cone wrench: why so massive?

[Michael]

During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.

Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
old this month.

--
Michael

 

[Paul Cassel]

Michael wrote:
> During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
> blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
> or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
> 15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
> cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
> would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.
>
> Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
> by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
> old this month.
>
I'd guess the 15mm was specifically made as a pedal wrench which would
account for the larger size.

 

[Llatikcuf]

Michael wrote:
> During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
> blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
> or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
> 15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
> cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
> would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.
>
> Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
> by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
> old this month.
>
> --
> Michael

It's a pedal wrench.

 

[Michael]

Paul Cassel wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
> > During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
> > blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
> > or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
> > 15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
> > cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
> > would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.
> >
> > Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
> > by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
> > old this month.
> >
> I'd guess the 15mm was specifically made as a pedal wrench which would
> account for the larger size.


Pedal wrench .... That's possible, I suppose. But it's so thin; exactly like a
cone wrench. I prefer thick jaws (more bearing surface) on wrenches that I lean
on. I like my set of Pedro tire levers but the "pedal wrench", if that's what
it is, seems ill-conceived.

--
Michael

 

[Paul Cassel]

Michael wrote:
>

>
> Pedal wrench .... That's possible, I suppose. But it's so thin; exactly like a
> cone wrench. I prefer thick jaws (more bearing surface) on wrenches that I lean
> on. I like my set of Pedro tire levers but the "pedal wrench", if that's what
> it is, seems ill-conceived.
>

I think it more than possible. I own one.

 

[O-V R:nen]

Michael <[email protected]> writes:

> Pedal wrench .... That's possible, I suppose. But it's so thin; exactly like a
> cone wrench.

There are quite a few pedals that demand a fairly thin wrench. (It's
probably still thicker than a cone wrench, or else the cone wrenches
are unusally thick.)

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Michael wrote:
> During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
> blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
> or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
> 15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
> cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
> would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.
>
> Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
> by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
> old this month.
>
> --
> Michael

Like this one?
http://www.rei.com/online/store/Pro...atafeed&source=9081&cm_pla=na&cm_cat=datafeed

Many pedals don't allow a full-width 15mm wrench to decrease the
q-factor.

Phil

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:54:04 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Cassel wrote:
>>
>> Michael wrote:
>> > During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
>> > blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
>> > or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
>> > 15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
>> > cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
>> > would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.
>> >
>> > Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
>> > by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
>> > old this month.
>> >
>> I'd guess the 15mm was specifically made as a pedal wrench which would
>> account for the larger size.
>
>
>Pedal wrench .... That's possible, I suppose. But it's so thin; exactly like a
>cone wrench.

It might be a dual-purpose wrench for cones and pedals.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Michael]

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" wrote:
>
> Michael wrote:
> > During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
> > blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
> > or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
> > 15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
> > cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
> > would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.
> >
> > Because I didn't like the large sizes of the cone wrenches I'd seen, I made one
> > by grinding down the cheeks of a 13mm-15mm open-end wrench. It turned 26 years
> > old this month.
> >
> > --
> > Michael
>
> Like this one?
> http://www.rei.com/online/store/Pro...atafeed&source=9081&cm_pla=na&cm_cat=datafeed
>
> Many pedals don't allow a full-width 15mm wrench to decrease the
> q-factor.
>
> Phil


"q-factor" Would that be "lateral bending stress"? Makes sense to me that one
would want the distance between pedal and crank to be "vanishingly small" (as my
calculus text put it).

--
Michael

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 14:14:05 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>During my usual scan of the pegboard displays at LBS, I paused to look at
>blister packed cone wrenches (all were Pedro, I think). While the 13mm had more
>or less reasonable dimensions and price - roughly 7" handle; about $7 - the
>15mm was comparatively huge and 2x-3x the price. Sure, more steel increases
>cost, but isn't 12" of leverage on a cone wrench massive overkill? I certainly
>would never buy such a beast, much less carry it on the bike.

That wasn't a cone wrench. It was a pedal wrench.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:55:40 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

>"q-factor" Would that be "lateral bending stress"? Makes sense to me that one
>would want the distance between pedal and crank to be "vanishingly small" (as my
>calculus text put it).

Q-factor, as I understand it, is primarily considered a knee stress
issue; the farther apart the pedals are, the greater the angle which
the knees must deal with.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Victor Kan]

Werehatrack wrote:
> the farther apart the pedals are, the greater the angle which
> the knees must deal with.

It depends on each rider's anatomy. For any given rider, having the
pedals farther apart may match their knees' natural tendency (or is that
tendoncy? better, and vice versa.

--
I do not accept unsolicited commercial e-mail. Remove NO_UCE for
legitimate replies.

 

[Michael]

Werehatrack wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:55:40 GMT, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"q-factor" Would that be "lateral bending stress"? Makes sense to me that one
> >would want the distance between pedal and crank to be "vanishingly small" (as my
> >calculus text put it).
>
> Q-factor, as I understand it, is primarily considered a knee stress
> issue; the farther apart the pedals are, the greater the angle which
> the knees must deal with.
> --
> Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
> Some gardening required to reply via email.
> Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.


Ah-h-h .. that makes sense too. Thanks.

--
Michael

 

[Hank Wirtz]

"Victor Kan" <[email protected]_UCEloopdrive.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Werehatrack wrote:
>> the farther apart the pedals are, the greater the angle which
>> the knees must deal with.
>
> It depends on each rider's anatomy. For any given rider, having the
> pedals farther apart may match their knees' natural tendency (or is that
> tendoncy? better, and vice versa.
>

Which is why I find "KneeSavers" (pedal axle extenders to increase Q-factor)
to be a poorly-named product. They probably saved the knees of the guy who
invented them, but for most of the people out there, they'll do more harm
than good.