Thorn Cycles Forum
Technical => General Technical => Topic started by: djd828 on November 04, 2015, 09:26:17 pm
-
I have been compiling parts for a Raven build I will be undertaking in the next couple of months and many of you have already helped me with my previous questions. I am now on to the seat post and wanted to know if anyone happens to know the stock seat post length that comes with a Raven 565L. I believe that the diameter is 28.6 for this size Raven but I can't find the length anywhere. I know I could probably wait until I got the frame to be certain but I am much too compulsive...I want to try to get as many parts as possible beforehand so I can get the bike built quickly once the frame arrives.
Thanks again,
Dave
-
Dave, Thorn supplies a seatpost and a headset with the Raven frame & forks -- both are standard items. Don't know the length of the seat post, but I could check it for you. Were you thinking of a higher-grade seatpost, such as a Thompson?
-
As far as I know, all Raven frames take a 27.2mm diameter seatpost.
350mm is the standard length I think.
-
Dave, Thorn supplies a seatpost and a headset with the Raven frame & forks -- both are standard items. Don't know the length of the seat post, but I could check it for you. Were you thinking of a higher-grade seatpost, such as a Thompson?
John, yes I have Thomson stems and seatpost on all of my bikes. I just like the simplicity and craftsmanship. Thanks again for your help. I didn't see mention of the seatpost on the SJC site. I know that I have to buy the fork seperately.
Ru, the mega brochure indicates a 28.6 seat tube but maybe that's the outside diameter? Guess I need to know that too.
Dave
-
Dave, 28.6 is the O.D. of the seat tube. ( My caliper shows 28.8 so there's a nice thick powder coat! ) 27.2 would be the seatpost diameter, as Rual
indicated.
Had to look up a Thomson seatpost as I hadn't heard of it. That's almost a work of art!
Ron
-
Ron, thank you so much....I wasnt sure if that was OD or ID that was referenced in the Mega Brochure. AND to complicate matters, Thomson makes seatpost in both the 28.6 and 27.2 diameters (and about 10 other diameters). I am glad that it's 27.2 because I need a silver seatpost and they don't make silver in a 28.6. Now I need to know the standard length.
Dave
-
just use a shim in your seat tube for any size seatpost.
btw have you concidered the thudbuster seatpost married to a brooks imperial your arse will thank you for it in years to come ;)
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/cane-creek-cane-creek-thudbuster-st-anodised-suspension-seat-post-shorter-linkage-design-254-mm-black-prod12067/.
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/seat-post-shims-dept1/....
anto .
-
just use a shim in your seat tube for any size seatpost.
btw have you concidered the thudbuster seatpost married to a brooks imperial your arse will thank you for it in years to come ;)
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/cane-creek-cane-creek-thudbuster-st-anodised-suspension-seat-post-shorter-linkage-design-254-mm-black-prod12067/.
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/seat-post-shims-dept1/....
anto .
Jags---yes, I have considered the Thudbuster and still am. My only concern is that the mechanism provides one more potential area of failure out on the road. Of course, I may be overly concerned and there may be a valid workaround if I encounter mechanical difficulties. I just don't know enough about the Thudbuster. Is it used on many loaded touring rigs?
Dave
-
Our man Dan rides one on his Nomad and he put it through it's paces.
no idea what age you are Dave but believe me once you hit your 60's you need all the help u can get so think ahead save yourself money and pain.
looks like your going to be building an epic bike with all top class gear, a bike that will last a lifetime if looked after.
best of luck with the build be sure to shop around Bike 24 and Rosebikes are great sites so is Sjs but there postage wrecks my head.chainreaction is another great site and free postage .
jags or anto whatever way the wind blows. :o
-
Hi Dave!
Though your initial post was about seatpost diameter and length, it seems to have morphed into a larger thread on seatpost selection for a new bike. Since Anto/Jags has mentioned my experience with the Thudbuster parallelogram suspension seatposts, I suppose this is a good time to weigh in.
As Anto mentioned, I have indeed installed a Thudbuster LT (Long Travel) suspension seatpost on my Nomad Mk2 expedition bike and Thudbuster ST (Short Travel) versions on two of my randonneur (Audax) bikes.
Each has performed as expected or better, and I remain very pleased to date. Each kind of Thudbuster is available in a varietyof sizes to be fit with shims; there are also some sizes that are milled to fit without the use of shims. They are available from two primary sources, either Cane Creek ( http://www.canecreek.com/products/seatposts ) or from the inventor, who has an arrangement for orders to be drop-shipped by Cane Creek ( http://www.thudbuster.com/ ). The inventor's site includes a neoprene cover with the seaposts, a good value. The posts are also carried by a number of vendors including SJS Cycles, but sometimes not all sizes are available from third parties. You will need the 27.2mm model for a Thorn Raven.
I installed the LT version on my Nomad because the very robust frame rides harshly for me in my use when off-road, cross-country, or on rugged logging roads unladen. This is to be expected of a frame with its weight-bearing capabilities and so no surprise; with a load all smooths out nicely. Using the TBLT while riding unladen off-road has made the bike pleasurable for me in all uses, and completely addressed the problem of road shock on my neck, back, and shoulders.
If pressed for an analogy, I will draw one from marine use: If a rigid post feels like a boat in heavy chop, then a sus-post feels like the same boat in moderate to heavy swells. The "bumps" are still there, but moderated and smoothed over time so they are not as abrupt.
