Spa Tourer as a gravel bike?

[whoof]

In 1960 I was in Ireland - I had my road bike with sprints and tubulars.
A local cyclist invited me on a club run in the Wicklow hills.
We were riding up a climb when the leader turned onto a track which descended to a bog.
We walked through that for a while and came to a river - forded the river carrying our bikes and continued through the bog and eventually reached a tarmac road.
We used to go off road on any bike available - now there seems to be a range of hardly different machines designed for different surfaces.
I don't know what the original members of the Roughstuff fellowship would have thought of it.

I would imagine many would have thought 'great now I can ride my bike over that section rather than having to push or carry it'

[Mackiemill]

Turned my 2006 Dawes Ultra Galaxy into a gravel bike this year ...

[531colin]

In 1960 I was in Ireland - I had my road bike with sprints and tubulars.......

......I would imagine many would have thought 'great now I can ride my bike over that section rather than having to push or carry it'

You get less pinch flats with tubs.

Heres a picture of 3 of my mates manhandling their mountain bikes down Bunton Hush in Gunnerside Gill....its marked as a bridlepath on the OS map.

swaledale 016 by 531colin, on Flickr

Guess how I got down in front of them on my drop-bar roughstuff bike? I pushed/carried it down, just like they are doing, but as I knew the way, I went first.
I occasionally come across a bit of track which I would ride on an MTB but walk with a tourer....but carry a tourer and ride a gravel bike/MTB?....I think thats just marketing hyperbole.

[Vantage]

It's fair to say the only terrain my Spa Wayfarer has failed to cope with were a direct result of my fear to push its limits. I don't bounce off rocks as well as I did when I was younger and stupider/braver.

[531colin]

......... Remind me again, what tyre width are you running now on your Roughstuff?

I think they are nominally 40. I've got a couple of busy days and its absolutely blathered in mud, so I'll clean it up, measure, and take a photo when I get a chance.
Tyres as here..https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=140851&p=1528133&hilit=schwalbe#p1528133
Except as it says there the tread pattern seems to be different now to when I bought them; I think I paid 10 either euro or pounds.

Edit...that Leisure Lakes link now goes to the wrong tyre!

Here are the details;

IMG_5223 by 531colin, on Flickr

Schwalbe range cruiser, as it says; kevlar belt (K guard 3....who knows what the 3 means!)

Heres the tread.....its about 2mm deep,

IMG_5221 by 531colin, on Flickr

and its nicely rounded, so it doesn't discourage spirited cornering (on tarmac)


IMG_5222 by 531colin, on Flickr

Measured width is just less than 38mm, and my 10mm Allen key fits between the tyre and chainstay (on the Roughstuff bike)

Just for fun, here are some other tyres I've used over the years (these are 26" and various widths)

IMG_5224 by 531colin, on Flickr

On the left, Marathon Racer, with tread only about 1mm deep. liable to just "let go" without warning on mud or even wet grass; a bit too exciting for me, unless I'm doing mainly road or dry tracks..
Middle and right are 2 different incarnations of the old kevlar belt Marathons. As far as I could tell they rode the same, and I have done most of my recent roughstuff on tyres like that...about 2mm tread depth. Really quite capable on all but the foulest mud, and also good for road riding, including spirited cornering. (the finer tread is 368....the other, older one is 308....I think!)

Between the old 35mm Kevlar Marathons and the existing Range Cruiser, I tried some wider tyres, briefly; 47mm Greenguard Marathon (if you have ever picked one up, you will know why I didn't stick with them) and 47mm Marathon Mondial folding; for an expensive tyre, I didn't think they offered any advantage over the narrower and much cheaper old kevlar Marathon, and they felt harder work on road.

Of course, it all depends on what you want to do. Even when I set out to do tracks, I'm lucky if a third of my miles are on tracks. So that the inevitable road miles aren't too much of a pain, I want something that rolls well on the road. If I walk a bit (where I might have ridden if I had 2" knobblies and suspension) then I don't care; I would much rather walk a bit on a track, somewhere I want to be, than flog my guts out to make a bit of progress on a busy road which I have to use to link tracks together.

I got my Range Cruiser tyres from Bike 24 in Germany; they are schwalbe "active line" and seem to be sort of budget stuff which UK retailers don't want to bother with. I have to say, I like them as a substitute for my old favourite kevlar Marathon. Perhaps I should get some more before they "improve" them!

