Q factor on woodside road @1:30pm sunday

I was out on my bike today on Canada Road, and left on
woodside road downhill, and at the stoplight where hwy 280 overpasses
woodside road...red light.... and there was a cyclist that stopped behind
me. When the light turned green the cyclist behind me decided to lead out,
and I was curious as to the style of his riding. At first I noticed that on
his right power stroke, the bicycle tilted 4 inches to the right. Over and
over, the same 4 inch tilt to the right. I was thinking maybe his right leg
is longer than his left leg. Then I was thinking, maybe he has a hip
replacement. I continued to watch, as we were on the downhill at about 35
mph. I noticed something, and the right knee also was angled out on the
downstroke at about 4 or 6 inches out, on every revolution. So I get close
enough to see speedplay pedals, and he has these shims, that are causing his
leg to angle out. His big toe is angled up and his little toe angled down, I
was screaming in my mind stop, lets discuss this, I would rather you not
hurt yourself. I didn't say anything, his power was equal to mine or more
depending how much faster you want to go, his ankle is like angled funny.
But you know mybe he knows more than me I don't shim my pedals. I have
always wondered if my q factor is correct. But watching the bike lean
outbound every revolution was umm, almost unseen in all my years of riding,
never seen anything like it.
The left leg; revolving seemlessly round and round in circles.
Anyone got any ideas, comments?

In article ,
wrote:

snip

always wondered if my q factor is correct.

snip

Anyone got any ideas, comments?

Do the medial (inside) or lateral (outside) areas of your knees hurt?
If not, your Q factor is probably fine. Now, this is not the only
factor in whether your knees hurt, but it's one of them.

There are a lot of people who are very "princess and the pea" about bike
fit. I'm one of them. It's probably mostly BS. The human body is
somewhat flexible and somewhat adaptable. My bikes don't all fit
identically and within a block I've stopped noticing the difference.

I like a Q factor of 140 mm, arrived at experimentally (a.k.a., trial
and error); there aren't a lot of cranks these days that will get under
about 155 mm and many (MTB triples, for example) are up around 175 mm.
People seem to get along fine on those. Campy cranks used to be 140 mm
Q but I don't know if that is still the case. Modern Shimano cranks
could do service as birthing chairs, in a pinch.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

On Jan 10, 6:45*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

snip

always wondered if my q factor is correct.

snip

Anyone got any ideas, comments?

Do the medial (inside) or lateral (outside) areas of your knees hurt? *
If not, your Q factor is probably fine. *Now, this is not the only
factor in whether your knees hurt, but it's one of them.

There are a lot of people who are very "princess and the pea" about bike
fit. *I'm one of them. *It's probably mostly BS. *The human body is
somewhat flexible and somewhat adaptable. *My bikes don't all fit
identically and within a block I've stopped noticing the difference.

I like a Q factor of 140 mm, arrived at experimentally (a.k.a., trial
and error); there aren't a lot of cranks these days that will get under
about 155 mm and many (MTB triples, for example) are up around 175 mm. *
People seem to get along fine on those. *Campy cranks used to be 140 mm
Q but I don't know if that is still the case. *Modern Shimano cranks
could do service as birthing chairs, in a pinch.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

Current Athena UT "Q factor 145.5" marked right on crank at pedal. I
remember reading that Campy has tried to maintain the same Q-factor
throughout all of it's changing crank designs. Someone correct me if
I am wrong.
-Mike

On Jan 10, 5:45*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

snip

always wondered if my q factor is correct.

snip

Anyone got any ideas, comments?

Do the medial (inside) or lateral (outside) areas of your knees hurt? *
If not, your Q factor is probably fine. *Now, this is not the only
factor in whether your knees hurt, but it's one of them.

There are a lot of people who are very "princess and the pea" about bike
fit. *I'm one of them. *It's probably mostly BS. *The human body is
somewhat flexible and somewhat adaptable. *My bikes don't all fit
identically and within a block I've stopped noticing the difference.

I like a Q factor of 140 mm, arrived at experimentally (a.k.a., trial
and error); there aren't a lot of cranks these days that will get under
about 155 mm and many (MTB triples, for example) are up around 175 mm. *
People seem to get along fine on those. *Campy cranks used to be 140 mm
Q but I don't know if that is still the case. *Modern Shimano cranks
could do service as birthing chairs, in a pinch.

I like my bike that has a 175mm BB spindle and pedals well outboard of
that. I am wider yet than that, you know. You might be wider, too.

I see no reason to have one's legs poking inwards from one's hip
joints just to reach pedals that are spaced closely for the sake of
it.

