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.