Narrow/Low Q-factor Cranks??

Re:

old Mavic, Ritchey, Sugino and Specialized for sure. There are probably others too. The front derailleur can bump up the Q-factor if the cage is too wide and your frame's chainstay spacing as well. It may take some test fitting to find the right BB/crankset combination.
 
I think the trick is minimal chainstay/inside of crankarm clearance but you still need frame/chainring clearance and a front mech that is within its screw limits , and lets not worry about those pesky chainlines ....
 
Re:

Chain line is always workable if you use sensible gear combos ie larger sprockets when in granny ring and vice versa.

I have some turbines but they don't seem to curve back inwards at the pedal very much?

I used to run an M952 with a road BB and that was pretty nice and close to the chain stays
 
Re:

My m900 are a nice compact setup.
On my bike they're a few mm away from the frame so only the width of the end is what you have, then whatever the pedals are.
These are not classed as a narrow q factor.
But after that you're getting thinner at pedal end. Mavic have a low number

Turbines are quite wide so don't bother with them

Bokepro should have the list on its tables, but I never really got it. Since I would have to start burying cranks into my not exactly wide chainstays.
 
I would say the M730, ditch the inner granny and play with a shorter BB width.
 
Re:

You don't get the ancle clearance on the none low/super-low profile cranks though.
Each to their own, but the cranks are about as thick at the pedal so I don't see what you gain.

m900 13.5mm thick
Xc compMD 14.0
Xc pro normal 12.5
M569\739 12.8
Rf LP 13.9
M950 13.4

Note the m900 and RF pedal surround design is effectively making the crank end some 3-4mm shorter for the same length crank arm

So if m950 are fine, any will be fine, just don't use modern 50mm chain lines.
 
Back
Top