Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
thirdcrank
Posts: 30585
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby thirdcrank » 7 Jul 2011, 5:39pm

CJ wrote: .... Regarding 10: a thin steel toeclip adds insignificantly to the forward projection of the shoe alone. Plastic ones add something, but who still uses toeclips? I would not argue with a designer who said it was not necessary to take account of them.....


With some diffidence and not a little trepidation, I'll raise my tiny hand and say "Please Sir."

Although toeclips are pretty well obsolete, I always understood they were best fitted with a gap between toe and toeclip, their only purpose being to hold the toe strap in place. This does, of course, imply the use of shoe plates, so I'll clip-clop off for my tea. :oops:

Anyway +1 to that post and a bit of humour usually makes stuff a lot easier to read. :D

kazmark
Posts: 15
Joined: 3 May 2009, 9:03am

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby kazmark » 7 Jul 2011, 8:35pm

In reply to rejohn & snibgo: when the wheel is straight the distance from pedal axle to where the mudguard was is 6.5cm (down to around 5cm when wheel is turned) as mentioned we cut the bottom of the mudguard off (which was really annoying as we wanted full mudguards) but are still just skimming the tyre when the wheel is twisted. Both bikes are the same distance though mine is a medium frame and Mark's is a Large frame. My shoe is 9cm from ball of foot to front and Mark's is 10cm. I know a lot of people think this isn't a problem, but becuase we live in a hilly area with a lot of short sharp hills it can still be a problem when zig zagging up. I have plastic toe clips on as I don't like SPD's, but my foot is in the correct position and the same as it would be with SPD's (I will probably look for some small steel toe clips which may shave a smidge off, but most places seem to only have larger ones). Mark is using Power Grip toe straps.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby snibgo » 7 Jul 2011, 10:40pm

kazmark wrote:... when the wheel is straight the distance from pedal axle to where the mudguard was is 6.5cm ...

Yikes. And it reduces when the wheel turns, so double-yikes.

This is far more overlap than I suffer, so compared to my bike you will encounter problems at smaller angles of steering, or at a wider range of pedal positions.

(I ride with Power Grips or, more commonly, nothing.)

Looking at the pictures (eg http://www.chargebikes.com/products/bik ... .php?id=25), the rake seems unusually small, but it's hard to judge.

The question is: can you live with the TO? If not, I suggest you take the bike back.

swansonj
Posts: 322
Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 9:53pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby swansonj » 8 Jul 2011, 8:30am

CJ wrote:Regarding 10: a thin steel toeclip adds insignificantly to the forward projection of the shoe alone. Plastic ones add something, but who still uses toeclips? I would not argue with a designer who said it was not necessary to take account of them.


I hesitate to derail a thread which is already showing signs of becoming a little bad tempered. But I for one still use toeclips, for two reasons, one of which is specific to me but the other of which I would have expected CJ to have some sympathy with.

Specific to me: having broken a femur by falling off a bike at relatively low speed, I am seriously disinclined to increase my risk of falling off again through what seems to be the pretty inevitable occasional failure to unclip in time.

The general point: "slow cycling". I forget the exact quote, but wasn't it something along the lines of encouraging cycling in whatever you happen to be wearing, and not creating a culture where cycling requires specialist equipment? It may be that use of toeclips is now statistically so small that it is indeed unreasonable to expect designers to cater for them. But in an ideal world, I think toeclips are a way of allowing ordinary mortals to get more enjoyment out of their cycling without having to embrace the whole pseudo-racing sporty lycra-based culture (and without having to change shoes before going cycling).

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18660
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Vorpal » 8 Jul 2011, 8:49am

kazmark: I've had toe overlap on my bikes for most of my adult life, but not had any that bad. I think that I would probably take the bikes back.

531colin: I would love to have one of your bikes, but the Spa Cycles Ti tourer is as far out of my reach at the moment as a custom built bike. I think that if you added up the market value of all of my bikes, you might get close to the price tag for one of those.

