I have never given top tube length a great deal of thought, having addressed reach on a given frame via stem length. Recently, however, I bought a new frame where the length of the top tube has resulted in there being quite a bit of toe overlap (or enough that it raised a question for me).

In all my riding, I have only once had a situation where toe overlap actually caused me a problem. That was at an intersection where I slowed to almost a stop in order to cross on the light and while turning sharply, my toe and tire met and down I went before I had a chance to get my foot out of the peddles. Fortunately, the traffic was all at a stop.

So my question is, how big a deal is toe overlap? Is there such a thing as an acceptable amount? Is there such a thing as too much?

Thanks.

it's not a big deal and it's pretty typical for small frames... as you found out, it's only an issue at slow speeds when you turn the bars far enough to matter. next time you will prob be more careful with where your foot is positioned, right?

to size a bike by toe overlap is silly. there a many factors that will play into it, such as crank length, shoe size and position of pedals, tire size, etc.

I've got "toe overlap" on three of four of my bikes (two roads and a fixie). Never been a problem.

So my question is, how big a deal is toe overlap? Is there such a thing as an acceptable amount? Is there such a thing as too much?



As the others said, not a big deal in terms of daily riding.

I don't think it is a big deal, not when you consider the options. You can eliminate overlap on small frames by use of a slack head tube (and deal with the effects of that on the handling) or by going to a smaller front wheel size as in the smaller Terry bikes (and have to carry 2 sizes of tubes, and try to find tires that fit from a very limited selection).

I had a nice discussion with two serious riders at NAHBS about toe overlap. The consensus was that in smaller frames it is unavoidable with 700c wheels unless certain compromises are made (such as slack head tube, lots of fork rake, long front center).

Their experience with small frames was that most factories really try to avoid toe overlap and that the solutions to eliminate/lessen toe overlap resulted in a frame that handled poorly.

Poor geometry and poor handling are characteristics that you have do deal with every minute while riding a bike while toe overlap is a once in a while situation.

I'd say focus on good handling geometry and don't overly worry about toe overlap.

btw, I'm talking about frames in the 50cm range. For me, since I ride a 56cm I've never had to experience the compromised feel they were discussing. It is valuable to me to hear their riding feedback. I just listen closely and try to relate to how it feels. I think that helps me make a better frame for the next 50cm customer.

I had a nice discussion with two serious riders at NAHBS about toe overlap. The consensus was that in smaller frames it is unavoidable with 700c wheels unless certain compromises are made (such as slack head tube, lots of fork rake, long front center).

Their experience with small frames was that most factories really try to avoid toe overlap and that the solutions to eliminate/lessen toe overlap resulted in a frame that handled poorly.

Poor geometry and poor handling are characteristics that you have do deal with every minute while riding a bike while toe overlap is a once in a while situation.

I'd say focus on good handling geometry and don't overly worry about toe overlap.

btw, I'm talking about frames in the 50cm range. For me, since I ride a 56cm I've never had to experience the compromised feel they were discussing. It is valuable to me to hear their riding feedback. I just listen closely and try to relate to how it feels. I think that helps me make a better frame for the next 50cm customer.



curious... do you recommend 650a/b for riders needing a no-compromise 50cm frame? do you think smaller wheels are a better option than 700c? what size is your 'cut off' between 650 and 700? thanks

My 63 cm Cannondale crit bike has toe overlap. The only road bike I've owned that didn't overlap was an old touring machine, and while it was a great ride, it handled like a bread truck. Just sayin', overlap isn't all about size.

Unless trackstands are a part of your cycling repertoire, it matters not-at-all. You'll buff a toebox once in a while, but otherwise it becomes as natural to avoid as coasting with the outside foot down is for most riders - and nowhere near as necessary (not that coasting in corners is often necessary for most riders.)

Hate to say this, but a large amount of the 'no toe overlap in smaller sizes' thing is a sexist bias. There appears an institutional response in the industry that women aren't 'serious' cyclists and so are afraid of overlap, and since they represent a large portion of sales in the smaller sizes... I say this based on the 'limit overlap' language that is usually a part of the "Women Specific Design' marketing hype. There's probably some CPSC interference in it, too - they're the morons that decided that 1-2 inches of standover was necessary for safety. Bikes haven't been proportioned decently since. OK. End of rant.