Like you, I was initially concerned about introducing an additional point of wear and potential unreliability, but most of those can be forestalled by fitting the Thudbuster neoprene cover appropriate to the model being used and occasionally removing it to oil the pivots (I do so quarterly with heavy use, and it takes seconds). Once a year, I re-grease the elastomer stack on the Nomad's TBLT. My TBLT developed an unpleasant click shortly after installation and I contacted Cane Creek about it, detailing all the steps I had taken to address it according to their service manual and my own experience. Immediately and without quibble, they sent me a pivot bushing replacement kit and tool. Installing a single new lower pivot bushing completely solved the problem, which has not returned to date. The original bushing appeared to be slightly distorted and had a small burr on it, so was apparently defective.
A few points if you go with a Thudbuster LT:
• The TBLT has a much larger parallelogram, so requires more free space between the seatpost collar and saddle. It is very unlikely you will have sufficient room on a properly fitted Raven to use this model; a Short Travel version would be indicated if there is sufficient room. See: http://www.thudbuster.com/details.html
• The one point of potential failure for the TBLT is the bolt that serves as a free travel stop for the elastomer stack. I have read very few, very isolated reports of this bolt failing after extensive use due to shaft wear caused by rubbing of the elastomer stack and by cumulative shock loadings. I simply carry a spare bolt, washers, and locknut as part of my long-distance touring kit. Proper maintenance will greatly reduce any possibility of failure.
• The TBLT has much greater travel than the TBST, and is more finely tunable because it allows the user to mix elastomers in the compression stack.
I fitted the Thudbuster ST models to my two randonneur bikes simply because they take the "edge off" the buzz of road shock, particularly on roads that have been chip-sealed (gravel pressed into hot tar, then rolled). These bikes are my choice for long-distance (300-400km) day rides mostly on pavement, and don't require the long travel off-road shock absorption the Nomad does. Also, these bikes have horizontal top tubes and so lack sufficient room to fit the bulkier LT model, which really isn't required in their use.
The Short Travel versions use a single rubber puck for suspension and rebound control instead of the LT's stacked urethane elastomers. It is not as finely tunable to rider weight and preference, but has worked well for me.
Neither model has the full actual travel claimed, which I could only achieve in my measurements by removing the elastomers and exercising the mechanism through its entire range. However, both styles have more than enough travel for my needs and I can't envision needing more. I still stand for really big bumps and thereby avoid any "launch into space" rebound effect caused by heavily compressed elastomers.
Unlike telescopic suspension seatposts, the parallelogram linkage of the Thudbusters keeps the distance between saddle and bottom bracket essentially constant and is nice for people like me, whose knees are sensitive to even slight changes in saddle height.
However, because the saddle moves by declining downward and rearward -- and I found the suspension medium tended to compress slightly or "bed in" shortly after use -- I introduced some "positional preload" by moving my saddle 5mm forward on the clamp to take up the initial slack when sitting on the saddle. This restored my initial, static position to what it would be with a rigid post and all is well.
Also, I found with my preferred riding position -- compact-reach drop handlebars on a stem placed so handlebar-tops are as high as the saddle-top and with my back bent at 45° with my hands on the brake lever hoods and elbows slightly bent -- I was not weighting the saddle enough to compress the indicated Medium rubber puck on the ST models, so I substituted the included Soft model and all works well. The prescribed Medium elastomer stack worked well for me out of the box on the Nomad's TBLT, so no adjustment was needed there.
I concede I have introduced additional wear and maintenance points with the Thudbuster suspension seatposts, but I have benefited enough from the reduction in road shock and shock-induced fatigue to make them well worth it. I have ridden a lot over the years, and it does take a toll by this time (I am 55 years old). I wish they had been available when I started riding "with intent" 38 years ago; I might not have some of the problems I do now (particularly with road shock-induced nerve damage in my hands; damping shock transmitted through the seatpost means I am thrown forward onto my hands less, so they are spared at fair measure of overall vibration and impacts). With the sus-posts, I end each ride feeling more rested, fresher, and less beat-up by road shock. The difference is more apparent the longer I spend in the saddle, so really makes itself known on very long day-rides.
I was initially concerned that any of the sus-posts would bounce under me, but in practice that has never been a problem, perhaps thanks to my very smooth, round, light, high-cadence ("hummingbird") pedaling style. I do think it might be a problem for "mashers" -- those who prefer to primarily ride in higher gears and use a low cadence to mostly press the pedals down vertically. I don't think suspensioon seatposts are for everyone, but if you find your neck, back and -- surprisingly, hands -- are bothered by road shock (and your pedaling style is a match), I think they can be a good solution if other more ready changes fail to bring relief.
If you choose a Raven (with tube diameters tuned for more general use than my SuperDuty expediton Nomad) and fit it with fat (1.75-2.0in) tires running reasonable pressures, you will have much less need for a suspension seatpost. I would suggest you try it with a rigid post first and then fit a sus-post later if required. Simpler is generally better for long-term reliability and a sus-post might not be indicated. Forum member AndyBG kindly loaned me his Raven Tour (a slightly more robust version of the current Raven, with larger tube diameters and a bit higher cargo capacity) for my ~9,000km double-crossing of all Eastern and Western Europe. It was equipped with Thorn's supplied rigid seatpost, and rode on 2.0in Marathon Deluxe tires aired to reasonable pressures. I fared well without a sus-post even on Bulgaria's sometimes exceptionally rough roads. However, by summer's end, I was awakening with some lower backaches that I feel would have been absent had I used a sus-post, but who's to say for sure? All I can say is I now find riding much more pleasant and comfortable with a suspension seatpost, and I was a pretty hard guy to convert, having ridden forever on rigid seatposts and handling the larger bumps by posting (standing on the pedals).
