Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13334
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby 531colin » 27 Mar 2019, 6:03pm

horizon wrote:…….
I'm very attracted to the Aubisque but as in every other time I consider an Audax bike I know I will need luggage carrying capacity so I always default to a tourer. But with the Aubisque, I wouldn't get the luggage (full camping) and it would be as heavy as a touring bike anyway.....


Because?
I'm going from memory here, and I would need to check drawings in more detail than I have time for right now, but to the best of my recollection...
Rear triangle is the same in Tourer and Aubisque, except that Aubisque probably has 5mm rack screws not 6mm like Tourer, and Aubisque chainstays aren't flattened for tyre clearance.
Main triangle is the same material, 725. The bigger bikes have bigger top and down tubes than the small ones, and these changes may occur in different sizes in the 2 bikes, I would need to check. However, Aubisque being a newer design has ovalised tubes for maximum (lateral) stiffness from that weight of tubing.
Low rider bosses...both bikes
smaller Aubisque has the same offset and head angle as Tourer.
Aubisque chainstays are probably a bit shorter, at least in some sizes.

My conclusion is that all bikes are more similar than different; there is more weight differences in the cycle parts than the frames; all the Spa steel bikes are 725 main tubes and Cromo forks and stays, and this is mainly because I think the advantages in having the factory work with what they are used to outweighs any advantage from having a more exotic material. (for example, in the newer designs, the chainstay is bent to "thread the needle" between the chainwheel and tyre, flattening the stays is not necessary.)

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 6:05pm

Brucey wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
Brucey wrote:.

If one started with a lighter frameset, and used lightweight parts where possible, I think a target weight of well under 11kg isn't an unreasonable expectation for an audax type machine, even with SA drum brakes fitted. The fact that virtually no-one does this is testament to the success of various marketing efforts elsewhere and pervading 'groupthink' amongst cyclists, perhaps?

cheers

Or that discs are even lighter still than drums....


my whole point is that, for any given duty, they are not "lighter" by the time you have beefed up a frame locally to work with disc brakes.

cheers

Do drum brakes not need a beefed up fork for the reaction arm?
Also disc wheels are much easier and quicker to change,which isn't such a big deal on a commuter where more heavier/puncture proof tyres are preferred,but one a mile eater something lighter would be preferred.
-----------------------------------------------------------

landsurfer
Posts: 5307
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby landsurfer » 27 Mar 2019, 6:18pm

reohn2 wrote:Also disc wheels are much easier and quicker to change,which isn't such a big deal on a commuter where more heavier/puncture proof tyres are preferred,but one a mile eater something lighter would be preferred.


The word easier is a moving feast here, quick release wheels are easy to remove, bolt on's are easy to remove , disc wheels are easy to remove ... all cycle wheels are VERY easy to remove ... Disc wheels may just be easier than very easy to remove ... :)
Be More Mike.
The Road Goes On Forever

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13334
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby 531colin » 27 Mar 2019, 6:32pm

horizon wrote:The great attraction to me of the Aubisque is that it does have a steel fork! And tyre clearance means it is a practical proposition. I might even be persuaded to overcome my reluctance to discs (I don't want them for practical reasons not because of the weight or fork issue). Maybe an Aubisque with cantis for now and discs later?

531colin: would you care to hazard a guess at total carrying capacity?


Cross-posted with my rather long post.
I don't think the weight-carrying capacity would vary much between Tourer and Aubisque, unless my recollection is at fault.
If you want to tell me what size you would look at, i can look up tube sizes....chainstay length should be on Spa website?

As a septuagenerian I wasn't looking for the task of teaching myself about disc brakes. But the Elan just rides so nicely, I had to have one.
Turns out that cable disc brakes are nothing to be alarmed about ....I have BB7 mountain pull, as I don't use STIs....excellent brakes, and so far very easy to live with; about all I've done so far is tinker with the big friendly red plastic pad adjusters so I don't get the pad brushing the disc, but i do get the "bite point" I want.

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 6:44pm

landsurfer wrote:
reohn2 wrote:Also disc wheels are much easier and quicker to change,which isn't such a big deal on a commuter where more heavier/puncture proof tyres are preferred,but one a mile eater something lighter would be preferred.


The word easier is a moving feast here, quick release wheels are easy to remove, bolt on's are easy to remove , disc wheels are easy to remove ... all cycle wheels are VERY easy to remove ... Disc wheels may just be easier than very easy to remove ... :)

Disc wheels are easier and quicker to remove and as easy and as quick to put in as caliper rim brakes,but quicker to take out and put in than V's or cantis,plus they're foolproof in that once the wheel is in the brake works because it doesn't need the brake cable reconnecting in the case of v's and canti's or the caliper cam closing.

