Shoe Overlap
 

On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 9:27:24 PM UTC-7, ERSHC wrote:

If it has 89mm clearance with 175s then you can ride it with 175s. If
it has only 90 mm clearance with 165s then you can't ride it with
175s. You don't measure a frame, you measure a complete bike. Legal
with 165 mm cranks and not legal with 175s is possible. One might
question the sanity of some of the UCI rules, and of course they don't
apply to non-racers, but thems the rules none the less. So if you
spring for a custom bike with the intent to race it, and are not
allowed to race, you might reasonably want your money back. Assuming,
of course, the builder knew your intent and crank size.

A little while ago I measured my 62 cm Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra - I have less than an 1/8th inch clearance with 23 mm tires. That means that I would hit with 25mm's.

Not that I would pay any attention to that because of the way I ride but that is so near an overlap that the commonly used 25 mm tires today would strike.

Shoe Overlap
 

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:17:44 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

It does not have to be a $xxxxx per seat CAD package. My engineering
drawings are done on a CAD that cost me just under $1k and can also do
layout, even automatic routing of circuit traces. I only use it for
schematics and that part is the full unlimited version.

Autorouting invariably stinks. They have give-away packages from companies now that do auto-routing. Not ONE of them matches a good layout man. Most generate so much noise in the routing that you have your uC making mistakes in low power high speed applications.

Shoe Overlap
 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:14:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Anyone else had any experience with this?

Yes, sorta. I have this bicycle, which is too small for me:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/Trek-1400.html
It's also a rather short wheelbase. The crank arm clears the front
tire by 6 cm. When I wear my steel toe Wolverine construction boots,
I end up with about 8 cm of overlap. I really like the way it rides,
but need to be VERY careful when turning. So far, not crashes, but I
have hit my toe a few times.

Compare the crank to tire clearance above with my every day ride:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/slides/Gary-Fisher-Tassajara.html

A rational person would probably declare this machine unrideable and
sell it. However, I had a better idea. I turned it into an exercise
machine for the winter. I have it setup on a Minoura trainer with the
rear wheel driving a resistance roller and the front wheel slightly
elevated. With the front wheel locked in place, there's no risk of a
crash.

Obviously, your friend is not going to repurpose his new bicycle into
an exercise machine, so this is not an option. I just wanted to point
out that it is possible to ride a bicycle with an extreme shoe
overlap.

The main thing that I had to learn was to NOT coast with the crank
arms parallel to the ground. Standing on the pedals in that position
to look around was a bad habit I picked up as a kid, and had to
unlearn.

I also learned to coast my way through turns. If the pedals are NOT
turning, my shoe is not going to hit the front wheel. That's not
practical for racing or climbing, but works on the flats and downhill.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Shoe Overlap
 

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-03-14 14:45, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:47:31 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 13/03/17 08:33, wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 2:20:11 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:



Buyer didn't review the drawing ?

small point = head angle is in degrees, fork rake is in mm
and neither can be changed without other changes.

You don't get a drawing. You get a list of measurements. And
it doesn't make much sense unless you have the tools to draft
it out for yourself and know exactly what to look for.

But it would seem to me that you could add just a few degrees
of rake and reduce the increased trail from this and the
handling would stay the same. Though the wheelbase would be a
touch longer.


I got drawings. Several iterations of them too.

-- JS

From whom? American buildings can use drafting software that other
countries find too expensive to use since you have to have a
computer and a printer and the drafting software. When you get 10
orders for a custom build a week and you have for the last 50 years
it's unlikely that you'd see a need for a computer to do your
bookkeeping as is par for the course in America.

This statement sounds a bit (a few decades) out of date. What
country is it that you describe where bikes are produced in which
Japanese cars, PeeCees, and so on are uncommon?


http://smileyland.com/picturethis/im...nes_bike_3.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/nova-doba-jpg

Shoe Overlap
 

On 2017-03-14 15:34, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:17:44 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:

It does not have to be a $xxxxx per seat CAD package. My
engineering drawings are done on a CAD that cost me just under $1k
and can also do layout, even automatic routing of circuit traces. I
only use it for schematics and that part is the full unlimited
version.

Autorouting invariably stinks. They have give-away packages from
companies now that do auto-routing. Not ONE of them matches a good
layout man. Most generate so much noise in the routing that you have
your uC making mistakes in low power high speed applications.


I always farm out layouts, then allow the layouter to auto-route digital
stuff and mundane analog but not any hot stuff. He uses a well-seasoned
version of PADS and the auto-router is quite good. I haven't yet tried
the auto-router on my Eagle V7.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Shoe Overlap
 

On 2017-03-17 09:46, Doug Landau wrote:
On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-03-14 14:45, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, March 13, 2017 at 6:47:31 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 3:23:11 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 13/03/17 08:33, wrote:
On Saturday, March 11, 2017 at 2:20:11 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:



Buyer didn't review the drawing ?

small point = head angle is in degrees, fork rake is in mm
and neither can be changed without other changes.

You don't get a drawing. You get a list of measurements. And
it doesn't make much sense unless you have the tools to draft
it out for yourself and know exactly what to look for.

But it would seem to me that you could add just a few degrees
of rake and reduce the increased trail from this and the
handling would stay the same. Though the wheelbase would be a
touch longer.


I got drawings. Several iterations of them too.

-- JS

From whom? American buildings can use drafting software that other
countries find too expensive to use since you have to have a
computer and a printer and the drafting software. When you get 10
orders for a custom build a week and you have for the last 50 years
it's unlikely that you'd see a need for a computer to do your
bookkeeping as is par for the course in America.

This statement sounds a bit (a few decades) out of date. What
country is it that you describe where bikes are produced in which
Japanese cars, PeeCees, and so on are uncommon?


http://smileyland.com/picturethis/im...nes_bike_3.jpg

http://tinyurl.com/nova-doba-jpg


I have literally seen that, live. A woman in her 80's running a prayer
chain via PC from her room in an assisted living place.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/