Q factor is something I'd vaguely heard of, but never really knew anything about. I went to buy some new pedals for my gravel bike recently, and there were good deals on XTR so I thought I'd treat myself :-) Anyway, I went blindly for the shorter spindle version for no other reason than I'd heard that reducing stance width was generally a good thing...
Was listening today to a podcast essentially arguing the opposite. Seeing I'm running a 1x on the gravel bike, I assume the Q factor is less anyway... so, am I better off with a normal spindle length? What are the real world advantages and disadvantages. Next year I'm planning to race some ultra endurance stuff so I guess I'm a little OCD when it comes to ride ergonomics ATM. I realise a fit kit would be the thing to do, but I've had four professional fits before and frankly each one said something completely different.
Anyway, your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.
I know very little about Q factor. I believe the main benefit of a small Q factor is better aerodynamics. I’ve heard people claim a narrow stance gives you more power but I don’t think I buy that. When performing squats in the gym a wider stance activates more muscle allowing you to lift heavier. What I do know for sure is for me a narrow Q factor causes knee pain so on road cranks I use ISSI +6mm pedals to widen it. I am not the only one as there is a product called “kneesavers” that widens your Q factor.
It helps with knee alignment. Depending on your preference, hip width, and cartilage amounts it can be better or worse. Some people are not Q sensitive at all.
If you really want to test it you could move your cleats to the other side of your shoe. That'd make the 3mm difference.
delore wrote:Seeing I'm running a 1x on the gravel bike, I assume the Q factor is less anyway...
1X doesn't change Q-factor.
This is a "you do you" situation. Some people are sensitive to Q and need it wide or narrow. Some people feel like they get more "stomp" with a wider Q, some people feel like they can spin faster with a narrow one. It might be more aerodynamic, or it might just feel like you're in a tighter position.
Most people haven't heard the term and don't even give it a thought.
Other than the biodynamics, another thing to consider is that your shoes could hit the cranks or chainstays.
Q has grown over the years so you're not going into uncharted territory here. So all you can do is give them a try.
I wonder if you can ride with wintershoe covers using the XTR short spindle pedals without the covers rubbing the crank arms? Perhaps a factor to consider.
Alan_D wrote:I wonder if you can ride with wintershoe covers using the XTR short spindle pedals without the covers rubbing the crank arms? Perhaps a factor to consider.
I don't know what axle the XT has but i'm using M8000 XTs with US10.5 Five Ten Hellcat shoes. These Five Tens are pretty damn wide and bulky, and somehow I managed to stretch some pretty thick neoprene overshoes on them. When I have the overshoes on these things look comically big. Yet no rubbing on the crank. I even have the cleats set up side to side so my shoe sits a bit closer to the crank, although it's very minimal, the cleats are almost centered.
Fwiw road cranks have a smaller Q factor and it so I wouldn’t worry about ergonomics by going for the shorter spindle length.
I recently just put the same xtr 9100 -3mm pedals in my 29er to make the q closer to my road bike (I’m primarily a roadie). But that was more for comfort. It made the 29er “feel” a little less like pedaling a bus. I’ve heard claims that narrower q is more efficient. I think that’s what Campagnolo (used to) say as their cranks were always a few mm narrower than most. Do t know if it’s true or not. But the wider q on my mtb always felt a bit cumbersome and I tend to be able to hold a little more power during intervals on the roadie. But not sure Q factor is the only culprit there. Position might have much to do with it. Although it’s a pretty aggressive position on the 29er too
