50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

Andrew let me know the Phil Wood #2, ISO 116mm R+6, is the correct bottom bracket for TA Pro Vis 5.

The Velo Orange Grand Cru 50.4 BCD knockoff is listed as needing a 116mm symmetric (minimum) bottom bracket.

If custom ordering a PW, what to ask for? A JIS 116mm R+6??

Something else?

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 8/27/2019 10:29 PM, Chris Collins wrote:
Andrew let me know the Phil Wood #2, ISO 116mm R+6, is the correct bottom bracket for TA Pro Vis 5.

The Velo Orange Grand Cru 50.4 BCD knockoff is listed as needing a 116mm symmetric (minimum) bottom bracket.

If custom ordering a PW, what to ask for? A JIS 116mm R+6??

Something else?


Those are two very different cranks. I don't know who makes
the modern copy.

Classic TA single takes Phil #2 or current 116+5.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 6:37:34 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:29 PM, Chris Collins wrote:

The Velo Orange Grand Cru 50.4 BCD knockoff is listed as needing a 116mm symmetric (minimum) bottom bracket.

If custom ordering a PW, what to ask for? A JIS 116mm R+6??

Classic TA single takes Phil #2 or current 116+5.

I stand corrected on my details. My question:

Classic TA - Phil Wood ISO 116mm R+5
Velo Orange - Phil Wood JIS ???mm ???


--Chris

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:12:48 -0700 (PDT), Chris Collins
wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 6:37:34 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/27/2019 10:29 PM, Chris Collins wrote:

The Velo Orange Grand Cru 50.4 BCD knockoff is listed as needing a
116mm symmetric (minimum) bottom bracket.

If custom ordering a PW, what to ask for? A JIS 116mm R+6??

Classic TA single takes Phil #2 or current 116+5.

I stand corrected on my details. My question:

Classic TA - Phil Wood ISO 116mm R+5 Velo Orange - Phil Wood JIS ???mm
???

Chris, I'd ask the VO folks directly, they ought to know. The VO web
site says JIS 188 mm BB for that crank.

https://velo-orange.com/collections/...-crankset-mkii

If you're getting a Phil, you
can tweak the left-right bias if needed by backing in or out the
retaining rings on either side by 1-2 mm.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

Thanks Tim...by email the said 116mm, I don't know where you got 118mm (not doubting, just don't know).

Why can't I get a R+2 instead if trying to crank it over 2mm, what if a great fit is +3 or +4?

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 8/29/2019 7:41 PM, Chris Collins wrote:
Thanks Tim...by email the said 116mm, I don't know where you got 118mm (not doubting, just don't know).

Why can't I get a R+2 instead if trying to crank it over 2mm, what if a great fit is +3 or +4?


Because it's utterly different.
If the manufacturer says JIS 116mm symmetric, use that.

The crank you're using has absolutely no similarities to a
classic TA crank, technically. If you think it looks
something like a TA crank, fine. But it just isn't.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:12:14 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

BB50? What's that? My BB30, BB86 and BB90 bikes all have Shimano cranks with the identical tread or Q-factor. Same Q-factor as my threaded BB/outboard bearing Shimano equipped bikes.

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:25:06 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:21:58 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 6:12:14 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 9/1/2019 9:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

No, I'll point out that you're correct on one point. If the length of a
bottom bracket shaft (as you call it) is a bit less, then other things
being equal it will be a bit stiffer.

The deflection is proportional to the length. So if you moved from a 120
mm shaft to a 116 mm shaft, you'd increase the stiffness about 3%. With
laboratory equipment that was sensitive enough, you'd be able to detect
that.

--
- Frank Krygowski

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116 R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

By gorry Tommie! You hit the nail right on the head!

You whip out these hip width measurements like they are carved on
tablets of stone... and perhaps they are. Except that you neglect to
mention that hip width in males is noticible different than in
females. To the extent thjat a female's knee joints are closer
together then her hip joints while a male's knee joints are generally
speaking the same width.

But perhaps you are telling us that women don't ride bicycles? Or the
moon is made of blue chease?

--

Cheers,

John B.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the
offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116
R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom
bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do
not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower
and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the
narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

By gorry Tommie! You hit the nail right on the head!

You whip out these hip width measurements like they are carved on
tablets of stone... and perhaps they are. Except that you neglect to
mention that hip width in males is noticible different than in
females. To the extent thjat a female's knee joints are closer
together then her hip joints while a male's knee joints are generally
speaking the same width.

But perhaps you are telling us that women don't ride bicycles? Or the
moon is made of blue chease?

--

Cheers,

John B.


And, of course, the important measurement when discussing Q factor is how
far apart the ankles are when doing a similar exercise like walking or
running.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:19:15 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the
offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116
R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom
bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do
not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower
and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the
narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

By gorry Tommie! You hit the nail right on the head!

You whip out these hip width measurements like they are carved on
tablets of stone... and perhaps they are. Except that you neglect to
mention that hip width in males is noticible different than in
females. To the extent thjat a female's knee joints are closer
together then her hip joints while a male's knee joints are generally
speaking the same width.

But perhaps you are telling us that women don't ride bicycles? Or the
moon is made of blue chease?

--

Cheers,

John B.


And, of course, the important measurement when discussing Q factor is how
far apart the ankles are when doing a similar exercise like walking or
running.

I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".

For that matter, I see people running and their stride seems wider
with running shoes on than when barefoot.

As always, I may be wrong, but like many of the things that seem to be
of such major concern, I just can't believe that pedal width (within
reason) is THAT important.
--

Cheers,

John B.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:19:15 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the
offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116
R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom
bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do
not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower
and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the
narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

By gorry Tommie! You hit the nail right on the head!

You whip out these hip width measurements like they are carved on
tablets of stone... and perhaps they are. Except that you neglect to
mention that hip width in males is noticible different than in
females. To the extent thjat a female's knee joints are closer
together then her hip joints while a male's knee joints are generally
speaking the same width.

But perhaps you are telling us that women don't ride bicycles? Or the
moon is made of blue chease?

--

Cheers,

John B.


And, of course, the important measurement when discussing Q factor is how
far apart the ankles are when doing a similar exercise like walking or
running.

I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".

For that matter, I see people running and their stride seems wider
with running shoes on than when barefoot.

As always, I may be wrong, but like many of the things that seem to be
of such major concern, I just can't believe that pedal width (within
reason) is THAT important.
--

Cheers,

John B.


and that too...

I went for a bike fitting and the guy spaced my pedals OUT another couple
mm on each side, but he used ****ty spacers, so I removed them. I didn’t
recall it making a noticeable difference in either direction.

I was also hoping to buy a bike power meter that fit between your pedal and
your crank (and which kicked your pedals out another 3/4� or so, and there
weren’t many complaints about the Q factor - only the bait and switch when
the company decided they couldn’t actually build the product.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 2/9/19 2:16 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".


I think "Gee those pedals are a long way apart" when I ride my MTB.

It's another reason I don't like riding that bike, and why I bought a
gravel/touring bike that has a similar (if not the same) Q factor as my
road bike.

--
JS

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 17:41:14 -0700 (PDT), Chris Collins
wrote:
Thanks Tim...by email the said 116mm, I don't know where you got 118mm
(not doubting, just don't know).

The Velo Orange product website page.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:54:32 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:19:15 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the
offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116
R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom
bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do
not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower
and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the
narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

By gorry Tommie! You hit the nail right on the head!

You whip out these hip width measurements like they are carved on
tablets of stone... and perhaps they are. Except that you neglect to
mention that hip width in males is noticible different than in
females. To the extent thjat a female's knee joints are closer
together then her hip joints while a male's knee joints are generally
speaking the same width.

But perhaps you are telling us that women don't ride bicycles? Or the
moon is made of blue chease?

--

Cheers,

John B.


And, of course, the important measurement when discussing Q factor is how
far apart the ankles are when doing a similar exercise like walking or
running.

I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".

For that matter, I see people running and their stride seems wider
with running shoes on than when barefoot.

As always, I may be wrong, but like many of the things that seem to be
of such major concern, I just can't believe that pedal width (within
reason) is THAT important.
--

Cheers,

John B.


and that too...

I went for a bike fitting and the guy spaced my pedals OUT another couple
mm on each side, but he used ****ty spacers, so I removed them. I didn’t
recall it making a noticeable difference in either direction.


