PSA: Crust Bikes Lighting Bolt pre-sale

[Igor Belopolsky]

Looks so nice. I don't need any more bikes - if I had not gone with a custom I would be buying.

I decided to stick with rim brakes over discs, so there's another reason.

Some sizes already sold out.

https://crustbikes.com/products/lightning-bolt-2/

[satanas]

Ain't gonna fit me, but looks nice. I wonder if they're actually selling them with clear only, or if that's just a sample to show the brazing???

Later,
Stephen (who's still waiting for fork production)

[Steve Chan]

   Funny, he says its explicitly designed to plane the way Jan Heine describes it, but that tubing spec is pretty far off from what would be spec'd on a BQ planing bike. Does it have a specially flexy rear triangle?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Chris Cullum]

Interesting bike. When was this announced? Many are already sold out.

--

[Stephen Poole]

An 858x31.8 downtube feels pretty similar to 969x28.6, i.e., Columbus SL, so I'd say it should feel fairly neutral rather than super stiff or mega-flexy. I have a frame built from similar diameter and gauge Ritchey Logic WCS tubing (958 OS TT & DT) and it doesn't feel weird. It certainly doesn't plane like an old Alan, but then what does?

FWIW, I'm not convinced light gauge chainstays necessarily mean planing will happen, though they may or may not help. I suspect it's all to do with "balanced flex" which (in my opinion) can be achieved in various ways, and is likely to vary with loads carried and riding style.

Later,

Stephen

[William Lindsay]

That statement about planing and Jan Heine strikes me much more as him making fun of the planing zealots.  

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 4:46:30 PM UTC-8, Steve Chan wrote:

   Funny, he says its explicitly designed to plane the way Jan Heine describes it, but that tubing spec is pretty far off from what would be spec'd on a BQ planing bike. Does it have a specially flexy rear triangle?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Igor Belopolsky <belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks so nice. I don't need any more bikes - if I had not gone with a custom I would be buying.

I decided to stick with rim brakes over discs, so there's another reason.

Some sizes already sold out.

https://crustbikes.com/products/lightning-bolt-2/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

[John Guild]

Preordered a 64. Feels like it could just be a bit too big, but I currently ride a 25inch Schwinn Voyageur and a 63cm Mercian Superlight, and those fit well enough.

Only downside is that I’ll probably need to sell my BMC Road to make room, so that’s a bummer. Ah well, it overlaps with my Mercian too much.

[Jeffrey Kane]

What Bill said -- that "statement" about planing is about as serious as The Onion's Instagram post on cycling accidents earlier this evening. Nice bike, though -- the "paint" isn't paint --- it's some sort of anodized coating (but that's not quite right, either). And it does show the brass brazing, which, is pretty darn cool. That he's able to get this kind of stuff out of Taiwan is pretty amazing ... his steel disc forks keep getting more and more refined as well.

[Kevin M]

This seems like an amazing deal, and it's equally amazing that they're sourcing these frames from Taiwan at this pace and level of quality. 

[Stephen Poole]

And they're super nice and super helpful too, IME; they deserve to do really well.  :-)

[Steve Chan]

   The coating is really cool, it more than just a tinted clearcoat? I wonder if it will start to show rust forming under the coating like clearcoat only finishes do?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[James Chang]

Wow!!! This clicks a lot of boxes for me.  Was going to pull the trigger on the Romanceur but have been holding off just to see what the lighter tubing Lightingbolt is all about.

But 65mm BB drop?  Why so high, especially for a pavement oriented bike?  I can understand 65mm BB drop on the Romanceur since it is an all road type.  I was hoping the Lightingbolt be around 70 ~ 75mm BB drop.  Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?

James Chang

--

*** club sandwich, not seal ***

[Thomas Hassler]

I’ve had a prototype of this frame for about 6 month. It’s incredible. My frame is all QR, and is the 61 square, rides more like a 58. In 6”2.

Did the Torino Nice Rally in it, was flawless, great commuter, and everything I wanted in a fast-Rando bike. It’s really smooth, not too flexy, and holds up very well under heady loaded riding.

