Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 25 Mar 2020, 2:47pm

Thanks folks. I'm kind of tempted to get one of the massive and adjustable layback type seatposts/gadgets, e.g. ergotec. Combined with the uncut steer I have, plus a Ritchy adjustable stem (and assorted spare or borrowable stems on other bikes/in mates' garages), I could play around with position to my hearts content. I'd be moving the two contact points which are adjustable, and that might get me to a point at which I could say - "the frame I need is like this". Then I buy that, plus the actual fixed stem and seatpost that work. And flog the adjustable ones. Or start some sort of "hire library".

Maybe.

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 25 Mar 2020, 4:58pm

reohn2 wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
Yes, I know that was an old post, that's why I was asking where you got your figures from. I thought you might have an extant source.

Interestingly, the STA for the CURRENT Panorama in the size I'm interested in is back to 73 deg, which by my calcs puts the saddle back about 12mm for my height. And is the same as the current Spa Wayfarer.


Sticking my neck out here but looking at the Wayarer's geometry table the seatube angles don't add up.The larger frames on their table have a steeper ST angle @73degs than the smaller frames @ 72degs which I feel sure is a misprint on Spa's website.
If I were interested in buying a Wayfarer I'd phone Spa and enquire,and draw their attention to the error


And looking in a bit more detail, there's what looks to me like another discrepancy/typo. They make a "long" and a "short" Wayfarer. Notice that on the 54cm version, the top tube length doesn't change between the long and short, though the ETT does:

https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m1b0s225p3866/SPA-CYCLES-Wayfarer

I expect that's just a typo, which more experienced readers of bike geometry charts would recognise as a mistake an ignore it. But for me, trying to make sense of a subject, it's enough to throw me off. Any other significant issues in that chart? I've emailed Spa.

Cheers.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12642
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby 531colin » 25 Mar 2020, 6:29pm

I anticipate Spa will simply e mail me your question!
So I can do it just the once, what do you need?
Seat tube angle; top tube; effective top tube....any more? ..and what size(s) ?
for the long and short Wayfarers?....NB the long version is disc only...customers didn't like the "redundant" canti. mounts, even though the post unscrews from the boss.

Anybody with an existing bike wanting to know the seat tube angle, you can get a smartphone app. called "angle finder" or some such. Put the phone against the tube, read the angle on screen.
Standing level, obviously.
I would do it several times facing different ways, front/back of tube, phone different way round, etc and see how reproducible it was before I believed it.

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 25 Mar 2020, 8:00pm

531colin wrote:I anticipate Spa will simply e mail me your question!
So I can do it just the once, what do you need?
Seat tube angle; top tube; effective top tube....any more? ..and what size(s) ?
for the long and short Wayfarers?....NB the long version is disc only...customers didn't like the "redundant" canti. mounts, even though the post unscrews from the boss.

Anybody with an existing bike wanting to know the seat tube angle, you can get a smartphone app. called "angle finder" or some such. Put the phone against the tube, read the angle on screen.
Standing level, obviously.
I would do it several times facing different ways, front/back of tube, phone different way round, etc and see how reproducible it was before I believed it.


Thanks Colin. Am I right in inferring that you designed the bike then? If you can see the specs they have on their site, it might just be that there's a couple of typos. Maybe you can tell which they are.

Mainly what I want is some way to consistently compare bikes on paper, at least at first. I know it's best to try them for real, but sometimes that's not always easy. So if I can somehow find out as much as I can about the one I'm riding, and then compare to others, I've got a fighting chance. I'll try out that app, thanks.

I'm kind of new to all this. So in a way I don't know what I need to know. But anything that will influence comfort and I suppose maybe steering feel. So that would be STA, top tube lengths. Maybe trail and head tube angle?

I'm 5 ft 10" with an 84 cm inseam. I think my proportions are "normal". My 56cm Ridgeback feels a bit "long". The 54cm feels better, but looks like I need more setback, but even without that it feels a bit long, and would be even longer. I suspect I'm sort of between sizes. In between a medium and large, whatever any manufacturers calls them - 54/56 or 54/57 at Spa.

