Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

For discussions about bikes and equipment.
Michael R
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Jul 2008, 10:40pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Michael R » 13 Jul 2011, 9:24am

Despite being an experienced cyclist I have violently opposed to TO having had a bike with TO for two days which was long enough.

It is not much better than electrical appliances having exposed bare wires.

Give me the intelligently-designed bikes I have had for several decades which I can turn , while pedalling , on a sixpence and power up a steep bend .

Perhaps we need a Ralph Nader for cycles - unsafe at any speed

User avatar
patricktaylor
Posts: 2299
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 11:20am
Location: Winter Hill
Contact:

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby patricktaylor » 13 Jul 2011, 9:26am

reohn2 wrote:
patricktaylor wrote:Nobody wants to promote dangerous bicycles (if they are genuinely dangerous) but let's not be too puritanical.

Why not if its safer? ...

Safety is relative. All bicycles are safe, or dangerous, depending on point of view. I was just commenting on how the 'old guard' (I'm at that age too) tend to be snooty about new devices that don't conform with the old norms. It's natural. The younger generation is naturally more fashion conscious and I see nothing wrong with bicycle fashions, even if some bikes are more safe than others. The cycling retail industry does a great job in promoting cycling IMO. I'd hate to see bikes for sale with 'health and safety' labels stuck on - even ones with tight geometry.

As for toe overlap, it's a matter of degree. A slight bit of overlap and you catch the mudguard when maneuvering occasionally doesn't seem such a big deal - it hardly compares with bare electrical wires. If there is so much that you get your foot caught between the wheel and downtube, I accept there might be a problem. But even then, it's horses for courses.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17151
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby [XAP]Bob » 13 Jul 2011, 11:01am

Ain't no monkey wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:
Edwards wrote: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.


:? :? :? :? :? :lol: :lol: 8)

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 :wink:


Indeed. Another demonstration of Muprhy's law(also known as Keane's law)
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

MartinC
Posts: 1837
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby MartinC » 13 Jul 2011, 12:45pm

This thread has been interesting but I haven't learn't much new.

I've learned that riding round a sharp bend up a steep incline clipped into a bike with TO isn't possible. Which is useful - if I had to do this more than occasionally I'd make sure the bike I did it on didn't have TO. But it's not happened yet.

What I haven't learnt is why some think that TO is so dangerous.

MockCyclist
Posts: 160
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 7:18pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby MockCyclist » 13 Jul 2011, 1:11pm

Mrs Mock, who is as much a cyclist as I am an astronaut, says her shopper bike with toe overlap is dangerous. When I asked, is it really a problem, she said, yes, you don't always remember and trying to turn a corner and hitting the wheel is a recipe for falling off. She says she's done it twice, not a complete off as in sprawled out on the tarmac but a very awkward moment at the turn where she's had to put a foot down quick and recover.

MartinC
Posts: 1837
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby MartinC » 13 Jul 2011, 1:44pm

MockCyclist, at the risk of being confrontational the gist of what you're saying is that because your wife, who isn't a skilled cyclist, has had to put her foot down suddenly on 2 occasions then TO is dangerous. I can easily see that this is disconcerting but not dangerous.

Anything that interferes with your front wheel can cause an off, but TO can only occur at low speeds so it's not going to cause a horror crash even if you're not able to deal with. Many things can cause a pratfall - forgetting that you're clipped in, missing a pedal on set off, getting your trousers caught on the point of the saddle as you set off, getting your laces caught around the pedal spindle, dropping your bottle into the wheel, forgetting to unlock your bike, etc. etc. I'll even admit to having done some, but not all, of these. But I'm not going to suggest that any of these - clipless pedals, trousers, laces, bottles, locks - should be banned.

Michael R
Posts: 768
Joined: 9 Jul 2008, 10:40pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Michael R » 13 Jul 2011, 1:52pm

Martin

Just read the posts of rejohn, cj and 531 colin and myself and ask yourself if we are all numptie cyclists with no knowledge of cycling whether technical matters or actual cycling. Do you think 531colin and cj are ignorant of the technicalites of making a bike?

MartinC
Posts: 1837
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby MartinC » 13 Jul 2011, 2:25pm

Michael R wrote:Martin

Just read the posts of rejohn, cj and 531 colin and myself and ask yourself if we are all numptie cyclists with no knowledge of cycling whether technical matters or actual cycling. Do you think 531colin and cj are ignorant of the technicalites of making a bike?


Michael, that's a very aggressive post. For the record I don't think anyone here is a "numptie cyclist". Colin and CJ have an immense amount of technical knowledge which they share politely - I have the greatest respect for them and almost everyone else here.

I've seen many posts here which state a dislike of TO. I don't think anyone needs to justify their dislike - it seems perfectly natural to me. What I haven't seen is a explanation of why it's more dangerous than many other features of bicycle design. There seems to be an implicit assumption that it is. If you've got a reasoned expanation as to why it is then that would be a useful input to the thread.

User avatar
ersakus
Posts: 735
Joined: 16 Jul 2008, 5:41pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby ersakus » 13 Jul 2011, 3:10pm

Freddie wrote:
Edwards wrote:Before it is said some of us do not want 26" wheel bikes.

