Further evolution of the Road Razor

Mikefule said:

Just put some Qu ax freestyle cranks on the 700c. Noticeably lighter,
and no Q factor, and the wheel seems to spin so much more easily.

Et tu, Mikefule?

(It seems no matter how many times I correct the mis-use of the term
Q-factor, people still don't get it. See 'the Q-factor Page'
(http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/qfactor/qfactor.htm)).

Q: What is this Q-factor thing?
A: Q-factor is a commonly used term which refers to the distance
*between the pedals*.

--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

tholub said:

Q: What is this Q-factor thing?
A: Q-factor is a commonly used term which refers to the distance
*between the pedals*.

You knew exactly what he meant, even if you disagree with the precise
terminology. The inclusion of the word "factor" to me suggests the
value is a modifier, such as the angle of the cranks to the plane of
the wheel; is your source authoritative on the matter, or just another
(abeit louder) opinion?

Phil

--
phil

"Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
phil's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/915
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

tholub said:

Et tu, Mikefule?

(It seems no matter how many times I correct the mis-use of the term
Q-factor, people still don't get it. See 'the Q-factor Page'
(http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/qfactor/qfactor.htm)).

Q: What is this Q-factor thing?
A: Q-factor is a commonly used term which refers to the distance
*between the pedals*.

well if noone uses it correctly ehy just not change what it means, so
then everyone will be saying it correctly and will save you a job

or we could not, and say we did

--
dale_dale

biggest set/gap = 4 set
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dale_dale's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11459
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

phil said:

You knew exactly what he meant, even if you disagree with the precise
terminology. The inclusion of the word "factor" to me suggests the
value is a modifier, such as the angle of the cranks to the plane of
the wheel; is your source authoritative on the matter, or just another
(abeit louder) opinion?

Phil

The term was invented by Grant Petersen, formerly of Bridgestone
Bicycles, now of Rivendell Cycles.

Quoted message said:

It's the distance between the pedals at the outside of the cranks. In
other words, it's how far apart the cranks put your feet. Are you
walking a tightrope, or giving birth? Pedaling a bicycle or walking
like a duck? That's Q (quack)-Factor.

At the turn of the century, this crank dimension was called "tread," a
term still adhered to by some. We call it Q-Factor because when "tread"
was in vogue, tires were all smooth, and "tread" couldn't possibly have
referred to the rubber pattern. But these days, "tread" means rubber
pattern, so the discussion can't begin until you dig out of that hole.

Part of the point is that even cranks which appear straight contribute
to Q-factor, depending on the design of the tapers and the width of the
metal itself. You can accurately refer to low-Q and high-Q cranks, but
not zero-Q.

--
tholub
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tholub's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/804
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Must I quote Wittgenstein? The meaning of a word is its use.

I am fully aware that the important thing is the distance between the
pedals, or the distance between the pedals and the centre line of the
wheel. However, the term Q-factor is almost universally used in a less
precise sense to refer to whether or not the cranks are shaped to
increase this distance.

--
Mikefule

I don't believe there's a conspiracy, because they want us to believe
there is
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

tholub said:

The term was invented by Grant Petersen, formerly of Bridgestone
Bicycles, now of Rivendell Cycles.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's the distance between the pedals at the outside of the cranks. In
other words, it's how far apart the cranks put your feet.

So Q factor is not how far /everything/ that contributes puts apart
your feet? The above two statements by Grant Petersen seem to
contradict each other.

Also, the fact that a term originally meant something, doesn't mean
that it will mean that same something forever. Many words (maybe even
most words) nowadays mean something else as when they were 'invented'.

Personally I don't like the word 'factor' in Q factor, as factor means
a multiplyer which the Q factor isn't. Therefore, and because it is
easily misunderstood, I largely avoid the term.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
--
"I'm slowly but surely stealing Wales and bringing it back to my house on the wheel, frame and cranks of my muni. - phil"

Mikefule said:

Took delivery of my new Suzue hub and a basic spare 28" frame yesterday
and today I dropped them both in at the local bike shop to assemble the
super skinny wheel with the mavic Open Pro Rim. Couple of weeks and I
will be more niche than thou with a tyre down to about 21 mm section.:o
🙂

you will not reach full niche unless you run a sew-up tyre.

