Getting back on the bike, gravel, and toe overlap

I've ridden bikes with toe overlap for years. A bit like getting started with SPDs you have a few scares for the first few rides but after that there's no issue.
The only scare I can remember was on a fixed wheel bike with mudguards, clipped in and doing a track stand at a slightly downhill junction with traffic. My foot wedged up against the mudguard for an instant before somehow (maybe a bit of back-pedalling) freeing itself. I still didn't fall off so I haven't learned yet to stop being so stupid.

Unless you're buying something extremely racy or just plain weird, anything modern is going to be slack enough that this is just not an issue.

Just had a look at the bike online,  going by a side-on shot there'd plenty of space for your feet. With all the discounting you mention, building yourself is unlikely to save you money, unless you already have parts to use.

I've got an Octane One Kode singlespeed thing that I put mudguards on for short winter fitness rides. The toe overlap terrifies me, but then, I did manage to put myself over the bars by forgetting about it and pushing the front mudguard into the wheel.

Toe overlap is only a problem when riding fixed gear (you can't just stop pedalling to miss the tyre!) but even then it is a minor issue as when do you turn your bars that much other than when going really slowly where you can remain conscious of it and avoid it.

On my Surly Crosscheck I don't find toe overlap to be a major issue from a riding point of view.

However, having to constantly repair the mudguard is a pain in the arse.

Not an issue a lot of the time, I've helped mine (for the times it is an issue - techy climbs, (bad) trackstands, attempts to wheelie) by going to 165mm cranks, which I wanted to anyway for knee reasons.

It's crazy to say toe overlap isn't really an issue, when the author has stated they have a bike with toe overlap, and it is an issue for them.

Possibly building up from frame and fork to save a few £.

Price it all up first, and then you'll probably buy a full bike...

As an MTBer I found toe-overlap a shock when I got my first gravel bike - 5 years down the line it doesn't bother me anymore, but for the next gravel-type bike I'd look for it not to happen.

It’s crazy to say toe overlap isn’t really an issue, when the author has stated they have a bike with toe overlap, and it is an issue for them.

Well when you say it like that. Just an issue that is easy enough to work around for most people I guess but take your point.

Just been googling the Fairdale and see the Woods Cyclery in the New Forest sell them. I'd give them a ring and have a chat. They know as much about gravelly type bikes as anyone, and they build up a huge variety of different frames in this bracket. I'd ask for Tom, but he probably has a few others there who are just as helpful.

I guess what you really need is the amount of overlap on the Charge - how much toe you would need to cut off to make it disappear completely, and the BB to front axle measurement on that bike, the bikes you're considering and how you want to build them.

You might also be able to improve it on your current bike to the point of non issue - slightly smaller tyres, shorter cranks. Also mudguards will make a difference, but if you want mudguards, you want mudguards. And SPDs will give you less of an issue than flats - generally smaller shoes, and foot placement further back on the bike with the ball of the foot over the pedal axle rather than the arch of the foot with flats. But you're going to have to not specially care about clips v flats if toe-overlap is going to be the deciding factor.

Me - flats all the time.
175mm cranks, 2.1 tyres, and the wrong kind of slow speed balancy off road = overlap often enough to want to find a solution
175mm cranks, 35c tyres, mudguards, slow speed traffic balancing/red lights - occasional annoying overlap, but easy enough to remember about
Now: 165mm cranks, 47c tyres, not an issue at all. might have an occasional rub, couldn't honestly say, but it's certainly not causing control issues.

Nothing to add to the discussion, just always wondered why we don't just call it toeverlap?

Toe overlap bothers me and I've had my bike four years. It's easy enough to avoid happening but if you end up doing a lot of slower twistier stuff like navigating tight gates and cycle lane infrastructure it just becomes annoying.

Rather have one less thing to think about if it could be avoided.

Toe overlap just seems like the bike has been badly designed.

