#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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 didnt 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 werent many complaints about the Q factor - only the bait and switch when the company decided they couldnt actually build the product. -- Cheers, John B. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|