Drums have nutted axles,they mostly have a bolted reaction arm,as well as the need to disconnect reconnect the cable,all three making a wheel change a faff and much slower compared to discs or rim brakes.
Drum brake reaction arms can be make quick releass ie; slotted,but generally they aren't and even then can be a faff to slot in when fitting the wheel.

BTW I don't use quick release skewers on my bikes,preferring hexbolt skewers instead which are almost as quick and provide better and more secure retention of the wheel in the frame.It was a lesson I learned some years ago after seeing a qr skewer become accidentally opened when bikes were stacked outside a cafe.It wasn't a risk I needed or was willing take any longer

EDIT:- just to add that drum brake rear hubs that accept deraileur cassettes are few and far between,the vast majority are IGH which make rear wheel removal more complicated still.Which is another reason they're ovewhelmingly for utility bikes that run on heavy duty (almost)punctureproof tyres such as M+.
Last edited by reohn2 on 27 Mar 2019, 7:20pm, edited 2 times in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 6:49pm

531colin wrote:. .....Turns out that cable disc brakes are nothing to be alarmed about ....I have BB7 mountain pull, as I don't use STIs....excellent brakes, and so far very easy to live with; about all I've done so far is tinker with the big friendly red plastic pad adjusters so I don't get the pad brushing the disc, but i do get the "bite point" I want.

:wink:
-----------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
531colin
Posts: 13334
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby 531colin » 27 Mar 2019, 7:21pm

in fairness, there has to be a reason to take the wheel out and replace it....usually a flat, if you are doing it on the road.
So....wheel out, tyre off, tube out, check for thorns/glass/cuts in tyre, tube back, tyre back, pump it up, wheel back in.
I think most of the time is getting the tyre off, checked, back on and pumped up, the time to get the wheel in and out is a small part of the whole.
Most people will need tyre levers, and everybody will need a tube, so you have to get the tools out, so using a spanner on the wheel nuts is a couple of seconds, and I made the torque arm retainer on my tandem a wingnut; no tools at all, and the cable nipple and barrel adjuster can be made to slot in/out.
and everybody stops for a chat, or a bite to eat, or to nip over the hedge....unless its the Tour......

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 7:39pm

531colin wrote:in fairness, there has to be a reason to take the wheel out and replace it....usually a flat, if you are doing it on the road.
So....wheel out, tyre off, tube out, check for thorns/glass/cuts in tyre, tube back, tyre back, pump it up, wheel back in.
I think most of the time is getting the tyre off, checked, back on and pumped up, the time to get the wheel in and out is a small part of the whole.
Most people will need tyre levers, and everybody will need a tube, so you have to get the tools out, so using a spanner on the wheel nuts is a couple of seconds, and I made the torque arm retainer on my tandem a wingnut; no tools at all, and the cable nipple and barrel adjuster can be made to slot in/out.
and everybody stops for a chat, or a bite to eat, or to nip over the hedge....unless its the Tour......

Agreed,but the point as made by Brucey was about a heavier fork needed for discs,I was merely responding to that whilst throwing in the other reasons drums aren't so popular.

Drums are good but for a lighterweight bike they have more drawbacks than discs or rim brakes FTM.
Frankly it becomes tiresome to keep reading how Brucey thinks disc braked bikes are uncomfortable due to the need for a stiffer fork.
It ain't necessarily so.
I know that because I ride two very comfort disc braked bikes,and I know that disc braked lightweight bikes are available because if you remember you invited me to feel the weight of the Elan at York Rally a few years ago and as you say it rides so well you got one for yourself.plus as you're finding out the right disc brakes can be very easy to live with :)
TBH if I were riding road only I'd buy an Elan tomorrow,but whatever I won'tbe going bale to rim brakes and I certainly wouldn't consider drums for anything but a short distance utlity bike.
The other agruments against discs such as they're 'too good' :shock: or they're not needed to be sad if they weren't so laughable.

Apologies to Horizon for the disc brake thread drift
-----------------------------------------------------------

Brucey
Posts: 42249
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby Brucey » 27 Mar 2019, 8:01pm

reohn2 wrote: ….Frankly it becomes tiresome to keep reading how Brucey thinks disc braked bikes are uncomfortable due to the need for a stiffer fork.
It ain't necessarily so....


you mentioned it here, I didn't..... :wink:

I have merely mentioned that 1-1/8" steel disc brake forks are built heavier than most others and that you can use drum brakes with a lighter built steel fork than is usually used with disc brakes.

But since you mention it, *** special R2 warning; you may find the next bit 'tiresome'****

yes, I do find that heavier steel forks are almost invariably less flexible and less comfortable; not exactly rocket science why this is the case, either.