One last note, keyed off Anto's comments: For my own use, I have found Brooks B.17 saddles and either Thudbuster ST or LT seatposts to be a sublime combination. The B.17 is my preferred saddle and still feels the same to me as on a rigid 'post, but less road shock is transmitted through it to me when it is mounted to a sus-post. I suspicion my leather saddle-tops will last a bit longer as a result, and it can't be a bad thing to extend the life of saddle rails. I've broken three of the chrome railsets (due to hydrogen embrittlement as a result of the plating process; no powdercoated rails have failed on me yet), but it can't hurt for them to have shocks dampened and eased. Also, I have found no mechanical interference between Brooks B.17 saddle rails and either of the TB sus-posts; the parts all clear each other fine. There are other sus-posts out there, both telescopic and parallelogram in design. SunTour make a very nice model, but it can sometimes interfere -- at least initially -- with Brooks saddle rails. Among its virtues are a roller-guide-aided spring travel that is highly tunable even compared to the TBLT's elastomer stack and the TBST's rubber pucks.
If you want to read more about my selection and experience with these sus-posts, you can use the Forum's search function. I posted a little tutorial showing how to quickly find things here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4390.0
Related threads are listed here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5709.msg71061#msg71061
Best,
Dan.
-
...I just don't know enough about the Thudbuster. Is it used on many loaded touring rigs?
Dave
I do not think I have seen it used on any touring bikes when I have been on a bike tour. A friend of mine used one for mountain biking before he got a full suspension bike.
I think they are more common on 20 inch wheel folding bikes like the Bike Friday. Those smaller wheels have a rougher ride on potholes, the Thudbuster helps on that.
I used a suspension seatpost on my Nomad when I used it for mountain biking, plus I use a sprung Brooks saddle. But for regular touring, I use a solid seatpost. The suspension seatpost I use is telescoping - in other words like all the other suspension seatposts. See photos of my bike configured for mountain biking.
I usually use a Brooks Conquest saddle, but when I do mountain biking, I instead use a Brooks Flyer which is a little flatter and wider. The Flyer is the saddle in the photos. Both Flyer and Conquest saddles are sprung.
-
Sate my curiosity and tell me where the photos of your Nomad were taken. That second photo should be in the Thorn Megabrochure.
-
Danneaux, I am amazed by the willingness of all forum members to offer valuable advice but you have certainly gone way above and beyond in providing me with much to think about. So much so that I think I will wait until I get the frame to decide on the seat post. I am approaching this build at a very detailed level...probably more than I should...but I want to make sure I am satisfied with the end result. I just wish that the Thudbuster came in a silver version....I have this thing about aesthetics that I can't seem to brush aside.
You also gave me the incentive to review the Thorn Mega brochure (for the 100th time) to make sure that I am thinking things through and now I have found that maybe the 565L may be a tiny bit on the large side for me and that a 530L may be better suited to me. I currently have a Surly LHT size 56cm with about an 800mm stand over height and I have only a small amount of clearance when I stand over the bike. I have always ridden smaller frames than normal so now I have something else to think about. I am 5' 11' and I can probably get away with the 565L but I do like to have a couple inches of stand over clearance. I'll follow Thorns recommendation on measuring BFSO and comparing it with my BFH and make my decision from there.
Also, do you have a blog or any other documentation concerning your Eastern and Western Europe crossing? The main reason I am building the bike is to attempt a London to Istanbul trip (and possibly longer) and I am interested in the route you took across Europe.
Again, thanks for the wealth of info. I appreciate the experienced insight.
Dave
-
remember to check out COMPASS tyres ;)
https://www.compasscycle.com/shop/components/tires/26-inch/compass-26-x-2-3-rat-trap-pass/
-
I will wait until I get the frame to decide on the seat post (http://I will wait until I get the frame to decide on the seat post)
Dave, if you look at the Raven frames on the Thorn website, here http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-raven-frame-black-prod27984/ (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-raven-frame-black-prod27984/), and scroll through the small photos immediately below the frame itself, you'll see the bits & pieces which come with the frame. These include the black seatpost (sorry-o, but it is included) and the FSA headset. If you don't use the seat post or headset, you have a spare for your city bike/whatever. (I doubt that Thorn would offer what used to be called a "credit option" in the auto biz, if, say, you were exceptionally brave or foolish and chose not to have a heater installed in your car.)
A couple of related suggestions on items I found useful, even essential for my Raven:
1) The advertised workshop prep is very useful, because it includes frame and fork bosses being tapped to accept racks, etc.
2) SJSC offers a kit of spacers of different sizes, which allow riders to experiment with placing the bars at different points on the steerer before making the final cut. http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-alloy-headset-spacer-kit-1-1-8-inch-3mm-to-108mm-prod27590/ (http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-alloy-headset-spacer-kit-1-1-8-inch-3mm-to-108mm-prod27590/) On my Raven, because my bars are higher than the nose of my seat, I left the steerer uncut.
3) You're already onto the use of Thorn accessory bars; I have two on my Raven's steerer, so that I have some leftover spacers.