I have a very old road bike frame that I use sometimes for gravel riding.  Dreadful toe overlap but its never caused me to crash or lose control - just occasionally brushing the wheel with my foot.  IMO / IME this is more o0f a theoretical issue than an actual one.  maybe just me tho - I have ridden this frame offroad in various guises for 35 years 🙂

Toe overlap just seems like the bike has been badly designed.

Often racier road bikes will have some toe overlap, unavoidable for the handling characteristics really.

Also sometimes very hard to avoid on smaller frame sizes.

Toe overlap just seems like the bike has been badly designed.

It is just a compromise. If you rode a frame with a 62 top tube you would never get it, if you ride a bike with a 50 top tube then pretty likely to get it. You cannot get around it by having say a 60 degree head angle as the compromise then would be on handling rather than a likelihood of toe overlap which a lot of people can deal with.

I ride track bikes (steep head angle with short rake forks) so have got it on every one of the twenty or so frames I have had so guess I have just accepted it...

Never had a bike without it (can't remember my primary school days well but I discovered it then) Never found a problem, it's one of those things you live with.

My Cx bike is awful for toe overlap, especially when coming off my modern geometry HT or FS. It's a 2011 Canyon CX bike and it's just a case of trying to remember to get the pedal back and out of the way when cornering.

I have a bike with toe overlap. I'm an experienced enough rider to work around it but I don't get the willy waving that starts every time this subject comes up.

I find that steep technical climbs that I really should use a mountain bike for ste a pain with toe overlap. Given the huge choice of bikes out there these days, why is it frowned upon when someone decides a lack of toe overlap should be one of their requirements?

For this reason, I was looking at things like the Cotic Cascade and the latest geometry Sounder Camino.

The Evil Chamois Hager is possibly a bit much.

Thanks all. In a spot of perfect timing, took a call from work this afternoon (I'm on leave this week) saying that my role is at risk - so toe overlap worries have just taken a back seat.

You’re going to have to try them out. I have a charge juicer with 60 cm top tube with lots of overlap on mudguards and also lots of overlap on my Planet X tempest in a large with no mudguards. Obviously moving foot position on cleats can help as can having small feet, but that’s harder to mod. Never made me fall off. Only a minor issue on very slow tech stuff on tempest that I should probably be riding on s mountain bike anyway.

It's like everything else.  A bit is OK, a lot is not OK.

And yes, it's going to be way more of an issue for smaller people.  I found with the crosscheck (52cm) it was easy enough to live with in CX mode. ie, with 32mm tyres and no mudguards.

In commuter mode, 42mm tyres and full mudguards, turning the wheel was only clearing the pedal itself by about 2cm.  That is simply too much toe overlap and too much time spent repairing the mudguard because I attempted to do any kind of pedaling with even the smallest deviation from dead straight ahead.

I eventually discovered the answer which is smaller wheels.  No problems with toe overlap since.

Thanks all. In a spot of perfect timing, took a call from work this afternoon (I’m on leave this week) saying that my role is at risk – so toe overlap worries have just taken a back seat.

Well that sucks.  On the plus side, if you wanted to consider smaller wheels, 90s rigid mountain bikes make great gravel bikes and are much cheaper than anything fashionable.  I'm riding a 97 Orange P7 as my commuter/gravel bike/light duty mountain bike and it's working great, even with full mudguards.

https://www.retrobike.co.uk/forums/mtb-for-sale.2/

Damn on the work situation. Hope things work out. <br /><br />

Toe overlap just seems like the bike has been badly designed.

I ride a slack Niner, but a 53 cm frame and I have size 8 feet! Without mud guards and 47 mm tyres it’s only overlapping by a mm or two that I can avoid the vast majority of the time. Mudguards is a different matter. Dont think the bike is badly designed - just a combination of factors. 

Thanks all. Maybe switching to 650b is a better first step. 650b qr wheelsets seem fairly thin on the ground but wiggle/CRC have Prime Orros that might be worth a punt.

If you were designing the first bike and it had toe overlap you’d get laughed at. I’d definitely not purchase a bike with it. Then again I’m never going to buy anything other than an MTB or slack gravel bike so I’m not the target audience. I just find the idea that your foot can interface with one of the big spinning bits entirely stupid.

