Shoe Overlap

On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:04:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/13/2017 9:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:46:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/12/2017 8:02 AM, wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:14:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend of mine just had a custom bike built and although it fits great there is a 2 cm shoe overlap of the front wheel. The danger of this is making a hard turn and trying to straighten out with your foot then in the way. Criterium racers in particular could do this because they only stop pedalling at the absolute apex and then start again with the front wheel still turned.

Anyone else had any experience with this? I remember high siding because of this. Luckily not in a race to be run over by a hundred riders.

Custom build and shoe overlap? I would want my money back.

I think I'd want my money back only if I had specified "no overlap."
But I probably wouldn't bother to specify that. It just doesn't bother me.

It does perhaps illustrate an important point. When buying a custom
frame, do be sure to specify everything that's important to you.

Our now-ancient tandem was custom built for us. It was delayed for many
months. When we were finally called to pick it up, I found it was
painted the wrong color, it lacked some water bottle mounts and other
minor braze-ons I'd wanted, lacked the clear coat over the paint, and
(since I'd ordered the bike built up) had some equipment mistakes. The
most serious of those was a Phil rear hub that lacked left side
threading for a brake.

(Actually, the most serious problem was fitting track gauge instead of
tandem gauge fork blades. But I didn't know that until decades later,
when the forks snapped off.)

Anyway, Jim Bradford (the builder) said "Look, I'm leaving for my
honeymoon in a couple weeks. Do you want the bike or not?" I grumped
and took the bike. But if I'd given the guy written specifications for
every detail on some sort of official form, I might have avoided some
unpleasantness.

I'm not sure that a frame, with a 54 cm (center to center) top tube,
700c wheels and normal trail, can be built without toe overlap.

Of course, with a higher bottom bracket toe clearance increases but,
from measuring my own bike, the B.B would have to be 3" higher which
would probably end up with pretty strange looking bicycle :-)

I think that's the reason that somewhere around 1985, Bill Boston then
Georgena Terry started building road bikes with smaller front wheels.

Possible. On the other hand the dimensions of my bikes are well within
the UCI limits and the three road bikes all have toe overlap. The bike
I built has 1 mtr. wheel base but with normal head angle and trail
there is still toe overlap. I spent some when I designed that bike and
toe overlap was one of the things I looked at and with a 54cm (C/C)
top tube there was no way I could eliminate it.

I might add that toe overlap has never given me any problem, although
granted I don't do wheel stands at stop lights.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/13/2017 8:31 PM, ERSHC wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 5:02:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:14:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend of mine just had a custom bike built and although it fits great there is a 2 cm shoe overlap of the front wheel. The danger of this is making a hard turn and trying to straighten out with your foot then in the way. Criterium racers in particular could do this because they only stop pedalling at the absolute apex and then start again with the front wheel still turned.

Anyone else had any experience with this? I remember high siding because of this. Luckily not in a race to be run over by a hundred riders.

Custom build and shoe overlap? I would want my money back.

Turns out that shoe overlap is common. Especially among pro climbers who are small and have short arms.

So why would you want your money back? Tell us HOW this overlap can have any effect? I had an old Motobecane that had overlap. I managed to crash the bike because of this but at a standstill. Would you want your money back from Motobecane?

Do you suppose a company that has been building custom bikes for 60 years doesn't know what they're doing?

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm suggesting that if you don't have any direct experience with this sort of thing just making comments isn't helpful.

It may make the bike bike not-race-legal.

UCI CLARIFICATION GUIDE OF THE UCI TECHNICAL REGULATION quotes

ARTICLE 1.3.009: "The bicycle should have handlebars which allow it to
be ridden and manoeuvred in any circumstances and in complete safety.�

and adds the comentary: " ... Bicycles shall have at least 89 mm
clearance between the pedal spindle and the front tyre when turned to
any position in accordance with the requirements of the EN14781 safety
standard to not be hindered when turning."


Huh. How about that?
A 2017 Bianchi race bike doesn't quite meet that standard.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:17:53 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2017 8:31 PM, ERSHC wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 5:02:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:14:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend of mine just had a custom bike built and although it fits great there is a 2 cm shoe overlap of the front wheel. The danger of this is making a hard turn and trying to straighten out with your foot then in the way. Criterium racers in particular could do this because they only stop pedalling at the absolute apex and then start again with the front wheel still turned.

Anyone else had any experience with this? I remember high siding because of this. Luckily not in a race to be run over by a hundred riders.