One last observation on the matter of sizing: If you're used to a lower toptube & want to keep it, go for it. I visited SJSC before I ordered my Raven frame & forks (during a visit to family in the West Country) and tried both the 565 and 530. I found the latter too low for my liking, but it was nonetheless valuable to "test-stand" both frames.
That said, however, I would suggest you double-check the length of the toptube, i.e., the 530 S or L: Thorn emphasize that potential buyers decide on their bars before finalizing the toptube length. I can't recall whether you're thinking drop bars or flat or comfort bars, but Thorn recommend the "S frame for the former, the "L" for the latter.
Hope that's helpful, Dave. As a PS: your liking for the spiffy Thomson posts has me thinking that maybe I "need" one to ensure the quick-n-easy micro-adjustments that my aging bod will no doubt need, sooner or later. ;)
-
Also, do you have a blog or any other documentation concerning your Eastern and Western Europe crossing? The main reason I am building the bike is to attempt a London to Istanbul trip (and possibly longer) and I am interested in the route you took across Europe.
Thanks for the kind words, Dave. I arrived home to a very ill family member who required long-term care, so work on the blog and all non-essentials were delayed. It is coming, and I will let Forum members know once it is up and running.
Thorn have a wonderful satisfaction guarantee on their complete bikes, but only for EU customers. I'm in the upper-left corner of the US, so had to be extra-sure of my choice before ordering. I'd suggest calling and emailing Thorn -- again, if you've done it once -- to ask their thoughts about sizing. They want happy customers. If you can manage a test ride at Bridgwater, so much the better. I've found Thorn's sizing advice to be good, and phone and email discussions with them resolved my own dilemma as to which of two possible sizes to choose. Like you, I stand 5'11" and I could have ridden either in a Nomad, but was happier with the larger frame for a variety of reasons and its generous top-tube slope meant I would still have adequate standover -- something I needed for an expedition bike used on rough terrain.
I think it is important to first resolve any sizing issues; the components will fit any frame size frame.
Yes! Looks do matter, but sometimes functional beauty trumps aesthetic beauty. I thought a long time before adding a Thudbuster to my classic randonneur bike with otherwise all-silver components, but I don't see it while riding and it becomes more beautiful with each passing mile on 17-hour days in the saddle.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Thanks John for the additional advice. I wish I had an opportunity to test drive the Raven but I am sure I could make either size work for me. I will carefully review the measurement info in the Thorn Mega Guide and go with their recommendation. Yes, I did see what comes with the frame and I will probably swap out both the headset and the seat post. Over the years I have built up an allegiance to Thomson and Chris King...and am willing to pay the price. I appreciate their approach and dedication to the parts they produce.
I looked at the spacers you recommended and it looks like black seems to be the trend. I haven't noticed if they make them in silver. I know that CK and Phil make spacers in a very nice silver but I have (financial) limits to my allegiance---their spacers are incredibly expensive.
The handlebar is already in my stable of products purchased. I went for a Jones Loop bar so it looks like I will be going with the "L" version of whatever frame I choose. I also went with the White Industries Eno cranks. I am going to have a very multinational bike build when everything is settled...but I wanted to ensure that some of my favorite US manufacturers are heavily represented.
Danneaux, thanks for the additional advice and I am sure that the rational side of me will prevail when I do decide on a frame size and seat post. Also, it looks like I will be putting the new bike through its paces in your neck of the woods next summer. I have to work in Portland next summer and plan to ride the Oregon coastal route afterwards. I am looking forward to it.
Dave
-
Sounds like you're getting everything well sorted, Dave; and now that you mention it, I do recall your opting for the Jones bar.
Your choice of Thomson & CK components is well-founded, for sure, and if you draw the line at high-end silver spacers, well, maybe a black-and-silver contrast will work well too.
One of the good things about these bikes is that changing an individual component can be done at a reasonable price: my 36T stainless Surly ring cost me USD 30, for example, and the stainless Problemsolver chainring bolts were about USD 15. Taken together, they can add up, for sure, but tweaking one part at a time is easier & cheaper.
-
Sate my curiosity and tell me where the photos of your Nomad were taken. That second photo should be in the Thorn Megabrochure.
You shamed me into finally updating my trip report, start at reply number 6 at this link where it says in bold print UPDATE.:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11321.0
-
Instead of creating anot her post, I thought it would be a good idea continuing on with this one to round out my bike build. I have the crank, handlebar, brakes and wheels sorted out and will wait for the frame to arrive to deal with the seatpost and stem.
I would like to know folks thoughts on racks. I don't mind using the Thorn racks as they seem to get great reviews. However, I know many folks love the Tubus equipment and I think my decision will be between the two. The only concern I have about using the Tubus racks is the potential hardware incompatibility with the Raven dropouts. I believe I read something about the Thorn bikes coming with 6mm screws but most rack manufactures use 5mm hardware.
I could be completely wrong about this but I wanted to get the facts in order before I make my decision. Again, I greatly appreciate everyone's input in helping me put together my bike.
Dave
-
tubus are excellent light and strong .if thorn were as light as tubus i'de buy the thorn makes sense really.
what about lights are you going with battery lights of dynamo system.
what tyres are you going for,
bartape ,
gps system.
