Pro's.... think they're riding with toe overlap?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
User avatar
Dr.Dos
Posts: 909
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:00 pm

by Dr.Dos

I only notice toe overlap while waiting at traffic lights or something with shiny new shoes and those damn scuffs materialize on the cap - again

by Weenie


Marin
Posts: 2819
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:48 am
Location: Vienna Austria

by Marin

Toe overlap isn't an issue.

I prefer the handling of longer stems BTW, I size my frames so I can ride 120 or 130mm because it feels more stable to me. I run 40 cm bars though.

joec
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:20 pm

by joec

yep, only an issue doing a tight turn and then chances are you wont be pedaling... unless your riding fixed.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

wingguy wrote:The Supersix and Aeroad are neither unusual nor extreme when it comes to geometry. There are plenty that are in the same stack/reach ballpark and several that are significantly more aggressive. Not sure how you've researched this?
:noidea:


Interesting on the stem length. I have heard pros report that they prefer stems over 120mm for stability, but interesting to see the consensus here that that's just not the case....

So, looking at it more, I was including Canyon and Cannondale with the idea of using a negative angled stem to further reduce frame stack (currently using a twitchy -25 120mm stem). But if using a stem level with the ground, I'd be looking at frames with stack at or under 55cm and reach approaching 39.5mm and to my knowledge, that includes Focus, Argon18, Felt-F, Merckx, Storck, Trek H1

almost: Merida, Focus, Canyon, Cannondale

but not BH, Bianchi, Boardman, BMC, Cervelo, Colnago, Specialized, DiamondBack, Giant, Look, Orbea, Pinarello, Ridley, Scott, Willier

wingguy
Posts: 3972
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

milesthedog wrote:[I'd be looking at frames with stack at or under 55cm and reach approaching 39.5mm and to my knowledge, that includes Focus, Argon18, Felt-F, Merckx, Storck, Trek H1

almost: Merida, Focus, Canyon, Cannondale

but not BH, Bianchi, Boardman, BMC, Cervelo, Colnago, Specialized, DiamondBack, Giant, Look, Orbea, Pinarello, Ridley, Scott, Willier


Evo stack 551 / reach 387.

Bianchi 545/388, Boardman 543/394, BMC 550/387, Cervelo 542/384, Spesh 543/387, Pina 542/386, Scott 547/389, Wilier 536/387.

That's 8 manufacturers from your 'not as aggressive' column who make bikes that are as aggressive or more aggressive in stack/reach ratio than the frames you said were the only ones that provided aggressive stack and reach. So again not exactly sure how your research worked....
:noidea:

User avatar
Juanmoretime
Administrator
Posts: 7071
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 11:08 am
Location: Urbana, Illinois

by Juanmoretime

Toe overlap is no big deal. You scuff the front of your shoes as others have mentioned. After over 40 years of it I'm very used to it. Might help if I had smaller feet.
RESIDENT GRUMPY OLD MAN.

cmcdonnell
Posts: 277
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 7:50 pm

by cmcdonnell

Weird. Never heard anyone say a longer stem is twitchy... I hate anything below 100 mm and generally like a 110 otherwise the front feels all over the place out of the saddle. Oh an I hit my knees on the bars!
Bianchi Oltre XR2 + Campagnolo Super Record 11 + Campagnolo Bora 50C
Litespeed T1 + Campagnolo Chorus 11 + Campagnolo Shamal Ultra

mattr
Posts: 3543
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

longer stem being twitchy is dependent on lots of things, head angle, fork rake, front centre, reach, stack, wheelbase, and eventually, rider weight distribution.

I use a 120 and it's steady as a rock at 3 figure (metric) speeds. the 90 i put on temporarily for my wife made it twitchy. Noticeably so, but certainly not unrideable or dangerous. I'd still have no concerns at any speed. It'd just be something to bear in mind.

I'm sure i'd eventually have got used to it, except for the fact it was too short for me!

slowK
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:04 pm

by slowK

I think front centre (BB to front fork dropout) is a much more direct measure of likelihood of toe overlap than reach or stack.

I'm short (160cm), and toe overlap is an issue for me. I have about 2.5-3.5cm of overlap on my two road bikes (i.e. the front of my shoe is in line with the inner edge of the brake track in the worst scenario position of crank and wheel turning). There's a lot of compromises fitting very short riders onto 700c wheeled bikes.

I get significant contact my shoe on the tire regularly (as mentioned - tight U turns, especially pedalling uphill on road overpasses/bridges on my commute). I have proportionally larger feet, use a rearward cleat position (so more shoe in front), and run 28mm tires, which makes things worse. I should probably be on 165mm cranks too, but my bikes all came with 170mm cranks. Also worse when I put on toe warmers in winter - sometimes brush the front tire during routine road riding too. Normally this is fine - I know when how to position my feet. But it does make it really hard to get around those slow tight uphill corners, and I worry about an unplanned, sudden evasive manoeuvre.

