SQlab's 50X Flat Pedals Come in 3 Axle Lengths

Mar 31, 2023
by SQlab  
photo

Press Release: SQ Lab

In short, our 50X pedal isn't the lowest profile, nor the lightest, but a heavy-duty pedal with good grip. Available in 3 different axle lengths (for riders who always scratch their cranks or seat/chain-stays with their shoes/heels).

The main body of our 5OX plastic pedals is reinforced with glass fiber (30%). They offer a slightly concave platform with a large contact area (110x105mm), but without any axle “bumps” in the middle.

photo

SQlab 5OX pedals

Why composite?

In hard contacts with stones and rocks, the material can give way and can usually withstand more abuse than classic, comparable aluminum platform pedals. For this reason, we rely on composite and don't offer an aluminum version.

Bearings are the most important part for durability – we use Japanese sealed precision ball bearings on the outer and German made IGUS bush bearings on the crank arm side.

photo
The three different axle lengths provide a physiologically natural foot position on the pedal: Suitable for larger feet, a V-shaped foot position or larger sit bone distances, which usually require a higher Q-factor.

photo
The slightly concave platform surface allows an ergonomic position on the pedal and creates enormous grip at the same time. To provide a maximum pedaling surface, the surface is flush with the pedal axle. This avoids an annoying “step” / “bump” in the pedal surface, as it is the case with some other flat pedals.

Details:
• Material: Fiber reinforced plastic, 30 % Fiberglass, and CroMo axles.
• Weights: 429g / 436g / 445g
• RRP: USD: 89.99 // EUR: 79.95 // GBP 69.99
• Made in Taiwan
• Sizes (different axle lengths, size of pedal platform body is always the same): S M L
• Axle length: -5 mm, 0 mm, +5 mm

photo

More INFO about SQlab's ergonomic concepts, related to the axle lengths.

5OX pedals product pages: US & EU

ABOUT SQlab:
SQlab was founded by Tobias "Toby" Hild, a former motocross rider, who had a big crash and switched to riding mountain bikes afterward. In the early 1990s, Toby founded his first cycling businesses: Amazing Toys, a parts and accessories brand for the fast-growing MTB downhill segment, and Amazing Shop, an LBS. In 2002, Toby founded SQlab as the world’s first player focusing on ergonomic cycling parts, to ease the ride and help cyclists with pain and numbness issues. SQlab was the very first brand to introduce a sit bones distance measuring tool for fitting, in the same year. SQlab became parts of the Boards and More group in 2021, who are better known for ION (apparel and Protection) in the bike industry, as well as DUOTONE and FANATIC as hardgoods brands in the kite/foil/wake boarding, windsurfing and SUP world.


Author Info:
SQlab avatar

Member since Sep 9, 2018
11 articles

63 Comments
  • 33 1
 I actually think it's nice to have axle length options, but it'd be great to be able to mix and match with some different-sized platforms as well.
  • 3 0
 Wasn't some company going to release a new large pedal, like in between a Dagga and Pedaling Innovations, last year? I remember reading about it and being excited to see more and then nothing.
  • 1 0
 Crank brothers already does this with their clipless pedals. long and short spindles available as spare parts, and different models come with different spindle lengths - mallet e 11 comes with a short spindle whereas the regular mallet e comes with long spindles. Seems like it wouldn’t be too difficult to sell various length replacement spindles for flat pedals too.
  • 4 1
 I love my Pedalling Innovations catalyst pedals. I rode Nukeproof Horizons and Vaults for the past 20 years, but the Pedalling Innovations feel way better. Had them for 4 years now and wouldn’t dream of going back to a platform the size of a Horizon
  • 1 0
 @notphaedrus: Be cool to try those one day.
  • 20 0
 Yes! It's weird that q-factor isn't talked about more. There's no way that a 6'4" rider like me should have the same q-factor as someone a foot shorter. I always have my feet on the outside of the pedals. None of my cranks have rub marks. I just wish these were thinner and cheaper.
  • 1 0
 Ditto
  • 1 0
 Agreed! I'm also 6'4", ride flats and 1/3 of each foot often rests outside of my pedals.
  • 1 0
 My bones are weird and my feet are never square on the pedal, my toes end up pointing out and heels in, so an increased Q-factor is something I am always thinking of despite being shorter than 6".
  • 15 1
 just get tmacs and run them barefoot to max out feel and grip all at once. thank me later
  • 6 0
 I had SH-51s implanted in the balls of my feet. Perfect power delivery and extra light weight
  • 2 0
 @sjma: Are they adjustable? Because mid-foot cleat positioning is all the rage these days.....
  • 8 0
 Such a good idea. I feel like my Q-factor is too narrow on pretty much every pedal. Now if only someone would do this with some SPD-style pedals.
  • 2 0
 SQ-Lab does, but not for MTB right know.
  • 1 0
 @Zany2410:
I mean they have an MTB SPD-style pedal, just without a platform. Needs to be enduro-specific Wink
  • 1 0
 Titanium planet sells axles of different lengths for Shimano pedals. That being said, I bought some and had them changed but the bearings developed play after about 6 months. The bike shop said once you open the XT or XTR pedals up it's hard to keep them perfect for long and they need to be repacked again. This is compared to not touching them and they last forever. Would be nice if they just came with a different Q-factor as an option.
  • 2 0
 I like this actually. I think I should have gone with an 83mm bb instead of 73mm as I always have my feet a bit outboard. This is heavier on the pedal bearings and also heavier on the soles of my shoes as they're not fully supported. I do ride with Catalyst pedals (and like them) which are a good bit longer so I'd be giving that up. But the possibility of shifting the pedal platform further outboard (without getting a new frame) sounds interesting. Of course, if there is a crankset that has a "worse" Q-factor, that might be interesting too so that I can get this using my current pedals. I'm currently using Shimano Zee pedals with 165mm cranks. I don't fancy getting longer cranks nor something that's a whole lot more expensive (as I don't see the added value of what the more expensive pedals have on offer), but if anyone has good suggestions for those I'm interested as well.
  • 6 2
 Wow $90 for a pair of composite pedals?? I think I paid $45 for my one-ups and have been really happy with them.
  • 2 0
 SQ Labs are always double the price of most reputable MTB brands.
  • 1 0
 Another way to solve this problem would be to bring back internal bottom brackets with different length spindles. Since that's not going to happen different length peddle axles are probably more economical than buying a SRAM DUB wide crank-set and bottom bracket to get a few extra mm of clearance.
  • 2 0
 I think the Truvativ Howitzer was a good idea. Internal bottom bracket (or at least with the axle fixed to one bearing cup) yet with external cups. I liked it until I wore out the crank (constantly coming loose). Different axle lengths would be great but it would be more expensive for crank manufacturers too which may put them off. I feel it is probably cheaper for them to press-fit the axle to one crank than to accurately machine an interface that can be removed frequently. But yeah, if they'd have spacers that would allow me to use a 83mm crankset in my 73mm shell, I'd love to get that.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: Totally agree, it is cheaper for many reasons to produce cranksets the way they do these days compared to the 80's/90's and early 2000's. They are also arguably stronger, and the BB's weigh less. Still though, it was so easy to swap square taper bottom brackets to longer ones to get the Q factor someone was looking for.

