[CR]Steel cranks, aluminum cranks...

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Chater-Lea)

From: "The Maaslands" <TheMaaslands@comcast.net>
To: "CR" <Classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: [CR]Steel cranks, aluminum cranks...
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:10:27 -0400


Chuck brought up the following:

More importantly, we (Bicycle Quarterly) put the history in
> perspective. Many of our readers don't care when a logo on a crank
> was changed, but they are fascinated by finding out why old bikes
> were designed in certain ways and what we can learn from that. For
> example, why did racers continue to use heavier steel cranks for
> almost 25 years after the Stronglights were introduced? In various
> web forums, you read that it was because the racers feared that the
> aluminum cranks broke. BQ showed that many racers in the early
> 1950s used aluminum cranks in mountain stages - if they were afraid
> of failure, they would not have used them on stages where cranks
> suffer from the highest loads. However, these racers switched to
> steel cranks for flat stages. Combined with other evidence, we
> concluded that on the flats, where weight matters little, the
> racers preferred the lower tread (Q factor) of the steel cranks. In
> the mountains, they were willing to pedal with their feet apart in
> exchange for almost a pound less in weight. Suddenly, you realize
> that there was a method behind this, rather than just "racers
> always are conservative." And of course, it illustrates that racers
> believed tread (Q factor) was very important, something that many
> people still believe today, even though many crank manufacturers
> don't care about tread at all.

I agree with Chuck that to make such a claim shows a decided lack of rigor in research and a highly questionable conclusion. You need say nothing more that if reduction of the Q factor was in any way important, track bikes would not have seen the rear hub widths increase from 110 to 120 on the rear with accompanying increase in the q factor (BB shells went from 65 to to 70 mm). You would also not have seen Italian BB shell widths go from 70 to 74, nor for that matter would anybody use 70 mm widths if 68 mm widths were equally functional. This whole q factor question is simply a way for manufacturers to differentiate their products to consumers. Lastly, looking at different pedals that I have fitted to bikes in my garage, I can measure at least a 8 mm difference between the 'narrowest' and 'widest'.

Perhaps in 20 years BQ will be writing that many of the riders of the pro peloton in the early years of the new millenia continued to ride alloy cranks instead of carbon cranks because of q factor or other such reason... instead of the fact that they cost the teams less, were available in a greater choice of sizes and gave a performance more in keeping with the rider's expectations.

Steven Maasland
Moorestown, NJ
USA