Which of the Wayfarers is more "standard"? The short or the long? I doubt I'd want the long. I'm not at all "sporty", and most of my bikes have been flat bar, so I'm used to being a bit more upright. Actually one of the things that attracts me is the optional canti mounts. That strikes me as a real potential advantage. Does the short one have cantilever brake cable bridges? I can't see them, and I guess that really would annoy me, if I wasn't using them.

slowster
Posts: 1199
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby slowster » 26 Mar 2020, 11:56am

While you're waiting for 531Colin to reply, I'll chip in with a few comments (although 531Colin might correct me):

1. I don't know about inseam, but I too am 5' 10" (and I think 531Colin is as well). Based on 'normal proportions' I would have expected you to need/prefer a 54cm Spa (that is what I have and is also I believe 531Colin's usual frame size). I have a 54cm Long Wayfarer with a 90mm stem and classic shallow curve drop bars. I've not long built it up and have not yet begun to start doing test rides to tweak and refine handlebar height, rotation and brake lever position, so cannot give any real insight on the frame handling or ride feel, other than to say nothing struck me as wrong after the first short spin (to my mind, it's a good indicator when you don't notice anything odd or unusual about a bike's handling).

2. WRT to the short vs long Wayfarers, on another thread about the bike 531Colin said that the switch to the slightly longer top tube was in part to harmonise with the TT length of the Spa Steel Tourer, making it simpler for Spa and its customers when recommending/choosing a frame size from their range of tourers. The Steel Tourer is also offered in various flat bar configurations, which suggests to me that a Long Wayfarer with the same effective TT length is not intended to provide a more stretched sporty position than the Short, but rather that the Short can more easily be set up to give a more upright position with drop bars without fitting a much shorter stem.

3. According to the Spa geometry chart the Long Wayfarer also has a slightly longer front centre than the Short and the Tourer. I think toe overlap is extremely unlikely to be an issue with any of them, especially in the 54cm and larger sizes, but one of the attractions of the Wayfarer for some customers will be the option of fitting very wide tyres (e.g. 47mm). By my reckoning, at the very extreme with large feet you might get a smidgen of toe overlap on the Short Wayfarer with 47mm tyres, 57mm mudguards, and a very big gap between tyre and mudguard (more than enough to see daylight through the gap): that amount of clearance is probably more than acceptable and more than you would get with probably any other 700C wheeled tourer on the market, but if you know you want to use the biggest tyres, have the largest possible mudguard clearance and ride muddy off road tracks, that might tip your preference towards the Long.

4. My own view on choosing the Short Wayfarer for the option to fit cantilevers or V brakes is:

- If you know that you will want to fit rim brakes, then I would get the Short Wayfarer if you want to fit tyres bigger than 35mm. NB When removing the front wheel the longer V brake cartridge will be stopped from pivoting completely out of the way by the inside face of the fork blade, making it likely that a very wide front tyre would have to be partially deflated to remove the wheel. In that scenario some might prefer cantilevers to V brakes.

- If you want rim brakes and tyres no wider than 35mm, then I suspect the Spa Steel Tourer might be a better choice for most. 37mm Vittoria Hypers will drop out of the Steel Tourer forks with V brakes released without needing deflation, but that's about the limit. More importantly, I would expect the fork of the Steel Tourer to flex a bit more and be a bit more comfortable, since the Wayfarer fork uses wider diameter blades and is presumably stiffer to cope with the disc brake forces.

IMO, if you get a Wayfarer, it makes sense to to exploit the clearances and fit wider tyres than 35mm, e.g. from 40mm to 47mm, which I would expect to more than offset any reduction in comfort of the stiffer forks.

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 26 Mar 2020, 12:25pm

slowster wrote:While you're waiting for 531Colin to reply, I'll chip in with a few comments (although 531Colin might correct me):

1. I don't know about inseam, but I too am 5' 10" (and I think 531Colin is as well). Based on 'normal proportions' I would have expected you to need/prefer a 54cm Spa (that is what I have and is also I believe 531Colin's usual frame size). I have a 54cm Long Wayfarer with a 90mm stem and classic shallow curve drop bars. I've not long built it up and have not yet begun to start doing test rides to tweak and refine handlebar height, rotation and brake lever position, so cannot give any real insight on the frame handling or ride feel, other than to say nothing struck me as wrong after the first short spin (to my mind, it's a good indicator when you don't notice anything odd or unusual about a bike's handling).

