Cycling UK Forum

I am thinking about building a touring bike for a trip this spring. I already have a Spa Aubisque which I enjoy but I think I would like something with clearance for bigger tyres and perhaps a longer wheelbase for a longer trip with luggage. I think the Spa Wayfarer and D’Tour frames are good value and similar specification. Not sure how to choose between them. Does anyone here have experience with theses frames and have a view on the differences between them?

I think the Wayfarer is for someone who will actively seek out rough-stuff, hence the clearance for up to 47mm tyres and slightly higher bottom bracket. For someone who rides mainly on roads, I expect the D'Tour would be a better choice.

Spa would probably be able to arrange for you to test ride both back to back if you arranged a visit.

Thank you. That makes sense. Start of with the tyres you need for the places you want to go and work backwards from there. I have bought a couple of frames from Spa and would like to visit the shop but it’s a long way from Kent.

the two frames also differ in their ETT dimensions. For some reason the d'tour is longer than the wayfarer, even in it's 'long' form. I'd be worried that one or other of the framesets simply wouldn't fit me.

Brucey wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 2:48pm the two frames also differ in their ETT dimensions. For some reason the d'tour is longer than the wayfarer, even in it's 'long' form. I'd be worried that one or other of the framesets simply wouldn't fit me.

OK.....48cm DTour is 2mm longer than 47cm Wayfarer long
51cm DTour is 8mm longer than 50 cm Wayfarer long
54cm DTour is 3mm longer than 54cm Wayfarer long
57cm DTour is 3mm longer than 58cm Wayfarer long

None of those "differences" is enough to be of any practical significance to me.....stems usually come in increments of 10mm length.

Edit.....I.m going to have to try to confirm seat tube angle of Wayfarer......
.....OK.....according to my old paperwork, seat tube angle on Wayfarer is 72 degrees for all sizes.

Thread here viewtopic.php?t=157086&hilit=Spa
....about differences between Spa bikes.....

....major snag is that I'm even older now than I was then.....

the seat angle of the d'tour is always 72 degrees regardless of size, whereas it is 72 72 73 74 degrees respectively for the four different seat tube lengths available in the wayfarer. If you really need the shorter version of the wayfarer, especially in the smaller sizes, maybe the d'tour isn't going to fit very well?

Brucey wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 5:00pm the seat angle of the d'tour is always 72 degrees regardless of size, whereas it is 72 72 73 74 degrees respectively for the four different seat tube lengths available in the wayfarer. If you really need the shorter version of the wayfarer, especially in the smaller sizes, maybe the d'tour isn't going to fit very well?

On my drawings, seat tube angle is 72 degrees on all sizes

What I would be interested in trying, would be a 650b Spa Audax mono, with cantilevers and a rear gear hanger option.

531colin wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 8:18pm On my drawings, seat tube angle is 72 degrees on all sizes

Are the measurements for the top tube/effective top tube quoted by Spa (screenshot below), the same as on your drawings?

See this discussion, viewtopic.php?p=1781858&hilit=d%27tour#p1781858

I had a 47cm long Wayfarer and a 51cm Tourer. I preferred the tourer. If I bought again I'd want the lower BB of the D'Tour.

slowster wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 8:52pm

531colin wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 8:18pm On my drawings, seat tube angle is 72 degrees on all sizes

Are the measurements for the top tube/effective top tube quoted by Spa (screenshot below), the same as on your drawings?
..........

Yes.

531colin wrote: ↑14 Jan 2024, 10:36am

slowster wrote: ↑13 Jan 2024, 8:52pm re the measurements for the top tube/effective top tube quoted by Spa (screenshot below), the same as on your drawings?

Yes.

I am wondering if the seat tube angles might be different for the two Wayfarer versions. The STA values are only listed under the long top tube version, and I think most have assumed that the values are the same for both versions.

If I recall correctly, you initially designed the short top tube version, and the long top tube version was introduced later. I got the impression that long top tube version was possibly designed by Spa rather than by you. If so, that might explain a change in STA for the long top tube versions. However, that would go against Spa's practice of standardising on 72 for tourers and 72.5 for the likes of the Audax, Elan and Aubisque, and it would also undermine one of the reasons which I recall you posted for introducing the long top tube version, which was to standardise fit, as per the explanation you gave here - viewtopic.php?p=1391991#p1391991, and copied below:

531colin wrote: ↑29 Aug 2019, 4:02pm Just tinkering with the top tube length so that its closer to the reach of the long-established rim brake tourer, size for size.
To give a bit more confidence when "sizing" customers over the phone.

Its my recollection that I designed the Wayfarer originally as relatively short-reach........so many people ask for short reach, both here and in the shop. Then came the complaint that the sizing was different between the old rim brake Tourer and the Wayfarer, so I "stretched" the Wayfarer a bit to give the "long" version.

On my drawings, seat tube angle for all the Wayfarers in all the sizes is 72 degrees, and the effective top tube length on all my drawings is the same as Spa’s table.
The simplest explanation is that the seat tube angle in Spa’s table has been entered wrong. (Occam's razor?)

Other than that, what?
Spa have changed the seat tube angle on one of my designs?
For what purpose? (I like to think they might have mentioned it!)
Some bike designs use a steeper seat tube angle in the smaller sizes, to create the impression that the reach in the small bikes will be less than it actually is, but is there any example of a bike with steeper seat tube angle in the big sizes than the small sizes?
Or a traditional touring bike in any size with a 74 degree seat tube angle?

To be fair, I haven't checked the front centre dimension in the tables against my drawings; if the seat tube is a steeper angle and the top tube the same length, then front centre will be longer.
I'll check front centre if you like, but that will have to wait until tomorrow, the drawings I have are reduced down to A4 size (maybe from A3) and my old eyes need all the advantages they can get just to read the numbers.

531colin wrote: ↑14 Jan 2024, 4:34pm The simplest explanation is that the seat tube angle in Spa’s table has been entered wrong. (Occam's razor?)

That was indeed what I thought was most probably the case when I bought my 54cm long Wayfarer, so much so that I did not even bother to ask Spa to confirm the STA before purchase.