[whoof]

In 1960 I was in Ireland - I had my road bike with sprints and tubulars.......

......I would imagine many would have thought 'great now I can ride my bike over that section rather than having to push or carry it'

You get less pinch flats with tubs.

Heres a picture of 3 of my mates manhandling their mountain bikes down Bunton Hush in Gunnerside Gill....its marked as a bridlepath on the OS map.

swaledale 016 by 531colin, on Flickr

Guess how I got down in front of them on my drop-bar roughstuff bike? I pushed/carried it down, just like they are doing, but as I knew the way, I went first.
I occasionally come across a bit of track which I would ride on an MTB but walk with a tourer....but carry a tourer and ride a gravel bike/MTB?....I think thats just marketing hyperbole.

If you can ride the same terrain with 35 mm tyres as you can 45 or 55 mm then why even bother with a tourer. You may as well ride a road bike with 25 mm as there will be no difference. The reality is people are riding terrain on MTBs that most people would struggle to walk down.

[fatboy]

Turned my 2006 Dawes Ultra Galaxy into a gravel bike this year ...

Got no photo but I've got a Super Galaxy set up very similar. Works well off road. I've got 42 Marathon Mondials. Great fun

If my Spa tourer wasn't my commuting workhorse I'd have done the same to it (I.e. took of the rack and guards and fitted bigger tyres = nothing much = pretty much a gravel bike)

[GuyBoden]

002 by 531colin, on Flickr

006 by 531colin, on Flickr

Those 2 photos show how and why the Spa tourer was designed as it is.
Mudguard at the top of its slot gives 10mm between 'guard and 35mm Marathon on a 19mm rim with mini-vee cable touching the guard.
Mudguard at the bottom of its slot gives a decent non-gappy fit to a 32mm M. supreme on a 17mm rim.

Roughstuff 001 by 531colin, on Flickr

The Roughstuff (above) fits 47mm marathons with 10mm under the 'guards....but not if you fit mini-vees. (ie. use cantis or fullsize vees)

So the Roughstuff fork is longer (axle to crown race seat) than the tourer; but offset and head angle are the same for both bikes.
Roughstuff has longer front centre and chainstay than Tourer; the Roughstuff top tube length is limited by my ability to ride comfortably on the hoods.
There are slight differences in handling between the 2 bikes, although trail (with the same tyres) will be identical.
The Roughstuff is a delight to tour on off-road; you point it at something, and it just rolls over.
(see MTB "new geometry" where they have pushed the front wheel way out in front; however the associated long trail and steep seat angles may not be for everybody.)

I'm interested in getting the Spa Roughstuff for some on/off road rides. The top tube length seems longer than your average tourer, so would you recommend a very short stem like in your picture. I'm 6ft 1inch, so I'm looking at a 57cm or 59cm Roughstuff size. I'm currently riding a Galaxy with a 59cm toptube and 10cm stem, which I find extremely comfy. Thanks for posing the info.

[531colin]

Yeah, Spa Roughstuff is pretty long in the top tube....an inevitable consequence of using standard touring steering geometry (71 deg head and 54mm offset) but a generous "front centre" to fit big tyres with mudguard clearance and a decent chance of riding in boots without toe overlap; so to get the handlebars where you want them you are likely to want a shorter stem than on a regular tourer.
My own Roughstuff has Carbide rims, so I'm unlikely to wear them out, but if I was bike shopping now I would be looking at Spa's Wayfarer; this has disc brakes which I think are an advantage over rim brakes when everything is covered in mud; it will take similar tyre sizes to the Roughstuff. By the time I designed the Wayfarer I had taken the opportunity to put quite a lot of miles on a prototype bike with 70.5 deg head and 59mm offset, and thats the geometry I used on the Wayfarer, so it doesn't need to be so long in the top tube in order to get the front centre dimension. Confusingly, there are now 2 versions of Wayfarer with different top tube lengths; its never time wasted to phone Spa and see what size "tester" bikes they have available, and go ride a few!