Clear coat is so beautiful. The brazing is very well done, and the unique quality of the finish shows a lot of natural blemishes on the metal. Lucky for people buying this new frame, because you now have downtube braze on for FD, which I don’t have, and a lot of other braze on attachments.

For the price this bike is a steal on quality, ride, and value for frame. It’s a bit step up from the Romanceür, but I’d be curious how this one rides with the new tubing, as my tubing is a little thicker than the new version.

Pic below of my ride.

[Philip Kim]

is it really a lighter tubed romanceur? it seems like the same tubing? at least in the smaller sizes.

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 2:15:24 AM UTC-5, James Chang wrote:

Wow!!! This clicks a lot of boxes for me.  Was going to pull the trigger on the Romanceur but have been holding off just to see what the lighter tubing Lightingbolt is all about.

But 65mm BB drop?  Why so high, especially for a pavement oriented bike?  I can understand 65mm BB drop on the Romanceur since it is an all road type.  I was hoping the Lightingbolt be around 70 ~ 75mm BB drop.  Anyone thinking what I'm thinking?

James Chang

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Steve Chan <sych...@gmail.com> wrote:

   The coating is really cool, it more than just a tinted clearcoat? I wonder if it will start to show rust forming under the coating like clearcoat only finishes do?

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 6:54 PM, Jeffrey Kane <jsk_o...@mac.com> wrote:

What Bill said -- that "statement" about planing is about as serious as The Onion's Instagram post on cycling accidents earlier this evening. Nice bike, though -- the "paint" isn't paint --- it's some sort of anodized coating (but that's not quite right, either). And it does show the brass brazing, which, is pretty darn cool. That he's able to get this kind of stuff out of Taiwan is pretty amazing ... his steel disc forks keep getting more and more refined as well.

On Monday, November 13, 2017 at 6:56:01 PM UTC-5, Igor Belopolsky wrote:

Looks so nice. I don't need any more bikes - if I had not gone with a custom I would be buying.

I decided to stick with rim brakes over discs, so there's another reason.

Some sizes already sold out.

https://crustbikes.com/products/lightning-bolt-2/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Thomas Hassler]

Both these frame are Reynolds 853, but the Romanceür is a double butted, and it looks like the LB is a thin wall version.

Having ridden both, the LB is a more agile bike, much better suited for brevets and road riding. Not that it can’t handle off road, it can, but tire clearance is way tighter (I can only fit a 42mm Baby Shoe with fenders), and the chain stays and frame are just tighter than the Romanceür. Also I wouldn’t event try 26” on the LB. won’t fit.

I think for people wanting a compromise between a traditional road frame and an all road touring rig, this is it.

Thomas
NYC

[Philip Kim]

Thanks thomas for clearing that up. might miss this pre-order, but might get one for my partner later down the road.

[Jeffrey Kane]

Philip: it doesn't have the clearance of the Romancer. The L/B max with fenders is 650b x 42

[Daniel Jackson]

So do I commit to this or wait for the upcoming BMC Road Plus? Looking to build up a 1x dirt road event bike.

I’d run the LB with Compass Pumpkin Ridges. I’d run the BMC with some ~48-50 knobbie.

For those that know something about disc brake setups, would it be straightforward to get a 160mm rotor on the LB fork? Is that standard sizing for front discs on road frames?

[Philip Kim]

thanks for pointing it out, i stopped following the romanceur when i saw the geo.

but i think the lightning bold geo will work for my partner. i might wait until the next batch and see if they move away from clear coat. 

clear coat looks really good, but i don't trust it. 

[Thomas Hassler]

Hi Daniel,

I may be wrong, but I’m pretty sure this bike was build for 160mm rotors. I run 160 front/rear, which is standard for touring/loaded riding bikes.

My bike is flat mount in the rear, but the production version is a stay mounted bracket, so you’ll need an adapter to set, same as fork.

[Randall Daniels]

DQ; is the frame threaded or threadless? I can't tell from the photos and didn't see anything in the description.

[CMR]

Threadless from the pics

[Patrick Turko]

Looks like they added more to the pre-sale. Using the trick of trying ato add 100 to my cart, I see that they have 10 to 15 available in each size.