Chalo

On 10 Jan, 23:20, wrote:
I was out on my bike today on Canada Road, and left on
woodside road downhill, and at the stoplight where hwy 280 overpasses
woodside road...red light.... and there was a cyclist that stopped behind
me. When the light turned green the cyclist behind me decided to lead out,
and I was curious as to the style of his riding. At first I noticed that on
his right power stroke, the bicycle tilted 4 inches to the right. Over and
over, the same 4 inch tilt to the right. I was thinking maybe his right leg
is longer than his left leg. Then I was thinking, maybe he has a hip
replacement. I continued to watch, as we were on the downhill at about 35
mph. I noticed something, and the right knee also was angled out on the
downstroke at about 4 or 6 inches out, on every revolution. So I get close
enough to see speedplay pedals, and he has these shims, that are causing his
leg to angle out. His big toe is angled up and his little toe angled down, I
was screaming in my mind stop, lets discuss this, I would rather you not
hurt yourself. I didn't say anything, his power was equal to mine or more
depending how much faster you want to go, his ankle is like angled funny.
But you know mybe he knows more than me I don't shim my pedals. I have
always wondered if my q factor is correct. But watching the bike lean
outbound every revolution was umm, almost unseen in all my years of riding,
never seen anything like it.
The left leg; revolving seemlessly round and round in circles.
Anyone got any ideas, comments?

Most peculier. Generally any corrections are with leg extension and
are accomplished by a more rearward cleat position on the longer leg/
foot. With this done and both legs working correctly within range
there is no need for shimming of the cleats to accept an inclined
foot. There may be an underlying problem not related to cycling.
Shorter cranks usually help in that a position can be found suitable
for both leg lengths. A good heel in position without cleats
generally indicates that you are not over extending your leg. It
seems possible that the rider does have a longer right leg and he has
'corrected' the difference in a manner he finds most comfortable. He
may walk without corrective footwear and has induced joint
modifications which would otherwise limit his cycling without the
inclined shims.

In article
,
Chalo wrote:

On Jan 10, 5:45*pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,

wrote:

snip

always wondered if my q factor is correct.

snip

Anyone got any ideas, comments?

Do the medial (inside) or lateral (outside) areas of your knees
hurt? * If not, your Q factor is probably fine. *Now, this is not
the only factor in whether your knees hurt, but it's one of them.

There are a lot of people who are very "princess and the pea" about
bike fit. *I'm one of them. *It's probably mostly BS. *The human
body is somewhat flexible and somewhat adaptable. *My bikes don't
all fit identically and within a block I've stopped noticing the
difference.

I like a Q factor of 140 mm, arrived at experimentally (a.k.a.,
trial and error); there aren't a lot of cranks these days that will
get under about 155 mm and many (MTB triples, for example) are up
around 175 mm. * People seem to get along fine on those. *Campy
cranks used to be 140 mm Q but I don't know if that is still the
case. *Modern Shimano cranks could do service as birthing chairs,
in a pinch.

I like my bike that has a 175mm BB spindle and pedals well outboard
of that. I am wider yet than that, you know. You might be wider,
too.

I see no reason to have one's legs poking inwards from one's hip
joints just to reach pedals that are spaced closely for the sake of
it.

It's not "for the sake" of it, it's whatever's most comfortable.
Everyone's ergonomics are different.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

Tim McNamara wrote:

*Chalo wrote:

I see no reason to have one's legs poking inwards from one's hip
joints just to reach pedals that are spaced closely for the sake of
it.

It's not "for the sake" of it, it's whatever's most comfortable. *
Everyone's ergonomics are different.

That's true, and there are good mechanical and structural reasons to
prefer a low Q factor even disregarding biomechanics and personal
taste. But likewise there are good practical reasons to have wide
tread, for instance to make room for really fat tires or a passel of
chainrings plus a heavily shaped front derailleur cage. Some folks,
like the cult of Rivendell, seem to prefer low Q for the sake of it
rather than out of extensive experimentation.

I am quite sure that many of the folks who prefer a narrow Q have hip
joints spaced significantly wider than their pedals. Having pedals
spaced about the same as your hip joints seems like a suitable place
to start from. I'm not sure how I'd go about determining my hip joint
spacing, but I definitely can tell when riding behind someone whether
their legs are moving in more or less parallel planes.

I do get a laugh when I see tiny folks on modern MTBs riding like
ducks, with their little legs spread wide to reach the pedals. As far
as I can tell, it does them no harm, but it sure looks like a
problem.

Chalo

In article
,
Chalo wrote:

Tim McNamara wrote:

*Chalo wrote:

I see no reason to have one's legs poking inwards from one's hip
joints just to reach pedals that are spaced closely for the sake
of it.

It's not "for the sake" of it, it's whatever's most comfortable. *
Everyone's ergonomics are different.