Sorry to read that OP. Hope it all works out for you.

Had a Charge plug for years liked it, really liked it, and could navigate the toe overlap, but it is a downside to it. It's not an issue until it is, and then it can be really bad for the offroad stuff especially.

I went and sold it and got a camino. No toe overlap. The issue you'll have, I suspect, is getting a replacement with quick release as presume that's what your plug has?

so toe overlap worries have just taken a back seat

A tandem might well be the solution 🤓

I'm with you OP, toe overlap is bloody awful, and should have been eliminated years ago. I thinks it's a vestige of road bikes chasing lower and lower weight before the age of fancy materials like aluminium and carbon. When all bikes were made in a similar way from similar steel, making the bike shorter and smaller was almost the only option to make it lighter, and that was one of the only ways to differentiate the product. The geometry of those short and steep road bikes has been handed down for the last 50 years, across all genres that have popped up in that time. These day's there really shouldn't be any excuse for it.

It will be a more common problem if you are tall, have big feet, use long cranks, fat tyres, and / or run flat pedals.

There are many, many frames with modern geometry that will not suffer toe overlap. Front centre is the dimension from front wheel axle to BB, and it is driven by reach and headangle. Canyon Grizl and Sonder Camino are good examples, but others are about too.

However I still see bikes released that look great in the photos, but that look worryingly close to toe overlap dimensions.

f you were designing the first bike and it had toe overlap you’d get laughed at.

I wouldn't be laughing at them as the bike design is great. If you want to massively change trail and head angles to avoid it then fine but I am happier riding a bike that handles like a road bike and accept that toe overlap is inevitable.

As you can see from a lot of responses on this thread, it really isn't an issue for a lot of people. I am worst case scenario with a a fixed gear bike with a lot of overlap and still don't have issues with it.

However, for someone that does then they probably need a different style of bike if it is that much of an issue for them. I have never ridden an MTB with overlap...

None of my recent gravel bikes (2017 onwards) have had any toe overlap in normal shoes, but in winter (slightly bigger shoes), with guards and overshoes, it might just start to happen.  56cm bikes, 5’11 rider with size 10/11winter shoes (normally 9/10 shoes). <br /><br />Earlier gravel bikes (2012-1015) I did get toe overlap, but slightly slackened head angles, slightly higher fork offset and slightly lower bottom brackets seem to have all come together to cure this.  

I thinks it’s a vestige of road bikes chasing lower and lower weight before the age of fancy materials like aluminium and carbon.

That seems like quite a lot of speculation.

I don't know what the actual answer is, but faster handling bikes definitely do feel better in the right circumstances, and for me, toe overlap is a worthwhile trade off for that.

That seems like quite a lot of speculation.

I would use a different word than speculation. It is nothing to do with lower weight at all and all about handling (head angle/rake, wheelbase etc,.)
You could ride a bike such as this and never worry about overlap but I will take the road bike thanks.

I dislike toeverlap. I too think it is a 'inheritance' from road bike designs and CX frames. Mountainbikes got rid of toeverlap from almost day 1. I do think a good few 'gravel' frames are re-hashes of road and CX frames, for whatever reason.

My Merlin had it, particularly with a mudguard on, and it was a pain. My new to me Vagabond does not, and neither does mrs_OAB's frames of the last few years from Giant, Marin and now Merida, and are all the better for it.

It will be a more common problem if you are tall,

I'd say the opposite.  Or rather, people who ride smaller bikes (with 700c wheels) are going to have more problems.  Just so happens most people who ride small bikes are small.

I'd also say it's pretty pointless to say if you do or don't have problems with toe overlap without saying what model and, crucially, size frame you are riding.  It's also useful to know what size tyres you're running and if you're using full mudguards or not.

On a 52cm Surly Crosscheck, I've got problems with toe overlap once I put 42mm tyres and mudguards on the bike.

