A good reason not to buy a compact frame

[Fab Foodie]

checked my daughters , no problems at all , nor do i have the problem on the older bike , pretty much , what it amounts to is you dont need to ride a bike with this problem , its a design that the makers of bikes have convinced every one is faster , turns better , is lighter and we should buy ,
its none of these , what it is for an average cyclist is a dangerous bike if your not aware of it and the only way you are aware of it is if you fall off , no way around that ,
i took out a 1980s bike tonight that cost a quarter of this circus bike , its faster , more comfortoble , turns exactly the same , so scratch the word light and responsive when you look at these compact frames , unless of course you wish to enter ride through the cone competitions , its none of these ,
of course you dont see all this because you get comments like if you cant ride with toe over lap you should not be on a bike from executive members on here , which means that the problem is nicely buried away and they can sell compact frames with out any one knowing that they are buying a potential death trap ,

reacher, it seems you've had a bad experience, but point of order here, it's nothing to do with whether the frame is compact or not, my 1950s diamond framed clubman bike has worst toe-overlap than my 2004 COMPACT Giant which almost has zero. Others here have made the same point and there are plenty of compact frames with no overlap. So toe-overlap is nothing new and characterises many different types of road-bikes. Furthermore thousands of average cyclist ride bkes with toe-overlap every day without great incident, even fixed wheelers. However if you have such strong feelings about it then sell the Compact and only buy bikes with sufficient clearance. But tirades against 'Compact' designs are simply misinformed.

 

[HovR]

Now get your older 'racing' bike out, loads of room behind the front wheel....but the things a pig in traffic, its unresponsive, slow to steer...horrible if you like to squirt in and out of traffic (like wot i do ) Its comfortable....but unresponsive.

I respectfully disagree. My old Dawes racer is both comfortable and very responsive - Especially when counter steering significantly.

Almost certainly due to the geometry, but my point is that it is unfair to classify all older racing bikes as handling like a pig.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Along with this we can make cars that only do 10 mph and I suppose planes that do not get off the ground. Best get a trike they are much harder to fall off, no forget that bit have you tried cornering on one.

Sorry I am probably a bit slow, while I understand why 10mph max cars or planes that do not get off the ground are somewhat pointless, would you care to enlighten me as to why, for the vast majority of cyclists, toe overlap is a necessary feature and/or beneficial overall?

 

[MacB]

As FF and RAFN indicate there does seem to be a little confusion....toe overlap is a function of the front centre distance and nothing else. I know it's been posted already but front centre is the distance from the BB to the centre of the front hub, measured in the same way as chainstays, so ' as the crow flies' and horizontally, the level of BB drop will dictate by how much these two measurements vary....generally not very much though. The geometry bits that matter to front centre (FC):-

Reach - this is the portion of the effective top tube measurement ahead of the BB centre, longer = longer FC
HT Angle - steeper shorten FC and shallower lengthens FC
Fork Rake(offset) - more offset = bigger FC and vice versa

Other bits that matter to toe overlap:-

size of tyres
mudguards
bigger feet
position of feet on pedals
longer cranks

 

[screenman]

HovR, what are you directly comparing your Dawes with. I have a nice 653 tubed bike here with no overlap, it does not handle anywhere near as well as my Focus with overlap. Now I am not saying that you should only ride the likes of the Focus, but different horses.

 

[sidevalve]

Can I respectfuly introduce a note of calm here ?
I too can remember race bikes from my twenties that had very short frames but many of used more laid back "touring" frames and never got the hang of them.
When I had my new bike it felt "squashed up" somehow, I sold it to a young guy I worked with and he LOVES it.
Handling is a very subjective thing, if you are comfortable on a bike and it suits the way you ride and you trust it, guess what, it will handle brilliantly !
One of the problems may be that perhaps SOME bike shops are selling bikes to customers [and good bikes they may be] forgetting that not everyone needs or wants the razor sharp behavior that these frames give. Perhaps better advice a longer test ride and checking uot what the customer WANTS might help.
For those of you who like them and are used to them well, great. For the rest of us, well there are thousands of older bikes out there just begging to be brought back to life and loved again.
Whatever you ride, be safe and have FUN.

 

[screenman]

Good point Sidevale, now I can remember owning a BSA M20 or 21 must admit my BMW rides different.

 

[raindog]

For those of you who like them and are used to them well, great. For the rest of us, well there are thousands of older bikes out there just begging to be brought back to life and loved again.

Once again, as others have explained, it's nothing to do with "older bikes" - you can buy new bikes without toe overlap, and old bikes with.

Agree that overlap should be pointed out by sales people, especially if the customer is obviously new to cycling.

Perhaps it would be useful to have a sticky, maybe in the "Beginners" section, explaining this?

 

[HovR]

HovR, what are you directly comparing your Dawes with. I have a nice 653 tubed bike here with no overlap, it does not handle anywhere near as well as my Focus with overlap. Now I am not saying that you should only ride the likes of the Focus, but different horses.

