Another touring "what bike" thread - Sub 1K

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

raleighnut

Legendary Member
I think it has something to do with reducing the number of frame sizes needed to accommodate most of the population.

It being possible to increase the effective frame size of a bike by spacers, an angled stem, and a long saddle post.

Reducing the effective frame size is all but impossible.

The designer Mike Burrows is credited with introducing this concept with his Total Compact Road (TCR) road geometry when he was working for Giant.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/icons-of-cycling-giant-tcr-206346
Did he have a hand in designing JC's bike too,

CLzuKbmWUAAf_Pp1.jpg
 
Location
London
I'd be concerned that he has pulled out the stem beyond the safety line on that.
 
Location
London
I think it has something to do with reducing the number of frame sizes needed to accommodate most of the population.
May well be, but that's of more benefit to thorn than me.
On my hewitt tourer and ridgeback expedition tourer, the standard wisdom seemed to be that i went for the medium frame but i went for the large in both as i thought they looked better. Both ride fine.
 

Vantage

Carbon fibre... LMAO!!!
Standover height I believe.
The Wayfarer and the old Touring are both 18" frames, yet despite having larger wheels, the Wayfarer sits lower to the ground. If it had a taller head tube, the standover height would also increase.
 

BigMeatball

Senior Member
But you’re comment is not in any way helpful to the OP. If you really feel the need to express your opinion why comment in such a rude brainless manner.... Unbelievable!
If a tree falls but nobody is there, does it still make a sound?

Get rid of annoying and useless posts from annoying and useless people by making use of the 'ignore' functionality in this forum.

I don't know what this person has said as he/she is on my ignore list, which means clearly I don't think his/her posts are worth wasting time on.
 
Last edited:

Vantage

Carbon fibre... LMAO!!!
Quick thought canuck, if not buying a new bike from Spa I would budget separately for good wheels. Many new bikes headed for touring come with "OK" wheels but not the best.
I would recommend Spa's handbuilt Sputniks.
The bike i pictured up above cost me £30, kind of, but it does have spa sputniks on it. And a tubus rack.

I have to say, I wish I'd opted for the Exal LX17's instead for the weight saving.
Sputniks are seriously bomb proof which may be overkill unless doing knarly offroading.
 
Location
London
Bomb proof is good when you carry my weight of junk. I intend to check out those lx17s for another bike but personally for loaded touring I don't think you can beat sputniks
 
OP
OP
CanucksTraveller

CanucksTraveller

Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
Location
Hertfordshire
I'm not sure I need bomb proof, I've carried two full panniers of shopping on my Trek for years and not had any issues with the standard Bontrager Nebula wheels that came with it. I intend on carrying way less weight than a week of shopping (it'll be basics only) and any "off road" will be on established tracks - strictly "non-gnarly". Basically I'd expect any touring bike to handle my loads on its standard wheels.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
My overload when I fell off was grocery shopping in two pannier bags.

When I leaned the bike over to dismount the weight seemed to skew the front wheel up and sideways, depositing me onto the ground.

I felt and probably looked stupid, not least because my tin of baked beans rolled gently into the gutter.

A touring load might have been lighter, but it seemed to me the amount of weight I had could have been carried safely spread across four smaller pannier bags.

I've never tried front ones, but they always appear to carry the weight in a reassuringly low position.

My ideal tourer would have rack mounts on the front fork to at least give me the option.
 

raleighnut

Legendary Member
I don't know what this person has said as he/she is on my ignore list, which means clearly I don't think his/her posts are worth wasting time on
Aah, you've fallen into the 'ignore trap', I tried it for a while years ago but then found that I'd sooner see what drivel they're posting (well it's good for a laugh anyway) :becool:
 
Location
London
Aah, you've fallen into the 'ignore trap', I tried it for a while years ago but then found that I'd sooner see what drivel they're posting (well it's good for a laugh anyway) :becool:
At the risk of thread divert, me too. Never "ignore" or block anyone. If someone is bad or playing games I prefer to see it. And it can be a useful vaccine to protect yourself against contemporary bollocks floating around, twitter storms etc. Have enough of my marbles left to then ignore junk posted.

I was once pmed by someone asking if I had them on IGNORE. i didn't reply. I didn"t have them on ignore. I was just ignoring them after lots of seen poison.
 

Landsurfer

Veteran
I've got 2 of these, one black and one in the blue shown ..... very impressive. Did my LEJOG on mine and up hill down dale ...,<=£600 .... absolutely brilliant bikes. I changed the saddles and the black bike has been converted to STI levers. Faultless ... I sold my SPA Steel Touring to finance the purchase of the second bike ... Although not in the published spec mine also came with front pannier racks, which is nice.

502321
 
Last edited:

All uphill

Still rolling along
Location
Somerset
I've got 2 of these, one black and one in the blue shown ..... very impressive. Did my LEJOG on mine and up hill down dale ...,<=£600 .... absolutely brilliant bikes. I changed the saddles and the black bike has been converted to STI levers. Faultless ... I sold my SPA Steel Touring to finance the purchase of the second bike ... Although not in the published spec mine also came with front pannier racks, which is nice.

View attachment 502321
Ohhh! I want one of those!

Haven't had a new (to me) bike since October, so it's obviously time!
 
Top Bottom