Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
drossall
Posts: 4623
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby drossall » 13 Jul 2011, 6:42pm

CJ wrote:It is not necessary to show that TO is more dangerous than other features of bicycle design, only that it is dangerous enough to not want to foist it upon an unsuspecting member of the public.

Probably true, but with huge respect (disagreeing with CJ is always something to do carefully), we haven't shown that - only that some people have slightly caught their feet. There's a potential to be caught out in an awkward position, but that exists with other things. I'm in the camp that says covering bikes in labels saying "use these V brakes gently", "keep off gravel", "only use SPDs for real after careful practice" and "if you ride this bike at less than 5mph and steer sharply you might catch your feet" would lead to fewer cyclists and make bikes sound really dangerous.

I'm more bothered about the mudguard release issue, because that happens at speed and I can't just move the blockage out of the way.
Last edited by drossall on 13 Jul 2011, 6:52pm, edited 1 time in total.

drossall
Posts: 4623
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby drossall » 13 Jul 2011, 6:44pm

MartinC wrote:How effective will they be? Most bike riders use flat pedals. Whether there's TO or not depends on where on the pedal they decide to put their feet even if we all know the ideal placement.

+1,000,000

As I said before, too many people ride with their insteps. That will create overlap even on a bike that would otherwise pass any reasonable standard.

drossall
Posts: 4623
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby drossall » 13 Jul 2011, 6:50pm

Freddie wrote:I'd rather these manufacturers weren't given lassez faire to put out whatever whim and fancy they choose...

I don't think that that is fair. I'd rather that QR wheels weren't sold to the general public. We'd have fewer thefts, and no lawyers' lips, and generally life would be better. I don't actually think that dual-suspension MTBs suit people riding to the shops well either.

However, we live in a consumer society, and if manufacturer A won't sell me the product I want, he will go out of business because manufacturer B will - even if it's not the thing that would suit me best.

I'm not sure that I can sit as a consumer and blame manufacturers for meeting my wants.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby thirdcrank » 13 Jul 2011, 7:24pm

I suggest we need something like this:

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/batesbar56.html

Actually, I suspect that that bike has plenty of overlap. Somebody queried above why this never used to be a problem, and the replies were on the lines that it's a modern fad. I can only repeat what I said higher up USWB (ultra short wheelbase) used to be the fad once upon a time. I thought whoever posed the question was looking for the answer that it wasn't a problem because nobody worried about it. :?

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 47116
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Mick F » 13 Jul 2011, 9:02pm

thirdcrank wrote:I suggest we need something like this:

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/batesbar56.html

Actually, I suspect that that bike has plenty of overlap. Somebody queried above why this never used to be a problem, and the replies were on the lines that it's a modern fad. I can only repeat what I said higher up USWB (ultra short wheelbase) used to be the fad once upon a time. I thought whoever posed the question was looking for the answer that it wasn't a problem because nobody worried about it. :?

That lovely bike is quoted as having a wheelbase of 41" and you suggest it it "ultra short" and infer that its wheelbase produces TO.

Dimensions: Seat tube 24", top tube 23", chainstays 17½", Wheelbase 41"

My Mercian has a wheelbase of 40.5" and chainstays of 17" but has no TO at all.
Mick F. Cornwall

thirdcrank
Posts: 28684
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby thirdcrank » 13 Jul 2011, 9:48pm

I linked to the pic ( of a Diadrant fork) because at a superficial level it looks like the sort of thing which would eliminate overlap, when, in fact, I think the front axle ends up where it would have been in the first place. I made the comment about the possibility / likelihood of overlap an that particular bike from trying to work it out on screen. Not a remotely accurate way of doing it, especially with the cranks at 12-30 rather than 9-15. Imagine the cranks level with toe clips protruding.

Of course there were all sorts of ways of shortening the wheelbase - curved and even split seat tubes are shown elsewhere on that site. Obviously, the back end has no effect on overlap but a steep head angle and straighter forks do. I suspect that the widespread use of mudguards on time trialling bikes - not during the racing, of course, but riding to and from the event, must have increased the occurence of overlap.

The more I think about this (without doing some trick cycling) it seems to me that if a bike was being ridden normally at anything above a few miles an hour, moving the bars so the toes might touch the front wheel would lead to problems before the steering had moved anything like enough to see if there was overlap.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 47116
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Mick F » 13 Jul 2011, 9:55pm

I think what I was inferring/thinking/suggesting, was that TO is a complicated geometric subject and not black and white.

The bike in TC's link would obviously have TO, but why?

It could be a function of angles versus frame design versus wheel diameter.

It cannot be just a function of wheelbase and chainstay length and BB-to-front axle.

So I'm suggesting wheel size is the problem as others have said up thread?
Looks like I'm in agreement.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
rootes
Posts: 605
Joined: 27 Jul 2008, 6:44pm
Location: Woking, Surrey

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby rootes » 13 Jul 2011, 10:30pm

This thread is madness... if you can't deal with toe overlap.... get another bike and stop complaining.. :wink:

LollyKat
Posts: 2891
Joined: 28 May 2011, 11:25pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby LollyKat » 13 Jul 2011, 11:02pm

Fine if you have plenty of money to throw around. But the OP is clearly unhappy with the bikes and it seems as if the shop isn't offering to change them for something else. However she hasn't returned to the thread so we don't know the latest.

