Toe overlap

Is it a disaster if you have toe overlap?

Obviously, wearing winkle-pickers on a small bike with mudguards does not help! But usually, a bit of overlap is not a disaster, because for general riding, steering inputs are small. However, toe overlap can be very irritating, especially at slow speeds where handlebars are turned more. For me, the worst situation is climbing a twisty road. I'm out of the saddle, putting the watts down, going round a hairpin bend, when whack! At worst, I could fall off.

Over the years, I've developed a sense of the front centres measurement that allows my toes to clear the front wheel. Front centres (FC) is the distance from the centre of the bottom bracket to the centre of the front wheel axles - measured very simply with a tape measure. For me when FC~595mm, then I know that in normal cycling shoes and tyres up to 28mm, toe overlap may be marginal. That is, it may be present, or it may not! I also know that when FC~600mm, clearance is more likely.

If you have a bit of toe overlap and want to get rid of it, you could try changing a few things, for example:

• move your cleats forward a bit, but of course, this may affect comfort
• use narrower tyres
• change cranks to shorter ones - not an ideal solution for a few mm gain
• more radical would be the change the front fork to one with more forward rake

So, toe overlap is not a disaster, but it can be irritating and possibly dangerous. Personally, I don't like it. I try to ensure that there is no toe overlap on any of my bikes, but that said I will keep a bike that I enjoy even if it has a slight toe overlap. 

Are integrated headsets inferior?

I don't think so. I'm talking here of fully integrated headsets, where the bearings drop directly into the head tube with no pressed cups to sit in.

In 2002, Chris King published an article called Integrated Headsets Explained which vigorously attacked these kinds of headsets. In his view, they were a flawed design. Note however, that his firm were not producing any, so a cynic might say that he was attacking a competing product type. There was a hot debate about them in the years that followed, for example here. Many took Chris King's side and I can understand that, because his products are lovely and he clearly knows a thing or two about headsets. However, many did not agree with him. At that time, I stayed on the fence, not really knowing who to believe, but more importantly, looking for evidence supporting either side's arguments.

Since then, I've used integrated headsets a lot. After riding them for some years, I've no issues to report. On the contrary, the ease of fitting, smooth running replaceable angular contact bearings, and the clean finish are all superb benefits. Indeed, nowadays, many top notch frames are designed to take them, Colnago, Hope, Cane Creek, FSA, Ritchey and other great bike brands make them.

Most importantly to me, I haven't found any evidence that proves Chris King's allegations against the integrated headset design. In my opinion, for any kind of headset, what really matters, is how well it is fitted, adjusted and maintained.

Butyl or Latex inner tubes?

I thought it would be fun to write short opinions on technical subjects. Here is the first one.

Latex tubes roll better than butyl ones. The improved rolling resistance is measurable, quantitatively, for example here. The improvement is real, but relatively small - you could achieve comparable rolling resistance reduction by pumping up the tyre more, or through changing tyres. The competitive edge of latex will be of use to the really top flight racing types. The rest of us have much more to gain through training and improving aerodynamics. There is no weight penalty between the two types of tube, because lightweight butyl tubes are available that compare well with latex ones in grams. In qualitative terms, I find latex tubes more comfortable. They have a wonderful "squishy, yet fast" feel to them. In contrast, butyl tubes give a "harder, harsher" ride. Another factor is that latex tubes need to be pumped up more regularly - pretty much every day - as they do not retain air as well as butyl tubes. I've also noted an odd wear issue with latex tubes. See the photo below which shows some kind of plastic deformation on the inside of the tube - I never figured out the cause.

I had to chuck this one after just a few months use, despite the fact that I had run butyl tubes in the same wheels and tyres for much longer with no issues.

So, if you want fast, comfy tubes with improved rolling resistance and can put up with the extra maintenance hassle, then go for latex. But if you can't be bothered with the extra maintenance (both in terms of time and expense), then stick to butyl.