Mountain Vs. Road pedals for a road bike

I have extensively Googled this, but I haven't found the answer I was
looking for. Simply put, do MTB pedals have longer spindles and thus a
wider final Q-factor compared to road pedals? I'm trying to decide on a
pedal/shoe combo for a new road bike, and what I've found searching the
Net is that a narrower Q-factor is preferable, as long as there are no
problems like smacking the crank arms or stays with your feet. I believe
I saw somewhere that road pedals result in a narrower Q-factor than MTB
shoes.

The problem I have with road shoes is walking. I really don't want to
end up with a system that makes walking extremely awkward. MTB pedals
use smaller cleats that can be recessed into the sole of a MTB or
touring shoe, making them walkable. My original idea was to standardize
both my bikes with Time ATACS or Eggbeaters until I remembered the Q-
factor issue. Here is what I have seen for other choices:

There are some road SPD pedals, but I don't really like the SPD system
and want to try something else.

Speedplay Frogs, but I saw somewhere that they have extra long spindles,
but don't know for sure.

Use the standard Look system and carry rubber cleat covers.

The new Shimano SPD-SL system is very well liked, but I haven't seen
anything about using the cleats with walkable shoes. My guess is that
you can't.

I saw a claim somewhere that there is a new Look system with smaller
cleats that can be used with walkable shoes. Haven't seen them for sale.
What do all of you do for the walking dilemma?

SuperSlinky wrote:
... What do all of you do for the walking dilemma?

I use Look pedals and use cleat covers if I intend to walk very far.

SuperSlinky wrote:
What do all of you do for the walking dilemma?

time atacs on all my road bikes . i switched one over from speedplays and
another from looks .. if q is a factor it wasn't for me. one of 'em is a
touring bike so i didn't find cleat covers to be a good solution. one pair
of shoes sure is nice, too.
--
david reuteler

"SuperSlinky" wrote in message
t...
I have extensively Googled this, but I haven't found the answer I was
looking for. Simply put, do MTB pedals have longer spindles and thus a
wider final Q-factor compared to road pedals? I'm trying to decide on a
pedal/shoe combo for a new road bike, and what I've found searching the
Net is that a narrower Q-factor is preferable, as long as there are no
problems like smacking the crank arms or stays with your feet. I believe
I saw somewhere that road pedals result in a narrower Q-factor than MTB
shoes.

The problem I have with road shoes is walking. I really don't want to
end up with a system that makes walking extremely awkward. MTB pedals
use smaller cleats that can be recessed into the sole of a MTB or
touring shoe, making them walkable. My original idea was to standardize
both my bikes with Time ATACS or Eggbeaters until I remembered the Q-
factor issue. Here is what I have seen for other choices:

There are some road SPD pedals, but I don't really like the SPD system
and want to try something else.

Speedplay Frogs, but I saw somewhere that they have extra long spindles,
but don't know for sure.

Use the standard Look system and carry rubber cleat covers.

The new Shimano SPD-SL system is very well liked, but I haven't seen
anything about using the cleats with walkable shoes. My guess is that
you can't.

I saw a claim somewhere that there is a new Look system with smaller
cleats that can be used with walkable shoes. Haven't seen them for sale.
What do all of you do for the walking dilemma?

I use frogs on my mtb and speedplay x's on my road bike. I recently put the
frogs on the road bike for a cross PA supported road ride and noticed no Q
difference. Only thing that I found to be noticeable is the frogs on my
Shimano mtb shoes are almost a cm further from the pedal spindle than the
x's on a Time shoe. Required raising the saddle about 1 cm and seemed a
little less efficient. For the trip it was a pleasure being able to walk
normally.
Bill

"SuperSlinky" wrote in message
t...
I have extensively Googled this, but I haven't found the answer I was
looking for. Simply put, do MTB pedals have longer spindles and thus a
wider final Q-factor compared to road pedals? I'm trying to decide on a
pedal/shoe combo for a new road bike, and what I've found searching the
Net is that a narrower Q-factor is preferable, as long as there are no
problems like smacking the crank arms or stays with your feet. I believe
I saw somewhere that road pedals result in a narrower Q-factor than MTB
shoes.

The problem I have with road shoes is walking. I really don't want to
end up with a system that makes walking extremely awkward. MTB pedals
use smaller cleats that can be recessed into the sole of a MTB or
touring shoe, making them walkable. My original idea was to standardize
both my bikes with Time ATACS or Eggbeaters until I remembered the Q-
factor issue. Here is what I have seen for other choices:

There are some road SPD pedals, but I don't really like the SPD system
and want to try something else.

Speedplay Frogs, but I saw somewhere that they have extra long spindles,
but don't know for sure.

Use the standard Look system and carry rubber cleat covers.

The new Shimano SPD-SL system is very well liked, but I haven't seen
anything about using the cleats with walkable shoes. My guess is that
you can't.

I saw a claim somewhere that there is a new Look system with smaller
cleats that can be used with walkable shoes. Haven't seen them for sale.
What do all of you do for the walking dilemma?

I don't believe such a correlation exists. Frogs are 55mm from spindle flat
to center of pedal. Other SPD's I have are about 53mm. Some Looks I have
are about 53mm. Frogs are orderable in standard (55mm), +1/8, +1/4, and
+1/2 inch spindle lengths. I actually have an asymmetrical set - left is
normal, right is +1/4 to accommodate an outward pointing foot. Narrower Q
is not always better - try to replicate the Q factor that you have on your
current ride.