Mountainbikes got rid of toeverlap from almost day 1

In that case I think getting rid of toe overlap was a byproduct of switching to 26" wheels.

Saying that,I never rode one of the early 29ers.  I'm not sure if they suffered from it or not.  I do remember some of the contortions the frame designers had to do to fit some of the smaller XC racers onto 29ers didn't look like the handling would be much fun...

Toe overlap just seems like the bike has been badly designed.

Generally I'd agree, despite speccing the geometry for my last custom bike knowing it might have slight toe/guard overlap. It's not a problem if it's minor or within type of shoes tolerance but there can be times when it's a bit annoying. A better bike doesn't have it.

On a track bike they wanted short front ends to aid drafting. The problem is that track bikes were influential on road bike geometry, and CX bikes were based on road fit, then MTB got influenced by the roadies in the early 90s and gravel bikes evolved from CX bikes. So overlap seems to keep creeping back in because so many bikes use a general set of numbers from an accepted norm.

One thing you can't convince me of, is that it's necessary to have a short FC for anything but an actual track use or bunched road racing bike. For anything else there are ways around it. I don't think many of us are regularly cornering hairpins so fast and tight that we need as short a wheelbase as possible at all costs so I don't see why we can't just lengthen a bike overall by the 15-25mm it might need to avoid overlap.

I wonder if we get short FCs because they need to match the short RC, there's still this idea around that shorter stays aid power transfer so a longer stay must be slower somehow (don't agree with that myself, I think it's confusing what feels fast with what actually IS fast - same thing with steep twitchy geometry feeling fast).

I do think a good few ‘gravel’ frames are re-hashes of road and CX frames, for whatever reason.

The reason being that we like the way those bikes ride. If you don't want toe overlap you can have geometry that means you don't have it, up to you. I will always take toe overlap that comes by default with my preferred geometry.

The reason being that we like the way those bikes ride.

Yeah, I think road bikes generally are so well evolved and balanced from 60 years or more of refinement. The design translate well off-road but a gravel bike is as much a road bike as an off-road bike, or more road bike if anything, imho.

I'm on my 5th frame and fork layout now to try to get better off-road handling out of a geometry that still feels good on road, it's difficult and it involves getting past what I think my road bike should feel or fit like. Mainly it's difficult because road bikes can be (imo) the most well-balanced bike you'll ride - there's no 'noise' in the terrain, the range of gradient is less and a lot of the riding is from the saddle, so there's an obvious difference between good balance and out of whack. imho some of the current trends in gravel geometry do make it a better off-road bike at times but also unbalances the bike for road riding and for me that makes it less appealing as an all-round or all-road bike. Anyway, neither my current project gravel bike nor production new-school gravel bikes have toe overlap and that's a good thing. 

The reason being that we like the way those bikes ride.

Yeah. It's funny how this thread has been a mix of "toe overlap is fine. Get over it." and "toe overlap is a stupid historical hangover, and no bike should have it now."

Sorry about the job worries OP. Hopefully this gave you a giggle though

I’m an experienced enough rider to work around it but I don’t get the willy waving that starts every time this subject comes up.

Generally I’d agree, despite speccing the geometry for my last custom bike knowing it might have slight toe/guard overlap. It’s not a problem if it’s minor or within type of shoes tolerance but there can be times when it’s a bit annoying. A better bike doesn’t have it.

I think if you are building a mass-produced bike for an 'average' person it's fine.  And if you are building a custom bike for someone who is 5'0" or less it's fine.

However, I think when you release a new bike with sizes from XS to XXL then it can become a problem.

It's funny what numbers are acceptable to change in a single model of bike and what aren't.  Obviously Reach has to change but apart from that it's almost like manufacturers feel as many numbers as possible have to be kept the same, or as close as possible.

I think if you design a bike for the 'average' customer and then try to adjust that design for very tall and very short customers while keeping as many of the numbers the same as possible you are going to run into issues. And for short riders toe overlap is just one of those issues.