[GuyBoden]

Yeah, Spa Roughstuff is pretty long in the top tube....an inevitable consequence of using standard touring steering geometry (71 deg head and 54mm offset) but a generous "front centre" to fit big tyres with mudguard clearance and a decent chance of riding in boots without toe overlap; so to get the handlebars where you want them you are likely to want a shorter stem than on a regular tourer.
My own Roughstuff has Carbide rims, so I'm unlikely to wear them out, but if I was bike shopping now I would be looking at Spa's Wayfarer; this has disc brakes which I think are an advantage over rim brakes when everything is covered in mud; it will take similar tyre sizes to the Roughstuff. By the time I designed the Wayfarer I had taken the opportunity to put quite a lot of miles on a prototype bike with 70.5 deg head and 59mm offset, and thats the geometry I used on the Wayfarer, so it doesn't need to be so long in the top tube in order to get the front centre dimension. Confusingly, there are now 2 versions of Wayfarer with different top tube lengths; its never time wasted to phone Spa and see what size "tester" bikes they have available, and go ride a few!

Many thanks for the info, I'll take a closer look at the Wayfarer, but I like the idea of the longer frame on the Roughstuff and it's titanium, I spoke to Spa on the phone last week and unfortunately there are no "tester" Roughstuff bikes available at the moment.

Thanks again for the info.

[mattheus]

If you can ride the same terrain with 35 mm tyres as you can 45 or 55 mm then why even bother with a tourer. You may as well ride a road bike with 25 mm as there will be no difference. The reality is people are riding terrain on MTBs that most people would struggle to walk down.

I know this is very subjective, but I do think 25 -vs- 35 is a huge difference. they are the two main sizes I ride (road/audax bikes -vs- commuter), and I also race CX with 33mm tyres. The CX courses aren't as tricky as some full-on MTB terrain, but you really don't want to be riding 25mm round them (possible? Yes of course. Enjoyable? no. More punctures? yes).

For one thing the pressures in 35mm tyres will be massivley lower. I take my commuter (and CX bike) happily down many tracks that would reduce me to walking pace on the road bikes, and even then I'm nervous.

[531colin]

...... The reality is people are riding terrain on MTBs that most people would struggle to walk down......

The reality is that world class professionals are riding terrain that morbidly obese people over 70 would struggle to walk down.

[Vantage]

Many thanks for the info, I'll take a closer look at the Wayfarer, but I like the idea of the longer frame on the Roughstuff and it's titanium, I spoke to Spa on the phone last week and unfortunately there are no "tester" Roughstuff bikes available at the moment.

Thanks again for the info.

I'm a happy owner of a Wayfarer. I have the first model which runs the longer of the top tube versions and I'm having to use a 60mm stem to achieve a comfortable position.
As an offroading bike I can assure you it's more than capable. Mines been sat in the hallway doing nothing the
last few months as I've lost all interest in cycling for some reason, but it was regularly taken into the moors around Rivington and Winter Hill up here in Bolton. To be honest, the only stuff that stopped it was my own fear of injury. I'm turning into a right big girl's blouse as the years creep up on me.
It's not a lively bike by any means, after all it is a tourer at heart and designed for all day loaded comfort (and it really is soooooooo comfy!) and it's no lightweight either, but...its handling. Colin531 got it perfect on this bike. It goes exactly where I want it to go and does so without scaring the googlies out of me.
Plus, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the Roughstuff.
I built mine from buying the frame and forks on their own so it's not strictly an off the Spa display stand model but it's still a Wayfarer imo.

Here in full touring mode on the way of the roses...

And as an experiment in "gravel bike" (off road) mode...

[Bmblbzzz]

If I were looking for a touring bike right now, I'd definitely be tempted by the Wayfarer. The thing that might dissuade me would be that it only has a single mounting point per fork blade; great for traditional low riders, but not so good for the Gorilla cages and similar that I've come to prefer. However, as I have a very good touring bike already (which carries Gorilla cages when wanted), I'm not looking.

[cycle tramp]

If you can ride the same terrain with 35 mm tyres as you can 45 or 55 mm then why even bother with a tourer. You may as well ride a road bike with 25 mm as there will be no difference. The reality is people are riding terrain on MTBs that most people would struggle to walk down.

...Have you anecdotes to support this? - even while I was using wide tyres I've found it easier to walk than cycle on many surfaces - including shingle beaches, farm tracks with 8 to 10" ruts made by the wheels of passing tractors, soft and boggy peat fields (the type of which where the mud is up to your ankles whilst walking and over the wheel rim eyelets at the lowest part of the wheel) flooded roads, and stoney down hill paths where the protruding rocks are over the size of melons... in all cases two feet have provided progress where two wheels could not