# Anybody else using pedal extenders?



## campyc40 (Aug 4, 2010)

After months of messing with my bike fit, I finally decided to put pedal extenders (18mm each side) on my cranks. Big difference, legs now go straight up and down, no stress and twisting and any other uncomfortable feelings anymore. I talked to several fitters but they all refuse to use them. They don't look very cool but if they work...

Anyway, anybody else using them on (high-end) road bikes and any information on how they affect the frame and crank since there is more torque on the crank because of the increased distance?


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I've seen Steve Hogg recommend them and he also endorses Speedplay pedals because they offer various spindle lengths.

Welcome » Steve Hogg's Bike Fitting Website


----------



## tylerwal (Jul 28, 2011)

everyone is different, but I strive for a low q-factor on my setups

I wouldn't think you would see any more leverage on either the frame or crank, since the increased distance is on another axis from the rotation


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

*Mark Cavendish uses them*

Rather, a pair of specially made axles that do the same thing.

I think the whole Q factor is nonsense. Look at any Olympic weightlifter doing a squat, they don't put their feet as close together as possible do they? And they are generating a lot of force!

Any affects on the frame would be minimal, unless you are putting out way more power than Cancellara or Boonen.


----------



## tylerwal (Jul 28, 2011)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Rather, a pair of specially made axles that do the same thing.
> 
> I think the whole Q factor is nonsense. Look at any Olympic weightlifter doing a squat, they don't put their feet as close together as possible do they? And they are generating a lot of force!


apples to oranges really, one is generating maximum force in one motion while the other has to maintain force over a period of time....besides olympic squats are narrow relative to other squatting positions nullifying your argument


----------



## campyc40 (Aug 4, 2010)

tylerwal said:


> everyone is different, but I strive for a low q-factor on my setups
> 
> I wouldn't think you would see any more leverage on either the frame or crank, since the increased distance is on another axis from the rotation


Where is the 'as low as possible' coming from? Wouldn't you want to align the hips with the knees with the feet with a vertical straight line making a 90 degree angle with the horizontal plane? Legs moving perfectly vertical like pistons in an engine. Making Q factor dependent on the hip width.


----------



## speedyg55 (Jun 11, 2009)

I'm sure they work great for some people. For me, I was having issues with my IT band. I repositioned my cleats to move my feet in towards the cranks a bit and the problems went away. That's something I wouldn't change for anything.


----------



## Ken2 (Jan 30, 2004)

campyc40 said:


> After months of messing with my bike fit, I finally decided to put pedal extenders (18mm each side) on my cranks. Big difference, legs now go straight up and down, no stress and twisting and any other uncomfortable feelings anymore. I talked to several fitters but they all refuse to use them. They don't look very cool but if they work...
> 
> Anyway, anybody else using them on (high-end) road bikes and any information on how they affect the frame and crank since there is more torque on the crank because of the increased distance?


I use a left 20mm extender only, after having some L knee issues. I had a 3D fitting with Andy Pruitt at the Boulder Center for Sports Medicine a few years ago, and discovered that I have an unusual foot orientation: my left has valgus rotation, and the right, varus. In essence, my feet both tilt to down to the left in their natural positions. He shimmed my shoe cleats to help, but after the same knee issue came back I tried the extender and it seems to have done the trick.

Before I installed them I had noticed that my left knee tracked outward away from the top tube, and reasoned that extending the foot outward would help the knee track more vertically. Out of 5 bikes I now have L extenders on the 3 road bikes. The mtn bike has a wider Q-factor anyway and so I don't notice a knee problem.

If your BB ad crankarms are stiff I don't think the added torque is going to hurt your crank or frame.


----------



## iclypso (Jul 6, 2011)

Seems like you've got the right approach, Ken. Comfortable and able to ride is the name of the game. 

OP, are you riding such a fragile frame that you're worried you might break it? Think about all the clydes mashing out there - are you outworking them?


----------



## hamsey (Aug 16, 2010)

When I did my fit the fitter pushed the cleat as far as it would go and got 1/4" longer spindles for my speedplay pedals. No pains. Have no idea if it changed my QFactor. I'm happy with it.


----------



## kiroskka (Mar 9, 2008)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Rather, a pair of specially made axles that do the same thing.
> 
> I think the whole Q factor is nonsense. Look at any Olympic weightlifter doing a squat, they don't put their feet as close together as possible do they? And they are generating a lot of force!


When you are standing, moving your feet further apart provides more balance, go figure. When you start walking, your feet move toward the center of your body, almost along a straight line. When cycling, the force executed by your feet are farther apart than the almost inline track of your foot. Generally, for most, the narrower the tread the better.