That's true, and there are good mechanical and structural reasons to
prefer a low Q factor even disregarding biomechanics and personal
taste. But likewise there are good practical reasons to have wide
tread, for instance to make room for really fat tires or a passel of
chainrings plus a heavily shaped front derailleur cage. Some folks,
like the cult of Rivendell, seem to prefer low Q for the sake of it
rather than out of extensive experimentation.

Rivendell owner since 1996.... ;-)

But being 50 years old I grew up with low Q cranks- Campy, TA, Japanese
cheapies, maybe even Astabula, etc., which were often 140 mm or lower.
And with the notion that your knees should just about brush the top tube
when you pedal, etc. If you watch pro cyclists, you'll note that most
of them are still trained to pedal that way- that could just be mindless
tradition or there could be good reason for it. I don't know enough
about kinesthetics to know which.

I am quite sure that many of the folks who prefer a narrow Q have hip
joints spaced significantly wider than their pedals. Having pedals
spaced about the same as your hip joints seems like a suitable place
to start from. I'm not sure how I'd go about determining my hip
joint spacing, but I definitely can tell when riding behind someone
whether their legs are moving in more or less parallel planes.

Well, watch people walk and you see that for the most part they place
there feet very close to the centerline of their bodies. That seems
natural because of the requirements of balancing a bipedally locomoting
animal. When people have a wide-based gait, their bodies start to sway
from side to side when walking and the length of their stride tends to
shorten. I think the low Q thing is an attempt to normalize the "gait"
of the cyclist. Of course, when seated on a bike our posture is
different than when walking, which may change one's "natural Q" as well
as changing how we balance. I think in most cases the abduction of the
hips would readily adapt to a narrower or wider Q factor.

I do get a laugh when I see tiny folks on modern MTBs riding like
ducks, with their little legs spread wide to reach the pedals. As
far as I can tell, it does them no harm, but it sure looks like a
problem.

I'd guess in a lot of cases- probably most cases- it doesn't cause any
actual problem. Probably there are a lot of folks for whom wider is
better.

In my case, a wide Q Shimano MTB crank resulted in inflammation of the
medial patellar cartilage/patellar chondromalacia which resolved after
changing to narrower Q cranks. That was back in 1993. Heh, I still
have those Ritchey cranks... on my Rivendell.

Thirsty now. I know I've got some KoolAid mix around here somewhere.

--
"I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."

In article , Tim
McNamara wrote:

But being 50 years old I grew up with low Q cranks- Campy, TA, Japanese
cheapies, maybe even Astabula, etc., which were often 140 mm or lower.
And with the notion that your knees should just about brush the top tube
when you pedal, etc. If you watch pro cyclists, you'll note that most
of them are still trained to pedal that way- that could just be mindless
tradition or there could be good reason for it. I don't know enough
about kinesthetics to know which.

My readings (not serious study, so forget cites) suggest that the
reason is aerodynamic. You are trying to move the blob of yourself
forward through atmospheric resistance. As speed increases, air
resistance increases in multiples, and gravity becomes less of a
contributor toward the resistances you are trying to overcome.

Reducing your blobbishness helps. Some wind tunnel studies confirm the
seemingly obvious conclusion that there's only so much you can do to
reduce the width of your torso between shoulders and hips, so aside
from assuming an aero position to reduce the front-facing height of
your personal blob, you're pretty much stuck there. Only miniscule
improvement results could be demonstrated from hand position on the
bars, surprisingly enough.

However, below the seat, the narrower you can train yourself to ride by
bringing your legs closer together through Q-factor and "knees to top
tube" does produce measurable improvement in aerodynamic efficiency.

That's very much separate from the muscular-skeletal advisability of
forcing your feet, ankles, knees, and hip/thigh geometry into unnatural
contortions of your personal lower-body stick-figurativeness in pursuit
of said blobbish reductions.

Dan

On 12 Jan, 02:21, Chalo wrote:
someone whether
their legs are moving in more or less parallel planes.

I do get a laugh when I see tiny folks on modern MTBs riding like
ducks, with their little legs spread wide to reach the pedals. *As far
as I can tell, it does them no harm, but it sure looks like a
problem.

This is the way some people climb stairs, and for them it may be most
appropriate. But it may come down to crank length choice and leg
extension. A high action caused by low saddle or too long a crank
will force the feet apart and if the feet are anchored to the pedals
the joints will undergo unatural movements with injury likely. Over
extension will draw the feet together which causes posterior knee pain
in itself but the simple overextension does not seem to affect foot
position too much (it draws them in) nor does it appear to cause long
term injury. I suspect that overlong cranks cause significant
problems whereas wide pedal positioning is somewhat overstressed as
bad design.