Kyle

SuperSlinky wrote in message et...
I have extensively Googled this, but I haven't found the answer I was
looking for. Simply put, do MTB pedals have longer spindles and thus a
wider final Q-factor compared to road pedals? I'm trying to decide on a
pedal/shoe combo for a new road bike, and what I've found searching the
Net is that a narrower Q-factor is preferable, as long as there are no
problems like smacking the crank arms or stays with your feet. I believe
I saw somewhere that road pedals result in a narrower Q-factor than MTB
shoes.


Where? Both styles of cleats allow for sideways adjustment,
effectively increasing or decreasing "Q". It's an individual thing- I
adjust my (SPD) cleats so my shoes barely clear the crankarm, but your
particular anatomy may require a different setup.


The problem I have with road shoes is walking. I really don't want to
end up with a system that makes walking extremely awkward. MTB pedals
use smaller cleats that can be recessed into the sole of a MTB or
touring shoe, making them walkable. My original idea was to standardize
both my bikes with Time ATACS or Eggbeaters until I remembered the Q-
factor issue. Here is what I have seen for other choices:


The ATAC pedals have 3mm lateral float, which makes your assertion
about low "Q" tougher to understand.

There are some road SPD pedals, but I don't really like the SPD system
and want to try something else.


And SPD-R is on its way to the dustbin of history.

Speedplay Frogs, but I saw somewhere that they have extra long spindles,
but don't know for sure.


Speedplay sells spindles in several lengths, to allow for more radical
rotational adjustment (i.e. to compensate for duck feet). I believe
the "standard" spindles are the shortest.

Use the standard Look system and carry rubber cleat covers.


You'll still walk like a duck.

The new Shimano SPD-SL system is very well liked, but I haven't seen
anything about using the cleats with walkable shoes. My guess is that
you can't.


Right- The cleats use the Look three-bolt pattern. With the exception
of the Lake CX 115 shoes
( http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?brand=1170&sku=6359 )
no Look-compatible shoes are "walkable", IMO.

I saw a claim somewhere that there is a new Look system with smaller
cleats that can be used with walkable shoes. Haven't seen them for sale.
What do all of you do for the walking dilemma?

I was on a supported tour last week and saw many very-high-end road
bikes (including a couple Serotta Ottrotts) with MTB-style SPD pedals.
I'd guess that the owners preferred walking comfort and double-sided
entry over other factors.

(FWIW: I use Shimano PD-M737 pedals- now 13 years old and still
working perfectly.)

Jeff Wills

I was on a supported tour last week and saw many very-high-end road
bikes (including a couple Serotta Ottrotts) with MTB-style SPD pedals.
I'd guess that the owners preferred walking comfort and double-sided
entry over other factors.

(FWIW: I use Shimano PD-M737 pedals- now 13 years old and still
working perfectly.)

Jeff Wills

I have spd pedals on my current road & mountain ride. I realy like
them for the above reasons. I have yet to find any short commings with
them. They are much nicer than my time pedals from 1987 I do catch
some greef from roadies about them. What are the problems with spd's?

Kyle.B.H said...

I don't believe such a correlation exists. Frogs are 55mm from spindle flat
to center of pedal. Other SPD's I have are about 53mm. Some Looks I have
are about 53mm. Frogs are orderable in standard (55mm), +1/8, +1/4, and
+1/2 inch spindle lengths. I actually have an asymmetrical set - left is
normal, right is +1/4 to accommodate an outward pointing foot. Narrower Q
is not always better - try to replicate the Q factor that you have on your
current ride.

Kyle

Thanks. This is good info. I got that particular notion from a story on
the new Crank Bros. Quattro which emphasises a narrow Q. I assumed this
was an issue with MTB pedals or else why would they need a new pedal
design? IMO, a platform is dead weight if you have a tiny cleat like an
Eggbeater, Time ATAC or SPD.

Kyle.B.H said...

I don't believe such a correlation exists. Frogs are 55mm from spindle flat
to center of pedal. Other SPD's I have are about 53mm. Some Looks I have
are about 53mm. Frogs are orderable in standard (55mm), +1/8, +1/4, and
+1/2 inch spindle lengths. I actually have an asymmetrical set - left is
normal, right is +1/4 to accommodate an outward pointing foot. Narrower Q
is not always better - try to replicate the Q factor that you have on your
current ride.

Kyle

Thanks. This is good info. I got that particular notion from a story on
the new Crank Bros. Quattro which emphasises a narrow Q. I assumed this
was an issue with MTB pedals or else why would they need a new pedal
design? IMO, a platform is dead weight if you have a tiny cleat like an
Eggbeater, Time ATAC or SPD.

In article ,
says...
I believe
I saw somewhere that road pedals result in a narrower Q-factor than MTB
shoes.

My MTB pedals bring my shoes as close as I'd want them to be to the
crank. If you want a slightly narrower Q-factor, you could move the
cleats over a little. In my case, my shoes would start rubbing against
the crank, but if you have narrow feet, maybe you could pick up several
mm.

I ride 2 road bikes and one MTB, all with SPDs. They don't provide as
positive a connection as some road cleats, but I'm used to them for
years without a single case of "premature release". Racers may have
different experiences -- I don't often need to sprint "balls to the
wall" as they may do.

The SPDs are convenient for walking especially with shoes built for this
purpose.

Rick