Re: [CR]Toe-clip overlap - even on "Good" bikes?


Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:05:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: wilc <cherrycycle1@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [CR]Toe-clip overlap - even on "Good" bikes?
To: "P. Lynn Miller" <lynnmiller@optusnet.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <45466F9A.5080502@optusnet.com.au>
cc: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Lynn, Bob et al.. Interesting hearing your experiences... i too have had this problem,but like Dale says, its a situation that does not often occur in real life riding, that said, i have in the past fitted guards to race bikes of early 80's [close clearance] which were without mudguard brase ons and i can say that you need to have your wits on alert if riding in town or where you must swerve around. I recently built a 753 Peugout o/topic into a fixer with guards ... the first and only trip around our small town left me in no doubt that this machine was either geared only or no guards!! I'm still looking for a more suitable fixer frame!!!

Willie Carton from a decidedly grey, wet, wintry Coleraine, N Ireland..

"P. Lynn Miller" <lynnmiller@optusnet.com.au> wrote: Bob,

Your experience is interesting, since most every bike I ride has some overlap, even the 1970 Peugeot. I personally do not find it a problem, and I sub-consciously time my pedal stroke not hit the fender when manoeuvring through tight quarters.

I think Grant has addressed the overlap issue quite well in the Bleriot, with a slack head angle. A customer is building a 51cm up within the next week or so, so I am waiting hear his experience with overlap. Jan would be able to shed quite a bit of light on this matter.

P. Lynn Miller Sydney, Australia http://www.chainringtransitauthority.com

visit the CTA blog -

Bob Hanson wrote:
> I'm sure this subject has been covered excessively already, but I was
> just reminded by another rider what a common problem the issue of
> toe-clip / Fender overlap is today - even on "Good" modern bikes.
>
> I was riding beside another cyclist today who was mounted on a lovely
> Rivendell built for him (i.e. their 'custom' frameset) several years
> ago. I commented appreciatively on his bike, and he just grumbled that
> he should have just waited and looked for an older bike - like mine.
>
> His problem was that even after having shelled out a lot of money for a
> frameset, fitted to him, and made with the understanding that he'd often
> be using fenders, he still had serious issues with toe-clips hitting
> against his fenders - a real annoyance, especially at slow speeds in
> town, when he most may need to make sharp swerves around obstacles or
> people, etc.
>
> Maybe this was a thing of the past for Rivendell; Grant Petersen is
> certainly a major proponent of fenders. So what was the problem with
> designing a bike with adequate front clearance... and especially on a
> more expensive made to measure frameset of basically common dimensions
> (maybe 56-58cm).
>
> I have several modest production bikes built from the 1950s to mid '70s,
> all currently mounted with full fenders, and yet there is adequate room
> for both my big ol' feet and some serious fenders. They all handle
> extremely well and would be among my favorites to ride even without
> fenders. And, by the way, half of my fender clad bikes have Honjo or
> similar French-style fenders which feature wrap-around hoops for the
> stays closest my pedals (which would tend to present even more of a
> potential problem).
>
> I have a Motobecane Le Champion (c.1971) and mid-70s Grand Record, a
> mid-70s Raleigh Gran Sport and a 1971 International, on which fenders
> present no problems. And also, a couple British road bikes from the
> late 50s... although, admittedly, on those earlier bikes a gentler head
> tube angle was probably far more commonly accepted than even on most
> bikes from 30 years ago.
>
> I can accept that basically all of the modern production "road" bikes
> (i.e. "pseudo-wannabe-racers") are purchases I would never even
> consider. And, in my opinion, Rivendell bikes really cannot be
> considered "Custom" bikes anyway - since so many restrictions are
> stipulated concerning what you can and cannot ask them to do for "your"
> frameset. But, they are certainly more expensive than most readily
> available bikes and definitely a major investment.
>
> On such bikes, with a reputation for more careful design, lugged steel
> construction, and a suitably high price tag, this sort of problem or
> oversight seems absolutely unacceptable and shameful.
>
> So, have some designers just gotten Stupid over the years and forgotten
> what a bike should do?
>
> Are attempts to make an "all-around" sort of bike just accepting a
> multitude of compromises which really creates minor problems... all
> around.
>
> Or, is there now actually a new trend in how a bike "should" handle
> which makes steeper head tube angles and shallow rake suddenly
> considered necessary or even desirable?
>
> I'm simply baffled, appalled by what I've seen, and even more
> appreciative of my own preferred bikes.
>
> Bob Hanson, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA