Spa Tourer v Spa Wayfarer

[hamish]

Whilst a test ride is no guarantee of making the best choice, it does improve the odds. That is even more so if someone is in a position to compare different bikes. Usually people are able to compare the test bike with their current bike. For someone like the OP who does not already have a touring bike, being able to test ride more than one bike back to back provides the opportunity to make some comparisons. For example:

- Disc vs rim brake. There's no substitute for trying both to make up one's own mind about which type of brake they want. I suspect some of the people who are vehemently pro one type have previously failed to set the other type(s) of brakes up properly. A test ride of a Spa Tourer and Wayfarer would allow comparison with properly set up brakes of both types.

- Handling and steering. The geometries of the bikes are not the same, and there are differences. Much is often made of the greater stiffness required for disc forks, but I am not convinced it is significant (or even noticeable) when comparing relatively heavy/robust touring forks designed in both cases to use with low rider panniers. Again a back to back test should help to make a judgement about this. If the demonstrator version of the Wayfarer is fitted with 10mm wider tyres, that will provide an even more useful comparison.

- Showstoppers. Very occasionally something which a customer did not spot or appreciate the significance of when buying a bike without having a test ride will prompt "buyer's remorse". For example in my size the front centre measurement on the 700C wheeled Surly Truckers is 15mm and 25mm less than the Spa Tourer and Wayfarer respectively. I would not therefore buy a Trucker because it would have far too much toe overlap. Someone considering buying a Trucker might not realise that, and a test ride might cause them to change their mind because of a feature like that.

Lastly, the alternative is just to rely on the replies to the question posed by the OP, but how reliable/useful are those replies? I would much rather ride the bikes and judge for myself, than rely solely on advice from people who have ridden neither bike. Even if someone is able to comment based on having ridden one or both bikes, people's perceptions and preferences can vary so much that you cannot usually just take another person's assessment at face value.

Ultimately the more information someone has, including the experience of test rides, the more likely they are to make a choice that they will not later regret.

I do think that my more modern disk forks are quite stiff and harsh compared to the old 531 forks I used to use. But you get used to it and in the end, if the bike fits OK, each bike just tends to feel like 'your bike' anyway.

Wider tyres do make for a smoother ride in some ways... But if you pump them up nice and hard so they roll fast they can atill transmit a fair amount of bumps and vibration. As far as I understand, wide tyres roll as well as narrower ones at the same pressure... So if you run them soft and squishy they may be comfy but they will be slower.

[Vantage]

I'm in the unique position of having owned both bikes, the Tourer 26" wheeled version previously and currently riding the Wayfarer short top tube.
I've not read every single post so apologies if I make a previously made point.
The short top tube Wayfarer does indeed have both disc and canti/V brake bosses, however on mine at least, it wasn't supplied with the steel screw in mounts for canti/V brake arms. These would need to be bought separately and I'm buggered if I can find any anywhere.
The long top tube Wayfarer only comes with disc brake bosses.
I had big issues with fitting half decent sized tyres to my 26" wheeled tourer. Most 26" tyres are sized for mountain bikes meaning 1.95" and above whereas the tourer could only accommodate 1.75" tyres. This is due to it being designed for use with mini V brakes. Colin531 explained all this to me and for the majority of potential customers, makes sense. So if the op is going for the 26" tourer, don't. It sucks. The 700c wheeled version I believe isn't as restricted.
One thing I noticed over several tours on both bikes was how comfy they were. Especially how springy the forks are. They're made of jelly on both bikes so don't worry about stiff disc forks on the Wayfarer.
A major irritation to me on both bikes was shimmy. No matter how they were loaded, the bikes suffered horribly from it. I've not read of complaints about this from other Spa owners though.
A small detail which might sway you to the Tourer is that the braze on's for racks are in fact, braze on's. Little bits of threaded steel brazed onto the frame and fork. If you were to strip a thread here, it'd be easy to drill and re-tap. Not so with the Wayfarer. The mounts are directly drilled into the frame and fork so stripping a thread here poses a more difficult fix.
Another annoyance to me regarding the Wayfarer, or at least mine because it's small is the seat tube bottle cage mounts. They're far too high up and required a bottle cage mount adjuster thingybob to lower them in order to actually fit my bottle in its cage. It might not be a thing with larger frames.
Now, the main reason I left my Touring in favour of the Wayfarer. Disc brakes. Plain and simple.
Where I live in North Bolton could be described as hilly. I tend to exercise my dog whilst riding alongside her and obviously she can't run down every single hill as I can, so this means a ton of braking...mile after mile. The Tourers rims were wearing down as if they were made from chocolate due to this braking. Disc brakes don't have that issue. The rims are as good now as the day I bought them.
Don't expect masses of braking power from discs unless you go hydraulic. Mechanical discs have no more muscle than well set up V brakes, but they do last forever. My pads are a year and a half old and still good for a long time yet.
Despite my criticisms of the bikes, they are both wonderfully comfortable machines. The Tourer has a new owner but I still ride the Wayfarer and I fell even more in love with it after using it to tour the Way of the Roses with my dad late August earlier this year.
Your only real decision I'd say is disc brakes vs rim brakes.