2. WRT to the short vs long Wayfarers, on another thread about the bike 531Colin said that the switch to the slightly longer top tube was in part to harmonise with the TT length of the Spa Steel Tourer, making it simpler for Spa and its customers when recommending/choosing a frame size from their range of tourers. According to the Spa geometry chart the Long Wayfarer also has a slightly longer front centre than the Short and the Tourer. I think toe overlap is extremely unlikely to be an issue with any of them, especially in the 54cm and larger sizes, but one of the attractions of the Wayfarer for some customers will be the option of fitting very wide tyres (e.g. 47mm). By my reckoning, at the very extreme with large feet you might get a smidgen of toe overlap on the Short Wayfarer with 47mm tyres, 57mm mudguards, and a very big gap between tyre and mudguard (more than enough to see daylight through the gap): that amount of clearance is probably more than acceptable and more than you would get with probably any other 700C wheeled tourer on the market, but if you know you want to use the biggest tyres, have the largest possible mudguard clearance and ride muddy off road tracks, that might tip your preference towards the Long.

3. My own view on choosing the Short Wayfarer for the option to fit cantilevers or V brakes is:

- If you know that you will want to fit rim brakes, then I would get the Short Wayfarer if you want to fit tyres bigger than 35mm. NB When removing the front wheel the longer V brake cartridge will be stopped from pivoting completely out of the way by the inside face of the fork blade, making it likely that a very wide front tyre would have to be partially deflated to remove the wheel. In that scenario some might prefer cantilevers to V brakes.

- If you want rim brakes and tyres no wider than 35mm, then I suspect the Spa Steel Tourer might be a better choice for most. 37mm Vittoria Hypers will drop out of the Steel Tourer forks with V brakes released without needing deflation, but that's about the limit. More importantly, I would expect the fork of the Steel Tourer to flex a bit more and be a bit more comfortable, since the Wayfarer fork uses wider diameter blades and is presumably stiffer to cope with the disc brake forces.

IMO, if you get a Wayfarer, it makes sense to to exploit the clearances and fit wider tyres than 35mm, e.g. from 40mm to 47mm, which I would expect to more than offset any reduction in comfort of the stiffer forks.


That's fantastic. I really appreciate your detailed input.

It's by no means a certainty that I will change frame. I'm fairly new to this, and having just spent c £1300 building up this bike a couple of years ago (and not really riding enough to "justify" it) I'm a little wary of spending hundreds more on a new frame.

It's also quite possible that tweaks involving seatposts or saddles might do the trick. I've just bought a used Selle Anatomica off th'ebay to see how I get on with that.

But in regards to your comments.

So you're saying that the long Wayfarer is more like the "normal" frame geometry, at least in Spa's range?

Toe overlap would probably not be an issue. Certainly at this moment the bike is mainly a road bike, with rough stuff only when unavoidable. So I'd probably stick with the 32 tyres I've got on. I take a size 9 shoe, so not too big.

If the Blue Wayfarer is the "shorter" version, that might suit me very well, so long as I can get the saddle position I want.

The canti/V-brake option does really attract me. To be honest I don't know why every frame builder doesn't do that. It seems to me to open up all sorts of possibilities. Perhaps unlikely possibilities, but at least they (the bosses) are there. A rear drag canti brake for instance. Or just slapping rim brakes on if you're on a world tour and the discs get damaged. I don't know why customers objected to them. Apparently the bosses come off so presumably you can just screw a blanking bolt into the hole. Are they really that unsightly?

Thanks.

slowster
Posts: 1199
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby slowster » 26 Mar 2020, 2:06pm

mikeymo wrote:So you're saying that the long Wayfarer is more like the "normal" frame geometry, at least in Spa's range?

See 531Colin's post here.

Personally, the option to chop and change between cantilevers/V brakes and discs on the Short Wayfarer is not a selling point for me, i.e. I expect to want to fit one or other and to stick with that. I guess that Spa might now stick with the disc specific Long geometry, and so when the remaining stock of the first generation Short frames is gone, they might not bother to get another batch made with both disc mounts and canti bosses.

In your shoes I would persevere with trying to get your position to your satisfaction on your current bike, even if that means buying an Ergotec Futura post and/or one or two cheap alternative stem lengths. You might then find that you feel very differently about the bike, i.e. you might then not want to change it because you find it's just perfect. Equally, if you did decide to change it, it's far easier to know exactly what you want in the geometry of a replacement if you have got the right position for you on the Ridgeback, and can then determine if another frame will allow the same position.

