RDs shift much cleaner that way ... going to 42 seems like you need to modify the cage and/or hanger mount to get clean shifting.

There's a separate 1x thread so we can continue the RD setup discussion over there.

**pureantigravity** · 03-22-2016, 06:30 PM

It smooths out the power stroke, eh. OK.

Can they make an egg shaped ring to also compensate for my stronger left leg?

**skibrd** · 03-22-2016, 09:14 PM

Bike options are confusing.

Does it make sense to get an oval ring if I swap my Spartan from a 2x10 to a 1x10 (eventually an 1x11)? Or is an oval ring a better option for a XC bike?

Did an oval front ring come about because we are lazy and will getting stronger riding legs have the same affect? And if the oval ring makes riding easier, no matter how strong your legs are, why don't we see the pros using them, or do we and I just am too much of a noob to see it?

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-22-2016, 09:55 PM

You will see them all using them. Ovals in MTB are relatively new and pros have to ride what their sponsors can and will supply etc. Also, this is not Biopace. In road they've been around for many years and the jury is out. Frankly, in high cadence applications like road riding I fail to see how they can be of any merit, but what do I know?

For the way mtn bikes are pedaled they make a ton of sense and actually provide some benefit.

Obviously they were not invented to satisfy a need. But it turns out they are more effective at equalizing the torque through the entire revolution of the crank (relative to a round ring). Invention is the mother of necessity.

If you're going 1x and starting fresh I cannot understand why anyone would not go oval if they have to get a ring.

**SchralphMacchio** · 03-22-2016, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Johnny Sizzler

in high cadence applications like road riding I fail to see how they can be of any merit, but what do I know?

I think it has less to do with high cadence and more to do with low rolling resistance and smooth ground. That said, if the shifting can be done cleanly from a 40t to a 53t, I would definitely see application in ITTs where constant power output is important.

**skibrd** · 03-22-2016, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Johnny Sizzler

You will see them all using them. Ovals in MTB are relatively new and pros have to ride what their sponsors can and will supply etc. Also, this is not Biopace. In road they've been around for many years and the jury is out. Frankly, in high cadence applications like road riding I fail to see how they can be of any merit, but what do I know?

For the way mtn bikes are pedaled they make a ton of sense and actually provide some benefit.

Obviously they were not invented to satisfy a need. But it turns out they are more effective at equalizing the torque through the entire revolution of the crank (relative to a round ring). Invention is the mother of necessity.

If you're going 1x and starting fresh I cannot understand why anyone would not go oval if they have to get a ring.

Ok, that makes sense. I need to get a new ring, I don't think I can just take my big ring off since when I'm cruising downhill I don't have much power shifted all the way up on the small ring. I'll check out the oval rings listed early in the thread.

This might also sound silly, but are hole patterns fairly universal so I should be able to get an oval and it should just bolt on?

Also, can I, or do I need to, run a chain guide (or chain retainer attachment) with an oval front ring? If like to stop dropping chains when it gets rough coming down hill. If yes, any suggestions on one that is light and works well?

**FlimFlamvanHam** · 03-23-2016, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by skibrd

This might also sound silly, but are hole patterns fairly universal so I should be able to get an oval and it should just bolt on?

Also, can I, or do I need to, run a chain guide (or chain retainer attachment) with an oval front ring? If like to stop dropping chains when it gets rough coming down hill. If yes, any suggestions on one that is light and works well?

yes, they are available in the commonly used bolt patterns, namely 104 and 64. Also for the new shimano stuff and the SRAM 94 4 bolt stuff.

They'll all be narrow/wide tooth profile so no chain retention device needed. Others may argue that a chain guide is a good idea, but I've only ever dropped chains on worn out narrow/wides.