Toe overlapped

novetan said:

I went back to the shop and they said its nothing wrong with the sizing.  Do you guys have toe lapped?Â

yes and this is the result of the geometry of the bike, not the size of the bike, as you noticed the only problem is at really low speed, like climbing a steep hill or something like that, at regular speed you won't get into that overlapping problem,

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by vspa [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

as you noticed the only problem is at really low speed, like climbing a steep hill or something like that, at regular speed you won't get into that overlapping problem,

That's my take. Toe overlap not really an issue at anything other than parking lot speeds.

I've had some toe overlap on every single one of my bikes except for one a long time ago that had a very long wheelbase and raked out front end.

"Do you guys have toe lapped?"

Yes. First and only bike in 41 years of cycling. Shorter wheelbase than I've ridden.

Other than getting the toes of my shoe covers dirty in winter while doing slow, sharp turns that require a stab at the pedals to keep moving...no big deal.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

That's my take. Toe overlap not really an issue at anything other than parking lot speeds.

I've had some toe overlap on every single one of my bikes except for one a long time ago that had a very long wheelbase and raked out front end.

+2, With size 12 feet I overlap at least a bit on all my bikes and quite a bit on some bikes with shorter wheel bases. Yeah, you have to pay attention when doing something like a very slow U turn onto a pedestrian trail or other very low speed situations. At normal, even relatively slow riding speeds upwards of say 10 mph you'll never turn the front wheel that far.

It's the biggest nuisance on my cyclocross bike as we actually do hard slow turns in cross races and I do occasionally find myself grinding a cyclcross knobby tire into my big toe for a moment. It's surprising when it happens the first couple of times but if you don't panic it's no big deal and if you're expecting it you learn to ratchet pedal a bit in those situations to avoid having the wrong foot forward when the wheel is turned hard.

It's pretty common for folks with bigger shoe sizes or for folks on very small bikes. Some smaller frames like the women's specific designs alter the front end geometry in part to minimize toe overlap but it tends to slow down the steering response of those bikes and it usually doesn't eliminate toe overlap completely.

-Dave

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Some smaller frames like the women's specific designs alter the front end geometry in part to minimize toe overlap but it tends to slow down the steering response of those bikes and it usually doesn't eliminate toe overlap completely.

There was a builder in the east village of NYC a couple decades ago, Francesco Cuevas, who apparently used to compensate for overlap (or at least that's what I was told) and as a noob I thought it was a pretty neat thing. These days that's the last thing I'd personally want a builder taking into account for a custom job.

"There was a builder in the east village of NYC a couple decades ago, Francesco Cuevas..."

I remember his frames. A few of them made it this far west.

Georgio Ferrari's/Joe Gardin's short frames could be had with a compensated front end. We supplied a 4' 11" tall gal with one and it did not have any overlap. I don't recall what size shoe she wore, but her feet were also short. Pretty certain she used a 165 crank back then.

Yep, I got it too. I've had it to varying degrees since I started using 175 mm cranks around 1976. It's especially annoying on my current bike, a 58 cm Madone.

The only cures are (1) shorter cranks, (2) a bigger frame, (3) longer pedal spindles, (4) smaller feet, or (5) move the cleats forward, way forward. Personally, I believe bikes would handle better in the real world and cause less toe overlap if manufacturers would add a few millimeters to the fork offsets.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by oldbobcat [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG].... Personally, I believe bikes would handle better in the real world and cause less toe overlap if manufacturers would add a few millimeters to the fork offsets.

So you'd like a more responsive bike with slightly reduced trail or are you thinking a bit more fork offset coupled with a slacker head tube angle for similar trail, reduced chance of toe overlap and slightly changed front center? I'm curious because my first race bikes were back in the days of steep and quick Italian crit bikes like my first Sanino and then a Basso and De Rosa I rode once upon a time. They were quick and nimble but required a lot of attention to ride and weren't the best for long days in the saddle. Seems like adding fork offset and thus reducing trail moves us back towards those days.