[simonhill]

I have no comments on Vantage's detailed review of the bikes, but would like to argue/correct something he said:

Quote Vantage: I had big issues with fitting half decent sized tyres to my 26" wheeled tourer. Most 26" tyres are sized for mountain bikes meaning 1.95" and above whereas the tourer could only accommodate 1.75" tyres.

I have been riding 26" wheel tourers since the 1980s and have never gone bigger than 1.75" tyres. There are plenty of sub 1.75s. I am currently running 1.6 Marathon Supremes which replaced the Originals, old style and Greenguard, both in 1.5".

A quick run down the Schwalbe touring tyres page on their website will show plenty of 26" tyres in sub 1.75. Other makes are presumably available.

[mikeymo]

I'm in the unique position of having owned both bikes, the Tourer 26" wheeled version previously and currently riding the Wayfarer short top tube.
I've not read every single post so apologies if I make a previously made point.
The short top tube Wayfarer does indeed have both disc and canti/V brake bosses, however on mine at least, it wasn't supplied with the steel screw in mounts for canti/V brake arms. These would need to be bought separately and I'm buggered if I can find any anywhere.
The long top tube Wayfarer only comes with disc brake bosses.
I had big issues with fitting half decent sized tyres to my 26" wheeled tourer. Most 26" tyres are sized for mountain bikes meaning 1.95" and above whereas the tourer could only accommodate 1.75" tyres. This is due to it being designed for use with mini V brakes. Colin531 explained all this to me and for the majority of potential customers, makes sense. So if the op is going for the 26" tourer, don't. It sucks. The 700c wheeled version I believe isn't as restricted.
One thing I noticed over several tours on both bikes was how comfy they were. Especially how springy the forks are. They're made of jelly on both bikes so don't worry about stiff disc forks on the Wayfarer.
A major irritation to me on both bikes was shimmy. No matter how they were loaded, the bikes suffered horribly from it. I've not read of complaints about this from other Spa owners though.
A small detail which might sway you to the Tourer is that the braze on's for racks are in fact, braze on's. Little bits of threaded steel brazed onto the frame and fork. If you were to strip a thread here, it'd be easy to drill and re-tap. Not so with the Wayfarer. The mounts are directly drilled into the frame and fork so stripping a thread here poses a more difficult fix.
Another annoyance to me regarding the Wayfarer, or at least mine because it's small is the seat tube bottle cage mounts. They're far too high up and required a bottle cage mount adjuster thingybob to lower them in order to actually fit my bottle in its cage. It might not be a thing with larger frames.
Now, the main reason I left my Touring in favour of the Wayfarer. Disc brakes. Plain and simple.
Where I live in North Bolton could be described as hilly. I tend to exercise my dog whilst riding alongside her and obviously she can't run down every single hill as I can, so this means a ton of braking...mile after mile. The Tourers rims were wearing down as if they were made from chocolate due to this braking. Disc brakes don't have that issue. The rims are as good now as the day I bought them.
Don't expect masses of braking power from discs unless you go hydraulic. Mechanical discs have no more muscle than well set up V brakes, but they do last forever. My pads are a year and a half old and still good for a long time yet.
Despite my criticisms of the bikes, they are both wonderfully comfortable machines. The Tourer has a new owner but I still ride the Wayfarer and I fell even more in love with it after using it to tour the Way of the Roses with my dad late August earlier this year.
Your only real decision I'd say is disc brakes vs rim brakes.

IMG_20201108_105847.jpg

That's fantastic. Thanks very much for doing that comparison. I was poised to buy a short Wayfarer and after a conversation with Spa thought I had more time than I did. I suspect they update their website in "batches" so it went from every size being available to many not being available, including mine. It remains to be seen if they re-introduce the canti option when they get new frames in, but I suspect not.

But your comment about the comfort of the forks, whether disc or not, is reassuring. I wouldn't have the same rim brake wear as you, probably, and your comments about the "real" braze ons on the tourer is interesting. Do both bikes have M6 (?) rack mounts? I think that's something Spa do that nobody else does.

Regarding your comment about hydraulic vs cable discs, are you running hydraulic discs on this bike? I assume not, but then...

A couple of your comments are maybe to do with frame size, I'd be looking at a 54cm one, so perhaps not the same issues on the slightly larger size.

Regards from a Lancastrian marooned in Yorkshire.

[horizon]

Quote Vantage: I had big issues with fitting half decent sized tyres to my 26" wheeled tourer. Most 26" tyres are sized for mountain bikes meaning 1.95" and above whereas the tourer could only accommodate 1.75" tyres.

I have been riding 26" wheel tourers since the 1980s and have never gone bigger than 1.75" tyres. There are plenty of sub 1.75s. I am currently running 1.6 Marathon Supremes which replaced the Originals, old style and Greenguard, both in 1.5".

Yes I was surprised by that too. My Sardar can only take 1.75 but at the moment it's a Panaracer Pasela 1.75 on the front and a Marathon 1.5 on the back. Either are ideal (they may even match up at some point in the future ). I have an old pair of Marathon Cross 1.75 if really needed. The Sardar is a versatile touring bike with drop bars and while wider may be useful at times, 1.75 is all it needs. I now also have a pair of Marathon studded 1.75 for the winter. Overall I think it's a shame that the Spa Tourer wasn't available as a 26" wheeled tourer in the larger sizes.

[st599_uk]

Looking at Thorn and speaking to tourers I've met in the UK, they claimed hydraulic disks were difficult to get when abroad so they went with cable.

Presumably they weren't meaning Germany, France, Denmark etc.?

[Bmblbzzz]

One thing I noticed over several tours on both bikes was how comfy they were. Especially how springy the forks are. They're made of jelly on both bikes so don't worry about stiff disc forks on the Wayfarer.
A major irritation to me on both bikes was shimmy. No matter how they were loaded, the bikes suffered horribly from it. I've not read of complaints about this from other Spa owners though.

I can't help wondering if maybe these two paragraphs are related?

[hamish]

Shimmy: is that shimmy when going no hands or with hands on the bars? I get shimmy riding no hands on several bikes and it's annoying. It doesn't happen when I have a hand on the bars so I can live with it.

On flat bars BB7 cable disk brakes are plenty 'powerful' enough for me (heavy) on a loaded Surly Pugsley going down horrid steep paths and tracks. The advantage is that overheating is less of an issue than with hydraulic disks.

The TRP Spyres on my other bike are not nearly as good. I am not sure if that's the difference in calipers or the fact that they are drop lever brakes.

[slowster]

I was hoping Vantage would post on this thread, both because he has much more experience of riding the Wayfarer than I have and also because our own experiences/perceptions of the frames differ somewhat, which again is why I suggest the OP arranges test rides. What one person finds harsh another may find to be just the right balance of stiffness, and what one person finds floppy another may consider to be the most comfortable bike they've ever ridden. Variations in rider weight, weight carried, riding style and power output will probably influence those different perceptions.

