Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    JYB
    JYB is online now
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    210

    Q-factor with 170 and 190mm rear ends

    The wider Q factor of my 170mm Fatback does not really seem to bother my knees. I've been riding this frame, almost exclusively, for over a year. I've ridden both the Fatback FSA crank and a SRAM x-9 crank. It seems that many companies are switching over to 190mm frames. I'm curious how much greater the Q factor will be on these frames with the cranks that are being used. I'm not convinced that I need a 190 rear. 170 feels like all the space I need, especially for summer trail riding. Can anybody chime in on this? Do your feet feel crazy far apart on a 190mm frame?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: lancelot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    933
    Same Q factor as a 170mm frame unless you're running a double offset crank like the Surly OD to increase chain to tire clearance.

    Surly OD (Moonlander) is 213.8
    E Thirteen XCX is 198
    The LPG

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: GTR2ebike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,881
    Measure your Fatback FSA, I think the Q is larger than a Surly MWOD

Similar Threads

  1. 135mm vs 170mm vs 190mm rear end
    By JYB in forum Fat Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 11:09 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 08:16 AM
  3. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-16-2013, 10:44 PM
  4. Wide rear ends get rubbed?
    By Pitch in forum Clydesdales/Tall Riders
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-21-2013, 07:52 AM
  5. Fat bike rear ends 150mm vs 170mm
    By pyranha in forum Frame Building
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-05-2011, 12:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •