Spa Cycles' Disc Braked Tourer and Audax

[531colin]

……….
Sorry for delay replying Colin. Been busy breaking my foot so I can't cycle at all for probably a couple of months!

My commuter frame is actually 57cm C-T and there's 265mm of seatpost showing. Centre BB to top of saddle is 885mm. So I have around 185mm of seatpost in the frame. So yes I could probably get away with a 400mm 'post and 135mm of insertion but I guess I like the peace of mind of lower stresses on the seat tube given my weight is bouncing around a long way above the frame!

Ben

Hope your foot is mending. I have been away for a week.
Just doing the maths......
Me....33.5" leg ….54 frame, 10 cm seat post (total 64)
You ...36.5" leg ....57 frame, 26cm seat post (total 83)
So your leg is 7 or 8 cm (3") longer than mine, and your saddle is 19 cm higher......seven and a half inches.
That is absolutely bonkers.

Lemond's "method" would take your leg 36.5", say 93cm, multiply by 0.883 gives about 82cm. from BB axle to where your bum bones rest on the saddle, compared to your measured 88cm.

[531colin]

If they are going to fail at all, seat tubes fail at the bottom, generally a couple of inches above the bottom bracket.
ie. its pedalling stress, not the riders weight.

[bgnukem]

Don't know what to say RE riding position but I seem to get on with a high saddle position and I'm pretty sure dropping it by 6cm would make me pretty uncomfortable very quickly!

I've never broken a frame yet but a friend of mine cracked the weld on his Giant between the top and seat tubes, the compact frame allowing a long seatpost with my 100+kg mate bouncing up and down on a flexy seatpost seemed to fatigue the weld. I've got the same frame on one of my bikes and am now paranoid about experiencing the same failure.....

My commuter is made of stronger stuff (631) and hopefully won't fail any time soon but gven that it's 18 years old and ridden in all weathers I'm being cautious with the long seatpost. My day job involves looking at lots of fatigue failures so not too keen to experience any myself!

[531colin]

Don't know what to say RE riding position but I seem to get on with a high saddle position and I'm pretty sure dropping it by 6cm would make me pretty uncomfortable very quickly!..........

https://www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/05/addendum-to-seat-height-how-hard-can-it-be-2/

[NetworkMan]

Me....33.5" leg ….54 frame, 10 cm seat post (total 64)
You ...36.5" leg ....57 frame, 26cm seat post (total 83)
So your leg is 7 or 8 cm (3") longer than mine, and your saddle is 19 cm higher......seven and a half inches.
That is absolutely bonkers.

Bgnukem, Something's going on. Colin's measurements are all within an inch of mine and we ride the same frame, so not at all strange. Did you look at his fitting guide? I found it very helpful but he may be too modest to mention it directly. Might be worth a look anyway even if things seem OK.
http://wheel-easy.org.uk/uploads/docume ... 02017a.pdf

[horizon]

There is a difference of 2 - 3 cm in the head tube between the original steel tourer (at least in the 54 cm size) and the Wayfarer (I like the fact it has a name!).

I seem to remember Colin explaining why this is but cannot find it.

[NetworkMan]

There is a difference of 2 - 3 cm in the head tube between the original steel tourer (at least in the 54 cm size) and the Wayfarer (I like the fact it has a name!).

I seem to remember Colin explaining why this is but cannot find it.

I think it's that the head tube and seat tube extend upwards above the top tube on the Wayfarer. That's certainly the case on the Elan because I asked about it.
Yes I agree about the name; I'm riding around on a grammatical error - Spa Cycles Touring! It says so on the top tube but it is the only thing wrong with it.

[531colin]

Spa's original Tourer was the first bike I designed commercially, and its very conventional, with a slightly sloping top tube.
Subsequent designs have responded to (some) customer requirements. Frequent requirements are high handlebars and low standover; this is most easily solved by having a tall stack of spacers, but lots of customers don't want that.
However, if you use a longer head tube which extends a bit above the top tube with a small spacer stack, you can get high handlebars without it looking too ugly, but you also need to drop the back end of the top tube a bit below the seat tube to give a low standover.
Photo here of the biggest and smallest Wayfarer prototypes....https://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/24518630264/in/album-72157624571269648/

[bgnukem]

Me....33.5" leg ….54 frame, 10 cm seat post (total 64)
You ...36.5" leg ....57 frame, 26cm seat post (total 83)
So your leg is 7 or 8 cm (3") longer than mine, and your saddle is 19 cm higher......seven and a half inches.
That is absolutely bonkers.

Bgnukem, Something's going on. Colin's measurements are all within an inch of mine and we ride the same frame, so not at all strange. Did you look at his fitting guide? I found it very helpful but he may be too modest to mention it directly. Might be worth a look anyway even if things seem OK.
http://wheel-easy.org.uk/uploads/docume ... 02017a.pdf

Can't account for the difference in riding positions but I will take a look at the links, thanks. Certainly I'm not 'toe dipping', there's still a slight bend in my knee at the bottom of the pedal stroke and no pelvic rocking side to side so I'm not sure my saddle is actually too high. I find lowering it by much makes pedalling much harder but could try dropping it say 5mm at a time and see what happens.

Still fancy a Spa Aubisque but have been waiting for my broken foot to heal so I can make another trip to York and pop into the shop on a ride!!

[horizon]

Spa's original Tourer was the first bike I designed commercially, and its very conventional, with a slightly sloping top tube.
Subsequent designs have responded to (some) customer requirements. Frequent requirements are high handlebars and low standover; this is most easily solved by having a tall stack of spacers, but lots of customers don't want that.
However, if you use a longer head tube which extends a bit above the top tube with a small spacer stack, you can get high handlebars without it looking too ugly, but you also need to drop the back end of the top tube a bit below the seat tube to give a low standover.
Photo here of the biggest and smallest Wayfarer prototypes....https://www.flickr.com/photos/52358536@N06/24518630264/in/album-72157624571269648/

Thanks for that Colin, which means that it is mainly aesthetic. Are there any structural downsides to too long an exposed steerer tube? Does the head tube provide strength to the steerer? Or is this a baseless concern? I have long exposed steering due to stem raisers but although AIUI that isn't a problem (steel steerer, but alu extensions), the higher headtube gives some reassurance. Aesthetically I prefer a longer head tube but that on the tourer is totally fine visually AFAIAC.

[mikeymo]

Some interesting choices - Having canti and disk brake mounts isn't something I've seen since the Dawes Sardar. I can see why someone on a round the world expedition might want the versatility but I suspect for most it'll just be an ugly addition. I wonder about using TRP brakes as standard instead of BB7's considering the numerous comments on here that the BB7s are easier to live with.
I note with interest Colin's comments about tube manipulation, I have a Thorn frame which doesn't seem to have a tube that hasn't been squeezed in some way or another. I thought it was all a bit gimmicky but have to admit it rides very well and although I wouldn't want to try and explain it I'm also a gear up.
There's now a lot of models from Spa. At some point does it become too many? Their business not mine of course, though there's plenty of business studies that show increasing choice doesn't necessarily increase sales. The Audax model might need renaming at some point, it's not the default type of bike for Audax anymore, that now seems to be carbon with disk brakes.
I watch with interest, though it's unlikely I'll buy another bike, though if they ever offered the Elan with Rohloff fittings I might be tempted to give it a try.

I actually really like the idea of disc and canti mounts. Touring bikes have so much stuff on them that 4 little mounts doesn't really detract. And the canti mounts are also V mounts, so add the possibility of changing to a flat bar tourer.

If I'd seen this earlier I might have been tempted to buy either the bike or the frame. As it is I bought a Ridgeback Panorama Deluxe Frame (the old 853 one) and built that up. But discs only. And only 2 bottle mounts, for some reason.

[horizon]

I thought the canti mounts were removable.

[PH]

I thought the canti mounts were removable.

Partly, it leaves the boss, see Colin's link four posts up. No big deal, but I do like clean lines.

[Brucey]

I thought the canti mounts were removable.

Partly, it leaves the boss, see Colin's link four posts up. No big deal, but I do like clean lines.

If I wasn't using them, I'd probably install a wee rack or my front light using the ones on the fork.

cheers

[PH]

Worse IMO would be to use the canti mounts and have the ugliness of the unused disk mounts. Not a deal breaker even for me, I have a frame with both