Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

[CJ]

My thoughts on the matter are that it is irresponsible to offer bicycles for general sale, that have toe overlap: i.e. that the designer might reasonably expect to exhibit this trait bearing in mind the size of rider the bike is intended for and the scope for fitting taller tyres and mudguards to it.

I would nevertheless defend the right of those who know about toe overlap and know they do not mind it, to order a bike to be made like that, if they so wish.

At the very least, toe overlap shoud be a matter of informed consent. Anyone selling a bike that is liable to this trait, should be obliged to point out its dangers to the customer in advance of the sale and the customer should have to sign a waiver to the effect that they are aware that the steering of this bike may be subject to interference from their own feet when starting off, going slowly uphill and executing sharp turns.

What we have at present is a fudge. Bikes are supposed to conform with a set of BS-European standards at the point of sale and these standards have certain requirements about uninterrupted steering 60° either way and toe clearance. This enables the trade to pretend that everything is taken care of, but they've written those clauses so as to provide more wriggle room for themselves than for the unfortunate rider's toes!

First off, pedals with foot retention devices are completely excused from the toe clearance requirement. The reason for that is when this was first written the only retention devices were toeclips, and they were caught by the free movement of steering clause. By the time the European standards were being drafted we also had clipless retention devices on pedals, but it suited the manufacturers to turn a blind eye. They claimed such pedals were used only by professionals and cycles for professional use are excluded from the scope of these standards.

But even if the pedals on a road bike did have to comply with this clause, the required amount of clearance is ludicrously small: only 90mm forward from the mid point of the pedal. Go put a ruler on the bottom of your cycling shoes. Tell us how far it it is from the centre of the cleat (the bolt centres on an SPD type) to the tip of the shoe toe, measured horizontally to the cleat (since people tend to have their horizontal when they're at that part of the pedal stroke. A carpenter's square would be handy, but we don't need to be all that precise, since the fronts of your racing shoes won't be anywhere near that short - not unless your feet are UK size 6 or smaller!

Ninety mm is the figure in the standard for road racing bikes. I guess when we're not racing we wear chunkier shoes. Whatever: the standard for city/trekking bikes (anything that isn't either a racing or mountain-bike) demands a not particularly generous 100mm. Checking out my collection of size 7s (I have small feet for a man of average height) I find that only the thin-toed racing styles fall within that, all the touring and mountain shoes are a bit longer (the Lake sandals that also fit size 8 and have a bulky toe guard are waaaay longer).

I think they should either strenghten up that requirement and put some realistic numbers in it, or else quit pretending, admit that some people are going to find racing bikes a teeny bit dangerous in that regard and strike it out. As for the main bike standard, so-called city/trekking, I think a strengthened requirement is the only way to go.

[snibgo]

Very informative, CJ, as ever. Informed consent is certainly the way to go.

I dusted off my tape measure. My size 11 feet need at least 110mm clearance (pedal axle to tyre or mudguard). My usual bike (Raleigh tourer with mudguard) gives 89mm. My Raleigh racer (without mudguards) gives 100mm. My cheap Chinese folder gives a very generous 200mm, even with mudguards.

The choice of steed for my upcoming tour is obvious.

[scottg]

Thanks for all replies and comments so far. Seems some of you aren't that bothered by the overlap and some, like us, are. Would be interested if anyone has any comments regarding our thoughts on changing the forks for some with a bit of a curve/rake.

Instead of changing forks, change wheel size, that is one of the advantages of disc brakes.
Have the hubs rebuilt into 26in, 559mm wheels.

Notice that Charge does not give the fork offset, they're probably using a one size fits all fork,
but they slacken the head angle to reduce TCO.
What size is your bike ?

[Vorpal]

As a woman with long legs and short body, I have trouble finding a bike that fits me and doesn't have toe overlap.

Blame designers (or whomever you like), but the only way around it for me, is probably to have one built for me. As I can't currently afford that, I live with it. As others have noted, one can get used to it.

[Michael R]

My offending steed was a Cube hybrid, very well-equiped and all other models had suspension which is a no-no to me.

I ended up with a Felt QX95 with 30 speed SLX, suits me well and just done a ride of bnearly 60 on it.

I found the toe overlap downright dangerous and consider that bike shops should not sell such bikes , without full explanation

[thirdcrank]

... As others have noted, one can get used to it.

In my own case, I'd been cycling 40+ years before I even realised it existed and horror of horrors, that I'd got it, so it was never a question of consciously getting used to it. I'm by nature a worrrier about this type of thing and so I'd now try to avoid it. Given some of the measurements quoted above, there must be a lot more of it about than most people realise. (I write as somebody with legs in the Ernie Wise model, and size 8 feet. )

[kazmark]

Thanks again everyone - a few responses to your replies:
To Colin - Thanks for the technical info - if we go down the changing of fork routes I will take your info to the bike shop.
To Thirdcrank & CJ - We quite agree the bike shop should have informed us about this. We have never come across it before in all our years of riding, although from the discussions on here it seems quite common. If we had known about it we wouldn't have bought the bikes even though they ticked all the other boxes we were looking for.
To Scottg - Thanks for the suggestion but we wanted 700 wheels
To Vorpal - I am also a woman with long legs and short body, but as mentioned previously have never come across TO before. Over the last 20 years I have had a Dawes Galaxy, a Trek mountain bike and a Vitus racing bike, none of which had this problem and my partner, Mark has had Galaxy, Giant Road bike, Giant Mountain bike, Dawes Road Bike and more and again never experienced this before.