-Dave

daveryanwyoming said:

So you'd like a more responsive bike with slightly reduced trail or are you thinking a bit more fork offset coupled with a slacker head tube angle for similar trail, reduced chance of toe overlap and slightly changed front center? I'm curious because my first race bikes were back in the days of steep and quick Italian crit bikes like my first Sanino and then a Basso and De Rosa I rode once upon a time. They were quick and nimble but required a lot of attention to ride and weren't the best for long days in the saddle. Seems like adding fork offset and thus reducing trail moves us back towards those days. -Dave

+1. I have toe overlap on my bike and use 175mm cranks. Since I'm aware of the the overlap, it causes zero issues. I know to keep the appropriate foot out of the way when doing über slow turns. To have a toe overlap issue at speed on a bike, you'd have to turn so sharply and quickly as to cause yourself to crash before even making contact with the offending foot. IMHO, dealing with toe overlap is about as challenging as avoiding putting your hand on a hot stove burner.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by daveryanwyoming [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

So you'd like a more responsive bike with slightly reduced trail or are you thinking a bit more fork offset coupled with a slacker head tube angle for similar trail, reduced chance of toe overlap and slightly changed front center? I'm curious because my first race bikes were back in the days of steep and quick Italian crit bikes like my first Sanino and then a Basso and De Rosa I rode once upon a time. They were quick and nimble but required a lot of attention to ride and weren't the best for long days in the saddle. Seems like adding fork offset and thus reducing trail moves us back towards those days.

-Dave

I'm in favor of reduced trail, not to the extent of those Americanized Italian bikes (steep "American" angles with longer Italian offsets), but a little more than the current fashion. Reduced trail reduces handlebar effort at lower speeds, makes the bike more manageable on loose, rough, or wet surfaces, and gives the rider an extra split second to set up for fast downhill cornering.

My old Gios certainly fit your "crit bike" model, except for the low bottom bracket. The light front end took some getting used to, but nothing beat the way it plowed through sand, gravel, and puddles. My current Madone is of the other extreme--point and shoot and not too happy about last-moment changes in line.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by oldbobcat [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

I'm in favor of reduced trail, not to the extent of those Americanized Italian bikes (steep "American" angles with longer Italian offsets), but a little more than the current fashion. Reduced trail reduces handlebar effort at lower speeds, makes the bike more manageable on loose, rough, or wet surfaces, and gives the rider an extra split second to set up for fast downhill cornering.

My old Gios certainly fit your "crit bike" model, except for the low bottom bracket. The light front end took some getting used to, but nothing beat the way it plowed through sand, gravel, and puddles. My current Madone is of the other extreme--point and shoot and not too happy about last-moment changes in line.

I hear you, somewhere between that old DeRosa and current bikes that can tend towards the sluggish might lie a nice sweet spot. I like the older Gios Torino's before they went to that funny rear dropout design. I haven't ridden the Madone but I have test ridden some modern high end bikes that definitely seem better suited to double centuries than races.

-Dave

was it Colnago the first come up with different geometries than the standard for the day ?

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by vspa [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

was it Colnago the first come up with different geometries than the standard for the day ?

I'm not familiar with Colnago's product roll outs so I can't say but I think that it's a lot more complex than that. It's not like bikes were always steep and twitchy. go back another fifty years or so and bikes were built a lot differently and were a lot more stable for the rough roads they had to deal with. Race bikes evolved in a lot of different ways and then at least in the states in the '70s we had a ton of long wheelbase touring bikes on the market and then started getting our race bikes from France and Italy.

So yeah when I entered the sport the 'fast bikes' were often Italian and many of those were built with relatively short wheelbases, steep angles, tight steering and often high bottom brackets. But then a lot of bikes went a different direction with what some called classic stage race geometries. I first saw those stateside in Merlins and other high end semi-custom bikes but my 1986 Davidson Impulse was built along those lines and I still ride it today.

Perhaps Colnago was one of the companies that moved in that direction around that time but it would have been seen by some as going backwards to a more stable bike design and not necessarily as a big step forward. But the industry moved that way and a lot of modern bikes are a bit longer and a bit more stable than what was popular in the late '70s through mid '80s.

I suspect there are folks on these boards like Alfeng that have a really good grasp on the timelines and the evolution of bike geometry but it seems like there was a trend for steep and twitchy and then a move back towards something a bit more forgiving and stable. It also seems more recently that there's been a move to even more forgiving road bikes but not quite touring geometries or bikes like the Specialized Roubaix that's plenty fast but not a 'quick' bike when it comes to things like diving into turns. I wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum starts swinging back and someone releases some bikes like Oldbobcat describes in response to some of the slacker geometry bikes currently on the market.

-Dave

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by oldbobcat [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

My old Gios certainly fit your "crit bike" model, except for the low bottom bracket. The light front end took some getting used to, but nothing beat the way it plowed through sand, gravel, and puddles.

It was probably more confidence inspiring on fast downhills with the lower BB too.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by danfoz [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

It was probably more confidence inspiring on fast downhills with the lower BB too.

It was a little vague until I'd lean into it.