Custom build and shoe overlap? I would want my money back.

Turns out that shoe overlap is common. Especially among pro climbers who are small and have short arms.

So why would you want your money back? Tell us HOW this overlap can have any effect? I had an old Motobecane that had overlap. I managed to crash the bike because of this but at a standstill. Would you want your money back from Motobecane?

Do you suppose a company that has been building custom bikes for 60 years doesn't know what they're doing?

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm suggesting that if you don't have any direct experience with this sort of thing just making comments isn't helpful.

It may make the bike bike not-race-legal.

UCI CLARIFICATION GUIDE OF THE UCI TECHNICAL REGULATION quotes

ARTICLE 1.3.009: "The bicycle should have handlebars which allow it to
be ridden and manoeuvred in any circumstances and in complete safety.â€

and adds the comentary: " ... Bicycles shall have at least 89 mm
clearance between the pedal spindle and the front tyre when turned to
any position in accordance with the requirements of the EN14781 safety
standard to not be hindered when turning."


Huh. How about that?
A 2017 Bianchi race bike doesn't quite meet that standard.


Use a 19mm front tire. I think I still have an old 19mm SuperCom HD in the basement. All of the UCI police state regulations are the reason I dropped out of European pro racing.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 14/03/2017 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2017 8:31 PM, ERSHC wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 5:02:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:14:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend of mine just had a custom bike built and although it fits
great there is a 2 cm shoe overlap of the front wheel. The danger
of this is making a hard turn and trying to straighten out with
your foot then in the way. Criterium racers in particular could do
this because they only stop pedalling at the absolute apex and then
start again with the front wheel still turned.

Anyone else had any experience with this? I remember high siding
because of this. Luckily not in a race to be run over by a hundred
riders.

Custom build and shoe overlap? I would want my money back.

Turns out that shoe overlap is common. Especially among pro climbers
who are small and have short arms.

So why would you want your money back? Tell us HOW this overlap can
have any effect? I had an old Motobecane that had overlap. I managed
to crash the bike because of this but at a standstill. Would you want
your money back from Motobecane?

Do you suppose a company that has been building custom bikes for 60
years doesn't know what they're doing?

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm suggesting that if you don't have
any direct experience with this sort of thing just making comments
isn't helpful.

It may make the bike bike not-race-legal.

UCI CLARIFICATION GUIDE OF THE UCI TECHNICAL REGULATION quotes

ARTICLE 1.3.009: "The bicycle should have handlebars which allow it to
be ridden and manoeuvred in any circumstances and in complete safety.�

and adds the comentary: " ... Bicycles shall have at least 89 mm
clearance between the pedal spindle and the front tyre when turned to
any position in accordance with the requirements of the EN14781 safety
standard to not be hindered when turning."


Huh. How about that?
A 2017 Bianchi race bike doesn't quite meet that standard.


Not buying this. My Tarmac pro is certainly race legal and I have
overlap with my toe and wheel. I doubt is my toe extends 3.5 inches
from the pedal spindle.

On 3/14/2017 2:16 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 22:04:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/13/2017 9:33 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:46:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 3/12/2017 8:02 AM, wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:14:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend of mine just had a custom bike built and although it fits great there is a 2 cm shoe overlap of the front wheel. The danger of this is making a hard turn and trying to straighten out with your foot then in the way. Criterium racers in particular could do this because they only stop pedalling at the absolute apex and then start again with the front wheel still turned.

Anyone else had any experience with this? I remember high siding because of this. Luckily not in a race to be run over by a hundred riders.

Custom build and shoe overlap? I would want my money back.

I think I'd want my money back only if I had specified "no overlap."
But I probably wouldn't bother to specify that. It just doesn't bother me.

It does perhaps illustrate an important point. When buying a custom
frame, do be sure to specify everything that's important to you.

Our now-ancient tandem was custom built for us. It was delayed for many
months. When we were finally called to pick it up, I found it was
painted the wrong color, it lacked some water bottle mounts and other
minor braze-ons I'd wanted, lacked the clear coat over the paint, and
(since I'd ordered the bike built up) had some equipment mistakes. The
most serious of those was a Phil rear hub that lacked left side
threading for a brake.

(Actually, the most serious problem was fitting track gauge instead of
tandem gauge fork blades. But I didn't know that until decades later,
when the forks snapped off.)

