Cycling UK Forum

MikeF wrote:
I am not the shortest adult the country by long margin so why aren't smaller bikes (not BSOs) easily available?

Bob Jackson off the peg frames start at 18". Ribble Audax starts at 45cm. Both are fairly easily available.

MikeF wrote:

Jezrant wrote:I'll echo R2's last point. I ride a 51cm diamond frame. The 51cm Spa tourer fit me perfectly. The reach was identical to my 51cm diamond frame. It surprised me too. I thought the effective top tube was going to be too long. Nope. The slope/headtube/stem mysteriously compensate for the longer top tube.

Interesting. What height are you?

Mike, I'm the same height as you, a tad under 5'6". I normally have the saddle at about 66cm high, which was by chance exactly how their test bike was set up. I didn't check the KOP (I personally think KOPs is a bit of a red herring and in any case is far too tricky to measure precisely with the usual plumbline technique, but that's another issue for another thread), but the Spa leather saddle seemed to be positioned in the middle of its rails, so neither too far back nor too far forward. I also didn't check the stem length on the test bike, although Colin may know what it is. But I did measure the distance from the tip of the saddle to the middle of stem bar clamp, and that measurement (46cm) was exactly the same as on my usual bike, which was actually a custom-made frame, with the bars nearly level with the saddle, which is how I have the bars on my own bike. Spa will of course tweak the stem etc to get the fit right for a customer, but their test bike was surprisingly spot-on for me as it was. Unless you are a very unusually proportioned 5'5"/5'6", I am confident you would have no problem setting this bike up for your own position. BTW, in case this sounds like some sort of plug for Spa, I have absolutely no connection with the shop and don't even own a Spa bike. I've been looking for another frame that has better clearances than my own (a choice I made when ordering my frame some years ago when I felt medium-reach dual pivots were the best road brakes then available). HTH.

The stem on the test bike is whatever was left on it after the last person rode it, so its pretty random.
I would expect somebody 5'5" or thereabouts to fit the 51cm tourer. The 48cm tourer (26" wheels) goes to about 5' tall.
I ride with a few women who have the Spa Audax....one at about 5'4" is right at the limit for the 52 Audax, another at maybe 5' 8" rides a 54 audax.
at 5' 10" the 54 tourer is for me, and either a 54 or 56 Audax.

when I felt medium-reach dual pivots were the best road brakes then available).

Is that not still the case?

Possibly, if you're happy with 700 x 28mm tyres as the maximum size. If you want wider tyres than 700 x 28mm, you need brakes like those on the Spa Tourer or full-sized vees or discs. Some people might even still prefer cantis.

bigjim wrote:

when I felt medium-reach dual pivots were the best road brakes then available).

Is that not still the case?

DP's stop really well
V's do the same but not with the same modulation as DP's
Discs stop really well.

When it's wet all bets are off and discs beat everything else hands down!

Cantis, centrepulls, dual pivots, vees, mini vees, discs, drums.... they each have their advantages and disadvantages. It depends on what your priorities are.

Jezrant wrote:Cantis, centrepulls, dual pivots, vees, mini vees, discs, drums.... they each have their advantages and disadvantages. It depends on what your priorities are.

Cantis, centrepulls, DP's V's,as brakes all have their limitations,all of which concerns wet weather and the reduction of their effectiveness.
Not a good characteristic for brakes.
And they wear rims out,especially in mucky rainy conditions.
A chap I know has Mavic ceramic rims,he's had the same rims for 20 years on his touring bike,when the subject comes up he always makes it clear that they're the worst rims he's ever had for braking in the wet.
I'm not going to mention tyre size limitations for DP's and Mini V's.
Discs or at least BB7 cable discs,stop PDQ wet or dry,their handicap is they weigh a little more and the front fork needs to be strong enough for the braking forces involved,but as we're discussing touring bikes both of these drawbacks are mute somewhat IMO.
That said,my Vaya weighs 13kg and is lovely ride on supple 32 or 37mm tyres.My Kona Dew Drop weighs the same and with the newly fitted Surly Disc Trucker fork is also a lovely ride on the same tyres,though not quite upto the Vaya's standard.
There's a very slight chance of bending a rotor when on tour,but if you're that worried you can carry an extra rotor.IMO it's unnecesary if touring in Europe or USA as most bike shops carry rotors.

I can't speak for drums as the only drum I have any experience of are Aria drag brakes on tandems,which do a very good job for their intended purpose,but Brucey speaks highly of them.
I'd imagine they'd be similar to disc for wet weather braking though they may weigh a little more.

re drums; the standard SA X-FD drums are not quite as powerful as discs are but are adequate for my needs and are a very good choice for a utility bike or an all-weather bike.

Vs a typical disc setup the weight is a few oz per wheel heavier. Because the braking surfaces are usually not wet even in heavy rain, the brakes usually work consistently. Some disc/pad combinations are variable in the wet and in particular don't always work well on first wet application.

For more power the SA XL-FD front brake is more than most folk need.

