>>1222454Youuuuu stuuuupiiiiid faaaaake boooooomer they were standard on bikes in the 80s and you'd know if that if you were really a boomer and not a dumb zoomer. You'd also know that they only failed to remain standard because Shimano's marketing was disastrous.
>>1222469Yeah, BP is crap for large chainrings but it was really nice for small ones. The shape meant that during the power part of the stroke, you'd effectively be in a lower gear. It's nice for mashing (which at the time was the pro af style with everyone mashing along in uselessly large gears), and saves the knees a bit of stress, but it fucking sucks for spinning as it makes the motion feel jerky. It became sort of common for touring jerks to put a BP 26 on their triples, with round 36 and 46 chainrings.
The Osymetric and Q rings that some pros now use are oriented so that when you're in the power portion of your stroke, you're effectively in a higher gear, which some think is useful because it's making use of power that they'd otherwise be wasting, or something. You can rotate a BP 90 degrees to get the same effect. Which is likely useless.
