Wide Hips and Q-Factor

I'm pretty sure my hip width is towards the right side of the
bell curve.

The distance between my sit bones (as measured center-to-center
on the indents they make on a sheet of styrofoam) is 5" or 127mm.

Extrapolating from the usable area underneath a WTB Speed-V
saddle (the softer gray spots) I'm guessing that the average sit
bone width is more like 3.5" or 89mm.


To cut to the chase:

My bike's Q-factor is 165mm (MTB bottom bracket).

I ride flats.

Whenever I look down, my feet are planted almost an inch outwards
on each pedal. I can move them in, no problem. But after a few
miles they always find their way out to the original position.

I would also note that my hips used to ache a *lot* when I was
riding clipped in. Now they don't bother me much at all.

I'm thinking there's a relationship between ichial tuberosity
width and the most desirable Q-factor that transcends the rear
cog's width and chain line considerations.

i.e. Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.


Anybody care to comment?

--
PeteCresswell

Pete Cresswell wrote:
I'm pretty sure my hip width is towards the right side of the
bell curve.

The distance between my sit bones (as measured center-to-center
on the indents they make on a sheet of styrofoam) is 5" or 127mm.

Extrapolating from the usable area underneath a WTB Speed-V
saddle (the softer gray spots) I'm guessing that the average sit
bone width is more like 3.5" or 89mm.


To cut to the chase:

My bike's Q-factor is 165mm (MTB bottom bracket).

I ride flats.

Whenever I look down, my feet are planted almost an inch outwards
on each pedal. I can move them in, no problem. But after a few
miles they always find their way out to the original position.

I would also note that my hips used to ache a *lot* when I was
riding clipped in. Now they don't bother me much at all.

I'm thinking there's a relationship between ichial tuberosity
width and the most desirable Q-factor that transcends the rear
cog's width and chain line considerations.

i.e. Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.


Anybody care to comment?

These people agree: http://www.kneesaver.net/.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
I'm pretty sure my hip width is towards the right side of the
bell curve.

The distance between my sit bones (as measured center-to-center
on the indents they make on a sheet of styrofoam) is 5" or 127mm.

Extrapolating from the usable area underneath a WTB Speed-V
saddle (the softer gray spots) I'm guessing that the average sit
bone width is more like 3.5" or 89mm.


To cut to the chase:

My bike's Q-factor is 165mm (MTB bottom bracket).

I ride flats.

Whenever I look down, my feet are planted almost an inch outwards
on each pedal. I can move them in, no problem. But after a few
miles they always find their way out to the original position.

I would also note that my hips used to ache a *lot* when I was
riding clipped in. Now they don't bother me much at all.

I'm thinking there's a relationship between ichial tuberosity
width and the most desirable Q-factor that transcends the rear
cog's width and chain line considerations.

i.e. Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.


Anybody care to comment?


I don't know about "Q-factor", but it seems like preferred foot angle
(toe in) seems to find itself that way with flat pedals, I wouldn't be
surprised if lateral foot spacing worked the same way. My rule: keep
changing angles and distances until things don't hurt. I've spent hours
setting up handlebars, stems, levers and saddles. I like to do it on a
trainer, hopping on & off after tweaking. It seems when you get things
just right you get that "bike disappears beneath you" feeling.

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.

I think that's true. People vary in all three dimensions and the most
comfortable bike fit would also have to be managed in three dimensions.
Flexibility is an issue in fit, too.

On Aug 24, 4:46*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
I'm pretty sure my hip width is towards the right side of the
bell curve.

The distance between my sit bones (as measured center-to-center
on the indents they make on a sheet of styrofoam) is 5" or 127mm.

Extrapolating from the usable area underneath a WTB Speed-V
saddle (the softer gray spots) I'm guessing that the average sit
bone width is more like 3.5" or 89mm.

To cut to the chase:

My bike's Q-factor is 165mm (MTB bottom bracket).

I ride flats.

Whenever I look down, my feet are planted almost an inch outwards
on each pedal. *I can move them in, no problem. * But after a few
miles they always find their way out to the original position.

I would also note that my hips used to ache a *lot* when I was
riding clipped in. * Now they don't bother me much at all.

I'm thinking there's a relationship between ichial tuberosity
width and the most desirable Q-factor that transcends the rear
cog's width and chain line considerations.

i.e. Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.

Anybody care to comment?

--
PeteCresswell

My sit bones are usually 135 ~ 140 mm as measured on the Specialized
or Bontrager sit on thingy in the shop. That makes me exceptionally
wide for a male. IIRC, the mean might be close to 118 mm for men. So
you're 89 mm is apparently pretty narrow.