-
Jags, I use a Garmin 810 now and like it, I will be getting a Son28 dyno and most likely a Luxos U headlight. For tires, it will be some version of Schwalbe. Seat will either be a B17 or Berthoud Aspin with matching bar tape. I am still deciding between the red or black frame. Yes, I do still have some decisions left.
I have decided to get the frame sooner than I expected and will probably order it in the next month. I will most likely stick with the original 565L instead of the smaller frame.
The racks are next up on my list and I need to know if I need to do any drilling of the Tubus mount holes for the front or rear racks if I go in that direction.
-
I believe I read something about the Thorn bikes coming with 6mm screws but most rack manufactures use 5mm hardware
Dave, I think it's the Nomad which has the 6mm bolt holes. The Raven has the standard 5mm.
Tubus racks have a good rep, for sure. FWIW, I use a Topeak on the rear, and an Arkel low-rider at the front -- wanted to be sure I got racks which would mate with my panniers.
-
You should check the brochure for the Raven. My Sherpa has M5 bolts, but my Nomad has M6. I do not know about the Raven, but I would not be surprised if it is M5.
I like the Tubus Logo EVO rear and Tubus Ergo front. In the photo I also have a small Nashbar platform rack mounted on the front cantilever posts. The orange thing in the first photo is my polartec vest bundled up on that front platform rack.
I used to use the Surly racks, but they weigh a ton and I think these Tubus racks I have are as strong and might even be stiffer.
But, I only use these racks for touring, at home the Tubus racks get taken off. I do not use low riders around home on the front and I want a much wider platform on back. The Logo has a very narrow platform which is a disadvantage around home, but it makes the rack stiffer so it is an advantage on a tour. In the second photo you can see I have a duffel on top of my rear panniers, but that duffel does not even touch the rack, it sits up higher. In the third photo I have the Tubus racks on my LHT, instead of the duffel on that trip I used a Carradice Nelson Longflap saddle bag, so the top of my logo rack only has a narrow tent pole bag on it.
I am not opposed to the Thorn racks, I have never seen one. But they did not offer a discount on the racks when I bought my Nomad frame and I bought my Sherpa frame from a private party.
First two photos are my Sherpa.
-
[Since the topic has morphed from the original seatpost diameter query to the larger Raven build, I have changed the title so it will be more descriptive and easily searchable. The new Forum software is not so facile as the old in this regard, so we shall see if the changes "take" going forward.
Later note: It seems they have; yay!
-- Dan.]
-
Mickeg, those photos are fabulous...I want to be dropped right into the middle of that with my bike and just ride. Nothing like that here in bourbon country but it will give me the incentive to get off of my computer and onto my LHT for a nice 30 miler or so. I guess I will be back scouring the Mega Brochure later to sort out the racks after I return.
Danneaux, thanks for changing the post subject...it has certainly morphed but it will be nice having all of everyone's great advice in one tidy post.
Dave
-
Dave,
Others have answered most of your questions going forward, so I will just do a quick recap before delving into the differences between the racks, as I own both Thorn and Tubus (and Surly, and others) and can do a quick comparison for you.
• The Nomad is the only Thorn in the current lineup with 6mm rack mounts. All others are 5mm.
• Thorn, Tubus' Evo series and Surly's Nice racks all accept either 5mm or 6mm rack bolts. The Tubus Classic series may accept 6mm, but the hole is a little smaller, and the powdercoat might scratch a bit when the bolt is turned into the hole. However, I see no problem in using 6mm bolts on it. So: All the racks accept either 5mm or 6mm bolts.
• Tubus has recently (last 18 months or so) overhauled their lineup, updating many of their models to the new "Evo" (Evolutionary) design. These have a "3-D" investment-cast lower mounting point that is stiffer and offers better bracing at the loss of a built-in secondary mount for the rear fender stays. The hardware and design for the upper stay attachment has been streamlined and offers two ways for attachment. Some racks have been also been modified at the forward part of the upper deck. The Cargo, for example, loses its two "bullhorn ends" in favor of a more conventional "closed return" of the tubing on the top deck. Functionally, the old and new Tubus racks perform the same, but I generally prefer the newer designs incorporating these evolutionary changes. They are a bit more developed than the originals and are are sleeker to my eye. I also prefer a closed return for the top deck tubes, as it provides another lashing point and causes less rubbing to cargo strapped atop the rack.
• Tubus racks are very adjustable with a minimum of fuss and spare stays in a variety of lengths and bends can quickly solve even difficult fitting challenges without fabrication.
• mickeg makes a good point: Tubus' racks are available in a variety of designs. Some may be better suited for your needs than others. Some are targeted toward the minimalist and place and emphasis on weight savings over cargo capacity. Others are more general-use in design, while the remainder are geared toward loaded touring, making them less versatile for other needs. For example, I like my Logo Evo very much, but the design leaves a top deck too narrow to support a rack-top pack. I modified mine by using P-clamps to secure a sheet of DuPont Zytel to make a wider top deck to adequately support my rack pack. Tubus racks are good, but should be chosen to match your needs for ultimate success.
• Thorn's own Expedition racks have been superb in my own use. I was initially put off by what seemed a greater weight and less versatile design, but have not found them lacking. They do have features that are sometimes overlooked:
REAR:
• Heat-treated.
• Top deck is extended so a taillight is not obscured by a rack-top load or panniers.
• The rack includes a choice of either another steel tube cross-brace or a versatile taillight mounting plate for the ends of the top rails. The taillight mount is pre-drilled so a variety of lights can be easily attached, or new holes can be drilled. Like Tubus, replacement parts are available in case of repair or modification.