--
forget_your_life

dream one dream many....
*'R.I.P' (http://tinyurl.com/vr86)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
forget_your_life's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4558
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Mikefule said:

Must I quote Wittgenstein? The meaning of a word is its use.

I am fully aware that the important thing is the distance between the
pedals, or the distance between the pedals and the centre line of the
wheel. However, the term Q-factor is almost universally used in a less
precise sense to refer to whether or not the cranks are shaped to
increase this distance.

It is primarily the unicycling community that has gotten confused about
the correct or full meaning of Q-factor. The bicycling community knows
what they're talking about when the speak of Q-factor.

In the unicycling community we have lost our way and think of Q-factor
as only a property of the cranks. In the bicycling community they know
that Q-factor has to do with the width of the bottom bracket, the width
of the cranks, and the extension of the pedals. When they want to
adjust the Q-factor of a bike they typically look for a different
bottom bracket width first and then look at cranks and pedals.
Unicyclists are the opposite. We look at cranks first and pretty much
ignore the other aspects of Q-factor.

The definition of Q-factor in the unicycling community is diverging
from the definition used by the bicycling community. Our accepted (in
common use) definition is not fully correct. If we want to speak
Q-factor with a bicyclist we had better realize that our accepted
definition is not fully correct.

The inmates haven't fully taken over the asylum yet.

--
john_childs

john_childs (att) hotmail (dott) com
Gallery: http://gallery.unicyclist.com/john_childs
'Unicycling Bookmark List' (http://backcountry.unicyclist.com/) ::
'World Clock' (http://tinyurl.com/a99y3)
BOSE Sucks! Buy Other Stereo Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
john_childs's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/449
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Is the term Q-angle an exceptable one? It clears this all up by
referring to just the angel that the crank makes with the plane of the
wheel, which is what most unicyclists mean when they say Q factor.
Unfortunately people seem to have a tendancy to say things like ' a
Q-angle of 15mm'. I guess some poeple are beyond help.

--
kington99

Dave

- what a thoroughly post-modern subversion of the cycling genre -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kington99's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/9417
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

forget_your_life said:

you will not reach full niche unless you run a sew-up tyre.

And a carbon aero frame with 0.5mm tyre clearance:p

But what you've got sounds pretty good for now!

--
domesticated ape
------------------------------------------------------------------------
domesticated ape's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8599
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Perhaps we should invent our own terminology when it comes to q-factor.
Q-Factor is as far as i am concerned the way that a set of cranks
contribute to q-factor and not q-factor itself. The KH/Onza cranks for
instance have a q-factor of 1/2" and maybe we should never use the word
q-factor like this, maybe we should never use it at all.
Most hubs will be the same width (other than the obvious exceptions) so
that the only way we get q-factor is with cranks (mostly ok). i will
stick to the fact that KH/Onza have 1/2" factor where as Koxx-One
cranks have 0" Q factor. hense NO Q-Factor. If someone gives us a new
term to use (or we make one up already) then we can remove the problems
with terminology borrowed from bicycles.
On a very similar note: A Unicycle frame is a frame to a unicyclist,
but maybe a fork to a cyclist?

--
muzzle

sig.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
muzzle's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11458
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

My new wheel will have the Suzue hub which is around 12 mm narrower.
This will reduce the Q-factor. This will make the uni smoother at
speed, but slightly less manoeuvreable.

The angle of the bend in the cranks is irrelevant. Consider this: a
hypothestical pair of cranks made from 4 inch diameter metal rods.
They might be perfectly straight, but would have a huge effect on the
Q-factor because the pedals would be mounted about 3.5 inches further
out than if the cranks were a standard thickness.

--
Mikefule

I don't believe there's a conspiracy, because they want us to believe
there is
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikefule's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/879
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Mikefule said:

My new wheel will have the Suzue hub which is around 12 mm narrower.
This will reduce the Q-factor. This will make the uni smoother at
speed, but slightly less manoeuvreable.