For this reason, the new Canyon Womens Ultimate and Endurace bikes look really appealing. 650b wheels on the smaller sizes. Will be interesting to see if there will be more 650b road tires/tubes/wheels/spares available in the future.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

wingguy wrote:
milesthedog wrote:[I'd be looking at frames with stack at or under 55cm and reach approaching 39.5mm and to my knowledge, that includes Focus, Argon18, Felt-F, Merckx, Storck, Trek H1

almost: Merida, Focus, Canyon, Cannondale

but not BH, Bianchi, Boardman, BMC, Cervelo, Colnago, Specialized, DiamondBack, Giant, Look, Orbea, Pinarello, Ridley, Scott, Willier


Evo stack 551 / reach 387.

Bianchi 545/388, Boardman 543/394, BMC 550/387, Cervelo 542/384, Spesh 543/387, Pina 542/386, Scott 547/389, Wilier 536/387.

That's 8 manufacturers from your 'not as aggressive' column who make bikes that are as aggressive or more aggressive in stack/reach ratio than the frames you said were the only ones that provided aggressive stack and reach. So again not exactly sure how your research worked....
:noidea:


So, I see the addition of the Boardman.... but the rest of the frames you listed are under 39cm. I did correct myself saying that the C'dale Evo with a reach of 39.5 has a stack of 55.8, which can be lowered with a negative stem, which is why I moved into the 'almost' list but removed it from the list where I'm looking for a stack of 55 or lower and a reach approaching 39.5. Much appreciated

wingguy
Posts: 3972
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

by wingguy

milesthedog wrote:So, I see the addition of the Boardman.... but the rest of the frames you listed are under 39cm. I did correct myself saying that the C'dale Evo with a reach of 39.5 has a stack of 55.8, which can be lowered with a negative stem, which is why I moved into the 'almost' list but removed it from the list where I'm looking for a stack of 55 or lower and a reach approaching 39.5. Much appreciated


You're looking at an old geometry chart. The current Evo has a stack of 567 at a reach of 393. Way off what you're after.

Regardless, just because your own personal fit requirements fall in between the offered sizes of other bikes does not mean that those bikes don't offer low stack / long reach geometries comparable to or more aggressive than the Aeroad/Evo.

Edit - anyway this whole conversation is rather moot. There isn't a single race bike out there in the 54/56 sizes that will have a problematic level of toe overlap. Not one. Unless the ability to pedal through U-turns on a single lane road is a critical aspect of your riding :wink:

User avatar
TonyM
Posts: 2482
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:11 pm

by TonyM

slowK wrote:I think front centre (BB to front fork dropout) is a much more direct measure of likelihood of toe overlap than reach or stack.

I'm short (160cm), and toe overlap is an issue for me. I have about 2.5-3.5cm of overlap on my two road bikes (i.e. the front of my shoe is in line with the inner edge of the brake track in the worst scenario position of crank and wheel turning). There's a lot of compromises fitting very short riders onto 700c wheeled bikes.

I get significant contact my shoe on the tire regularly (as mentioned - tight U turns, especially pedalling uphill on road overpasses/bridges on my commute). I have proportionally larger feet, use a rearward cleat position (so more shoe in front), and run 28mm tires, which makes things worse. I should probably be on 165mm cranks too, but my bikes all came with 170mm cranks. Also worse when I put on toe warmers in winter - sometimes brush the front tire during routine road riding too. Normally this is fine - I know when how to position my feet. But it does make it really hard to get around those slow tight uphill corners, and I worry about an unplanned, sudden evasive manoeuvre.

For this reason, the new Canyon Womens Ultimate and Endurace bikes look really appealing. 650b wheels on the smaller sizes. Will be interesting to see if there will be more 650b road tires/tubes/wheels/spares available in the future.


Yes you should use 165mm cranks.

User avatar
milesthedog
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:21 pm

by milesthedog

wingguy wrote:
milesthedog wrote:So, I see the addition of the Boardman.... but the rest of the frames you listed are under 39cm. I did correct myself saying that the C'dale Evo with a reach of 39.5 has a stack of 55.8, which can be lowered with a negative stem, which is why I moved into the 'almost' list but removed it from the list where I'm looking for a stack of 55 or lower and a reach approaching 39.5. Much appreciated


You're looking at an old geometry chart. The current Evo has a stack of 567 at a reach of 393. Way off what you're after.

Regardless, just because your own personal fit requirements fall in between the offered sizes of other bikes does not mean that those bikes don't offer low stack / long reach geometries comparable to or more aggressive than the Aeroad/Evo.

Edit - anyway this whole conversation is rather moot. There isn't a single race bike out there in the 54/56 sizes that will have a problematic level of toe overlap. Not one. Unless the ability to pedal through U-turns on a single lane road is a critical aspect of your riding :wink:


appreciated - yeah, trying to figure out my own situation and the comments on toe overlap are helpful.

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 1927
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

slowK wrote:I think front centre (BB to front fork dropout) is a much more direct measure of likelihood of toe overlap than reach or stack.



Spot on! There's a lot of variation that goes on between the point at which reach and stack are measured to and the front axle. Head tube angle and fork rake have a great effect.

by Weenie


kulivontot
Posts: 1170
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm

by kulivontot

Worrying about geometry issues of pro cyclists riding non-stock geometries on closed courses seems pretty daft.
If you personally are annoyed with toe overlap on your rides where you have to stop and start at stoplights, then buy a frame with minimal toe overlap, not because "the same frame" is being used at the Giro.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post