I'm not surprised they needed to add more. This bike looks sick as hell. I have a romanceur and can add my vote of confidence for Crust. It's the best quality frame I've seen out of Taiwan. The LB looks like a whole other level.

[Peter Turskovitch]

Damn, looking at the geometry is inspiring. It has a little more stack than the romanceur and a little less reach, plus a little more standover. It's a little more flexible. TA front and QR rear, the perfect compromise. These are my exact wishes.

[Stephen Poole]

Huh, I'm the exact opposite - need more reach, less stack. Many of the smaller details look good, but I see no reason not to use a TA at both ends; TA rear hubs are much easier/cheaper to get than are TA dyno hubs. The front centres are very short on all but the two largest sizes (=> major TCO), BB drop and chainstay length could both usefully be increased by ~10mm, etc. I like Crust, but the geometry here is further confirmation I need a custom; I'm sure they'll sell well nonetheless.

Later,

Stephen

[Peter Turskovitch]

Personally I don't really like TA, but accept that they are better than QR in a disk fork. I'm not worried about retention with QR, but I do get annoyed by how the slight flex allows the rotor to whisper against the pads during heavy side loads. When climbing out of the saddle I get a zing - zing - zing that is really annoying. In the rear there's no such problem and (in my opinion) no need for TA.

Can I ask how you calculated the toe overlap? It seems like a complex series of triangles to solve...? On my romanceur I have a good inch between my toes and the 60mm fenders, and the Lightning bolt seems to have only a slightly shorter wheelbase, with most of that difference explained by the shorter chainstays.

[William Lindsay]

He didn’t calculate toe overlap. He calculated front center and inferred toe overlap. There are two right triangles: one on the rear of the bike and one on the front.

The rear triangle has two legs and a hypotenuse. The hypotenuse is the chainstay length. Leg 1 is BB drop and Leg 2 is unknown. Plug that into the Pythagorean theorem and solve for Leg 2.

The front triangle has front center as the hypotenuse. Leg 1 again is BB drop and Leg 2 on this triangle is wheelbase minus the Leg 2 value you calculated above. Plug that in and solve for the hypotenuse and you have front center.

Taking that approach the Large has a front center of ~630mm.

A rough guess with less math is wheelbase minus chainstay length. You’re only a few mm off with that ballpark estimate.

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, Ca

[Cary Weitzman]

William Lindsay wrote:
> Taking that approach the Large has a front center of ~630mm.

Or, if you're really lazy, you can draw the known sides of the 2
triangles in a CAD program and simply measure the third.

This method also gives ~63cm front-centre for the Large size.

I get ~60.5cm for the Medium (my size) which unless you have unusually
large feet, or your goal is to absolutely max out tire size, should be
more than enough room to prevent toe overlap with 42s and fenders, which
given the bike's stated rando mission, is an appropriate tire size.

For comparison, My Stanyan has a measured front centre of 59.25cm and is
running 38s with the fenders set at 20mm from the tire. Just enough room
for my Euro size 45 SPD shoes with the cleats pushed right to the back
of the slots and 170mm cranks. 42s and fenders would be no problem with
a whole extra cm of room to play with.

Cary
PTBO.ON.CA

[Stephen Poole]

In response to Peter T:

Re TAs: For rear hubs these are largely cost neutral (assuming you're buying new), and there are plenty of choices. If Q/R hubs didn't exist and were designed today they'd most likely be banned by the CPSC and similar organisations - TAs, especially those without "levers" are much simpler and easier for non-cyclists to understand, thus arguably safer, plus potentially lighter too. Lawsuits about Q/Rs have been depressingly common in the past.

Re TCO: Front centre is easy to calculate from wheelbase, BB drop and chainstay length; it's basic trigonometry. In my case, I need something like 267mm + tyre radius or my feet hit the tyre without fenders - the number will vary depending on shoe size, cleat position, crank length, etc. For a BSP or Hetre, the radius is ~335mm, so that plus 267mm gives 602mm.