- My own perception of the Wayfarer and Tourer forks is that both are relatively stiff compared against a pair of Raleigh Randonneur 531ST forks with a 1" threaded steerer. The Wayfarer fork blades have a larger outside diameter IIRC than the Tourer's, but the fork crowns are very similar and I think the Tourer fork must use a relatively thick blade profile to cope with the extra stresses if front panniers are used. The 1 1/8" steerer and corresponding head tube, plus to a lesser degree the inherently stiffer ahead stems and 31.8mm diameter bars, will also affect the front end stiffness. I don't find either fork harsh, but I am using 46mm* tyres in the Wayfarer fork and 36mm* tyres in the Tourer fork (*actual measured widths).

- With regard to shimmy, I have experienced this once so far on the Wayfarer. I've not used it with panniers, but on that occasion I had a very full Camper saddlebag on the rear rack which probably weighed 6kg-8kg, and the bike started to shimmy slightly when freewheeling on tarmac down a fairly shallow short gradient at a low speed (maybe 12mph or thereabouts), and I think I was riding no handed when the shimmy started. It was slow enough that I deliberately delayed stopping the shimmy in order to try to understand better what was happening, but I didn't draw any conclusions other than that I suspected the saddlebag weight and position (well to the rear on the rack, rather than closer to me and my own bodyweight/centre of gravity) may have been a significant factor.

I've seen it suggested that all bikes will shimmy, it's just the circumstances when they will shimmy that vary. If so a bike which shimmys under fairly benign conditions (and possibly with a somewhat unusual weight distribution) is preferable to one which develops a shimmy at higher speeds. To date my own very personal take on this is that the shimmy, if it proves to be something that happens again, is a characteristic which I am happy to tolerate because the long wheelbase and the long chainstays (which I suspect could be factors in the shimmy) give such a stable ride off road, especially downhill. At least that's my early opinion of the Wayfarer's handling - it might change with more experience over the next year or two.

As an aside, I've read Vantage's comments about the handling of his Wayfarer with great interest. His comments about the relatively low stiffness of the frame/forks surprised me, because my default assumption would be to expect smaller frames made with the same tube profiles to be inherently stiffer. That said, I suspect the short 85mm head tube length is a major factor in how his bike feels*. It looks to me as if he might be able to get away with the next size up, which has a 135mm head tube. In his shoes I would ask Spa for the opportunity to test ride the next size up, just to satisfy my own curiousity about the differences between the two sizes.

* Edit to add - Note that because the smallest size Tourer uses 26" wheels, it has a much longer head tube: 163mm. If Vantage is aware of big differences between the feel of his previous Tourer and the Wayfarer, that is probably the main cause.

- With regard to mechanical vs hydraulic disc brakes, IIRC Vantage is using BB7 road pull calipers. I've not yet tried them myself, but I suspect their performance and feel will not be as good as the MTB version of the caliper with Tektro RL520 levers. I have a pair of MTB BB7s with flat bar levers on my MTB, and the lever action thanks to the low friction/cable tension (with compressionless outers) is as good as hydraulic lever action.

[Vantage]

Re the tyres. I found a few 26" models out there at the time and settled on Schwalbe City Jets for road riding and Schwalbe Landcruisers for off road riding.
Prior to the Touring I'd been running Hyper Voyagers on my Dawes Vantage and wanted something similar. The only tyre that came close was Schwalbes Marathon Supreme. How much are they? £25 - £30 per tyre? No thanks. Same with Panaracers Paselia. Pricy.
Schwalbes Kojak wasn't good in the wet and a little on the narrow side for my liking.
Knobbly tyres as I said are mostly in mtb sizes and the only thing I found to fit that bike was the Landcruiser and even that left little clearance under the mudguards. In winter conditions the only spike tyre that would fit was again Schwalbes Winters at 1.75". They barely made it under the guards after some serious fettling.

I am indeed using the road going BB7's. I believe the standard mtb versions are more powerful as slowster states.
I've only had shimmy when she's been loaded fully and that's with hands on the bars. Never with the saddle bag though and that does frequently exceed 6kg (there's all sorts of stuff in there). But mines right behind the saddle so position probably plays a part in slowster experience.
I did read that tourers suffering from shimmy is quite common but it was never an issue on the Dawes Vantage. That thing was built like a tank though. The shimmy I had on tour was what I'd call extreme. Whilst riding behind, my dad said it looked like my frame was snapped the way it flopped around.
531Colin also suggested I might clear a larger frame on a different thread but I doubt it. My crotch only just clears the top tube when stood on the ground. I think I'd struggle with a bigger frame.
Last but not least, yep, both bikes have an m6 rack mount on the rear dropout. The rest of the mounts are m5.

