how wide
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
how wide
how do you know how wide your pedal stance should be?
I read that fat bikes were potential problem due to the width of cranks but I never had any issues with mine. Feel like I have more trouble (if any) with narrow road bikes.
I read that fat bikes were potential problem due to the width of cranks but I never had any issues with mine. Feel like I have more trouble (if any) with narrow road bikes.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 7,067
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4409 Post(s)
Liked 1,566 Times
in
1,028 Posts
What sort of trouble do narrow road bikes cause?
There is no metric for stance or "Q". Most people walk and run with their feet much closer together than the narrowest pedal stance, which is why it is generally observed that narrower is better.
There is no metric for stance or "Q". Most people walk and run with their feet much closer together than the narrowest pedal stance, which is why it is generally observed that narrower is better.
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,906
Bikes: (2) ti TiCycles, 2007 w/ triple and 2011 fixed, 1979 Peter Mooney, ~1983 Trek 420 now fixed and ~1973 Raleigh Carlton Competition gravel grinder
Mentioned: 129 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4806 Post(s)
Liked 3,932 Times
in
2,557 Posts
Your body is the answer here. We are all quite different. My knees are very sensitive to too much "Q". They are happier going up tough hills on fix gears with very narrow track-standard cranksets than on my geared bikes with their Shimano triples, very low gears and typical wide Shimano Q-factor. (My knees seem to care zero about the symmetry of the pedals. Bottom brackets that are very asymmetrical to keep the left crank so close it almost hits the chainstays work well for me.
Ben
Ben
#4
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,535
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3889 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
Different width stances use slightly different muscles or the same ones in different amounts. There's no correct number. You get used to what you have. Going back and forth between different Qs might cause some soreness if you ride each of them a lot, but so what. When I squat in the gym, my feet are much further apart than they are on the bike. Is this wrong? No. It's just different.
I used to be a bug about foot placement when hiking or walking, always putting one foot exactly in front of the other. I finally decided it was stupid and went to hip width placement, but walking worked fine either way.
I used to be a bug about foot placement when hiking or walking, always putting one foot exactly in front of the other. I finally decided it was stupid and went to hip width placement, but walking worked fine either way.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#5
Senior Member
Unfortunately, the only way to learn what Qfactor is acceptable to your body is to try it long enough to see if it hurts you. Fortunately, most folks can tolerate a reasonably wide range of typical Q factors. I find anything under 145 feels weird and bothers my ITB band. (top of thigh) The too wide Q (210ish) on my old fat bike was something I usually adjusted to it when fatbike season came around, but it never really felt natural and eventually began to irritate my knees and hips. (I'm 55-a lot of things irritate me lately, and I ain't talkin' just on the bike!) The sweet zone for me seems to be high 140s to low 180s...YMMV.
Last edited by 5teve; 03-26-18 at 06:06 AM.
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Posts: 29,552
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5224 Post(s)
Liked 3,584 Times
in
2,344 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CrankyOne
Advocacy & Safety
12
05-25-17 12:55 PM
avhed
Road Cycling
3
03-01-16 10:49 PM