Re: [CR]Re: "Q" and other mythology.

(Example: Events)

Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 06:06:54 -0800 (PST)
From: "Fred Rednor" <fred_rednor@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [CR]Re: "Q" and other mythology.
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
In-Reply-To: <2010195146.1015791225768232433.JavaMail.root@sz0035a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>


Billy's response brings up all sorts of issues, some of which don't exactly apply to this discussion. For example, if I understand correctly, the reason that clinchers have not been fully accepted in pro road racing is that a tubular can be ridden even after a puncture. On the other hand, his other point - that pro racers don't always prefer what is actually faster - is also well taken. But I digress...

The point that Billy made which is most appropriate to this discussion is that "anatomy varies and we are all somewhat adaptable." For Harvey to imply that a preference for a narrow crankset tread is based on mythology, ignores the experiences of his friend and neighbor... i.e. me. I don't know if I am actually faster with a narrow "Q" but I am certainly more comfortable. Then again, I am both narrower and shorter than Harvey.

And perhaps this does relate to saddle width preferences/requirements, as Nick March suggests. In fact, as far as this component is concerned, I really do need something on the narrow side. Otherwise I'm subject to a number of problems that I won't enumerate here :-)
      Best regards to all,
      Fred Rednor - Arlignton, Virginia (USA)


--- On Mon, 11/3/08, billydavid13@comcast.net wrote:


> I would suggest that Harvey Sachs doesn't have to care

\r?\n> about the Q-Factor of his vintage bikes because they are all

\r?\n> reasonably low, something which may not be true of

\r?\n> contemporary road bikes. People's anatomy varies and we

\r?\n> are all somewhat adaptable. Still there's plenty of

\r?\n> reason to believe that ergonomics suffer the more one's

\r?\n> legs splay out. Figures? Data? Engineers had lots of data

\r?\n> supporting Biopace. But the people who race bikes to win

\r?\n> pretty much ignored that. Clinchers are supposedly faster

\r?\n> than sewups but that hasn't exactly convinced the pros

\r?\n> yet either. I think Jan Heine has made a pretty good case in

\r?\n> BQ for favoring low Qs. {I know Biopace wasn't exactly

\r?\n> aimed at racers, but even at my low rpms they really, really

\r?\n> sucked, in spite of all the charts and graphs that showed

\r?\n> they shouldn't have.}