If you do decide to look seriously at a Spa, then I think you need (probably more than most potential customers) to visit and have some test rides. In your shoes I would ideally test ride the Short and Long Wayfarers and the Steel Tourer, even if that meant more than one trip, so that I ended up with as clear an idea as possible of the differences and similarities of them, to help me be confident of knowing what exactly I preferred and wanted.

Looking at your photographs of your Ridgeback, I can see we have quite different set ups and preferences:
- you have bars higher than the saddle, mine are lower (depending upon head tube lengths of the Spa and Ridgeback, you might have more spacers with one of them)
- you use STIs with the flat part of the hoods near horizontal and compact bars. I use Tektro RL520 levers on a classic shallow curve bar with the levers rotated back a bit. It looks to me like the forward reach with your bars and levers is consequently quite a bit more than mine, so I can imagine how you might prefer or need a shorter stem and/or shorter effective top tube than me.

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 26 Mar 2020, 2:41pm

slowster wrote:
mikeymo wrote:So you're saying that the long Wayfarer is more like the "normal" frame geometry, at least in Spa's range?

See 531Colin's post here.

Personally, the option to chop and change between cantilevers/V brakes and discs on the Short Wayfarer is not a selling point for me, i.e. I expect to want to fit one or other and to stick with that. I guess that Spa might now stick with the disc specific Long geometry, and so when the remaining stock of the first generation Short frames is gone, they might not bother to get another batch made with both disc mounts and canti bosses.

In your shoes I would persevere with trying to get your position to your satisfaction on your current bike, even if that means buying an Ergotec Futura post and/or one or two cheap alternative stem lengths. You might then find that you feel very differently about the bike, i.e. you might then not want to change it because you find it's just perfect. Equally, if you did decide to change it, it's far easier to know exactly what you want in the geometry of a replacement if you have got the right position for you on the Ridgeback, and can then determine if another frame will allow the same position.

If you do decide to look seriously at a Spa, then I think you need (probably more than most potential customers) to visit and have some test rides. In your shoes I would ideally test ride the Short and Long Wayfarers and the Steel Tourer, even if that meant more than one trip, so that I ended up with as clear an idea as possible of the differences and similarities of them, to help me be confident of knowing what exactly I preferred and wanted.

Looking at your photographs of your Ridgeback, I can see we have quite different set ups and preferences:
- you have bars higher than the saddle, mine are lower (depending upon head tube lengths of the Spa and Ridgeback, you might have more spacers with one of them)
- you use STIs with the flat part of the hoods near horizontal and compact bars. I use Tektro RL520 levers on a classic shallow curve bar with the levers rotated back a bit. It looks to me like the forward reach with your bars and levers is consequently quite a bit more than mine, so I can imagine how you might prefer or need a shorter stem and/or shorter effective top tube than me.


Thanks. Yes, I guess the position of the STIs is the hardest thing to "play" with, as it involves unwrapping the bars. And it's interesting you comment on it, as I've sometimes thought that:

1. They feel a bit far away.
2. They feel a bit too horizontal.

I think when I set it up I was trying to find the balance between being able to reach the brake levers both from the hoods and the drops.

The saddle is actually a touch higher now. You can see I've not cut the steerer yet, and to be honest, although I don't like the look of it, I'm minded to leave it like that until I'm absolutely sure everything is where I want it.

I'm sure you're right that I should stick with the frame I've got and make it work. It's not that far out, and after all, the reason so many after market stems/seatposts are on sale is to allow some tweaking.

On the other hand, I really like the idea of extra bosses for cantis. And now you've told me you think they might sell out I know what'll happen (I'm nothing if not self aware). I'll hurtle over to Spa some Saturday just before they shut, snap up a short 54cm Wayfarer frame, stick it in the attic, and then 5 years later wonder what on earth I was thinking.

slowster
Posts: 1199
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby slowster » 26 Mar 2020, 4:23pm

mikeymo wrote:I guess the position of the STIs is the hardest thing to "play" with, as it involves unwrapping the bars. And it's interesting you comment on it, as I've sometimes thought that:

1. They feel a bit far away.
2. They feel a bit too horizontal.

The poor ergonomics of current STIs (as opposed to the older generation with washing lines) is a bugbear of mine. The flat area of the hoods is relatively very long and is really best suited to being close to horizontal. That's fine if you are a fit, flexible road racer, but not great for the rest of us, since it limits the scope to customise the lever set up and can significantly add to the effective forward reach.