Final point - in case anyone was wondering, we don't have big feet - I am size 5 and Mark is 7!

[thirdcrank]

I suspect a lot of this on the bikes I grew up with, which were all second-hand and so from even longer ago, was caused by the obsession with short wheelbases at a time when a lot of club riders used the same bike for everything. USWB - ultra short wheelbase was a common item in bike ads.

[reohn2]

Final point - in case anyone was wondering, we don't have big feet - I am size 5 and Mark is 7!

Good grief those are what I'd term as smaller than average shoe sizes,if you are experiencing TO heaven help anyone with my 46 (47 in winter to allow for thicker socks) shoe size.
Could I ask again (maybe you missed it before) how much TO are you getting?

[531colin]

As a woman with long legs and short body, I have trouble finding a bike that fits me and doesn't have toe overlap.

Blame designers (or whomever you like), but the only way around it for me, is probably to have one built for me....................

............
To Vorpal - I am also a woman with long legs and short body, but as mentioned previously have never come across TO before. Over the last 20 years I have had a Dawes Galaxy, a Trek mountain bike and a Vitus racing bike, none of which had this problem and my partner, Mark has had Galaxy, Giant Road bike, Giant Mountain bike, Dawes Road Bike and more and again never experienced this before...............

I think bikes can be designed without toe overlap to fit the huge majority of riders.
Money where my mouth is, here are my designs for Spa's bikes...all the numbers, no smoke, no mirrors. All off Spa's website.....

TOURER



AUDAX

I give up....its here http://www.spacycles.co.uk/smsimg/uploads/audaxgeometry.jpg


If you were at the CTC rally in York, you may have seen the 48cm tourer prototype, with 26" wheels and no overlap.

If you come to the shop, you can ride the test bikes....bring your shoes and pedals.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Magazine/201107062.pdf...http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Magazine/201103054.pdf
Oh, and....http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=52797&start=45

[snibgo]

... and I'd be interested in the shortest distance between a pedal axle and front mudguard.

EDIT: cross-posted with 531colin; I was addressing kazmark, adding to reohn2's curiosity about how much TO kazmark experiences.

[531colin]

... and I'd be interested in the shortest distance between a pedal axle and front mudguard.

EDIT: cross-posted with 531colin; I was addressing kazmark, adding to reohn2's curiosity about how much TO kazmark experiences.

The usual measure is "front centres" ... "I" on the one diagram I managed to get up!

[snibgo]

Yes, thanks, Colin.

My wheel radius (with 28mm tyres, ignoring mudguard) is 350mm, and my crank is 175mm, total 525mm. The maximum Spa dimension I is 620mm, leaving 95mm from pedal axle to tyre.

So I would have toe overlap on the Spa tourer, even without mudguards.

(Just as a check, I measure my Raleigh tourer I dimension with a wobbly tape measure as 620mm.)

EDIT: The essential difference between my bike and Spa's is the wheels: 700C or 26". In much the same way as my Chinese holder has tiny wheels, so masses of room for toes.

[thirdcrank]

... The usual measure is "front centres" ...

Which immediately draws attention (or mine, at least) to crank length. Since every mm makes a difference, edging up to 175mm cranks as the norm can't help.

[531colin]

Yes, thanks, Colin.

My wheel radius (with 28mm tyres, ignoring mudguard) is 350mm, and my crank is 175mm, total 525mm. The maximum Spa dimension I is 620mm, leaving 95mm from pedal axle to tyre.

So I would have toe overlap on the Spa tourer, even without mudguards.

(Just as a check, I measure my Raleigh tourer I dimension with a wobbly tape measure as 620mm.)

EDIT: The essential difference between my bike and Spa's is the wheels: 700C or 26". In much the same way as my Chinese holder has tiny wheels, so masses of room for toes.

No. Audax max. front centres is 620, tourer is 656 max.

700x28 Durano is about 680mm diameter, 340mm radius, which is about the biggest tyre which will fit our Audax bike, with max, 620mm front centres.

The tourer has 656mm max. front centres, suitable for 700x32 Marathon, measuring 695mm diameter, say 348mm radius.(or bigger tyres)

I measured Marathon cross 700x38 as 705mm diameter, theres room for them on the roughstuff prototype, also seen at York.

The only bike with 26" wheels is the tiny 48cm tourer.

You might just get toe overlap fitting 175mm cranks to the smallest bikes in the ranges, but set up normally (short cranks for short riders) you won't get overlap unless you pedal with your instep.

here http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Magazine/201103054.pdf there is a photo in the CTC magazine showing fresh air between Dan Joyce's toe and the front 'guard of the 54cm Audax...admittedly with 165mm cranks when 170mm should have been fitted! But theres more than 5mm gap. Front centres 600mm on 54 audax.

Come try the bikes! There is no overlap if you wear cycling shoes and have the pedal spindle under the ball of your foot.

EDIT please don't pay too much attention to this........the penny finally dropped this morning, see my post of 7th july !