Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

[[XAP]Bob]

I do however do not feel toe overlap is not the demon it is being made out to be.

Err, pardon?

I do not care about spelling and grammar

I think the above has stepped outside of the realm of reasonable grammatical apathy.

PS - Shouldn't it either read:
I do not care about speling and gramer
OR
I do not care about spelling or grammar

EDIT - corrected my obligatory typo in such a comment

[Michael R]

[ I do however do not feel toe overlap is not the demon it is being made out to be.

I unreservedly agree with you

[Edwards]

Thank you Bob for the insight into my not reading things properly I will edit the post to remove the part that has you confused.

[[XAP]Bob]

Thank you Bob for the insight into my not reading things properly I will edit the post to remove the part that has you confused.

I even think I understand you now (But don't have a strong enough opinion myself having only done 5 miles with TO on a borrowed bike, and it posed less problems than the toe clips...

[Ain't no monkey]

Thank you Bob for the insight into my not reading things properly I will edit the post to remove the part that has you confused.

I even think I understand you now (But don't have a strong enough opinion myself having only done 5 miles with TO on a borrowed bike, and it posed less problems than the toe clips...

'fewer' surely

[reohn2]

TO is a fault that can be lived with but if its possible not have it without compromise then why not?

I'm not clear how TO can be avoided without compromise. Is it really just stupid / lazy designers or the fashion to copy TdF riders?........

It does seem to be a fashion thing (fashion=a master that can never be satisfied) IMO.
It isn't beyond knowledge of man to build bicyles that handle well,to suit people from 5ft to 7ft tall without TO IMO

[531colin]

...................
Personally TO is the last thing I want when "mixing it up in gridlocked traffic" but that's just me. Considered manoeuvres are one thing but I have occasionally had to pull off some stunts in emergencies that simply might not have worked with TO.

+1 to that.....so it isn't just you.

[531colin]

..............
Can you show me a small framed drop handlebar bike with 700c wheels that does not have this feature?..........

I can point you to a couple of small bikes with proportionally sized wheels which don't have overlap, which handle properly and even look all in proportion.

Still, a small frame with 700c wheels is only designing with one hand tied behind my back, I'm up for a challenge.
With front centres at 595mm (same as Spa's 52cm audax) the back of this envelope says I can get the top tube length down to about 537mm., compared to 560mm on the 52cm audax.(measured horizontally)
Thats using an old-fashioned head angle, and old-fashioned forks with a long offset. If you want fashionable (short offset) carbon forks then 560mm is as short as the top tube gets as far as I am concerned.

[LollyKat]

Can you show me a small framed drop handlebar bike with 700c wheels that does not have this feature?

The Thorn Audax Mk 3 smallest size, 495, doesn't have TO even with 170mm cranks, although I think a lot of riders this small might prefer 165mm or 160mm. Illustrated on their brochure (pdf), page 7.

This our smallest size, it has an exceptionally short top tube
but thanks to the clever geometry there are still adequate toe
clearances and the bike handles superbly!

Some of the dimensions are given - the virtual top tube length is 518mm - but I can't find the fork angle.

[531colin]

......................
Some of the dimensions are given - the virtual top tube length is 518mm - but I can't find the fork angle.

Well, this is Thorn....known for their secrecy.

However, they do quote the seat angle as 74deg..
I was working to a seat angle of 72.5deg.....if Thorn used 72.5, then the (horiz) top tube would be about 531mm, not so different to my back of envelope 537mm.
But if 74deg means the rider goes looking for a long layback seatpost, the actual reach from saddle to bars is no different.

"clever geometry"........is what Thorn call it.

edit ............the 495 is one of 2 bikes in this Thorn range which wont work with carbon forks (it says on pg.4)....I'm guessing they have long offset and shallow head angle, like my back of envelope job.

[Freddie]

Rounds bends, I keep the pedals at 6 and 12 o'clock positions. It makes me think about my riding which is a good thing in my opinion.

So, not only can one not pedal round a sharp bend, but because the pedals have to be approaching 6 and 12, there's a good risk of catching a pedal on the floor. Marvelous.

With regards to bike design, I don't think there's been any shortcoming by Charge. The bike has been designed with a tight track-like geometry and this reduces the overall wheelbase - I have to use small panniers to avoid heel contact (with larger ones).

I simply think the OP has bought the wrong bike for his/her needs. This is a bike designed for urban commuting (sharper handling in and out of traffic) not touring.

IMO it's a fad bike, "tight" geometry being the biggest (and longest standing) fad yet. Given the kind of people that'll buy this bike (perhaps as a fashion statement and not being regular cyclists), I think there's even more of a duty for Charge to provide a frame without TO. I would of thought a lack of TO in stop/start traffic is just as important as when on tour, maybe even more so.

[Edwards]

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.

[mark a.]

So, not only can one not pedal round a sharp bend, but because the pedals have to be approaching 6 and 12, there's a good risk of catching a pedal on the floor. Marvelous.

This makes no sense at all. Correct technique for any sharp corner, whether on road or mountain bike, with or without TO, it to have your outside foot down. So the "at risk" pedal is high and won't catch on the floor.

If you do decide to keep pedalling, then the risk of pedal strike is increased. That's got nothing to do with TO.

If you're talking about slow corners (where TO is an issue) then the bike will remain upright and so pedal strike won't happen even if you get your pedal positions wrong.

I don't like to pedal around sharp corners, even though my main bike has a high BB and so the chance of catching the floor is slim. It's out of habit, since I have had pedal strike in the past. Nothing bad has happened, fortunately, but it is a bit of a shock.

[patricktaylor]

... it's a fad bike, "tight" geometry being the biggest (and longest standing) fad yet. Given the kind of people that'll buy this bike (perhaps as a fashion statement and not being regular cyclists) ...

Kind of people? Any 'kind' of cyclist is a good cyclist IMO. This thread - interesting though it is - seems to demonstrate an age profile that looks down on anything non-traditional. There's nothing wrong with being a non-regular cyclist, or even fashion statements if it gets Sunday cyclists out on the road on tight geometry machines or any other machine. Characterising people by the bike they ride is ignorant anyway.

Nobody wants to promote dangerous bicycles (if they are genuinely dangerous) but let's not be too puritanical. I assume we are all in favour of people buying and enjoying any type of bicycle. Besides, if 'tight geometry' is so longstanding then it's not a fad any more.

[reohn2]

Nobody wants to promote dangerous bicycles (if they are genuinely dangerous) but let's not be too puritanical.

Why not if its safer?

I assume we are all in favour of people buying and enjoying any type of bicycle. Besides, if 'tight geometry' is so longstanding then it's not a fad any more.

But if inexperienced people ride a bike and have problems with TO ie; near miss,a fall,etc then they're less likely to continue riding and more likely become a "cycling is dangerous" scare mongerer which is another negative point against TO.
As I've said up thread if its possible to make a bike without TO without compromise then why not if its safer?
And as Colin said above it seems its only them with bikes with TO who seem to be defending it!