Yeah. It’s funny how this thread has been a mix of “toe overlap is fine. Get over it.” and “toe overlap is a stupid historical hangover, and no bike should have it now.”

Different bikes and different priorities for different people. Luckily there is a lot of choice out there.

Saying that,I never rode one of the early 29ers. I’m not sure if they suffered from it or not.

My Niner back in 2007(?) did not, but that was from a specific 29" company...

Hijack:

I've not had a toe overlap issue with my gravel bike (700 x 40C tyres), however last weekend I fitted some longer guards, and I managed to tag the front guard with a toe and bent it (then just bent it back), So I'm thinking of shortening/rotating the front guard forward to try and get out of toe the contact zone but still hopefully be a bit useful.

I've seen some of the front "guards" sold for Gravel bikes which would do little more than keep wheel spray off the headset.

Anyone else had to trim guards specifically to suit a Gravel bike?

I think if you design a bike for the ‘average’ customer and then try to adjust that design for very tall and very short customers while keeping as many of the numbers the same as possible you are going to run into issues. And for short riders toe overlap is just one of those issues.

There is a minimum distance between pedal centre and front tyre or guard specified in the EN standards, it's suprising how many new bikes look unlikely to meet that spec. Looks and actual measurements when the wheel is turned are different things though, granted. Still, whatever size the bike should be designed with the spec and that dimension in mind.

There is a minimum distance between pedal centre and front tyre or guard specified in the EN standards

That's interesting to know.

How is it worked out? It's got to be sizing/anthropometrics based(?)

It's a minimum distance - generally easy for a mid-sized road or gravel bike to pass and the smallest sizes are generally specced with a shorter crank so it's workable with quite a short front-centre. If you have clipless pedals fitted the distance can be less than if flats are used. I don't read it as intending to eliminate toe overlap, just minimising it. 

Nothing to add to the discussion, just always wondered why we don’t just call it toeverlap?

Still trying to make fetch happen...

https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/a-question-about-29ers-and-toe-overlap/

Aidy
Still trying to make fetch happen…

Not sure which is sadder - me for still banging that semantic drum, or you for finding that ancient post!

I have a little toe overlap on my Amazon. It's never really been an issue until a full length mudguard is fitted, but then I tend not to be riding anything nadgery in that case.

A petite friend of mine had a custom steel road bike made for her by a very esteemed British frame manufacturer and the toe overlap was so bad, even without guards that the bike was almost unrideable. There was some chat about them making a different fork for it but then concerns over how that would affect steering. That bike went back.

Then when I was working at Square Wheels we had a customer order a frame and fork from the same manufacturer so we could build it up for him. He couldn't actually ride round the square in Strathpeffer as his foot kept hitting the front wheel. We had to strip the bike right down and return it.

Not sure which is sadder – me for still banging that semantic drum, or you for finding that ancient post!

Probably me 🙂

I remembered I'd heard it before with pretty much exactly the same phrasing, and that was the second hit or something on Google...

I’ve had a couple of road frames that had toe overlap and it’s mostly ok, until the rare occasion it isn’t and you have a dodgy moment so I totally get you’d like to avoid it.

I’d think if you go the more off-road rather than road end of gravel you’re more likely to avoid overlap. The slacker the headangle and longer the reach the further your feet are going to be from the front wheel.

I think my Dolan GXC avoids overlap - not caught a toe yet - and it’s a sort of middling gravel bike - it’s not anywhere near the slack end of things. <br /><br />Steel is likely to cost you more than aluminium - if you’ve got a carbon fork on there I’m not sure there’s much advantage to getting a cheap steel gravel frame (boring you said you’re on a budget).

Looking at Dolan the entry level aluminium gravel bike is £1599 vs entry level steel (Reynolds 725 tubing) is £1999.

Unless you have parts to build them it’s mostly cheaper to buy a full build right now - gravel groupsets are pretty expensive to buy seperately. You can pickup bargain wheels (some on CRC) / handlebars / stems etc though.

Planet X sometimes bang out offers on their ti gravel bikes - might be worth keeping an eye on those.