Brucey wrote:That no-one has published such test data (I think... anyone know different?) says that such a test hasn't been done, or that the results were either secret for some reason, or (more likely) not conclusive.
I suspect that testing of this nature has been done, and has been conclusive. As far as I know, Bradley Wiggins and Team Sky aren't sponsored by Osymmetric Chainrings, and they make extensive use of technology to identify the "marginal gains" that they employ in an attempt to get the edge on the opposition.
Given this, I can't see any reason that Wiggins would use egg-shaped chainrings unless he had identified in testing that they make a real difference to his performance.
Turning this around, I'm quite curious about why some people are determined to write off non-round chainrings as snake oil. I think that the arguments as to why they should work are quite compelling, and are borne out in practice. Why the reluctance to accept that there might be a benefit?