Cycling UK Forum

Can anyone explain why Toe Overlap was not a problem 40-50 years ago.

In the last 25yrs I have used a Falcon Cotswold , Dawes Super Galxy, Dawes Discover , Karakum and a Felt QX95 and only had a problem (serious) with a Cube which I returned forthwith. I considered the bike to be highly dangerous and should not be on the market.

My Thorn Audax Mk3 is very lively, handles brilliantly and is great fun to ride, but doesn't have toe overlap even with mudguards. In their brochure Thorn state (highlighting it in red):

Please read and take note of this.
Whilst having significantly more clearance than a “racing”
bicycle, the Audax Mk3 has less clearance than many
traditional touring bikes. Mk3 owners should expect to wear
“proper SPD type shoes”, or “traditional cycling shoes, with
steel toe clips and straps”. Either type must be set to allow
clearance, when riding a Mk3. Failure to cycle with appropriate
footware, could lead to contact between the rider’s shoe and
mudguard...which could precipitate the loss of control.

I also use toeclips rather than SPD for much the same reason as swansonj - I have a slightly dodgy knee, and have no desire to increase my chances of falling off. The Thorn came with rather nice platform pedals which support but don't catch the shoe, so I can do the straps up tight yet still get my foot out.

My Thorn Audax Mk3 (Medium/large size in their on line brochure,with a 570mm top tube) has ample clearances with 175mm cranks,size 46 shoes,Spd pedals,28mm Panaracer pasela tyres and m/guards clearances set at 10mm.
My XL size Aeron TR(585mm TT) is the same, and my Cannondale T800 (large size 570mm TT) has even more with 35mm tyres and M/Guards
They all have very good handling charecteristics, the C/dale and Aeron are as stiff as the preverbial crutch, the Thorn a little less so but nothing that you'd notice.

Michael R wrote:Can anyone explain why Toe Overlap was not a problem 40-50 years ago. ..................

Yes. In one word......FASHION.
In the post war years, you could only afford one bike. That bike had to do everything....clubruns, the annual tour, put your "best" wheels in for the club time trial.
A clubman's lightweight of the fifties was much closer to to-days tourer than to to-days race bike. It had long offset forks, and a shallow head angle. These 2 characteristics combine to put the front wheel a long way in front of the headset.....so, as if by magic, you get toe clearance and a short top tube.
As we got more affluent, bikes for sale to the general public started to copy the emerging designs of professional race bikes. ....these were...guess what?....the opposite!
Steep head angle, short fork offset, both putting the front wheel closer to the headset. So if you want a short top tube, bingo! it comes with free toe overlap.

531colin wrote:

Michael R wrote:Can anyone explain why Toe Overlap was not a problem 40-50 years ago. ..................

Yes. In one word......FASHION.
In the post war years, you could only afford one bike. That bike had to do everything....clubruns, the annual tour, put your "best" wheels in for the club time trial.
A clubman's lightweight of the fifties was much closer to to-days tourer than to to-days race bike. It had long offset forks, and a shallow head angle.[snip]

And wheels were smaller 26x1 1/4, 597mm diameter, on "club bikes"

scottg wrote:........................

And wheels were smaller 26x1 1/4, 597mm diameter, on "club bikes"

Good point, but I'm not sure when 27inch came in....in the early sixties I was riding 27" wheels in (very) secondhand bikes, they must have been club bikes built in the fifties?
.......Somebody will tell us!

So do any racing bikes *not* have toe overlap?

Clearly all UCI bikes will have overlap if you add 30cm cranks and clown shoes, but assuming cleats, sane shoes (12 or less?)....

Colin - going back to your reply to me on Tuesday about the forks, which is what we think is going to be the best way to resolve this can I clarify: I have a medium frame (so 71 deg angle) Mark has a Large frame (so 73 deg angle) so if we had forks with a 54mm rake do you think it would ride more like a hybrid/tourer (which is what we want) and would we quite easily be able to get some forks of that type to fit in something like a 531 steel? (Any ideas on makes and approx cost)

kazmark wrote:Colin - going back to your reply to me on Tuesday about the forks, which is what we think is going to be the best way to resolve this can I clarify: I have a medium frame (so 71 deg angle) Mark has a Large frame (so 73 deg angle) so if we had forks with a 54mm rake do you think it would ride more like a hybrid/tourer (which is what we want) and would we quite easily be able to get some forks of that type to fit in something like a 531 steel? (Any ideas on makes and approx cost)

71 deg wants 54 or 57mm offset to handle like a tourer....don't forget fork length (axle to crown race seat) needs to match up to the existing to retain the 71 deg.
2011 Dawes tourer forks are about this offset, but you would need to check length. (are yours inch and eighth threadless?)

73 deg head is a full-on racing setup, paired with the usual 45mm offset of racing forks. If you put 54mm offset on that, the steering is going to get very lively indeed.
A (much) longer fork will give a slacker head angle....you are looking for 2deg slacker for 54mm offset, or 1deg slacker for 45mm offset.. Unfortunately, we don't have the wheelbase dimension, if you have that, then you are jacking the front of the bike up in an arc, the radius is the wheelbase, if wheelbase is known, its geometry to calculate how much to raise the front for 1or 2 degrees....the figure of 10mm longer for 0.5deg is in my mind, but it wants checking.

Are you sure this is the best way to resolve it?

Thanks Colin. It's all getting a bit technical but we may look into it as don't know what else to do unless we do just put up with it, but it has spoilt what is otherwise a nice bike. Wish we'd test ridden for longer but because we'd never come across it before didn't know to look for it and it just didn't show up in a couple of scoots around a large empty carpark. Like CJ and a couple of others have said - maybe bike shops should be liable to point TO out.

Kazmark

If you find that bike dangerous then you should return it for a refund. Also surely Trading Standards would be interested?

The bike I got was a Cube SL Cross Pro 2011, complete with mudguard and rack eyes, so was clearly designed for guards.

After that I checked the wheelbases of several bikes and found the Cube much shorter, but then I had 3 Dawes to comare it with - Super G, Discovery 601 (just died with cracked frame) and Karakum and checked websites.

After a couple of sharp turns i.e. u-trns on minor roads I nearly fell off and knocked mudguards out, so I concluded that I was not prepared to ride such a dangerous bike and returned it. Fortunatley the LBS were excellent and on the same day another CTC member returned an idnetical bike.

Basically some bike manufacturers are producing dangerous bikes. End of story

Michael R wrote:... It is simply irresponsible design to make a frame with mudguard eyes with toe overlap.

However many bikes are designed as fashion accessories and not as bicycles

I don't agree. Having read this thread I am amongst those who don't regard a degree of toe overlap as much of an issue. My touring bike is not a fashion accessory and it has toe overlap. The design is a compromise - if it was designed with no overlap it would be more difficult to set up without my foot catching the rear panniers. There is only so much distance between the front and the back and I want a bike that handles properly.

Occasionally my foot smacks the front mudguard but it doesn't take long to get used to avoiding it.

I have never had a problem with rear panniers

patricktaylor wrote:...... and I want a bike that handles properly.

My Mercian has no TO and when I used panniers, my heels didn't hit catch.

My Mercian handles beautifully, (73deg parallel - 1020mm wheelbase - Size 9 shoes) so I don't see why you need to have TO for good handling.

Mick F wrote:

patricktaylor wrote:...... and I want a bike that handles properly.

My Mercian has no TO and when I used panniers, my heels didn't hit catch.

My Mercian handles beautifully, (73deg parallel 1020mm wheelbase) so I don't see why you need to have TO for good handling.

Sorry Mick?
Isn't this the Mercian you can't ride no hands, or am I confused?