Gentlemen: Glad we are again.
Now that the chainwheels have been removed from between the
shoulderblades, by decree of our Directeur Sportif, maybe now we can
examine what the essence of the Q factor means, and how it affects our
riding and how far we have to spread our legs.
Many of us have spoken to many top riders, amateur and pro, besides our
own experiences.
Now that we have the anecdotes, let's separate wheat from chaff, and
have some reasonably accurate findings.
I'll start the thread and let you add or delete.
I won't name he said, she said, but only refer to commentary as it fits.
The factories and riders over a hundred years ago, indeed understood
width of cranks and feet.
I think the old timers knew that for power and ankling efficiency the
knees had to be close to the top tube, suggesting a knock-kneed look
from the front as you've ALL seen watching the Tour and other racing
coverage of frontal profile.
None of this is any good and hard to do,unless the rider does stretches
and keeps his core muscles, hip flexors, etc. in good condition and
doesn't have a beer belly.
The crank / pedal width years ago had to be done by rider testing and
was determined by the chainline.
The old fixed gear bikes had an easier time of narrowing the "Q".
Once multi-gearing came in the "Q" had to be widened to accomodate. My
riding experience only goes back as far as the '40's, but we were able
to ride the track width and road widths at that time without any
negative effect.
We did this regularly either day-to-day or week to week and it was no
problemo switching from 165 to 170 cranks. We found that 5mm made no
difference at all and we could make the transition without problem.
I have personally found that with 7-1/2 mm or more crank length
difference made me pedal squares. But that's me, maybe riding so much
fixed gear made me more sensitive.
Remember Rominger screwed his season up by changing his crank lengths
too much during a tour..
Now, back to the "Q".
With today's computers, the technology is much faster, and rider testing
feedback immediate.
If you look at the size of riders, man or woman, we all ride the same
equipment because the hip width is not as critical as one would suppose.
If it were, the manufacturers would have to make maybe three different
crank configurations to accomodate our hips.
Far more important is the foot PLACEMENT on the pedal for riding
comfort.
As we try to bring our legs/knees closer in, our feet fore and aft have
to be positioned for best power and pedalling. At the same time, our
feet MUST feel flat across the bottom.
Thank Paul Swift for his wedges and get some to place under your cleats
to satisfy this element if needed.
Then we have to see to the foot/cleat angle to keep our heel from
touching frame or crank and adjust our feet positions accordingly.
I can remember years ago being able to twist foot sideways and if not
paying attention whacking ankle on crank and cutting accordingly. OUCH!
and bleeding. S*)(^% and F@&() !! Oh well, one learned.
Depending on your individual needs your feet will be farther or closer
to the cranks, and your "Q" will change whether you like it or not.
If you are only riding 5MPH and watching celestial bodies along the
beach, it won't mean jack.
If you want to ride a little more intensly, try to get it dialed in and
save your hips, knees, and ankles.
If the cleats are incorrect, a host of foot problems could manifest
themselves depending on your intensity.
>From what I've posted, hopefully you will see how the relationship
between "Q" and foot position are inexhorably related.
How about your experiences, gals and guys?
Ladies first, one must observe the proprieties, you know.
Ted Ernst
Palos Verdes Estates
CA USA