Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

[niggle]

Also need tyre sizes and crank lengths for this comparison.

[Mick F]

170mm cranks
23mm tyres, but tyre size is unimportant, because I'm talking of mudguards. I could have had 20mm fitted, or even 25mm.

However, as my frame was designed with "close clearances" my mudguard is closer to the front axle.
Axle to outer edge of mudguard is 355mm.

Again, however, the mudguards are only 15mm away from the tyre (340mm radius) so that may be the difference between TO or No TO, maybe Patrick wouldn't have TO if he had no mudguards on ....... unless he has chunky tyres.

Edit:
Patrick has answered the mudguard question earlier. He almost gets TO without 'guards.

[Mick F]

PS:
Rim edge to front of shoe is 80mm.

That means I would get TO if I had a front tyre on with a height of greater than 80mm.
Does such a tyre exist?
Sounds like a motorbike tyre!

I'm a bit puzzled by all this.

[patricktaylor]

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).

[snibgo]

BB to front axle is 610mm.

Same here LOL

Mine is 620mm, but I have size 11 feet (Euro 45). I'm guessing that Mick has smaller feet.

(Forget the century; we can spend all day comparing bikes and feet.)

[niggle]

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).

Looks like you have 175mm cranks as well, if the Shimano M431 MTB type chainset listed is what you have.

[Edwards]

BB to front axle is 610mm.

Same here LOL

Mine is 620mm, but I have size 11 feet (Euro 45). I'm guessing that Mick has smaller feet.

(Forget the century; we can spend all day comparing bikes and feet.)

OK so who has the biggest feet mine are size 71/2 or small42.

The more important one is whose smell the most?

[Mick F]

Size 9.

Patrick, thanks for that link. What does "BB Drop" mean? Yours is 71mm.
If it means the difference in height between wheel axles and BB, mine is 65mm ie 65mm below the wheel axles.
That therefore means your BB is lower than mine.

...... and if you have 175mm cranks, it may go some way to explaining things.

..... also, be careful on cornering with your crank down.

[drossall]

There are practical issues. Many of the people who most need the advice may tend to ride with their insteps instead of with the balls of their feet, thus adding to the chances of overlap.

Unless you use toe-clips or clip-less pedals, is it really possible to define whether overlap exists?

[Michael R]

In the event of a cyclist having an accident caused by toe overlap , who would be liable in law?

Could the cyclist sue the bike shop or manufacturer and would the CTC back him/her?

I regard both as criminally negligent unless they explain the issue of toe overlap

[patricktaylor]

... Looks like you have 175mm cranks as well, if the Shimano M431 MTB type chainset listed is what you have.

Well spotted! 175mm they are. That didn't occur to me.

(and my shoes are size eight)

... I regard both as criminally negligent unless they explain the issue of toe overlap

A bit strong that Michael.

[Michael R]

... I regard both as criminally negligent unless they explain the issue of toe overlap

A bit strong that Michael.[/quote]

Not at all. TO is utterly lethal UNLESS you are totally aware of it. No other product would be sold if it were that dangerous.

For CJ , if when I was riding that lethal Cube and had injured myself would the CTC provide free legal assistance?

[thirdcrank]

Nothing criminal about the negligence, in the legal sense, but I think it would be a matter for somebody who was injured as a result of this to make a personal injury claim for compensation. I suspect it would involve instructing a solicitor who specialised in actions over faulty products rather than road accidents. RJW (the firm providing the CTC legal assistance scheme) is such a big company they probably have just the person within their ranks. Somebody of CJ's standing would probably make an excellent expert witness.

As I understand it, for a claim to succeed, somebody with a 'duty of care' must be identified, then it must be established that they neglected to carry out that duty. I suspect that compliance, or otherwise with the regulations quoted by CJ would be crucial. As for anything being legally criminal - ie possibly leading to prosecution and conviction - then I think that's a matter for the local trading standards people, if the regulations create offences. (The same people who prosecute greengrocers for selling vegetable's ( ) in lbs and ozs.)

One thing that baffles me is that many of the big name bike companies have some American involvement. Bearing in mind the measures taken to avoid litigation over there - the silly fittings on front fork ends being a good example - they don't seem too bothered about this issue.

[Vorpal]

In the states, it often takes a lawsuit (or threatened lawsuit) before companies correct something that is common practice, but problematic like this. I think the preceding discussion on this thread is evidence that while there seems to be a general concensus that TO is better avoided, not everyone considers it dangerous. I'm certain that anyone (or company) subject to any sort of legal action can find lots of experts to explain why TO isn't really a problem.

Personally, I'd be in favour of improved standards that would at least reduce the likelihood of TO.

TO is utterly lethal UNLESS you are totally aware of it. No other product would be sold if it were that dangerous.

If it were utterly lethal, by now it would have killed lots of cyclists, and companies (or governments and standards organisations) would have addressed the issue. Instead it is common practice, and millions of cyclists are blissfully unaware of the controversy, despite the fact that TO exists for many of the designs on the market. I have some difficulty reconciling 'utterly lethal' with a bad, but common design practice.

[mark a.]

Negligence by the bike company, or incompetence by the rider?

I bet more people have hurt themselves by flying over the handlebars than having toe overlap issues (especially as TO problems tend to be at low speeds), yet I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers being sued for putting strong front brakes on their bike.