According to my calculations front centre for the XS is 581, S is 601, M is 604, L is 630 & XL is 650. That means I'd have TCO on anything smaller than L with fenders & 42mm, and marginal clearance without - and overlap with 48mm tyres. No way L & XL would fit me as they're both too tall; L might come close with a slammed stem and negative standover, but that's not a viable option. S & M frames (not THAT sort of S & M!) are too short fore-aft for me.

It might be worth noting that Thorn in the UK offer some of their stock frames with multiple top tube lengths; few do this but it certainly cannot hurt the chances of getting a good fit: 

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/bikes

(Thorn don't have geometry charts online but you can download PDFs that contain them.)

Later,

Stephen

[Justin Hughes]

Stephen, I feel like you'd be in the minority as far as these frames being too tall. It's definitely much taller than your average road bike, but the majority of riders use a good deal of spacers on their frames and copious standover is overrated. 

I agree on the rear dropouts, but I wouldn't let that alone keep me away from one. I definitely find the BB drop a headscratcher and agree 75mm would be ideal. And I would have preferred flat mount or at least post mount inside the triangle on the rear. A nice feature is what looks to be internal dynamo wiring in the DS fork blade. The finish isn't a worry for me; I like it. 

FWIW, I talked to Matt (Crust) about this frame 12-13 months ago. But, the frames have not been flaunted, hint-dropped or the like in that time. I think that reflects well on Crust. They developed the frame to the point it was fleshed out, the prototypes were tested and the factory is now ready to fill the order. I know Matt traveled to Taiwan to visit the factory where the non-US frames would be built to see for himself the conditions in which the workers work and to see the skills of the builders first hand. 

Here's a data point regarding TCO on my custom frame which is very similar to the size L Lightning Bolt. 

HTA: 73d

Rake: 66mm

Front-center: 631mm

BB drop: 75mm

Fenders: Slightly re-radiused VO 700x63

Tires: Switchback Hill (50.5mm) and 2.1" Thunder Burts (54mm) both under fender

Crank length: 170mm

Pedals: A600 SPD

Shoes: Lake MX237 size 46

Toe Overlap: none at any position 

Justin

[Chris Cullum]

I think this bike looks pretty good. The geometry is sensible for most folks. If you're outside that demo you'll probably be searching for a custom anyway. 6.5cm bb drop is pretty normal for a bike designed around 650b x 42mm tires. The tubing spec is nice. 8/5/8 OS is lighter/livelier than most these days. The q/r and t/a debate means you're never going to please everyone. To me this arrangement is reasonable.

The not so great: potentially the clear powder coat. It looks kinda cool but it's known to be porous and can develop rust underneath. Some are calling it an outstanding deal pricewise. Hmm. It's within dollars of the US made NFE that has nearly identical specs. This is pretty steep for a Taiwanese batch made spec frameset IMO. 

[Stephen Poole]

On 15 Nov 2017 2:31 pm, "Justin Hughes" <justin...@me.com> wrote:

Stephen, I feel like you'd be in the minority as far as these frames being too tall. It's definitely much taller than your average road bike, but the majority of riders use a good deal of spacers on their frames and copious standover is overrated.

^ Unless you're riding offroad and end up with a sprained ankle because you couldn't get your foot down; been there, done that.

I guess what I need is "arm shorteners" - sorta like crank shorteners, as well as really thick shoe soles; surgery would be too expensive.

It's kinda annoying that I can't buy a decent fitting rando frame off the peg. It's a small enough niche that there aren't many options, and things like TCO matter (to me) for riding at low speed with fenders, whereas on road bikes that's not really much of an issue. Similarly, top tubes and front centres are relatively much shorter (for equivalent seat tube lengths), than on just about everything else.

I wish Crust well, and have found both Matt and goat really helpful. I'd have been happy to buy another frame from them but the LB sadly isn't for me.

FWIW, my old Tony Oliver from 35 years ago still fits, apart from TCO, but it's 560C-C ST x 584 C-C TT x 72°STA - note the reversed ST:TT ratio. Back in the day I had 170mm cranks, size 44 leather Sidis, and the cleats forward, but now it's 172.5/46/cleats back. That means major TCO at low speeds with the 610mm front centre; it hasn't quite caused a crash, but I've come close several times. The Cross Check with fixed + fenders was even worse. I dislike overlap; a few mm is okay, 10+mm not so much.

