[asciibaron]

cansomeone break down the evolution in the increase of the rear hub width. the introduction of more and more cogs on the cassette has caused me problem that i find interesting. myheels hit the O/S tubing on the chainstays of my 2006 Cannondale. i didn't notice this on a frame from 2000.

 

[Cpk]

move your cleats laterally a bit (?) Seems like an odd problem to me too

 

[terry b]

cansomeone break down the evolution in the increase of the rear hub width. the introduction of more and more cogs on the cassette has caused me problem that i find interesting. myheels hit the O/S tubing on the chainstays of my 2006 Cannondale. i didn't notice this on a frame from 2000.

Are you sure your year 2000 frame has a different dropout width? All of my bikes from that era are 130.

Extra cog increases recently have not driven spacing changes, they've driven tighter cassettes. 9 to 11 for example was all done on 130 hubs.

 

[bikerjulio]

126mm went with 6 and 7 speed systems which lasted up till about 1990. With the change to 8 speed and up rear spacing went to 130 mm and has stayed there since then. Tube shapes and sizes may have changed and I too have some bikes where heel clearance is minimal. Adjust your cleats a little maybe.

 

[SystemShock]

Are you sure your year 2000 frame has a different dropout width? All of my bikes from that era are 130.

Ditto me and my 2000-era LeMond.

However, my gf has a late-90s entry-level Trek road bike, and it's 7-spd. So 126mm may've hung around at the low-end a bit longer than we remember.

Extra cog increases recently have not driven spacing changes, they've driven tighter cassettes. 9 to 11 for example was all done on 130 hubs.

Are you sure that had nothing whatsoever to do with it? :idea:

Okay, sure, 8 to 11-spd was done on 130. But 6 and 7-spd were done on 126mm, and 5-spd was done on 120mm, if I recall.

And 3- and 4-spd were on 114mm, if Sheldon Brown's chart is to believed.

Just coincidence?

Or is it more like the component and bike makers will try to 'hold the line' at a dropout spacing standard for awhile (by narrowing the chains and cog spacing), but beyond a certain point something's gotta give if you're gonna cram more coggage back there, and when that happens, dropout spacing goes up.
.

 

[wim]

While you say it caused your problem, it's unlikely that rear axle spacing has anything to do with your heel hitting the frame. I can't know what changes occured from 2006 until now, but my guess in order of probability is:

- increased pedal float range because of a recent adjustment to or change of pedals,
- intentional or unintentional into-the-frame angular change in the cleat position on shoe sole,
- recent purchase of larger shoes,
- more and more of a toe-out foot stance as you aged,
- sudden awareness of an always existing, but never noticed-before problem.

/w

 

[SystemShock]

Is it possible that the stays on the OP's '06 Cannondale are even fatter than the ones on his '00 'Dale?

Or perhaps the '06 model has shorter chainstays, which would cause them to angle out a bit more relative to where his heels pass them.

(for those having a hard time visualizing the above, think about it... if a bike had only 35 cm chainstays [unrealistically extreme example], your heels would be passing the stays at their widest point, i.e. at or extremely near the dropouts).

Or perhaps the '06 model has a crank with a different Q-factor than the '00 did.

Lotsa possibilities here. Wim had a good list too.
.

 

[Dave Hickey]

cansomeone break down the evolution in the increase of the rear hub width. the introduction of more and more cogs on the cassette has caused me problem that i find interesting. myheels hit the O/S tubing on the chainstays of my 2006 Cannondale. i didn't notice this on a frame from 2000.

FYI, I have a 110mm rear spaced track frame. Depending on how my cleats are set up, my heels can hit the chainstay...

 

[terry b]

I was only talking within the time range he specified. In my experience the changes to cassettes since 2000 have not been associated with the hub standard. You stated it better than I did.

 

[terry b]

Is it possible that the stays on the OP's '06 Cannondale are even fatter than the ones on his '00 'Dale?

Or perhaps the '06 model has shorter chainstays, which would cause them to angle out a bit more relative to where his heels pass them.

(for those having a hard time visualizing the above, think about it... if a bike had only 35 cm chainstays [unrealistically extreme example], your heels would be passing the stays at their widest point, i.e. at or extremely near the dropouts).

Or perhaps the '06 model has a crank with a different Q-factor than the '00 did.

Lotsa possibilities here. Wim had a good list too.
.

Yea, my guess is tubing shape, cleats or crank Q.

 

[meat]

The chainstays on a couple of carbon frames I have are much larger than my steel frames. That could be the problem with modern pedal float.

 

[Cygnus]

increased dropout spacing is consistent with widening of the american a$$.

that also explains congressman larry craig, ID: "i have a wide stance"

 

[SystemShock]

I was only talking within the time range he specified. In my experience the changes to cassettes since 2000 have not been associated with the hub standard.

Good point. I didn't think of it that way, i.e. 2000-2010 only, which, you're right, has been pretty much all 130 ('cept for maybe a few 7-spd dead-enders).

At some point in the next decade tho', road bikes probably go to 135mm.
.

 

[cs1]

However, my gf has a late-90s entry-level Trek road bike, and it's 7-spd. So 126mm may've hung around at the low-end a bit longer than we remember..

Check your GF's bike again. It probably has 130mm spacing with an 8/9 sp cassette hub and a 4.5mm spacer on the cassette.