Cycling UK Forum

Mick F wrote:... It was Patrick and me comparing wheelbase and BB to front axle etc. He has a bit of TO, and me none, yet his dimensions are similar to mine. I seem to remember that his feet are smaller too. ...

My toe overlaps the mudguard, not the wheel, and it's bigger to accommodate the bigger tyre than yours (mine are 32c - 37c). Also have 175mm cranks. I suppose that accounts for it. Plus the fact that I don't use SPDs and my feet might be placed further forward.

531colin wrote:

snibgo wrote:.................................. But another poster, somewhere upthread, finds that distance decreases.

My tiny brain tripped over that at the time.
I'm afraid I need a bit of convincing that its actually possible,

Ditto.

patricktaylor wrote:My bike's geometry (56 frame). The tyres are 37c so the mudguard is bigger. Also I use flat pedals and wear running shoes so maybe my feet are further forward. The main issue, though, seems to be whether - to consumers - toe overlap is a design defect in principle (I don't happen to think it is).

Patrick....I think you have linked to the 2011 geometry.
2010 was different ? http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50673&hilit=+ridgeback+voyage

This is my wife's bike (54 frame and mine is 56) but there's the sort of TO I have on mine. My feet move about a lot.

531colin wrote:... Patrick....I think you have linked to the 2011 geometry.
2010 was different ? http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=50673&hilit=+ridgeback+voyage

Gosh! I'm surprised at that. My Panorama is actually 2008 model. I'd never have thought they would change the frame. Unfortunately I don't have the diagram for 2008 to compare.

I have only the pic.

Yes, that thread is a corker! Of course the mixer has ebb so there is a little scope to reduce toe overlap by adjusting the ebb to the rear. However the tap does not have this option as it has normal bottom bracket and slot dropouts...

I was able to give a Charge Tap a test ride (about 3 miles including a 7% hill) - I am 1.77m and the frame was a Medium, I also was wearing size 44 Shimano MTB SPD on the flat pedals they come with (not exactly ballet pumps) - very nice bike in terms of steering, sportiness and design - I did not have a toe overlap problem at all, and expect with spd pedals clearance would improve. The gears were very smooth. Hope this does not resurrect the thread, but encourages test rides as the bike fit might be better than indicated in the thread for some people.

dbascent1986 wrote:I was able to give a Charge Tap a test ride (about 3 miles including a 7% hill) - I am 1.77m and the frame was a Medium, I also was wearing size 44 Shimano MTB SPD on the flat pedals they come with (not exactly ballet pumps) - very nice bike in terms of steering, sportiness and design - I did not have a toe overlap problem at all, and expect with spd pedals clearance would improve. The gears were very smooth. Hope this does not resurrect the thread, but encourages test rides as the bike fit might be better than indicated in the thread for some people.

Tap thread....http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=71773&p=621295&hilit=+charge+tap#p621295

Charge Tap Geometry...... http://chargebikes.com/products/tap/

Charge Mixer Geometry..... http://chargebikes.com/products/mixer/

From the limited information they give us, the frames could be very much the same.....or very different. Might also have changed since summer 2011.
OPs have size 5 and 7 feet, so hardly large!

EDIT......I can't access the geometry I originally linked in Summer 2011, its gone....but the head angles at least have changed, in Summer 2011, I was quoting 70 to 73 deg, now they are 70 or 71 deg. so the frames have changed.....probably for the better, in terms of toe overlap.