Garth Libre wrote:
> [snipped] the smallest Q factor cranks are too
> small for most riders. This was just borne out by a list member who
> submitted a recollection of his observations of most riders on quill
> pedals, It is the outside nub not the inside nub of the pedal which is
> the limiting stop which holds the shoe on the pedal. Clearly our
bodies
> are telling us something different from what the industry hype is
> calling for.
That is a bit of a stretch. Even if your tread/Q is too wide you will still probably get wear marks on the outside of the shoe. It has been shown often enough that, under hard pedaling, the inevitable flex (in frame, crank and pedal axle), results in pedals not parallel to the ground (or perpendicular to the frame) but tilted a little. This naturally causes the feet to drift outward. The effect may be small but is not usually overcome by the rider trying to pull his feet in narrower - not many people do that. So shoes often end up touching the outer quill of the pedal.
This was one of the claims of the Cinelli M-71 pedal - that the channel design of the cleat/pedal interface prevented the shoe from drifting outward under hard pedaling.
I'm not claiming this is a huge factor but only that it is enough to
account for the wear marks on shoes. We don't need to assume, absent
some other evidence, that our bodies are telling us anything!
> To sum up, for optimum efficiency the femurs need to exit the body and
> drop straight down from their attachments to the hips. If your pedals
> are in too narrow for your hips, you muscular efforts are in conflict
> with the bike. Narrow Q is hype. Q needs to match you in order for the
> bike to be a perfect extension of your body.
I'm all for armchair theorizing, I do it a lot myself. But let's keep some perspective here - this is not backed up by any evidence, right? And I have enough evidence (to convince myself, not the world) that I, a big man with wide hips, do best with narrow Q. That is, it feels better, I go faster and I have less pain. I tolerate a fairly wide range of Q but I have never found a Q factor that was too narrow, and really wide ones are terrible. Others have said the same thing. Is narrow right for everyone? Maybe not but I don't really care, I know what works for me and y'all can find out for yourownself.
Mark Bulgier
Seattle WA USA