• Extremely rigid due to direct triangulation and very thick mounting points.
• Nice, wide top deck supports a rack-top load nicely.
• Rear rack has threaded bosses to allow direct fitting of the mudguard (fender) stays, making for rattle-free fitment.
• A much thicker, more durable coating than is found on Tubus racks.
• Mounting brackets require some fabrication to fit: They must be bent in a bench vise, then cut to fit. They are made of thick stainless steel with multiple holes, so no drilling is needed. Once fitted, the rack cannot be transferred to another bike of a different size or make unless new mounting brackets are bent, cut, and fitted, so less convenient than Tubus in this regard. The upside if you leave it on one bike is it becomes a virtual extension of the frame.
• In my own deflection tests, Thorn's Expedition rear rack was most resistant to lateral deformation and remained the most resistant to lateral sway. Several Tubus designs came in a close second (depending on design), and the Surly Nice Rack (Rear) was last, mostly due to the narrow squashed-tube mounting points. Some Tubus designs were lightest, the Thorn a bit heavier, and the Surly was heaviest of all but least rigid in my tests. The same observations held true for the front racks I've compared and tested: Lightest was the Tubus (Tara and Duo models, in that order), Thorn was a bit heavier, and Surly heaviest of all but least resistant to side loads in my own testing, again mostly due to their mount design, which is very robust in resisting vertical loads over lateral loads.
• All these racks have coated tubing. In my testing, Tubus' finish was most frangible and subject to damage, but they offer the possibility of clear, stick-on tapes to prevent damage caused by hook vibration. The tapes must be applied when the racks are new. My luck with them was uneven. Both Surly's finish was much more resistant to vibration-caused damage, while Thorn's finish was thickest and most robust. Ortlieb's glass-filled nylon pannier hooks are more likely than some other brands to cause damage (Ortlieb and Tubus are allied companies and Tubus racks are designed with Ortlieb bags in mind, but are versatile enough to fit all brands). Some Forum members have had good luck attaching various kinds of tubing to protect their racks of all brands, padding them out from 10mm OD to 16mm and dispensing with the sometimes loss-prone sizing adapters found on most Ortlieb pannier hooks.
FRONT:
• Like Tubus' Duo lowrider, the Thorn Low-Loader MkV is intended for attachment only to forks with bosses on both sides of the fork blades. Thorn's mounts are a fully threaded cylinder brazed onto the fork blade without piercing it, so match this requirement.
• Thorn's Low-Loader can be modified to fit by bending it.
• It will accept 5mm or 6mm bolts.
• Is heat-treated.
• Like Thorn's rear rack, it is an extremely rigid design with a more robust powder coating than Tubus.
• As I recall, Thorn's heat-treated chromoly steel rack tubes have a 1mm wall thickness. The inner brace on Thorn's front racks is made of anodized aluminum, as are the spacing blocks.
In actual use, racks appropriately chosen from the Tubus lineup, the Surly, and the Thorn racks all perform well for most needs and the vast majority of users are satisfied with their purchases. If lightweight is the highest priority, then choose carefully from the Tubus lineup knowing some models favor light weight over cargo capacity and vice versa. Surly make just one model front and rear rack, as does Thorn. All three have proven "strong enough" and breakage is rare these days. Tubus does offer a 5-year warranty against breakage in use, but have denied claims arising from blowover and fallover. I've been very pleased with my Thorn Expedition and Low-Loader Mk V racks for heavy expedition use and have no complaints whatsoever about their performance.
Best,
Dan.
-
I use a Tubus Tara front rack on my sherpa, I like this rack because it is easy to fit and remove when flying or packing the bike in a car etc., the rack kind of folds up flat in a single unit and can be easily packed in my luggage. The hoop over the front wheel is sometimes handy for lifting the front end of the bike off the ground.
-
the tubus rear racks are very narrow on top not great for strapping a rack bag.
-
the tubus rear racks are very narrow on top not great for strapping a rack bag.
Agreed for the Logo models (Classic and Evo), but the Cargo Classic and Cargo Evo have wide platforms.
Tubus platform width varies by model.
All the best,
Dan.
-
I believe I read something about the Thorn bikes coming with 6mm screws but most rack manufactures use 5mm hardware
Dave, I think it's the Nomad which has the 6mm bolt holes. The Raven has the standard 5mm.
Tubus racks have a good rep, for sure. FWIW, I use a Topeak on the rear, and an Arkel low-rider at the front -- wanted to be sure I got racks which would mate with my panniers.
I have Tubus racks on my Nomad, and I don't think that I did any drilling out of rock holes; if I recall correctly the 6mm bolts fitted through the existing holes.
I prefer the Tubus as they are so light in weight, but equally so very tough and rigid. The Cargo has a nice wide platform, and this is rarely an issue anyway when loaded with rear panniers as the top cargo sits most often across the pannier tops. When carrying heavily loaded panniers I use the space between the panniers and under the rack bag for my water bag or a spare pair of shoes.
(http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u666/petesig26/Outback%20Tour%202010/The%20Oodnadatta%20Track/DSCF4497_zps68f67bad.jpg) (http://s1327.photobucket.com/user/petesig26/media/Outback%20Tour%202010/The%20Oodnadatta%20Track/DSCF4497_zps68f67bad.jpg.html)
-
6mm bolts drop right into my Tubus Logo Evo rack; no drilling needed. Photo below.