As for standards... while a good standard for toe overlap might be fairly complex, there are far more complex standards in other industries. And it should be quite simple for the big companies with nice CAD packages. They do far more complex analyses in ergonomic evaluations. In fact, it should be simple enough to add an analysis of toe overlap to the 5th/95th percentile analyses that are done for other parameters.

Oh, and if no one uses toe clips any more, why do bike shops stock them? They certainly seem to be in ready supply in a variety of designs. That's more than I can say for women's bikes. :roll:

p.s. I use toe clips, too, but I prefer the half clip (strapless type) that were originally designed for MTBs.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby reohn2 » 8 Jul 2011, 9:43am

kazmark wrote:In reply to rejohn & snibgo: when the wheel is straight the distance from pedal axle to where the mudguard was is 6.5cm (down to around 5cm when wheel is turned) as mentioned we cut the bottom of the mudguard off (which was really annoying as we wanted full mudguards) but are still just skimming the tyre when the wheel is twisted. Both bikes are the same distance though mine is a medium frame and Mark's is a Large frame. My shoe is 9cm from ball of foot to front and Mark's is 10cm. I know a lot of people think this isn't a problem, but becuase we live in a hilly area with a lot of short sharp hills it can still be a problem when zig zagging up. I have plastic toe clips on as I don't like SPD's, but my foot is in the correct position and the same as it would be with SPD's (I will probably look for some small steel toe clips which may shave a smidge off, but most places seem to only have larger ones). Mark is using Power Grip toe straps.


That kind of TO would be unacceptable for me,shoe size 46(47 in winter for thick woollen socks) I'd consider it dangerous.
Our tandem with TO my shoe skims the M/guard and thats with 175mm cranks 32mm tyres and generous M/guard clearance.
-----------------------------------------------------------

mark a.
Posts: 1367
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby mark a. » 8 Jul 2011, 10:47am

To the experts on bike geometry:

Presumably the Mixer was designed to have sporty, lively handling, hence the toe overlap. Would it be possible to design it so that there wasn't TO but it still handles the same?

The only experience I have of bikes which don't have TO are mountain bikes with 26" wheels and a touring bike which was designed to be more leisurely.

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby reohn2 » 8 Jul 2011, 10:51am

mark a. wrote:To the experts on bike geometry:

Presumably the Mixer was designed to have sporty, lively handling, hence the toe overlap. Would it be possible to design it so that there wasn't TO but it still handles the same?........


I'm no expert on frame design but a chap with one eye a squint and half a brain can see that if the top tube was longer the handling (steering geom') would be the same yet the bike would be safer and more stable and without TO!
-----------------------------------------------------------

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Edwards » 8 Jul 2011, 12:12pm

There are a lot of shorter people and some women who have ridden with toe overlap on the bike of their choice for years.
We can not have a longer top tube and still reach the bars.
Before it is said some of us do not want 26" wheel bikes.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

reohn2
Posts: 40711
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby reohn2 » 8 Jul 2011, 12:18pm

Edwards wrote:There are a lot of shorter people and some women who have ridden with toe overlap on the bike of their choice for years.
We can not have a longer top tube and still reach the bars.
Before it is said some of us do not want 26" wheel bikes.


We have to,with mass production,accept that all the people cannot satisfied,there will be an element/minority who such bikes won't fit/suit,but to compromise safety for the majority for the sake of a small minority is plain wrong IMO.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Edwards » 8 Jul 2011, 12:26pm

R2 larger frames do not have to have it but shorter people know they have to put up with it. I have never had any real issues apart from catching a mudguard a few times.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

mark a.
Posts: 1367
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 2:47pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby mark a. » 8 Jul 2011, 12:28pm

reohn2 wrote:
mark a. wrote:To the experts on bike geometry:

Presumably the Mixer was designed to have sporty, lively handling, hence the toe overlap. Would it be possible to design it so that there wasn't TO but it still handles the same?........