Later,

Stephen

[Peter Turskovitch]

Hi again, thanks for the explanation. But I'd quibble that these two triangles don't actually tell you where the problem zone lies. Your feet aren't in the plane of the bike frame; they're something like 3 or 4 inches off to the side. This means that the nearness if the wheel when pointed straight ahead isn't relevant - the potential overlap occurs when the wheel is turned 20° or so (eyeballing). At this point, the wheel has moved away from your feet, providing more toe clearance than apparent from the front-center calculation.

Peter

[Stephen Poole]

FYI, I *know* from multiple bikes and years of experience just what clearance is needed (in mm), so once front centre is calculated it's go/no go. I agree it's not easy to calculate required clearance from first principles, but I wasn't doing that.

On 15 Nov 2017 8:11 pm, "Peter Turskovitch" <patric...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi again, thanks for the explanation. But I'd quibble that these two triangles don't actually tell you where the problem zone lies. Your feet aren't in the plane of the bike frame; they're something like 3 or 4 inches off to the side. This means that the nearness if the wheel when pointed straight ahead isn't relevant...

^ Who said it was? You're making an unjustified assumption, as are most people when they say things like "I have X mm clearance with my setup, so others /shouldmight/will be okay." As an example of this, a few years ago, Rawland didn't list front centre for one of their frames, or enough other dimensions to calculate it, instead claiming there would be no TCO; I eventually found out I'd have ~10-15mm overlap once the dimensions were known. 

There's a saying: "One accurate messurement is worth a thousand expert opinions." That applies here.

Later,

Stephen

[Peter Turskovitch]

Hi, sorry if I came off as presumptuous. Clearly you know your fit and your needs.

I was responding to William Lindsay, who gave an explanation of how to figure out toe overlap. I think that explanation was incomplete, if, like me, you don't know the precise front center measurement that you need. I know what cranks I use, I know my foot position, it would be nice to calculate the possibility of toe overlap.

I think that a lot of people would like to be able to do that. I often read on this list that people remember the 1970s and even the 1960s, and so I have to conclude that, like you, many people here have decades of experience on many different bicycles and have dialed in every possible measurement to the nearest millimeter. However there are others here, like me, who have not even been alive long enough for that to happen. I need to work from first principles, I bet that a lot of others do too, and I asked a question intending to clarify how to do that.  Front center is not sufficient for me.

Cheers,
Peter

[Stephen Poole]

If you want to try to figure what clearance you need to avoid TCO, then I'd suggest front centre is the measurement that must be known to check if things will be okay. You will need to know crank length, fore-aft distance from pedal axle centre to front of shoe, lateral distance(s) from frame centreline to front(s) of shoe(s) - this is likely to differ left to right - plus tyre radius, fender to tyre clearance desired (if fenders are fitted), fender thickness (including hardware where it might hit your shoes), etc. Once you've established what front centre works for you then only equipment or setup changes need to be taken into account.

Some CAD software, including bikecad and rattlecad (available from rattlecad.sourceforge.net), will give a graphical illustration of clearance as the fork is turned. I say "might" as one's foot and pedal can rotate in multiple planes, as well as the fork rotating in the headtube.

You can play around with the software and see what clearance - if any - you will have with various front centre dimensions, provided the other variables are known and allowed for. Or you could measure front centre on a bike you have and figure how much it might need to change, bearing in mind any component changes; IMHO it's easier to measure then adjust, rather than trying to do 3D calculations, but YMMV. :-)

In practice, I've found a (very) few mm of TCO is usually okay, but this will depend on where and how you ride; people's tolerances vary greatly.

Caveat emptor,

Stephen

[Philip Kim]

i think rear QR and TA fork is sensible. if you have an old rear hub you can use it and its lighter. fork has TA to prevent lateral flex.