Anyway, Jim Bradford (the builder) said "Look, I'm leaving for my
honeymoon in a couple weeks. Do you want the bike or not?" I grumped
and took the bike. But if I'd given the guy written specifications for
every detail on some sort of official form, I might have avoided some
unpleasantness.

I'm not sure that a frame, with a 54 cm (center to center) top tube,
700c wheels and normal trail, can be built without toe overlap.

Of course, with a higher bottom bracket toe clearance increases but,
from measuring my own bike, the B.B would have to be 3" higher which
would probably end up with pretty strange looking bicycle :-)

I think that's the reason that somewhere around 1985, Bill Boston then
Georgena Terry started building road bikes with smaller front wheels.

Possible. On the other hand the dimensions of my bikes are well within
the UCI limits and the three road bikes all have toe overlap. The bike
I built has 1 mtr. wheel base but with normal head angle and trail
there is still toe overlap. I spent some when I designed that bike and
toe overlap was one of the things I looked at and with a 54cm (C/C)
top tube there was no way I could eliminate it.

I might add that toe overlap has never given me any problem, although
granted I don't do wheel stands at stop lights.

I don't do full blown track stands - rocking back and forth in one place
- but I very frequently creep forward at about 1 mph at stop lights. I
still have no problems with overlap. I guess it does bother some
people, though.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/14/2017 9:17 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/13/2017 8:31 PM, ERSHC wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:29:09 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 5:02:44 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 10, 2017 at 6:14:43 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A friend of mine just had a custom bike built and although it fits
great there is a 2 cm shoe overlap of the front wheel. The danger
of this is making a hard turn and trying to straighten out with
your foot then in the way. Criterium racers in particular could do
this because they only stop pedalling at the absolute apex and then
start again with the front wheel still turned.

Anyone else had any experience with this? I remember high siding
because of this. Luckily not in a race to be run over by a hundred
riders.

Custom build and shoe overlap? I would want my money back.

Turns out that shoe overlap is common. Especially among pro climbers
who are small and have short arms.

So why would you want your money back? Tell us HOW this overlap can
have any effect? I had an old Motobecane that had overlap. I managed
to crash the bike because of this but at a standstill. Would you want
your money back from Motobecane?

Do you suppose a company that has been building custom bikes for 60
years doesn't know what they're doing?

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm suggesting that if you don't have
any direct experience with this sort of thing just making comments
isn't helpful.

It may make the bike bike not-race-legal.

UCI CLARIFICATION GUIDE OF THE UCI TECHNICAL REGULATION quotes

ARTICLE 1.3.009: "The bicycle should have handlebars which allow it to
be ridden and manoeuvred in any circumstances and in complete safety.�

and adds the comentary: " ... Bicycles shall have at least 89 mm
clearance between the pedal spindle and the front tyre when turned to
any position in accordance with the requirements of the EN14781 safety
standard to not be hindered when turning."


Huh. How about that?
A 2017 Bianchi race bike doesn't quite meet that standard.

I just measured, and realized the only reason I have overlap on my
utility bike is because of the fenders.

Rats. I guess I'll have to take the fenders off if I enter any UCI races.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2017-03-13 06:47, 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.


Me, too. Only for the bikes in the four-digit Dollar range though, the
MTB and even for the 1982 custom road bike.


-- 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.


I paid all of $10 for a "slightly seasoned" DesignCAD 3D package from an
industrial liquidator. Yes, that is no typo, 3D. A software that is so
powerful that, not being a mechanical engineer, I haven't even touched
99% of its capabilities.

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.

Then there are open source and free programs (legit ones). The most
powerful simulation software I have ever used has cost me ... nothing.
Commercial use allowed which was important to me.


... 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.


Until you get audited. "Sir, it's all in that stash over yonder and I am
sure it's all there. Well, pretty sure". I never have been audited but
since day one of my self-employment I use MS-Works for all the
book-keeping. I bought it in 1989 for about $100. If an auditor wanted
an alphabetical listing of a certain expense category it would take a
few button presses and a few seconds printing. Over in Europe where in
the old days you had to bring your income and sales tax returns to their
tax authorities they were blown away that I could machine-fill their
weird sales tax forms. Later fancier versions cost less than $50 and for
many years it came pre-installed for free with many computers.
Discontinued since seven years or so but who cares, it still does all my
book keeping and a lot more.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

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?

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

:-)

--
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 14/03/17 00:47, 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.


From the custom steel frame builder who built my custom steel frame -
in Australia.

Yes he has a computer and software, and emailed drawings.

--
JS