In neither case is the moduation of drum brakes quite on a par with good rim brakes or good disc brakes. In either case the brake linings last for five or ten years; you can gauge the wear by looking at the brake arm movement. Cable adjustment is the only maintenance required, maybe once every few years a little grease on the pivots is a good idea; this is a 15-minute job.

You can get drum-braked rear hubs with either a screw-on fitting for a freewheel or an 8/9/10s shimano cassette. The former are quite strong ( the axle uses trapped bearings and is much stronger than it looks) and the latter is strong enough for tandem use.

cheers

Jezrant wrote:

MikeF wrote:

Jezrant wrote:I'll echo R2's last point. I ride a 51cm diamond frame. The 51cm Spa tourer fit me perfectly. The reach was identical to my 51cm diamond frame. It surprised me too. I thought the effective top tube was going to be too long. Nope. The slope/headtube/stem mysteriously compensate for the longer top tube.

Interesting. What height are you?

Mike, I'm the same height as you, a tad under 5'6". I normally have the saddle at about 66cm high, which was by chance exactly how their test bike was set up. I didn't check the KOP (I personally think KOPs is a bit of a red herring and in any case is far too tricky to measure precisely with the usual plumbline technique, but that's another issue for another thread), but the Spa leather saddle seemed to be positioned in the middle of its rails, so neither too far back nor too far forward. I also didn't check the stem length on the test bike, although Colin may know what it is. But I did measure the distance from the tip of the saddle to the middle of stem bar clamp, and that measurement (46cm) was exactly the same as on my usual bike, which was actually a custom-made frame, with the bars nearly level with the saddle, which is how I have the bars on my own bike. Spa will of course tweak the stem etc to get the fit right for a customer, but their test bike was surprisingly spot-on for me as it was. Unless you are a very unusually proportioned 5'5"/5'6", I am confident you would have no problem setting this bike up for your own position. BTW, in case this sounds like some sort of plug for Spa, I have absolutely no connection with the shop and don't even own a Spa bike. I've been looking for another frame that has better clearances than my own (a choice I made when ordering my frame some years ago when I felt medium-reach dual pivots were the best road brakes then available). HTH.

Thank you for your detailed and helpful reply. Your bike set up seems to be very similar how I set mine up. It's a nice looking bike at a reasonable price. It's a pity Harrogate is not within easy access.

Brucey wrote:
The main problem is usually reach. Even if the seat tube is made short enough, many small frames have steep seat angles and top tubes that are not proportionately reduced, all so that there is no toe overlap with 700C wheels. This is a bit of a double-whammy; many lady riders are most comfortable when the saddle is further back than normal, not further forwards.

So lady riders of average height arguably have it worse than men of the same height. The Spa frame geometry is better than many others in this respect, but I bet that a lot of lady riders still fit the shortest stem they can find even on those frames.

If you are small and light most frames are horribly overbuilt, too. If you are 5'4" and 8 stone you could ride 753R tubes with a touring load on and it would probably still feel a bit stiff.

Bikes with 559 rims make a lot of sense for such fits; it is a shame that skinny rims and tyres are not more widely available in this size.

[written whilst above post was made; hope it clarifies things]

cheers

You're absolutely right, Brucey. These are significant issues as also is stand over. The problem has been made worse by the 'standardisation' on 700 wheels rather than on the old 26" (584 is it?).

For those that saw the Olympic road races, most men appeared 'positioned' well above the wheels, but many women, especially the shorter ones, appeared 'positioned' between the wheels, and I think this is a good illustration of the problems.

Thanks for comments from others as well.

Mike F....
Can you give us some measurements of your existing bike......
BB axle to top of seat tube
top tube (centre of seat tube to centre of head tube)
Front wheel spindle to top of head tube
stem length.
front centres (bb axle to front wheel spindle)

This will allow fairly accurate comparisons.
Spas 48cm tourer has 26" wheels, I don't think 700 wheels are an insurmountable problem on a 51cm frame

reohn2 wrote:

MikeF wrote:As someone who is six foot you cannot appreciate the problems of someone below average height.........

You're right,that's why I asked.
I take,yours and Brucey's point.I'm not an engineer or bike designer and my family are all quite tall with my youngest daughter being taller than me,so you're right I can't appreciate below average people's bike fit problems.
I hope I haven't caused any offence, if so I apologise unreservedly.

No offence taken.

531colin wrote:Mike F....
Can you give us some measurements of your existing bike......
BB axle to top of seat tube
top tube (centre of seat tube to centre of head tube)
Front wheel spindle to top of head tube
stem length.
front centres (bb axle to front wheel spindle)

This will allow fairly accurate comparisons.
Spas 48cm tourer has 26" wheels, I don't think 700 wheels are an insurmountable problem on a 51cm frame

Thanks Colin. I will provide some measurements.

If discs are the panacea for wet weather braking on a bicycle, why did I used to have to spend as much time drying out the discs on my motorbike as I do the rim brakes on my bicycle or suffer the dreaded wet weather brake syndrome?

I remain unconvinced