[PH]

I am indeed using the road going BB7's. I believe the standard mtb versions are more powerful as slowster states.

I've used both, on the same flat bar bike with the appropriate levers, the MTB's are slightly better, but it is slight. I've noticed more difference between pads and how clean they were than between the models of BB7's.
Discs v's V brakes has been done many times before, but anyone who wants to use a test ride to determine the difference ought to make sure they have it when it's raining as that's when the difference is most noticeable.

[hamish]

I know this thread isn't about shimmy, but... The enineering types will probably tell me I'm wrong but I am not convinced shimmy is due to an insufficiently stiff frame as I have had shimmy 'no hands' on all kinds of bikes including a Raven Tour, a Tour de Fer and Surly Troll. One thing that makes it happen is a heavy rack bag or a rear load in tightly fastened and full small panniers on a rear rack. If I put the same load in bigger more floppy panniers the bikes won't shimmy so it seems as if loads that are firmly attached out back are able to 'act' on the whole bike and work as a counterweight and maintian the resonant occultation that is a shimmy.

[PH]

Whilst a test ride is no guarantee of making the best choice, it does improve the odds.

I'm still going to disagree, for the very reasons you think it's such a good idea.
I'm not going to go through it line by line, but as one example (Excuse the snipping, but I don't think I've taken anything out of context)

- Handling and steering. The geometries of the bikes are not the same...
...If the demonstrator version of the Wayfarer is fitted with 10mm wider tyres, that will provide an even more useful comparison.

OK, comparison of what? How will a test rider know how much of the difference they feel is due to the easily changed tyres or the geometry? How many test rides would you need to test all the variables?

Lastly, the alternative is just to rely on the replies to the question posed by the OP, but how reliable/useful are those replies?

Whatever you do, buying a different type of bike is to some extent a leap into the unknown. Choose your own guide and then put your trust in them. The opinions on these boards are best suited to highlighting the relevant questions rather than providing answers. I bought mine on the basis of CJ's good review and the suppliers reputation for customer satisfaction. People don't get to test ride a custom frame, the the framebuilder has guided their choice.

[pwa]

I know this thread isn't about shimmy, but... The enineering types will probably tell me I'm wrong but I am not convinced shimmy is due to an insufficiently stiff frame as I have had shimmy 'no hands' on all kinds of bikes including a Raven Tour, a Tour de Fer and Surly Troll. One thing that makes it happen is a heavy rack bag or a rear load in tightly fastened and full small panniers on a rear rack. If I put the same load in bigger more floppy panniers the bikes won't shimmy so it seems as if loads that are firmly attached out back are able to 'act' on the whole bike and work as a counterweight and maintian the resonant occultation that is a shimmy.

I have had shimmy on a bike with a load high and behind the saddle (an SQR bag) but not on bikes with four panniers fairly low down. I wonder if having the baggage low down makes the bike less prone to shimmy.

[hamish]

I know this thread isn't about shimmy, but... The enineering types will probably tell me I'm wrong but I am not convinced shimmy is due to an insufficiently stiff frame as I have had shimmy 'no hands' on all kinds of bikes including a Raven Tour, a Tour de Fer and Surly Troll. One thing that makes it happen is a heavy rack bag or a rear load in tightly fastened and full small panniers on a rear rack. If I put the same load in bigger more floppy panniers the bikes won't shimmy so it seems as if loads that are firmly attached out back are able to 'act' on the whole bike and work as a counterweight and maintian the resonant occultation that is a shimmy.

I have had shimmy on a bike with a load high and behind the saddle (an SQR bag) but not on bikes with four panniers fairly low down. I wonder if having the baggage low down makes the bike less prone to shimmy.

I think so. And I think that less rigid bikes would shimmy under different conditions to rigid ones. I have come to terms with it now as I recon it is also something to do with me!? I changed my Raven Tour for a custom Woodrup which was beautiful. Still shimmied no hands with a loaded rack bag on my commute.