The world is a strange place. It used to be that bike magazines had
articles about how to fit a bike. You bought a bike and adjusted the
bike to fit using measurements in the magazine which were usually
common knowledge anyway. Then you rode the thing and maybe changed a
few adjustments to fit better - I've a fetish for seat position - and
then you just rode.

Now you buy a bike and take it to a "fitter" and pay to have the bike
fitted.The magazine cost 50 cents as I remember :-)


I was also hoping to buy a bike power meter that fit between your pedal and
your crank (and which kicked your pedals out another 3/4” or so, and there
weren’t many complaints about the Q factor - only the bait and switch when
the company decided they couldn’t actually build the product.
--

Cheers,

John B.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Monday, 2 September 2019 01:12:08 UTC-4, James wrote:
On 2/9/19 2:16 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".


I think "Gee those pedals are a long way apart" when I ride my MTB.

It's another reason I don't like riding that bike, and why I bought a
gravel/touring bike that has a similar (if not the same) Q factor as my
road bike.

--
JS

I bought a bicycle for parts but took it for a 40 kilometers round trip ride and had terrible pain before even riding 20 kilometers. The pain was caused by a wider than normal for me Q-factor. I narrowed the Q-factor by quite a bit and the pain never came back. For me a wide Q-factor is very painful.. Others, their mileage and tolerance may vary.

Cheers

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:11:57 +1000, James
wrote:

On 2/9/19 2:16 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".


I think "Gee those pedals are a long way apart" when I ride my MTB.

It's another reason I don't like riding that bike, and why I bought a
gravel/touring bike that has a similar (if not the same) Q factor as my
road bike.

Out of curiosity what is the difference in BB/crank width ?
--

Cheers,

John B.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Sunday, September 1, 2019 at 8:19:20 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 18:12:12 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:49:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/30/2019 9:07 PM, Don Gillies wrote:
If a vintage crank needs an offset on one side, you can just add the
offset to the other side and substitute a symmetric crankset, so a 116
R+5 bottom bracket can be substituted with a 121 symmetric bottom
bracket (120 or 122 would work fine.)

- Don Gillies
Palo Alto, CA, USA


Which makes your tread ( aka "Q") wider.
Deal breaker for some riders.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

The iliac width is why the BB50 has become so common. People's legs do
not have to spread so wide and the length of the BB shaft is narrower
and consequently stiffer. Average hip breadth is 13" or 33 cm. So the
narrower the BB the more angularly correct a pedal spacing would be.

Time for Frank to tell us all that I don't know what I'm talking about.

By gorry Tommie! You hit the nail right on the head!

You whip out these hip width measurements like they are carved on
tablets of stone... and perhaps they are. Except that you neglect to
mention that hip width in males is noticible different than in
females. To the extent thjat a female's knee joints are closer
together then her hip joints while a male's knee joints are generally
speaking the same width.

But perhaps you are telling us that women don't ride bicycles? Or the
moon is made of blue chease?

--

Cheers,

John B.


And, of course, the important measurement when discussing Q factor is how
far apart the ankles are when doing a similar exercise like walking or
running.

The front sprockets remain in the same place. The chain line remains the same. The contact point on all of the pedal systems remain the same. So the only real difference is the depth of the crank where it attaches to the BB axle.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 2/9/19 4:49 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:11:57 +1000, James
wrote:

On 2/9/19 2:16 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".


I think "Gee those pedals are a long way apart" when I ride my MTB.

It's another reason I don't like riding that bike, and why I bought a
gravel/touring bike that has a similar (if not the same) Q factor as my
road bike.

Out of curiosity what is the difference in BB/crank width ?

I too was curious, because I remember it feels noticeably wider but I
didn't know off hand by how much, so I measured it yesterday before I
replied to you, in case the feeling was in my head. Nope, the
difference is 20 millimetres, as near as I could measure to the outside
face of each crank. 160 mm to 180 mm.

--
JS

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 11:56:14 +1000, James
wrote:

On 2/9/19 4:49 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:11:57 +1000, James
wrote:

On 2/9/19 2:16 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".


I think "Gee those pedals are a long way apart" when I ride my MTB.

It's another reason I don't like riding that bike, and why I bought a
gravel/touring bike that has a similar (if not the same) Q factor as my
road bike.