5mm bolts would rattle slightly if not fitted with the slightly larger flat washers Tubus includes with their rack hardware.
Best,
Dan.
-
6mm bolts drop right into my Tubus Logo Evo rack; no drilling needed. Photo below.
5mm bolts would rattle slightly if not fitted with the slightly larger flat washers Tubus includes with their rack hardware.
Hmm.... thing is, the Nomad doesn't have 6mm eyelets at the bottom, so 5mm it must be (unless they've changed this spec on newer frames than mine).
-
Hmm.... thing is, the Nomad doesn't have 6mm eyelets at the bottom, so 5mm it must be (unless they've changed this spec on newer frames than mine).
Hi Pete!
On the Nomad Mk2, the two lower (dropout) eyelets are tapped for 5mm, but can be bridged with a stainless adapter providing a single 6mm mount and additional width for clearing a Hope disc brake caliper.
Nomad frames sold alone by SJS Cycles do not include these adapters, but they can be ordered separately. See: See:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-for-rohloff-cast-end-2-x-m5-to-1-x-m6-stainless-dropout-adaptors-prod11703/?geoc=us The adapters are listed as a "related product" on Nomad frame pages on the SJSC website.
Since the adapter uses both 5mm dropout eyelets, mudguard stays must attach to the rack. If using a Thorn Expedition rear rack, shortened stays attach directly to bosses on the rack, making for a very rigid mounting. If using another rack, the stays can be attached using P-clips, as Thorn now do on their Mercurys equipped with Tubus' Airy rear carriers (pg. 50 of the Mega Solo Brochure: http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf ).
Nomad Mk2 upper (seatstay) bosses are tapped for 6mm. Fork eyelets and bosses are 6mm.
Best,
Dan.
-
...
On the Nomad Mk2, the two lower (dropout) eyelets are tapped for 5mm, but can be bridged with a stainless adapter providing a single 6mm mount and additional width for clearing a Hope disc brake caliper.
Nomad frames sold alone by SJS Cycles do not include these adapters, but they can be ordered separately. See: See:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-for-rohloff-cast-end-2-x-m5-to-1-x-m6-stainless-dropout-adaptors-prod11703/?geoc=us The adapters are listed as a "related product" on Nomad frame pages on the SJSC website.
Since the adapter uses both 5mm dropout eyelets, mudguard stays must attach to the rack. ...
... or you can use a pair of extra long M5 bolts (one each side) and attach your fender stay to the insides of the dropouts and then use a nylock nut.
This would not work well with most derailleur bikes, the bolt could be too close to the chain and might interfere, but not a problem on a Rohloff bike. See photo.
But, I do not use a disc, so I do not know if a bolt mounted this way might interfere with a disc.
I have since taken the adapters off my bike, so my rear rack is sitting on M5 bolts now. In the photo I have the Surly rear rack on my Nomad, that rack really does not like the lower mounts being spread that far apart, it actually pushed my dropouts closer together making it harder to drop my wheel into the frame. So, I removed the adapters so that my rack no longer pushes the dropouts together.
I noted above that I use a Tubus Logo EVO for most touring on the back but when I get home I put a rack on with a wider platform, that is why I have the Surly rack on it for around home use. On my Maah Daah Hey trip, I used a Racktime Addit rack, but that is another story.
-
Don't forget a Chaingliger if you go for a Rohloff hub.
Best bit of extra kit I have fitted to my own Raven.
-
Don't forget a Chaingliger if you go for a Rohloff hub.
Best bit of extra kit I have fitted to my own Raven.
I know John Saxby has been singing the praises of the chainglider but I had no idea it even existed until I started perusing the forums. I think the older models had issue scratching the hubs but I think the newer models are ok. Can these be used on long distance tours? Any real negatives using one?
-
Can these [Hebie Chaingliders} be used on long distance tours? Any real negatives using one?
Hi Dave!
If you search the Forum archives using the Seach function, you'll learn all you could ever want about the Chainglider. Just use the search string "Chainglider" (no quotes) I've posted a short tutorial on quickly and effectively searcing the trove of information in Forum posts here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4390.0
Chaingliders work really well to keep a chain clean and well-lubed over extended use even in severe conditons and for that reason are very appropriate for tours. However, they only fit specific sizes of chainrings and cogs, so won't work for everyone. Also, there can be some problems with seatstay clearance on some frames, but this is usually resolved by slightly notching the cover. If properly sized and adjusted, they run quietly.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Dan, I've been living on the forum this weekend but I did manage to go out on a couple rides. I am in full forum search mode and learning more about touring bikes and related equipment than I ever imagined I would or could. All of you are such a wealth of info and I am grateful for your help and detailed replies.
Dave
-
Pleased to have you aboard, Dave. It is fun to see your bike coming together through the thought process toward ordering. Looking forward to seeing photos in the Gallery once it is complete.
Best,
Dan.
-
Some of us do not use chain gliders, so don't jump to the conclusion that it is a necessity.
-
Hmm.... thing is, the Nomad doesn't have 6mm eyelets at the bottom, so 5mm it must be (unless they've changed this spec on newer frames than mine).
Hi Pete!
On the Nomad Mk2, the two lower (dropout) eyelets are tapped for 5mm, but can be bridged with a stainless adapter providing a single 6mm mount and additional width for clearing a Hope disc brake caliper.