I see a lot of riders, especially sportive/MAMIL type riders (many clearly not very flexible and/or with a large stomach which makes them prefer an upright position), who have resorted to rotating the bars back to raise the height of the STIs, angle them upwards, and reduce the reach. That might be because it avoids retaping the bars, but I suspect that the tight bend of sub-compact bars might not allow the STI lever to be rotated back on the bars. Whereas men with large hands might find this OK and still be comfortably able to reach the levers to brake from the drops, people with smaller hands are more likely to find it difficult then to brake from the drops. This is the sort of thing I mean:

Image

My bars and levers are more like the image below. The curve gives quite a bit of range in where the levers are positioned on the bars, i.e. they can be rotated backwards or forwards to vary their angle and the effective reach. In addition the lever hoods are curved (no large flat area like STIs) and less bulky than STIs, which I think makes it possible for more riders to find a sweet spot where the angle of the hoods and the feel of the hoods in the hand is just right.

Image

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12642
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby 531colin » 26 Mar 2020, 6:13pm

Turned my back for a minute, theres loads to catch up on!
On Spa website, the dimension table is correct except.....
Long Wayfarer....all seat tube angles are 72 deg.
Short Wayfarer.....54cm top tube 538.7
I think you eagle-eyed people had found and sussed out all of those!

I absolutely agree with the comment to sort out your riding position on the bike you have got. If you buy a different bike, its a case of "more in hope than certainty"...and you can spend a lot of money without making any progress.
Now I'll read the posts I've missed!

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 26 Mar 2020, 6:22pm

slowster wrote:
mikeymo wrote:I guess the position of the STIs is the hardest thing to "play" with, as it involves unwrapping the bars. And it's interesting you comment on it, as I've sometimes thought that:

1. They feel a bit far away.
2. They feel a bit too horizontal.

The poor ergonomics of current STIs (as opposed to the older generation with washing lines) is a bugbear of mine. The flat area of the hoods is relatively very long and is really best suited to being close to horizontal. That's fine if you are a fit, flexible road racer, but not great for the rest of us, since it limits the scope to customise the lever set up and can significantly add to the effective forward reach.

I see a lot of riders, especially sportive/MAMIL type riders (many clearly not very flexible and/or with a large stomach which makes them prefer an upright position), who have resorted to rotating the bars back to raise the height of the STIs, angle them upwards, and reduce the reach. That might be because it avoids retaping the bars, but I suspect that the tight bend of sub-compact bars might not allow the STI lever to be rotated back on the bars. Whereas men with large hands might find this OK and still be comfortably able to reach the levers to brake from the drops, people with smaller hands are more likely to find it difficult then to brake from the drops. This is the sort of thing I mean:

Image

My bars and levers are more like the image below. The curve gives quite a bit of range in where the levers are positioned on the bars, i.e. they can be rotated backwards or forwards to vary their angle and the effective reach. In addition the lever hoods are curved (no large flat area like STIs) and less bulky than STIs, which I think makes it possible for more riders to find a sweet spot where the angle of the hoods and the feel of the hoods in the hand is just right.

Image


Thanks. I've just come back from a quick 10 miles, during which I was playing a bit with position. Not actually changing anything on the bike, but just gently examining things.

So this is mine at the moment (well, the saddle is a touch higher now):

Image

The bike must be pretty level there, that's a harbour, obviously.

Yes, I feel like the hoods are a bit too far away. I went into the drops, which I hardly ever do. And it actually felt really comfortable, except I was acutely aware I was a long distance from the brakes. I could get at them, just. I have small hands, for a man. But my hands felt fine, and I didn't feel at all cramped, torso-wise (I'm 12st 6lbs, so not lightweight anymore, but not exactly obese).

You said - " I use Tektro RL520 levers on a classic shallow curve bar with the levers rotated back a bit." I don't really know what that sort of bar is, could you give an example please, and how it might help. The bike's a 9x3 speed (Sora shifters and derailleurs). But I wouldn't mind changing if there's a shifter, even an old second hand one, that would work better. A quick google tells me yours are just brake levers so presumably you use downtube or bar end shifters, yes? I kind of like the STIs to be honest, and would need to know there was going to be a massive benefit to change.