Smaller wheels begin to make sense on smaller bikes for more reasons than just overlap, and those would probably push that decision more in my mind. My wife is down in the 47cm range, and 700C's start to have riding height issues as comparte to her 650C's. For our purposes, the 650C is the better designation than the B. Better selection of thin competition-style tires and the additional 13mm smaller rim diameter add up to something more useful where sizing is the reason for change. Smaller wheels have less gyroscopic inertia too, making them able to handle more quickly. That may be good or bad depending on the rider.

As we look for bikes, my wife gets a lot of pressure to get 'real' 700C wheels, but having ridden otherwise similar bikes prefers the 650's. (Trek recently changed the WSD model in her size from 650 to 700, and as a result she's been able to compare side-by-side.) FWIW, toe overlap isn't on her radar as an issue.

curious... do you recommend 650a/b for riders needing a no-compromise 50cm frame? do you think smaller wheels are a better option than 700c? what size is your 'cut off' between 650 and 700? thanks

This smaller sizing interests me as well. This was the discussion I had recently with a LBS for my given proportions. This guy was quite confident that if I were to take out a XS 700C and the women's 650 size, I'd be surprised how nice the 650 rode. I haven't taken him up on the comparison yet but intend to.

Sensitivity to toe overlap is a very personal thing. I've got a bit of it in my Time Edge Translink Extra Small with 172.5 length cranks and I couldn't care less. My wife hates toe overlap with a passion, and has managed to avoid it, too...despite having a couple of sub 50 cm frames with 700 tires. Her 48cm sloped tube Colnago with 170 cranks handles just peachy. Her 49cm Pogliaghi with 165 cranks handles even more peachy.

Just to let the thread drift a little bit, to my taste slack head tube angles and lots of trail work just fine on smaller sized bikes. Handling-wise, my least favorite bike of the three I own is the one with the steepest head tube -- 73 degrees. When frames get smaller, I've found it best when the maker has slightly rethought what are the "proper" measurements.

I have a 55cm look kg381 and experience moderate toe overlap. The first time I felt it while going slow it surprised me but even when balancing at a light now my front tire can hit my toe and it doesn't really disturb me. I'm just under 5'10" , am using 175mm cranks and am a size 11.5 shoe about 45 to 46 cycling shoe. A 54cm frame would fit better but would give me more toe overlap. I could also go to a 172.5 crank but the difference in miniscule.. It's an ebay frame so I can live with it. In the new look sizing a large may eliminate it but the rest of the sizing would be off, so I would opt for the medium....

On a custom frame I would mention it to the builder and however the frame came out, I would live with it. Not a big deal IMHO....

I wouldn't consider it in frame selection. I've had more bikes without it than with because I've got a long torso and tend to ride longer top tube frames, but even bikes with it haven't been a problem (knocking on wood). The only time it can possibly be a problem is when pedaling at very low speed and making a sharp turn- how often does that happen? Sharp turn- outside pedal down.

Very true. It is very personal.

Not knowing the specifics of the rider and what he/she is looking for in a frame and their aversion to toe overlap....I would say 700C should work to right to about 48cm or so...... Under that size I'd begin looking at smaller wheels.

Another problem with small frames and 700c is that the builder begins to lose head tube length. Because of this the top tube and down tubes begin to interfere with each other. When doing a non-lugged frame the builder can get creative and do a compound miter on one of the tubes to make them join together. With lugs and 700c it gets hard to get down into the smaller sizes.

***In terms of geometry, I believe that smaller frames should have different geometry, but not to avoid toe overlap. I think the seat tube angle needs to be steeper to produce less setback, I think the head tube angle needs to be less steep to slow the steering a bit. Since a small frame gets so short in terms of wheelbase it already has the tendency to handle "fast". **** This is where I should state: IMO or ATMO since as was mentioned above it is all very personal.

Maybe this is where the fear of toe overlap came from. This is from a major manufacturer.

My feet are so big that I'd have toe overlap on a custom built West Coast Chopper. Doesn't bother me a bit. Even at near track stand speeds, I almost never turn the bars far enough to rub.