I don't think Truvativ/Sram make a conversion kit for your cranks but the truvativ XR BB's do come in 2 different axel length options for 73mm BBs
  • 4 0
 The plethora of bottom bracket spindle lengths wasn't really to adjust your q-factor, more to accommodate all the manufacturers who did not agree on where to put the spindle receptacle on their cranksets relative to the chainring's centerline. Varying your spindle width would screw up your chainline.
  • 1 0
 @Xyphota: Yeah, that's true, but a lot of people bought slightly longer bottom brackets to accommodate q factor as well. It was generally accepted back then that being within 3ish mm of the desired chain-line was okay which meant a 5mm wider bottom bracket worked. It's not a happy memory but back then we used to have 3 chain-rings and you ideally wouldn't be cross chaining so chain line to some extent wasn't as noticeable. You would never be big ring to big cog or little ring to little cog, So the extreme side of those 3mm was never seen.

To be honest back then I was in high-school and we used whatever we could get. for my friends over 6ft tall with flinstone feet I dont think they cared about chain-line as much as they cared about heel rub.
  • 1 0
 @dpars63: Yeah, but I already replaced those Truvativ Ruktion cranks I used back then because the interface wore out and it kept coming loose. I'm using Shimano Zee now. Both had 165mm cranks and I don't fancy getting anything with longer cranks. But what you're saying is, I could try SRAM DUB cranks in my current bottom bracket shell and increase my Q factor? That could be an interesting one. Wouldn't necessarily be cheaper, but it would be an option. That said, I just ordered a bunch of glide bearings for my pedals yesterday for 1 euro a piece so even though I might have to replace those bearings more often, it would take a good while before any of these modifications is going to pay off.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: yhou had no problems with the BBs themselves?
A single simple radial ball bearing taking all axial loads was such a stupid idea
  • 1 0
 @Krafkloot: Nah, they kept up fine. The Shimano bottom bracket that came with my Zee crankset had issues sooner than this Howitzer bb had. I don't know how much of an axial load I'm introducing into my bottom bracket though. A lot of radial loads, but not too much of an axial load I'm aware of. Are those little bearings used in inline skates and skateboards good at dealing with axial loads? I can imagine there are larger axial loads there.
  • 1 0
 @vinay: my bad, mixed it up with srams 24mm option, whatever this was called.
You`d be suprised about the side loads you introduce in a crankset. Far from an ideal load situation for a ball bearing. There is a reason almost all current BB Designs preload both bearings today.
  • 1 0
 Every pair of 5-10's I've ever owned has had excessive wear on the inside, ankle area, along with wear marks on the crank arms. And every bike I've ever owned has had wear marks on the chainstays from my shoes. These pedals aren't really ones I'd consider buying. But, I do think more companies should offer longer spindles as an option.
  • 1 0
 I'm 6'7 with size 13 feet and I want as narrow a q factor as possible on a boost bike (I have narrow hips). That said very few mtb riders actually need as wide a q factor as they think they do. I am a trained in bike fit btw, not just talking out my ass.
  • 8 6
 orrrr you could just get larger pedals and place your foot on them where you feel most comfortable... also expensive for plastic pedals
  • 7 10
 Another expensive solution for a problem that doesn't exist
  • 11 5
 @spendtimebehindbars: It may not be a problem for you, but it is definitely a problem for some people.

For the way I sit on the pedals, the majority of pedals I have to force my foot to sit on the pedal correctly. I've only found one option with a q-factor and width that works for me, but they are almost $200. You can tell it's an issue because a lot of my shoes are worn inboard more than on the outside portion and I constantly find my feet hanging off the end of the pedals. I can move my feet, but then you are having to move your foot while riding if you dab or put a foot down.

These give riders that sit wider on the bike to adjust the pedal position to one that is more natural for them instead of fight to put their foot back into position. IMO it's long been necessary that we are provided more q-factor options in pedals.
  • 4 1
 I really like plastic pedals, but ya I expect to pay less than for alloy
  • 10 5
 @shinook: try standing on your pedals instead of sitting. it might help
  • 3 2
 @spendtimebehindbars: How to say "I got tiny feet" without saying "I got tiny feet"

Thing is: I have size 14US/49EU feet and I repaint the chainstays of my bike every second month because I constantly hit them with my inner heels. It's better since I use CB Stamp 7 in large, but it's not perfect. Pedals with longer axles (changing the Q-factor) are tempting for me
  • 2 0
 @riverbum: I have size 13US feet and never rub my chainstays.
  • 5 0
 Yeah tell that to my size 15s (16us). Vaults, so almost as big as anything (though I do want tmacs) and I line my shoe up with the inside of the pedal, otherwise I get crank/chainstay rub. At that, I have 45mm of shoe hanging off the outside. Longer axles would be amazing for me. But then, so would 145x145 pedal bodies.

And before anyone suggest catalysts, they're still too narrow, width is my issue, not length.
  • 1 0
 @inked-up-metalhead: I had the same issue with Catalyst pedals, they need some with a wider q-factor, but I'm not sure how they could pull that off without putting too much strain on the axle.

The Daggas are the closest I've found to something that works.
  • 1 0
 @inked-up-metalhead: tag metals is what I use and I love having a big platform, but they ain't cheap
  • 1 0
 @shinook: platform width is my issue. Even tmacs or daggas are only 10mm wider than vaults, though the tmacs are a lot bigger pin layout due to the non parallelogram body, and that just isn't enough to swap from v11s (plastic vaults, max £50 a pair) to tmacs atm (140 a pair). I just use stiff soled hiking trainers.
  • 1 0
 @smashdizzle: only 5mm wider than vaults/v11s. Daggas and tmacs are wider, but twice the price.
  • 1 0
 I want a flat pedal that has some rise in the out edge and in the front out edge,because it’s where my foot has the best strength,thank me later for this advice,like a skate board
  • 2 0
 Longer pins. Boom.
  • 1 1
 AND....all those same people will still put their feet in the same position, and rub the cranks. Different axle length makes sense for a clip(less) system where the position is defined. On a large platform flat pedal ??
  • 1 0
 Why would people not take advantage of the extra space? I know I do. I've intentionally bought some of the widest pedals on the market, and my feet are only size 11.
  • 1 1
 I am planning to just replace my pedals with a couple skateboard deck. Drill some wood screws through them instead of pins. Ohh shit wait my pedals already work just fine I am going to just ride my bike.
  • 1 0
 I was referring the shape ,and when you see people on the half pipes getting air with out their feet’s on the board and then coming back to them at some very good speed ,their feet’s get a good grip ,so what are you saying,maybe you don’t need that many pins on them ,just good placement,and thinking outside the box ,maybe it will make you say what?
  • 1 0
 SQLab's USA distributor keeps increasing prices almost quarter to where carbon bars are $320 and alloy bars are $135, insane.
  • 1 0
 Look a lot like the ethirteen base pedal. I suppose there's only so many pedal shapes.
  • 1 0
 Now if shimano could do this for us folks with bigger feet - you can get an SPD that is shorter but not longer.
  • 2 0
 Syntace offer 3 sizes of pedals for years.
  • 1 0
 Idk about these pedals but the SQLabs 611 Ergowave is the best saddle I've ever had by far.
  • 2 0
 80 for plastic pedals, guess april fools have started huh
  • 1 0
 "Slightly concave" then showing an absolute flat platform, I love you marketing team Big Grin
  • 1 0
 Nice to have the axle lenght choice. By the way, the third dimension is?
  • 3 2
 £70 for plastic pedals. Lol
  • 2 0
 Too heavy thanks
  • 2 1
 Price is not compliant w the competition Mr Tobias
  • 1 0
 Can they offer CB spindles with options on Q-factor? That would be neat
  • 1 0
 chonky
  • 1 1
 April fools?
  • 1 2
 Meh.







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.030961
Mobile Version of Website