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 - http://chainringtransitauthority.com/
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