This is another part of the problem. Why would anyone on the smaller sizes want 622/700c wheels (if only to ape racers), they are too big for frames under about 56cm and not only do you get toe overlap, but compromised (severely so, in the smallest sizes) geometry.

I do think that smaller frames should use one of the 650 standards (pick one, maybe preference for the smallest diameter and make tyres from 23mm through 47mm for them) and that only the smallest need 26"/559's.

There is need for a standard (rather than esoteric) third wheel size.

1+
650B is what I use now with wide tyres and mudguards (after a conversion from 700C -> 650B). There is still some toe overlap but could be worse if I had same 42mm tyre on the same audax frame with guards. I am only 171cm tall and do not like the idea of 26" road bike (have not found many I like any way). if you are 170cm and shorter and try to ride a 700C bike with reasonably wide tyres an guards, and want no toe overlap, good luck!

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby snibgo » 13 Jul 2011, 3:28pm

reohn2 wrote:And as Colin said above it seems its only them with bikes with TO who seem to be defending it!

Well, those of us who often ride bikes with TO are saying we don't find it a problem. Which is obvious, as if we found it a problem we'd get rid of the bikes.

It's a bit like SPDs. I've never used them and won't because I'd probably fall off and break a hip. But I know that many people do use them without major problem. Thus I can't claim that SPDs are dangerous.

Sure, I can understand that people unaccustomed to TO don't like it. But to some of us, it's as easy as riding a bike.

User avatar
ersakus
Posts: 735
Joined: 16 Jul 2008, 5:41pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby ersakus » 13 Jul 2011, 4:01pm

snibgo wrote:
reohn2 wrote:And as Colin said above it seems its only them with bikes with TO who seem to be defending it!

Well, those of us who often ride bikes with TO are saying we don't find it a problem. Which is obvious, as if we found it a problem we'd get rid of the bikes.

It's a bit like SPDs. I've never used them and won't because I'd probably fall off and break a hip. But I know that many people do use them without major problem. Thus I can't claim that SPDs are dangerous.

Sure, I can understand that people unaccustomed to TO don't like it. But to some of us, it's as easy as riding a bike.


I found that TO is more of an issue in slow city traffic where I might need to make sharp turns, and do them when it really matters (in traffic etc). On my long distance tourer I never have a chance to notice TO at 15mph (or average 12mhp)! Two bikes both have the problem but the city bike is the annoyance and I reduced the TO by switching to 650B wheel format. Ideally I really would like to get rid of this problem totally. So yes I am annoyed to say the least. I love my SPDs though! :)

Freddie
Posts: 2329
Joined: 12 Jan 2008, 12:01pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby Freddie » 13 Jul 2011, 4:06pm

mark a. wrote:Freddie wrote:
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.
Indeed, this is correct technique, but a new/inexperienced cyclist might not do this by default (or know to do it at all) and having TO that they may not know about and/or know how to handle + the pedals in the wrong position doesn't make for particularly safe scenario.

I think selling bikes with TO to an inexperienced/workaday cyclist is potentially dangerous. If you are experienced or a specialist, you can choose a bike with TO, but it should be a choice you have to actively make (i.e bikes in LBS with TO should be 1 in 10) and one would hope you gain something in exchange for the disadvantage of TO.

mark a. wrote: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.
You might need to lean on a steep hill with a camber, there are plenty of country roads like this.

patricktaylor wrote: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.
Whether through my wording or the vagaries of the internet, you've missed my point. I'm not denigrating anyone, my point is people that buy these fashionable bikes are more likely to be inexperienced/irregular cyclists than your potential road/touring bike customer. Therefore they are more likely not to know about TO and how it presents more of a hazard to them.

patricktaylor wrote: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.
Well, not really. I'd rather these manufacturers weren't given lassez faire to put out whatever whim and fancy they choose, the majority of bikes should be safe for all and specialist items (those with TO for one reason or another) should be sold to specialists.

If we follow the train of thought that TO is acceptable to it's conclusion, then we might aswell remove the front wheel and start unicycling. Unicycling can be learnt, much like avoiding TO can be learnt. Personally I think cycling should be accessable to all and any unneccesary barriers need to be removed.

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3000
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby CJ » 13 Jul 2011, 4:57pm

MartinC wrote:I've seen many posts here which state a dislike of TO. I don't think anyone needs to justify their dislike - it seems perfectly natural to me. What I haven't seen is a explanation of why it's more dangerous than many other features of bicycle design. There seems to be an implicit assumption that it is. If you've got a reasoned expanation as to why it is then that would be a useful input to the thread.

It is not necessary to show that TO is more dangerous than other features of bicycle design, only that it is dangerous enough to not want to foist it upon an unsuspecting member of the public. Bicycle manufacturers seem to have already accepted that TO is dangerous enough for that, since the European Standards they wrote already contain clauses that have the express purpose of ensuring that the bicycle does not exhibit this fault. HOWEVER: they've written those clauses negligently, assuming unrealistically small shoe sizes and granting arbitrary exemptions, so that most customers are still liable to end up with TO.