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

fastpedaller
Posts: 2743
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby fastpedaller » 27 Mar 2019, 8:15pm

531colin wrote: all the Spa steel bikes are 725 main tubes and Cromo forks and stays, and this is mainly because I think the advantages in having the factory work with what they are used to outweighs any advantage from having a more exotic material. (for example, in the newer designs, the chainstay is bent to "thread the needle" between the chainwheel and tyre, flattening the stays is not necessary.)


I thought 725 was a chrom moly tubing - am I incorrect? Are you making the distinction between 725 being butted and the forks and stays being plain gauge?
As an aside (I undestand this may be top secret though :wink: ) are the steel forks also made in Taiwan?
I am very impressed with my Spa Tourer BTW - I can't see how it could be improved :D

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 8:42pm

Brucey wrote:yes, I do find that heavier steel forks are almost invariably less flexible and less comfortable; not exactly rocket science why this is the case, either.

cheers

I can only refer you to my previous post which says I have two very comfortable bikes with discs,and being riddled with Osteoarthtitis I'm in a position to rather appreciate cycling comfort.
I also think,as I've stated before on other threads on the subject,that a touring bike designed to take a load will have just as stiff a fork whatever brake on it.
Can I also refer you to Colin's post about the Spa Elan I've every reason to believe him.
Tyres, when large section lightweight supple tyres such as Hypers are fitted they nulify a stiff fork.
I really,really,do appreciate a comfortable bike and I really appreciate discs brakes for their improved braking over rim brakes in all conditions particularly mud and wet weather.
Last edited by reohn2 on 28 Mar 2019, 10:02am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Brucey
Posts: 42249
Joined: 4 Jan 2012, 6:25pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby Brucey » 27 Mar 2019, 9:07pm

I have said this before multiple times but IME forks that are stiff enough to carry a heavy touring load are stiffer than I like the rest of the time and are comparably stiff to forks with disc brake. Fat tyres are not for everyone!


I have used disc brakes of various types for over twenty years. I have also worked on literally hundreds of different installations; all I can say is that whilst they do have their good points, IME reports of their 'infallibility in all conditions' are greatly exaggerated, and in terms of maintenance demands and vulnerability to accidental damage, I'd place them in third place.

if disc brakes, fat tyres, the moon on a stick, flying pigs at easter etc suit you, great. But it would be a mistake to assume that everyone else will have the same preferences/experience, or to get antsy when they say so.....

cheers
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Brucey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

landsurfer
Posts: 5307
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby landsurfer » 27 Mar 2019, 9:24pm

Brucey wrote:I have said this before multiple times but IME forks that are stiff enough to carry a heavy touring load are stiffer than I like the rest of the time and are comparably stiff to forks with disc brake. Fat tyres are not for everyone!


I have used disc brakes of various types for over twenty years. I have also worked on literally hundreds of different installations; all I can say is that whilst they do have their good points, IME reports of their 'infallibility in all conditions' are greatly exaggerated, and in terms of maintenance demands and vulnerability to accidental damage, I'd place them in third place.

if disc brakes, fat tyres, the moon on a stick, flying pigs at easter etc suit you, great. But it would be a mistake to assume that everyone else will have the same preferences/experience, or to get antsy when they say so.....

cheers


+1 .... common sense isn't very common ....
Be More Mike.
The Road Goes On Forever

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 10:21pm

Brucey wrote:I have said this before multiple times but IME forks that are stiff enough to carry a heavy touring load are stiffer than I like the rest of the time and are comparably stiff to forks with disc brake. Fat tyres are not for everyone!


I have used disc brakes of various types for over twenty years. I have also worked on literally hundreds of different installations; all I can say is that whilst they do have their good points, IME reports of their 'infallibility in all conditions' are greatly exaggerated, and in terms of maintenance demands and vulnerability to accidental damage, I'd place them in third place.

if disc brakes, fat tyres, the moon on a stick, flying pigs at easter etc suit you, great. But it would be a mistake to assume that everyone else will have the same preferences/experience, or to get antsy when they say so.....

cheers

I don't think everyone has the same preferences as me,what I'm saying is that disc brakes stop better in muck and wet than rim brakes and that comfort isnt exclusive to rim brakes or that all rim bikes are comfortable and Ive owned some comfortable rim braked bikes in my time.
-----------------------------------------------------------

reohn2
Posts: 40702
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Relative weights of Spa touring and Audax bikes with and without discs

Postby reohn2 » 27 Mar 2019, 10:23pm

landsurfer wrote: .... common sense isn't very common ....

Remind me how many disc braked bikes you've owned and how many thousands of miles you've ridden on them?
-----------------------------------------------------------