So would you say untape and bring the levers further round to the top? That'll make the brakes further away when I'm in the drops though, won't it?

I also tried various versions of 531Colin's unweighting the bars technique to examine saddle setback. The cyclists and walkers round the reservoir probably thought I was a bit odd, praying to the god of Yorkshire Water. So when i got home I tried again. I don't have a turbo trainer, but I do have a side gate with vertical bars that fit a 32 wheel pretty well. Probably not a terrifically good idea, but with that, and a fence to grab if I started to fall, I kind of confirmed that according to the "hold the position without any weight on the bars" I'm pretty much there, but could maybe do with the saddle being a touch further back.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12642
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby 531colin » 26 Mar 2020, 6:45pm

Yes, most stuff with spa's name on is my designing.
Steering feel... Comparing tourers with tourers, what I want is a bike that isn't moved off course too much by random inputs from sidewinds, adverse camber, potholes, luggage....or me looking over the hedge to watch the birds. Something pretty stable, in other words. I can't be doing with the sort of bike where I end up in the ditch if I take my eyes off the road for a second; it just isn't relaxing for me, and I don't need "bright handling" for my sort of recreational riding....I'm going out for relaxation, not racing criteriums. A bike that's optimised for quick changes of direction in massed-start racing is very quick and easy to change direction riding no hands. A touring bike should require quite exaggerated angles of lean in order to get it to deviate from straight ahead riding no hands, and it should get more stable as speed increases. Audax type bikes fall somewhere in between; you can slalom the cats' eyes no hands but it doesn't put you in the ditch if you glance away from the road.
Trail is the big thing; short trail is lively, long trail is stable. Its never quite that simple; tyre drag is the force that centres bike steering, acting through the lever of trail; so a big tready front tyre will calm down a too-twitchy bike. Shallow head angles give more tolerance for variation in geometry, steep angles set tighter limits.
Reach is a funny thing. You may find if you can get your saddle back where you want it, suddenly the weight comes off your hands and you can relax and the reach which you thought was too long is now completely fine.
In effect, you can't be "between sizes" . Generally, whatever the height difference between 2 bike sizes, the length difference is about half. The "long" Wayfarer is probably closer to "the usual" in terms of sizing, and the extra front centre length is good for confidence when you are slithering down some dodgy track with luggage on board. No canti. cable stops on the short Wayfarer.

"Slowster".....great piece! ...I shall come back to this re STIs etc

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 26 Mar 2020, 7:22pm

531colin wrote:The "long" Wayfarer is probably closer to "the usual" in terms of sizing, and the extra front centre length is good for confidence when you are slithering down some dodgy track with luggage on board. No canti. cable stops on the short Wayfarer.


Thanks. But I thought it was the other way round:

https://www.spacycles.co.uk/m1b0s225p3866/SPA-CYCLES-Wayfarer

And slowster seems to think:

"Personally, the option to chop and change between cantilevers/V brakes and discs on the Short Wayfarer is not a selling point for me, i.e. I expect to want to fit one or other and to stick with that. I guess that Spa might now stick with the disc specific Long geometry, and so when the remaining stock of the first generation Short frames is gone, they might not bother to get another batch made with both disc mounts and canti bosses."

Cheers.

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 12642
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby 531colin » 26 Mar 2020, 8:20pm

mikeymo wrote:
531colin wrote:The "long" Wayfarer is probably closer to "the usual" in terms of sizing, and the extra front centre length is good for confidence when you are slithering down some dodgy track with luggage on board. No canti. cable stops on the short Wayfarer.


Thanks. But I thought it was the other way round:....


Sorry, what was the other way round?

Compare effective top tube, the long Wayfarer is pretty close to the established Tourer.
Front centre (front hub to BB axle) is longer in the long wayfarer than the Tourer

mikeymo
Posts: 625
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe

Postby mikeymo » 26 Mar 2020, 8:34pm

531colin wrote:
mikeymo wrote:
531colin wrote:The "long" Wayfarer is probably closer to "the usual" in terms of sizing, and the extra front centre length is good for confidence when you are slithering down some dodgy track with luggage on board. No canti. cable stops on the short Wayfarer.


Thanks. But I thought it was the other way round:....


Sorry, what was the other way round?


That the long green Wayfarer only has disc mounts.

And that the short blue Wayfarer has disc and canti mounts.

Oh, wait. "Cable STOPS". Have I misunderstood?