The main thing I object to is the dishonesty of this fudge. If manufacturers want to say TO does not matter they should strike those clauses out of the standard and say: "We're awfully sorry folks, but we don't know how to design bikes that do not do this so you'll just have to get used to it!"

But I don't buy that argument. I've ridden enough bikes in the company with enough other people to satisfy myself that TO is not necessary for any rider to have a nice handling bike. I'll grant you that many nice handling bikes have TO, but that does not make it a necessary condition of nice handling.

Given that TO does present a small but significant danger, at least to those who don't already know about it (who are, after all, the people that Standards seek to protect) the burden of proof rests with those who would have us believe that one can't have a nice handling bike without it.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

reohn2
Posts: 37483
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby reohn2 » 13 Jul 2011, 5:54pm

patricktaylor wrote:Safety is relative.

Yes but thats not what I meant we are specificly discussing toe overlap and it relation to the safety of a bicycle,which matters, if not for all,as some can live with it,I suspect a significant majority of people.
In short,it matters safetywise,otherwise the OP wouldn't have posted the thread.

All bicycles are safe, or dangerous, depending on point of view.

but thats not whats being discussed,whats being discussed is if a bicycle is safer without TO which it clearly is,however small the percentage nothing is lost and everything is gained by not having TO.

I was just commenting on how the 'old guard' (I'm at that age too) tend to be snooty about new devices that don't conform with the old norms. It's natural. The younger generation is naturally more fashion conscious and I see nothing wrong with bicycle fashions, even if some bikes are more safe than others.

The vast majority is told what to think,if you don't believe that look at the present fashion for bright red hair :shock: yes they have the freedom to do that but who told me it was cool?
If some bikes are not upto a reasonable safety standard then they shouldn't be sold IMO, TO is part of that safety criteria unless it is made clear that this racing bike or that "tight geometry" :? town bike has certain,shall we say vices? then there will be accidents waiting to happen
The cycling retail industry does a great job in promoting cycling IMO. I'd hate to see bikes for sale with 'health and safety' labels stuck on - even ones with tight geometry

I'd agree but what else can be done to warn people about certain issues.ie; buy an extension ladder and theres a string of safety information printed on it, some of it seemingly sensible and common sense precautions and some not so obvious, but people still fall off them,this doesn't mean manufacturers should stop telling people of the dangers.

As for toe overlap, it's a matter of degree. A slight bit of overlap and you catch the mudguard when maneuvering occasionally doesn't seem such a big deal

But where do you draw the line? no TO IMO is safer than TO no matter how small,though I will agree if someone is aware of TO then its upto them to decide if its safe or not, for them the problems begin when people find out whilst riding their new bike who'd never even heard of TO
- it hardly compares with bare electrical wires.

I agree.
If there is so much that you get your foot caught between the wheel and downtube, I accept there might be a problem. But even then, it's horses for courses.

I completely disagree because you're level of riding skills may be high enough to cope but that doesn't mean everyone else's is,and as anyone can walk into a shop and buy a bike then ride off on it skill levels will differ enormously, its the unsuspecting that need protection either by clear concise warning or no TO,which is the better of the two?
PS, since when did fashion care for anyones's safety,hair dye,sunbeds,flamable floaty dresses,ridiculously high heels*,toe overlap,etc,etc.

* I have three daughters and six grandaughters three of whom are 19and twins of 18.I've seen enough of fashion to realise that its who can be the most ridiculous.
Last edited by reohn2 on 13 Jul 2011, 6:05pm, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

MartinC
Posts: 1837
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

Re: Toe Overlap on Charge Mixer

Postby MartinC » 13 Jul 2011, 6:04pm

Chris, Thanks for that, I don't there's actually a great difference in our views.

The rationale of the need for standards is a bit of a derived one to me - if the manufacturers have already tried it then it must be required. TO (imo) is a small and incremental danger in cycling along with many other things. I'd rather see some more transparent assessment of the increase in risk. Nevertheless, all other things being equal then we're better off without.

I think the "all other things being equal" bit can be where there's much technical discussion and I don't know enough to have a valid opinion on this. I do know what I like but I wouldn't like to say that there's no other way to achieve it. I'd certainly agree with you that if there are standards they should be sensible and consistent.

All the knockabout discussion on the forum is fine - you only need to raise the "one pannier" argument to generate the same level of furore. None of it makes any difference to anything - the people who need to know more about TO aren't involved.

I find the regulation approach slightly concerning though. I think I'd group my concerns as:
- Unintended consequences. If you end going to the bike shop to be sold a bike that's too big 'cos it's too expensive for the manufacturers to bother with small sizes any more or because it's easier just to make the top tube 20mm longer are we any better off?
- Creep. If there's a standards body that needs to justify it's existence then what's next. Convincing the public that clipless pedals increase the risk in cycling is a given - most non-cycllists are horrified at their existence anyway. They also exacerbate the problem of TO. How do we prevent standards being extended to include things that we regard as useful and safe but the general public don't?
- How effective will they be? Most bike riders use flat pedals. Whether there's TO or not depends on where on the pedal they decide to put their feet even if we all know the ideal placement.