Old KH vs New KH Q factor

What do you all think about the differences and preferability of the New KH Q Factored cranks vs the old KH straight cranks?

Do you mean the difference between the 2004 and the 2005 freeride, or is there an even newer development?

'04 - '05

I haven’t used the new KH cranks, but I’ve used the old ones with 0 Q-factor and huge nubs, and I’ve torn so much skin out of my ankle with those, it sucks. I haven’t used 'em for over a year, switched to profiles, but I still have scars from over a year ago on both ankles from where giant chunks of bloody skin and muscle were torn out.
so the new ones with Q-factor must be better.

What is Q factor?

How wide the pedals spread apart from the hub.
If they look like this: (P is Pedal)

 
  Axle
 |
 |
 |
P

or this:


    Axle
   /
  /
 /
P

 

I’ve never had a problem with the '04 ones - never hit my ankles hard enough to remember it… long pants do get caught on the nubs though…

Kris Holm’s '03’s had nubs most '04’s didn’t have the nubs, '05’s actually seem to have something that catches my ankles with bone numbing force once and a while. I don’t have that problem with the '04’s cranks. It might be because the my brother’s '04 has 170 cranks while my '05 has 145’s. Maybe the shorter cranks account for it?

I don’t find the Q-factor changes my ride much.

ooh, yeah, the one that tried to eat me alive was the '03, not the '04…my bad…

does anyone find that the Q makes you wobble when powering up a hill?

Not that I have noticed in the 8 months that I have ridden the KH20 '05.

Re: Old KH vs New KH Q factor

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:31:35 -0500, “pdc” wrote:

>does anyone find that the Q makes you wobble when powering up a hill?

I have the old style KH with so-called zero Q. But of course the
pedals are not in the plane of the wheel and that makes me wobble up a
hill. I like to think that that effect effectively decreases the
steepness of my actual riding trajectory.

(try thinking up a sentence containing “that that effect effect”
without reading the one above…)

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict

“Unicycling is like glue: you have to stick with it, and it’s not to be sniffed at - Mikefule”

N-n-normally I don’t stu-stu-studder, but posting on-on-online has that that effect effect on me.

Re: Re: Old KH vs New KH Q factor

I think it would have to be “that that effect effects”. (Effect can be a verb, meaning “to cause, bring into being.” In this sense, “effect” (n) is singular, so the verb would have the s on the end.

Possibly a highly contrived pseudo-grammatical sentence could be achieved using the now archaic subjunctive form: “Would that that effect effect a real change…” but I think we’d need a conditional (could/should/might) between the two effects.

More commonly, “affect” is a verb (as in, “to have an effect upon”, or “to display behaviour intended to give a false impression of…”)
but sometimes “affect” is also a noun, usually in a technical sense referring to emotions or feelings in philosophy.

Strictly, it’s how far the pedals are each side of the central plane of the wheel.

The majority of your downwards pedalling force results in the wheel rotating - which is what we’re after most of the time. However, some of it results in the wheel tipping to one side. The further the pedal is from the central plane of the wheel, the more that the downward force of the foot on the pedal will tend to tip the wheel to one side.

Another effect of a high Q factor is that the wheel will tend to weave from side to side - especially if you have heavy cranks and/or pedals and/or a heavy-footed riding style.

Low Q factor (narrow) is good for smooth fast pedalling. High Q factor gives you more leverage for slow speed manoeuvres and balancing.

  | 
  | 
  |- 
  | |_ 
  |

(Low Q)

  |
  |
  |---
  |    |_
  |

(High Q)

You only live twice: once when you are born, and once when you stare death in the face
(Haiku)
(Not a very good one, either, as it’s too many syllables in English.)

Re: Old KH vs New KH Q factor

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:39:30 -0500, “Mikefule” wrote:

>Klaas Bil wrote:
>> *
>> (try thinking up a sentence containing “that that effect effect”
>> without reading the one above…)
>> *

>I think it would have to be “that that effect effects”.

I wasn’t clear enough. My string in quotes was just meant as that: a
string of characters. The last “effect” might be part of a word, and
in my example indeed it was. The result of your effort, BTW, goes over
my head, I don’t know English that well.

Enough off-topic nonsense.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict

“Unicycling is like glue: you have to stick with it, and it’s not to be sniffed at - Mikefule”

Re: Old KH vs New KH Q factor

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:48:31 -0500, “Mikefule” wrote:

>> *What is Q factor? *
>
>Strictly, it’s how far the pedals are each side of the central plane of
>the wheel.

Probably true. Less strictly, many people use the term “Q factor” to
refer to cranks that angle out, rather than moving in a plane parallel
to the wheel. In loose accordance with their definition, straight
cranks that are perpendicular to the wheel axle have zero Q factor.

Klaas Bil - Newsgroup Addict

“Unicycling is like glue: you have to stick with it, and it’s not to be sniffed at - Mikefule”

Re: Re: Old KH vs New KH Q factor

I am sure that you are right that people sometimes use the term in this way. However, this “sloppy” definition is not a useful measurement of anything. Imagine an extra long square taper with a straight crank parallel to the plane of the wheel. The pedalling force would be applied further from the wheel - in much the same way as if the taper were a normal length, and the crank angled out.

I imagine that the critical thing from a unicycling handling point of view is the ratio of the radius of the wheel to the distance from the central plane of the wheel to the parallel plane along which the centre of the pedal moves.