Out of curiosity what is the difference in BB/crank width ?

I too was curious, because I remember it feels noticeably wider but I
didn't know off hand by how much, so I measured it yesterday before I
replied to you, in case the feeling was in my head. Nope, the
difference is 20 millimetres, as near as I could measure to the outside
face of each crank. 160 mm to 180 mm.

Interesting. I've got two bikes here one with a triple front and one
with a double. I'll measure them tomorrow. The bike in Bangkok is a
old fashioned tapered shank double model and I don' remember whether
it is an original 3 piece BB or a newer "cartridge" but I'll measure
that when we get to Bangkok, the middle of the month, or so.

I don't think that I've notice4d any difference in pedal width between
the double and triple but I'll measure both bikes and than test ride
them both.

Another thing I was thinking about driving up here today. I've had
bikes with big wide pedals the kind with toe clips and straps and
changed them for clip-ons that were, maybe, half the width and than
back to wider single sided pedals and I can't remember ever noticing
what must have been some sort of difference in effective pedal width.
--
cheers,

John B.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On Mon, 02 Sep 2019 11:16:46 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 03:19:15 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:


And, of course, the important measurement when discussing Q factor is
how far apart the ankles are when doing a similar exercise like
walking or running.

I wouldn't argue except to say that over the years I've owned quite a
number of bicycles which undoubtedly had varying BB width... and I've
never been able to tell the difference. I've never jumped on a bike
and thought "Gee, those pedals are a long ways apart" or conversely,
"Gee those pedals are really close together".

I prefer narrow pedal spacing which seems to make my knees feel better.
I have had patellar inflammation in the past and have had a torn
meniscus scoped so wider cranks make my left knee hurt. People with
healthy knees might not notice Q factor differences much. My bikes are
mostly set up with old style Ritchey Logic cranks (110 mm BCD) on Campy
Veloce BBs which gives me a Q factor of 142-144 mm; my bike with
Truvativ ISIS cranks has a Q fctor of 140 mm; my old Raleigh Sports has
a Q factor of 145 mm. I don't notice the miniscule differences between
those. My tandem has Shimano cranks with a Q factor of 170 mm and that
is very noticeable and feels noticeable throughout the ride. I lost out
on a set of Ritchey Logic tendem cranks a number of years ago through
inattention; still bummed about that.

My wife- with wider pelvis than me and a bit knock-kneed- prefers a
wider Q factor of 160 mm or so. She sets her SPD cleats as far in as
she can and complains of discomfort if the Q factor is too narrow.

For that matter, I see people running and their stride seems wider
with running shoes on than when barefoot.

I have read claims that when running people's effective Q factor is less
than zero- their feet overlap along the centerline of their stride.
I've never bothered to verify that but suspect that this is true for
some folks and not true for others. Contrary to Tom's claim, pelvic
and leg geometry vary widely (no pun intended).

As always, I may be wrong, but like many of the things that seem to be
of such major concern, I just can't believe that pedal width (within
reason) is THAT important. --

For people with normal healthy knees and average body geometry, it is
probably not important and usually not even noticeable. People who are
outliers- especially with very short legs, bowlegged or knock-kneed,
etc.- Q factor differences might be noticeable. The hips move in all
dimensions to accommodate movement- otherwise we'd only be able to walk
or run of certain kinds of terrain.

50.4 BCD TA vs. VO
 

On 9/6/2019 1:26 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I prefer narrow pedal spacing which seems to make my knees feel better.
I have had patellar inflammation in the past and have had a torn
meniscus scoped so wider cranks make my left knee hurt.

Maybe 20 years ago I started getting some minor pain in one knee. In
trying to diagnose it, I somehow noticed that I seemed to be applying
force toward the outside of the pedal, using the outside edge of my
foot. I began concentrating on using the ball of my foot (just behind
the big toe) to apply force, and my knee problems largely went away.

For people with normal healthy knees and average body geometry, it is
probably not important and usually not even noticeable. People who are
outliers- especially with very short legs, bowlegged or knock-kneed,
etc.- Q factor differences might be noticeable.

Agreed. Also, people who ride only short distances at low effort may
never notice a difference. That's the vast majority of bicyclists.

--
- Frank Krygowski