Michael R
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Jul 2008, 10:40pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Michael R » 13 Jul 2011, 11:04pm

thirdcrank wrote:I suggest we need something like this:

http://www.classiclightweights.co.uk/batesbar56.html

Actually, I suspect that that bike has plenty of overlap. Somebody queried above why this never used to be a problem, and the replies were on the lines that it's a modern fad. I can only repeat what I said higher up USWB (ultra short wheelbase) used to be the fad once upon a time. I thought whoever posed the question was looking for the answer that it wasn't a problem because nobody worried about it. :?


From a rough measurement it does not have TO

Michael R
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Jul 2008, 10:40pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Michael R » 13 Jul 2011, 11:19pm

rootes wrote:This thread is madness... if you can't deal with toe overlap.... get another bike and stop complaining.. :wink:



This thread is not madness, except for those who wish themselves and others to ride dangerous bikes.

Remember I bought a bike with TO (Cube) out of ignorance as I had never come across the problem in the type of bikes I have owned 27in drops tourist or hybrid and riding other bikes as well.

As I requently make sharp turns and U-turns and sharp uphill turns during most of my rides, TO makes my cycling both dangerous and unpleasant . I would frequently have to dismount rather than keep pedalling safely

As for those who evade the question by refering to SPDs and toe-clips , most who use them do out of deliberate choice and know the minor hazard they are. I use toe clips BTW. Cycling does have risks and ultimately they cannot all be eliminated eg road surfaces, other users , and rider error.

I also mountaineer which is also risky. However as many hazards as possible are eliminated eg karabiners which dont pop open under certain stress. They could do 40 years ago and karabiners were re-designed. Further if you use an ice axe you can stab yourself as I once did:) Cut in leg.

Unless a bike has TO out of a special need eg perhaps for racing of some kind, it is negligence of manufacturers to produce bike with TO

The madness is irresponsible manufacturers, who sadly will cause a death or two if they haven't already.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12536
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby 531colin » 14 Jul 2011, 7:45am

Edwards wrote:Colin we have a Mercian with proportionally sized wheels and neither of us ride it. You are correct getting no overlap with 700c wheels is a challenge.
When you consider all the cycling people who purchase the smaller frames there should be a reasonable market if the problem/feature can be solved. That is with the correct advertising.
Yes the Thorn would not have overlap without mudguards, however my one with steel forks and mudguards does. The smiley face reflective sticker on the front mudflap looks like he has had his teeth kicked out. Not exactly a lot of overlap to cause a big problem.


You don't say why the Mercian doesn't get ridden?
I have a bike which doesn't get ridden because I "don't like the way it rides"....I suspect thats the same with your Mercian....but can you get it a bit more specific than that?
Thorn and me have got to about the same top tube length (531/537mm, after adjustment for different seat tube angles) with 700c wheels without overlap (for my numbers it would be 25mm tyres, 165mm cranks, 100mm of shoe in front of pedal spindle, steel forks and old-fashioned geometry)...Is that short enough? There is an immediate commercial problem...(British made) steel forks are dearer than (Far Eastern) carbon forks, so small bikes would be more expensive.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12536
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby 531colin » 14 Jul 2011, 8:00am

patricktaylor wrote:...........................As for toe overlap, it's a matter of degree.............


I have been hoping somebody would say that.
Bumping the 'guard occasionally is not such a big deal, although I'm still working on getting used to it.
Some of us, at least, really object to the situation where interference between our foot and the wheel or mudguard effectively robs us of the ability to turn the wheel as we would like........because if that situation continues for more than a yard or two, we are going to come off!.....Others of us are sufficiently cool in a crisis to simply move either pedal or wheel out of the way......at my age I won't be working on that!

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12536
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby 531colin » 14 Jul 2011, 8:09am

MartinC wrote:.................

What I haven't learnt is why some think that TO is so dangerous.


Martin....see my post above......its because we don't have the reflexes to just move the pedal or wheel out of the way....therefore we are prevented from turning the wheel for a yard or two....therefore we are coming off......and at least in my case, I havn't learned to distinguish between just bumping the guard with my toe, and something nastier happening!
I don't think its unusual for folk to "freeze" when something happens that is unexpected, and might be hazardous?

Michael R
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Jul 2008, 10:40pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Michael R » 14 Jul 2011, 8:32am

531colin wrote:
MartinC wrote:.................

What I haven't learnt is why some think that TO is so dangerous.


Martin....see my post above......its because we don't have the reflexes to just move the pedal or wheel out of the way....therefore we are prevented from turning the wheel for a yard or two....therefore we are coming off......and at least in my case, I havn't learned to distinguish between just bumping the guard with my toe, and something nastier happening!
I don't think its unusual for folk to "freeze" when something happens that is unexpected, and might be hazardous?



With the silly safety device in topeak guards the whole mudguard comes adrift.

Give me safe cycling , going down a hill in N england at 35-40 mph