The angle of the bend in the cranks is irrelevant. Consider this: a
hypothestical pair of cranks made from 4 inch diameter metal rods.
They might be perfectly straight, but would have a huge effect on the
Q-factor because the pedals would be mounted about 3.5 inches further
out than if the cranks were a standard thickness.

yeah, see your point (not that blind lol)

--
muzzle

sig.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
muzzle's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/11458
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Mikefule said:

The angle of the bend in the cranks is irrelevant. Consider this: a
hypothestical pair of cranks made from 4 inch diameter metal rods.
They might be perfectly straight, but would have a huge effect on the
Q-factor because the pedals would be mounted about 3.5 inches further
out than if the cranks were a standard thickness.

The angle is entirely relevant, it's just that the width of the crank
has to be taken in to consideration aswell.

Take your hypothetical 4 inch thick cranks and put an 60 degree bend in
them, now the pedals are even further apart, the width that your feet
are spread has increased dramatically.

I guess that if you describe the thickness of the crank as the distance
perpendicular to plane of the wheel from the outside of the pedal boss
to the inside of the crank where it pulls up against the bearing or
spacer then this accomodates both the thickness of material and the
shape of the crank, it would sem like a more reasonable measure to
use.

The angle can also be relevant for certain styles of riding. I like
having space to the side of my foot when ridng muni caused by the
angling of my KH cranks. I find crank grabs alot easier on my Onza than
on a koxx, because the angle of the cranks means they effectively form
a wider platform to land on.

--
kington99

Dave

- what a thoroughly post-modern subversion of the cycling genre -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
kington99's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/9417
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

Sorry for not staying on topic but I have to ask: Is that a fly swatter
or a balloon that the colourful chap in your avatar is holding,
Mikefule?

--
goldenchicken
------------------------------------------------------------------------
goldenchicken's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/8149
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

What would happen if you de-Q-factored your cranks by taking some
Q-factor cranks and flipping them around so they were inside out, and
threaded the pedals onto the new outside of the cranks.

your Q-factor would be much less, with the cranks coming very close to
the frame.

would this help anything in terms of high speed control, or would it be
as wrong as my use of the term Q-factor?

Maybe you could be selected to ride for a Q-Factory Trials Team

--
Brian MacKenzie

DVD now available: 'Training Wheel Not Required'
(http://www.LBMmultimedia.com/videos/TWNR_uniTV.wmv) | 'Inner Balance
Blog' (http://innerbalancemovie.blogspot.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian MacKenzie's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7650
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

john_childs said:

In the bicycling community they know
that Q-factor has to do with the width of the bottom bracket, the width
of the cranks, and the extension of the pedals.

That latter contribution (extension of the pedals) was excluded from
the definition of Q-factor in a recent post here (tholub, quoting
Grant Petersen, the 'inventor' of the term Q-factor). There it was the
distance between the outside of the cranks, so whatever the pedals do
to place your feet farther apart is not included.

See, this whole term Q-factor is confusing no end.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict
--
"I'm slowly but surely stealing Wales and bringing it back to my house on the wheel, frame and cranks of my muni. - phil"

Brian MacKenzie said:

What would happen if you de-Q-factored your cranks by taking some
Q-factor cranks and flipping them around so they were inside out, and
threaded the pedals onto the new outside of the cranks.

you would bloody your ankles.

--
forget_your_life

dream one dream many....
*'R.I.P' (http://tinyurl.com/vr86)*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
forget_your_life's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/4558
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406

forget_your_life said:

you would bloody your ankles.

Of course!

I knew something had to be wrong with it....

--
Brian MacKenzie

DVD now available: 'Training Wheel Not Required'
(http://www.LBMmultimedia.com/videos/TWNR_uniTV.wmv) | 'Inner Balance
Blog' (http://innerbalancemovie.blogspot.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian MacKenzie's Profile: http://www.unicyclist.com/profile/7650
View this thread: http://www.unicyclist.com/thread/50406