Originally Posted by
FBinNY
asymmetrical Q factors are about as old as chain drive.
Are you sure that that historical triple chainrings didn't just have wider Q-factor before that became an issue?
The sane design approach is that if you can't get narrow enough Q-factor (for some people) with triple chainrings -- then triple chainrings are a nice thought but not practical to (continue) implement(ing).
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
Q-factor is one of those concerns that folks bring up from time to time, but has never been demonstrated to be meaningful. If it were, then who's to say what's best.
For my bike? Me!
Give me the option to do that, bike industry.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
If the logic is to have the feet below the hips, consider that people vary tremendously in hip width, so logic would dictate that different people would want different Q-factors, and women in general might want wider Q then men.
Abso-friggin-lutely. No bike shop should sell any bike without taking a quick stance-measurement against a chart on the floor, and popping on or removing some washers from the pedal system. Or telling you you need to get a single-chainring bike. This is exactly where the bike industry should be going right now. But of course predictably, instead it's a marketing trend of just "narrower Q" that lets the industry keep selling (new and more expensive) one-size-fits-few products.
Originally Posted by
FBinNY
Either way, if it really bothers you, you can shift the cleats of cycling shoes to either side to compensate, or let nature dictate where you place your feet on the pedals if riding with street shoes.
Yeah, I probably already am just positioning my left foot a quarter inch off the left pedal (riding a casual bike in street clothes).
But it would be nice to have both feet firmly on both pedals.
A bag of assorted sizes of pedal extender bolts ought to be a commonly available bike part for like $10 or $20.