However sit bones ain't hips - I imagine other aspects of the skeletal
structure must affect Q-factor as well (or more?).

On Aug 24, 4:55*pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Pete Cresswell wrote:
I'm pretty sure my hip width is towards the right side of the
bell curve.

The distance between my sit bones (as measured center-to-center
on the indents they make on a sheet of styrofoam) is 5" or 127mm.

Extrapolating from the usable area underneath a WTB Speed-V
saddle (the softer gray spots) I'm guessing that the average sit
bone width is more like 3.5" or 89mm.

To cut to the chase:

My bike's Q-factor is 165mm (MTB bottom bracket).

I ride flats.

Whenever I look down, my feet are planted almost an inch outwards
on each pedal. *I can move them in, no problem. * But after a few
miles they always find their way out to the original position.

I would also note that my hips used to ache a *lot* when I was
riding clipped in. * Now they don't bother me much at all.

I'm thinking there's a relationship between ichial tuberosity
width and the most desirable Q-factor that transcends the rear
cog's width and chain line considerations.

i.e. Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.

Anybody care to comment?

These people agree: http://www.kneesaver.net/.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

I have to have them on all my bicycles, or the inside of my thighs get
sore from pulling my legs in.

On Aug 24, 7:41 pm, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.

I think that's true. People vary in all three dimensions and the most
comfortable bike fit would also have to be managed in three dimensions.
I'm variable in the fourth and fifth dimensions as well.

;-)

wrote in message
...
On Aug 24, 4:46 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
I'm pretty sure my hip width is towards the right side of the
bell curve.

The distance between my sit bones (as measured center-to-center
on the indents they make on a sheet of styrofoam) is 5" or 127mm.

Extrapolating from the usable area underneath a WTB Speed-V
saddle (the softer gray spots) I'm guessing that the average sit
bone width is more like 3.5" or 89mm.

To cut to the chase:

My bike's Q-factor is 165mm (MTB bottom bracket).

I ride flats.

Whenever I look down, my feet are planted almost an inch outwards
on each pedal. I can move them in, no problem. But after a few
miles they always find their way out to the original position.

I would also note that my hips used to ache a *lot* when I was
riding clipped in. Now they don't bother me much at all.

I'm thinking there's a relationship between ichial tuberosity
width and the most desirable Q-factor that transcends the rear
cog's width and chain line considerations.

i.e. Some people would benefit from wider pedal spacing.

Anybody care to comment?

--
PeteCresswell

My sit bones are usually 135 ~ 140 mm as measured on the Specialized
or Bontrager sit on thingy in the shop. That makes me exceptionally
wide for a male. IIRC, the mean might be close to 118 mm for men. So
you're 89 mm is apparently pretty narrow.

However sit bones ain't hips - I imagine other aspects of the skeletal
structure must affect Q-factor as well (or more?).

Here's an interesting link that shows the ischeal tuberosities or sit
bones in relation to the rest of the pelvis in a sitting position. Note
that the head of the femurs fit into sockets that are about midway between
the top and bottom of the pelvis. The head of the femurs are angled out
and down so that the width between the outside of the femurs is much wider
than the width between the sits bones.

http://www.foamstudies.bham.ac.uk/cu...ackground.html

Chas.

Per :
I have to have them on all my bicycles, or the inside of my thighs get
sore from pulling my legs in.

How much do you weigh and how long have you been using them?

I brought the idea up to a guy at a LBS, and he thought it was a
terrible idea mechanically. OTOH, seems to me like the stresses
are the same whether I plant my feet an inch outboard on pedals
without extensions or I center my feet on pedals with extensions.

But I'm about 220# and find things definitely break more often
with me on them.
--
PeteCresswell

"Peter Cole" wrote in message
news:26lsk.679$UX.634@trnddc03...
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
snip
It seems when you get things just right you get that "bike disappears
beneath
you" feeling.

Peter,

That's a great concept. I have a collection of classic lugged steel framed
bikes. I've been playing Goldie Locks with them for the past year and a
half. I've finally settled on one or two the give me the perfect "bike
disappears" feeling.

Everything fits right. Yesterday as I was topping a small hill a guy came
zooming by and yelled that my seat was too low and I should raise it 1/8"
to 3/8". Well years ago I learned to ankle when I climbed and I guess that
the ankling action appears to make my seat look too low.

BTW, I use a 3/4" pedal extender on the right side on most of my road
bikes because of some hip surgery. I also ride with very wide pedals and
toeclips but no cleats.

Chas.