I'm no expert on frame design but a chap with one eye a squint and half a brain can see that if the top tube was longer the handling (steering geom') would be the same yet the bike would be safer and more stable and without TO!


Yes but doing that will require a different stem length at least, perhaps also a change in headtube length, seat tube angle (I'm purely guessing here)...

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18660
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Vorpal » 8 Jul 2011, 12:45pm

I could write a novel on the choices of crap I was presented with (and encouraged to buy) the last time I was in the market for a bicycle.

I don't think that there is a need to compromise the safety of the majority for the sake of a minority.

There is no reason to design in TO on a bicycle for people who are comfortable with a bicycle designed around average proportions.

Any design has compromises. It's a matter of where you make those compromises. It might be better to provide some adult bikes with smaller wheels so that a shorter top tube can be accomodated without compromising either TO or handling. Or perhaps a combination of fork design, headset angle and/or stem design change would sort it out. Not being a bicycle designer, I don't know the best answer. Even if I were a designer, I might make different choices than another.

In any case most of the possible solutions are not conducive to the standardisation of parts, which is high on the list of importance when it comes to keeping costs down.

However, I expect that if this aspect of design had more importance to the larger manufacturers of bicycles, I would probably have a better choice of bicycles without toe overlap.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Freddie
Posts: 2509
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 12:01pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Freddie » 8 Jul 2011, 12:47pm

Edwards wrote:Before it is said some of us do not want 26" wheel bikes.

This is another part of the problem. Why would anyone on the smaller sizes want 622/700c wheels (if only to ape racers), they are too big for frames under about 56cm and not only do you get toe overlap, but compromised (severely so, in the smallest sizes) geometry.

I do think that smaller frames should use one of the 650 standards (pick one, maybe preference for the smallest diameter and make tyres from 23mm through 47mm for them) and that only the smallest need 26"/559's.

There is need for a standard (rather than esoteric) third wheel size.

MartinC
Posts: 1907
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby MartinC » 8 Jul 2011, 1:22pm

Apologies if I've (inadvertently) contributed to any bad temper in this thread.

Chris, I certainly didn't wish to imply any lack of skill on the part of those who find overlap a problem and it's not what I think. Thanks for your full and detailed reply - there's much in it that I agree with.

I suppose the 3 points In my mind are:

1. Any standard will have to make all sorts of assumptions about what's "normal" and I think this is a real problem. For example others have challenged your presumption that toe clips are no longer used. The current fashion for dress shoes is to have excessively long toes - so do we assume that no-one in dress shoes will/should ride a bike? Why shouldn't a standard take into account the numpty who rides with their instep on the pedal - surely they're exactly the sort of consumer who needs protection. And so on.

2. If it's just a point of sale restriction then it encourages the "don't fit then it's not our problem" approach. For instance if you're not going to fit mudguards at the point of sale the the best thing to do is to make sure the frame and forks don't have mudguard eyes. This denies the consumer future flexibility. We all know that for many a bicycle is a dynamic collection of parts unlike may other consumer products.

3. There's no consensus amongst cyclists (and I'm not even going to try and define what that means!) that toe overlap is a safety issue. Sure, people may have strong opinions about this but I don't see any evidence of a disproportionate number of injuries due to it. If we invite legislation to regulate a percieved problem then we're inviting legislation about any others. To a non-cyclist (again no definition supplied!) foot retention devices seem inherently dangerous (and they might be perceived as the "real" problem with toe overlap) - do we want to see these removed from sale? It's also very easy to make the case that mudguards are dangerous (they increase the chance of objects jamming wheels even with safety releases and they recycle water onto rims) but I certainly wouldn't want to see them banned at point of sale.

I totally agree with you that bike buyers should be able to make an informed choice. Creating regulations doesn't do this though.

This thread has useful knowledge for us all - it's unfortunate that the general bike buying public will never be party to it.

edit for typos.