I have done several tours with a former co-worker and friend.  He trains for a bike tour with interval training, but never more than an hour.  I instead do a lot of long distance endurance types of training.

So, on a tour, I have trouble keeping up with him during the first hour.  After two hours, he is lagging and I stop on occasion to give him a chance to catch up.  And after 30 miles, he is exhausted.  But when I do solo tours, sometimes I have 60 to 80 mile days where my occasional touring partner has trouble making 40 miles. 

That is one reason that I have done several solo tours.

If you're worried about the appearance of your clearly neglected saddle, buy some neat foot oil from your local saddlery (more £$%^&* horses), pour the contents of the can into a baking dish or a bowl large enough to take the saddle and soak first the top and then bottom in the neat foot oil, 10-20 minutes per side.

This could be useful some day. When you say top/bottom, does that mean you are first putting the whole top half of the saddle in oil and therefore also soaking the underside? After both sides are done, the entire saddle has been submerged in oil. After that, do you wipe off excess oil... and then let dry for a few days?
Thanks, Mike

edit, our saddles have always received TLC, just thought this soaking might be good to know about.

hint that they alone amongst bicycle manufacturers fully understand the relationship between head angle and fork offset that governs perfect handling. I really don’t buy that.

That they would offer a 370 and 410mm length fork for the same frame, does seem to make a mockery of that idea. 
The rational for not offering the geometry (Though they now publish more than before) is the argument that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  There is some truth in this, I have seen people comparing TT lengths without HT and ST angles, with no understanding how each effects the other. Weight is the other big one of course, if a frame is designed to do a task well, it'll weigh what it weighs. I went to an entertaining talk by a renowned frame builder some years ago, he said that the two most frequently asked questions were wheelbase and weight and that both were the result of design not a part of it.

I’ve never understood why thorn have always been so coy about publishing geometry tables for their frames. Critical numbers that are conspicuously absent include both head and seat tube angles. Thorn claims it’s commercially sensitive information, and hint that they alone amongst bicycle manufacturers fully understand the relationship between head angle and fork offset that governs perfect handling. I really don’t buy that.

In fairness their customer care goes above and beyond, and they do offer extended test rides for Rohloff equipped bikes and a generous 100-day money back guarantee. I was a bit surprised to see that test rides for derailleur equipped bikes are not now available, and the money back guarantee only extends to 14 days. I’m sure this wasn’t previously the case.

My Raven Tour came with a biplane fork with L1 = 410mm but shorter unicrown forks with L1 = 370mm appear to have been an option - reference from Test of Raven Tour on SJS website.  ‘Our Tour came with twin plate 531 ST forks…….a shorter 531 fork is also an option’

If it works for you, it works, I remain sceptical that the designer ever intended for forks of that difference to be fitted. It's the equivalent of a 2 degree head tube angle change, and the resulting difference in trail, I'd notice that.
However, that wasn't my point. Which was the forks were 410mm because that's the length the designer wanted them to be, not because of the crown chosen.  He probably chose that length as it offers the option to swap out for short travel sus forks.
The Raven Sport had considerably different geometry, the shorter fork had the option to be swapped out for an off the peg carbon fork.  When the Tour and Sport merged into the Raven, the 370 cast crown fork was kept and the 410 twin plate dropped.