----------



## campyc40 (Aug 4, 2010)

iclypso said:


> OP, are you riding such a fragile frame that you're worried you might break it? Think about all the clydes mashing out there - are you outworking them?


It's a 12 year old carbon Colnago and it's not that stiff in the bracket area. But as others have said here, it's probably not an issue.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Rather, a pair of specially made axles that do the same thing.
> 
> I think the whole Q factor is nonsense. Look at any Olympic weightlifter doing a squat, they don't put their feet as close together as possible do they? And they are generating a lot of force!
> 
> Any affects on the frame would be minimal, unless you are putting out way more power than Cancellara or Boonen.


weightlifters are not standing on spindles, are they?
19% efficiency gain is substantial:
ECSS-Congress


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 12, 2009)

If they work for you, why bother asking if anyone else uses them?


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

*Be careful of this*



campyc40 said:


> Where is the 'as low as possible' coming from? Wouldn't you want to align the hips with the knees with the feet with a vertical straight line making a 90 degree angle with the horizontal plane? Legs moving perfectly vertical like pistons in an engine. Making Q factor dependent on the hip width.


You do want the proper alignment, and the Q factor does vary from person to person. But one thing that can happen by adjusting out the Q too much is knee injury. One of the big (and most common) reasons our legs don't move up and down in a straight line has to do with our arches falling on the downstroke. For most cyclists with the non-linear motion, the right arch support is the answer. You can compensate by moving out the feet, but again, risk injury. I'm not saying that everyone needs a narrow Q factor, though.


----------



## campyc40 (Aug 4, 2010)

55x11 said:


> weightlifters are not standing on spindles, are they?
> 19% efficiency gain is substantial:
> ECSS-Congress


That's not what the article says. The efficiency is 19.5% for low Q Factor compared to 18.9 and 19.0 for higher Q Factors. So it's about .5/19= 2.6% more. Which is probably due to the fact that the trained athletes are used to the narrow Q factor. I'd say comfort comes first...


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*agree to some point*



Cinelli 82220 said:


> Rather, a pair of specially made axles that do the same thing.
> 
> I think the whole Q factor is nonsense. Look at any Olympic weightlifter doing a squat, they don't put their feet as close together as possible do they? And they are generating a lot of force!
> 
> Any affects on the frame would be minimal, unless you are putting out way more power than Cancellara or Boonen.


I have 4 bikes with close to a two cm spread in Q-factor. I can't notice any difference between the biggest and smallest q-factor setups. I have a tough time believing that a cm or two over legs that are 80-90 cm long is noticeable unless there is some other issue. That is a really small angle difference. To the OP, if you are happy with the extenders, then by all means use them. Comfort is most important in my book.

Not sure the weightlifting example is really applicable. I am sure stance has more to do with balance there


----------



## cyclequip (Oct 20, 2004)

Q factor is a qualitative measurement of resonance. It is a misapplied term in the bike world.

In cycling terms the proper definition is "stance width". The same argument about pedaling with knees "in" (or lack of argument to be more precise) applies to "narrow Q". In fitting applications, everyone has a different stance width preference. However, there are some restrictions for fitters hoping to achieve ideal stance width, and as an earlier post mentioned, we are trying to get optimum tracking of knees according to physiological and biomechanical contraints inherent in each individual. To this end fitters have different spindle lengths available, 1mm pedal washers (with strict safety limitations on how many can be used on a pedal) or the 18/20mm spacers (again - safety constrained). But the use of these different measures has cost and availability issues mainly, not anything else like bike/frame damage etc. 
And BTW, the common fix for ITB is to increase stance width and not decrease it!. And the 20mm spacers are great for individuals with significant tibial varum.


----------



## woodys737 (Dec 31, 2005)

campyc40 said:


> Where is the 'as low as possible' coming from? Wouldn't you want to align the hips with the knees with the feet with a vertical straight line making a 90 degree angle with the horizontal plane? Legs moving perfectly vertical like pistons in an engine. Making Q factor dependent on the hip width.


I think that's the idea. Like Peanya said arch deformation is a hug reason why knee misalignment and tracking gets messed up. This was true with me. In addition my saddle was just too narrow for my sit bones resulting in my hips dropping a little too much during the stroke. With the two combined I developed a nasty technique of ankling. I understand a small amount of ankling is natural but I guess I was doing it more than the fitter had ever seen and he's fitted a few folks over the years (Paraic McGlynn). We never discussed Q factor but looked at the before and after shots head on and from behind. The difference in knee tracking was even easy for me to see. 

The amount of arch support needed was interesting but the seat was the real shocker and maybe something you should look at as well.


----------

