Some people will find that this advice may add years to their ability to cycle. Others are all set and don't need this advice...
Off topic a bit but way important...and it does discuss vintage parts.
The Q factor issue is one that falls by the wayside much too often. Q factors are often huge now, but the key issue is that everyone has their own optimal Q factor. Read again, best Q factor for you depends on you. NOT what someone tells you is a nice Q factor or one that is good for their best friend. Not what someone tells you when they are selling you a crank.
I can't ride a TA or Campy NR crank as-is because the left arm is way too imboard (and on an pre-78 crank the right arm feels a bit too far inboard as well).
Modern cranks often kick my too far out, but a modern Campy crank as is works much better than an old one FOR ME (but maybe not for you!).
I can't overemphasize enough the importance of getting properly fitted for both Q factor width and cleat (or shoe or insole) cant. Not many fitters are good at this, but some are and have been thinking about this for years. And not all people who understand foot position well know about the rest of bike setup.
If you are not aligned properly, you have continual movement that slowly damages your knee. If your arc type cleats let you move a lot, and you are moving alot, that is a clue that something is wrong!
Now I hear a lot of folks say "Yeah, not everything is aligned right but my knees feel fine." The other way to look at this is that your position has not yet damaged your knees, but the damage is occuring, and it is better to fix it now than later.
I'm speaking from experience. In high school, my cycling buddy told me to get orthotics. I didn't. Well 2 years ago I got orthotics from Andy Pruitt here in Boulder - as he looked at the X-rays of the damage that I'm stuck with.
Old cranks have the advantage that they typically start with a low Q factor and you can kick them out with longer bb or spacers at the pedal to get it right.
If anyone wants more info or suggestions, please email me privately - but I'm not an expert on this, just a patient.
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
>
\r?\n> no arguement.
\r?\n> steve asked about fitting from afar.
\r?\n> i don't think q factor affects choices that
\r?\n> i would make on behalf of a client.
\r?\n> e-RICHIE
\r?\n> chester, ct
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> -- "Dan Christopherson" wrote:
\r?\n> Hmmmm... I think Campy (and others) realized the importance of Q-factor very
\r?\n> early on. Cases-in-point: 1) all those right crank arms scuffed from FDs - not
\r?\n> much room there. 2) the modern ubiquitous curved right crank arm - when short
\r?\n> BB spindles came into vogue, Campy was the first to curve the crank arm around
\r?\n> the FD to keep the pedals in the right place. Contrast this with later Japanese
\r?\n> designs with outrageously large Q-factors. Which would you rather ride?
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Dan Christopherson
\r?\n> Lopez Island
\r?\n>
\r?\n>
\r?\n> e-RICHIE wrote:
\r?\n> >i think q factor is one of those 90s things that's yet
\r?\n> >to find it's way into the fitting cycle