Primarily with a lower end "Coyote" road bike, however I have also ridden an assortment of newer and higher quality frames to compare to. I should probably add that my Dawes does have toe overlap, albeit only a few mm (although I'm only size 8-9ish feet, so it could be more prevalent with another rider).

So I guess this breaks two presumptions which has been thrown around in this thread; that older bikes have no toe overlap, and handle worse than modern equivalents.

 

[MacB]

HovR, what are you directly comparing your Dawes with. I have a nice 653 tubed bike here with no overlap, it does not handle anywhere near as well as my Focus with overlap. Now I am not saying that you should only ride the likes of the Focus, but different horses.

But you're applying the existence of toe overlap as a defining handling characteristic when it's actually just a side effect. The closest we have to a definition of handling is the mechanical trail measurement. For example, and I'm assuming 700x23 tyres here:-

A 73 deg HT angle and 45mm offset will give a trail of approx 56.9mm
A 71.5 deg HT angle and 54mm offset will also give a trail of approx 56.8mm

So in theory the handling feel should be indentical, at least in terms of steering input, yet the latter will give a larger FC distance and therefore less chance of toe overlap. You can also see that slackening of HT angle increases the trail number and increasing offset reduces it.

Though I understand the measurements I don't have extensive testing experience with all the variables to be able to ascertain the real world feel. But I did read an interesting series of tests carried out by Guitar Ted for 29Inches.com. Though focussed on the handling characteristics of 29ers he did try a variety of frames and forks. He found some surprising results, as in head angles and fork dimensions that shouldn't have worked producing a ride he preferred. But overall his impression was that you pretty much got used to anything and he hadn't managed to create an unrideable combination.

This is looking only at the front end and we should also consider the overall balance of the bike as part of the ride feel. For that I like to see the wheelbase and the the bisection of the measurement by the BB centre, which gives you front centre and rear centre. Immediately you can see that just pushing out the FC will change more than toe overlap potential, it will alter the bikes centre of balance and the riders weight in relation to the rear wheel. If you were wanting to keep a specific proportionality, front and rear, then as FC alters so also should the RC.

My understanding here, and I could be totally wrong on this, is that ever shorter chainstays have brought the FC in as part of keeping the %age balance right.

 

[Sittingduck]

OP - how come you didn't notice this issue on the test ride?

 

[sidevalve]

I only refer to "older" bikes because perhaps that is what SOME older [and maybe some younger] riders relate to,and I and mabe a fair few others just like to rebuild old machinery anyway. I fully agree that there are lots of new bikes out there that fit the bill just as well.
As for spotting the problem on the test ride, well it's pretty hard to remember everything [if you're not expecting it you may not even look for it] and some test rides can be pretty short I've noticed.
The idea of a note in the beginers section is a good one, I was lucky, I didn't have an accident and I found a bike that suits ME to a T [whatever a T is].
PS. My old BSA is an M21 [not much faster than the bike, even with me pedaling !] and great old girl.

 

[GrasB]

So I guess this breaks two presumptions which has been thrown around in this thread; that older bikes have no toe overlap, and handle worse than modern equivalents.

Older racing bikes which were primarily fixed wheel, so we're talking very old, tend to have no toe overlap because of sharp turns at slow speed when climbing. You can't stop pedalling for half a second so your foot is going through the front wheel regardless.

As for 'worse handling' I think it's better to say 'different handling'. For riders who are doing mountainous races a lot they often prefer a shallower fork angle to reduce twitch at high speed.

 

[GrasB]

But you're applying the existence of toe overlap as a defining handling characteristic when it's actually just a side effect. The closest we have to a definition of handling is the mechanical trail measurement. For example, and I'm assuming 700x23 tyres here:-

A 73 deg HT angle and 45mm offset will give a trail of approx 56.9mm
A 71.5 deg HT angle and 54mm offset will also give a trail of approx 56.8mm

So in theory the handling feel should be indentical, at least in terms of steering input, yet the latter will give a larger FC distance and therefore less chance of toe overlap. You can also see that slackening of HT angle increases the trail number and increasing offset reduces it.

For the same trail steerer angle & offset change the steering dynamics also wheel base needs to be taken into consideration. If I'm remembering my steering geometry right a high caster angle will make for heaver & more centrally stable steering for the same amount of trail.

 

[HovR]

Older racing bikes which were primarily fixed wheel, so we're talking very old, tend to have no toe overlap because of sharp turns at slow speed when climbing. You can't stop pedalling for half a second so your foot is going through the front wheel regardless.

As for 'worse handling' I think it's better to say 'different handling'. For riders who are doing mountainous races a lot they often prefer a shallower fork angle to reduce twitch at high speed.

Yes, you're right that 'old' is subjective, and therefore possibly wasn't a good term to use - And then with age comes the whole new variable of style of bike as you mentioned.

Note that I'm not disagreeing that some old bikes don't have toe overlap, and that some will in fact handle like pigs - But rather dispelling the statement that all older bikes behave like this.