[William Lindsay]

"Hi, sorry if I came off as presumptuous. Clearly you know your fit and your needs.

I was responding to William Lindsay, who gave an explanation of how to figure out toe overlap. I think that explanation was incomplete"

If you re-read the first two sentences of my explanation again, you will be reminded what I was explaining:

"He didn’t calculate toe overlap. He calculated front center and inferred toe overlap."

The easiest thing to do is know the front center of bikes that do and do not yield toe overlap for you.  Then front center is a good qualitative guess at whether or not you will have toe overlap.  If you don't know the front center of any of the bikes you've ridden, or need to compare some new bike with a wheel diameter you've never used before, that's harder.  If you want help calculating toe overlap from first principles, let me know.  As long as you know all the important dimensions, it's relatively straightforward.  I'll give you a spreadsheet where you can plug in everything. 

Bill Lindsay
El Cerrito, CA

[Cary Weitzman]

Peter Turskovitch wrote:

Hi again, thanks for the explanation. But I'd quibble that these two triangles don't actually tell you where the problem zone lies. Your feet aren't in the plane of the bike frame; they're something like 3 or 4 inches off to the side. This means that the nearness if the wheel when pointed straight ahead isn't relevant - the potential overlap occurs when the wheel is turned 20° or so (eyeballing). At this point, the wheel has moved away from your feet, providing more toe clearance than apparent from the front-center calculation.

Also, there's the fender stay attachment bolts for fenders using the Honjo/Lefol system. It's far to easy to position the bolts where they're what you'll hit, even if the fender always clears your feet. A Berthoud stay (if you can get one that fits the curvature of your fender) is a simple fix for that problem however.

Cary
PTBO.ON.CA

[Alan Gerber]

I dig the setup— what material is that mudflap made out of?

On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 7:43:53 AM UTC-5, Thomas Hassler wrote:

I’ve had a prototype of this frame for about 6 month. It’s incredible. My frame is all QR, and is the 61 square, rides more like a 58. In 6”2.

Did the Torino Nice Rally in it, was flawless, great commuter, and everything I wanted in a fast-Rando bike. It’s really smooth, not too flexy, and holds up very well under heady loaded riding.

Clear coat is so beautiful. The brazing is very well done, and the unique quality of the finish shows a lot of natural blemishes on the metal. Lucky for people buying this new frame, because you now have downtube braze on for FD, which I don’t have, and a lot of other braze on attachments.

For the price this bike is a steal on quality, ride, and value for frame. It’s a bit step up from the Romanceür, but I’d be curious how this one rides with the new tubing, as my tubing is a little thicker than the new version.

Pic below of my ride.

[Thomas Hassler]

Hi Alan,

They are made from an $11 piece of leather scrap from Michael's crafts. I cut them based on designs I saw online and added length to fit my fenders.

I actually took off the rear and have made a new one out of a plastic "beware of dog" sign, similar to the ones you see on many randonnering frame. Long and skinny, covered in reflective tape. Only problem with the plastic is that it isn't as flexible as the leather, so it catches on rocks and things more when riding off road. More for commuting. 

Pic below of new version. 

Thomas

NYC

[Stephen Poole]

William said:

The easiest thing to do is know the front center of bikes that do and do not yield toe overlap for you. 

^ Easily measured with a tape measure, and the point I was trying to make.

Then front center is a good qualitative guess at whether or not you will have toe overlap.  If you don't know the front center of any of the bikes you've ridden, or need to compare some new bike with a wheel diameter you've never used before, that's harder.

With a different tyre size the only thing that impacts on clearance is radius, not hard to measure; if the tyre is 20mm less in radius the front centre can lose 20mm without overlap, and vice versa.

If you want help calculating toe overlap from first principles, let me know.  As long as you know all the important dimensions, it's relatively straightforward.  I'll give you a spreadsheet where you can plug in everything.

As I'm not an enginerd I find it less traumatic (mentally) to measure and extrapolate based on changes than to try to solve 3D puzzles with numerous variables. I can see how that might be entertaining fir some, but not so much for me.  ;-)

Later,

Stephen

[William Lindsay]

LOL. Good one. 😂