Nomad frames sold alone by SJS Cycles do not include these adapters, but they can be ordered separately. See: See:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-for-rohloff-cast-end-2-x-m5-to-1-x-m6-stainless-dropout-adaptors-prod11703/?geoc=us The adapters are listed as a "related product" on Nomad frame pages on the SJSC website.
Since the adapter uses both 5mm dropout eyelets, mudguard stays must attach to the rack. If using a Thorn Expedition rear rack, shortened stays attach directly to bosses on the rack, making for a very rigid mounting. If using another rack, the stays can be attached using P-clips, as Thorn now do on their Mercurys equipped with Tubus' Airy rear carriers (pg. 50 of the Mega Solo Brochure: http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf ).
Oh yes. That's right, I have a couple of these in the spares drawer, just have not got around to fitting them (and still not completely sure they're necessary). Silly absent-minded me :-[
-
I have since taken the adapters off my bike, so my rear rack is sitting on M5 bolts now. In the photo I have the Surly rear rack on my Nomad, that rack really does not like the lower mounts being spread that far apart, it actually pushed my dropouts closer together making it harder to drop my wheel into the frame. So, I removed the adapters so that my rack no longer pushes the dropouts together.
Cold-set the stays of your Surly rack, so there's no stress from them. Best for the rack and for your frame.
-
Don't forget a Chaingliger if you go for a Rohloff hub.
Best bit of extra kit I have fitted to my own Raven.
I know John Saxby has been singing the praises of the chainglider but I had no idea it even existed until I started perusing the forums. I think the older models had issue scratching the hubs but I think the newer models are ok. Can these be used on long distance tours? Any real negatives using one?
Buy the Rohloff model.
Yes.
No.
-
Don't forget a Chaingliger if you go for a Rohloff hub.
Best bit of extra kit I have fitted to my own Raven.
I know John Saxby has been singing the praises of the chainglider but I had no idea it even existed until I started perusing the forums. I think the older models had issue scratching the hubs but I think the newer models are ok. Can these be used on long distance tours? Any real negatives using one?
Buy the Rohloff model.
Yes.
No.
Yes, I would actually like to know peoples thoughts on the Chainglider. I did a search yesterday but didn't find anything compelling one way or the other. I did notice that it works best with a thinner chainring and I am not sure it would work well with the White Industries Eno 38 tooth that I have already purchased. There is also the question of it marring the frame or hub but I think Hebie has that issue resolved.
-
Don't forget a Chaingliger if you go for a Rohloff hub.
Best bit of extra kit I have fitted to my own Raven.
I know John Saxby has been singing the praises of the chainglider but I had no idea it even existed until I started perusing the forums. I think the older models had issue scratching the hubs but I think the newer models are ok. Can these be used on long distance tours? Any real negatives using one?
Buy the Rohloff model.
Yes.
No.
Yes, I would actually like to know peoples thoughts on the Chainglider. I did a search yesterday but didn't find anything compelling one way or the other. I did notice that it works best with a thinner chainring and I am not sure it would work well with the White Industries Eno 38 tooth that I have already purchased. There is also the question of it marring the frame or hub but I think Hebie has that issue resolved.
The problem with Chaingliders eating Rohloff shells is long since solved. The minor difficulty with Chaingliders not fitting some Thorn frame sizes is solved by shaving a clearance in the Chainglider for the stay it interferes with, as and when you discover any interference. The purpose of my original experiments with a whole set of chaincases, including the eventual winner, the Hebie Chainglider, was not making the chain last longer, but simply towards reduced maintenance with greater cleanliness. A later experiment confirmed that a common mid-level chain (KMC X8) can be run inside the Chainglider for the entire life of the chain on only the factory lube, making the setup zero-maintenance, fit and forget. In addition I fitted steel or stainless steel chainrings, which showed no undue (indeed zero) wear. Several members of this forum have reported the same. I would call our experience here "compelling". What I wouldn't call it is "conclusive"; we don't quite have the numbers for that. It's a question of whether you want to spend your time cycling or repeatedly cleaning the transmission. As Matt has already done, I would describe the Chainglider as the top convenience component to be fitted to any touring/utility/recreation bike; in short, I would rank it right after decent lighting and locking.
-
Andre, yes I have read your post and I agree that your findings are indeed compelling. Enough for me to give it a fair shake. It is inexpensive enough to try...I'm all for the set it and forget it potential.
-
Dave, there is a thread which looks at 'gliders mated to various Rohloff sprocket/chainring ratios. If you haven't already seen it, the last two pages of this one cover some of the issues:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4412.180 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4412.180)
If you're happy with your 38 x 17 ring/sprocket ratio, then the 38T 'glider should do the business for you. I decided to change to a smaller (36T) ring, and modified my 38T 'glider, with so-far-so-good results.
The 'glider part of this discussion also plays out in another thread, started by Andre to chart his low-maintenance chain experiment (described above), using only 'glider + manufacturer's lube:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6813.120 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6813.120)
The last couple of pages in that thread include devil-in-the-detail discussions about getting the best results from 'gliders. (Casual readers might think we're mildly obsessive about this stuff, but then, they're casual readers, so how would they know, and why would we care?)
Gliders are reasonably inexpensive, as you note, esp if purchased as part of a shipment from Deutschland, along with other pricier bits like tires and hubs.
One or two people in this forum have been seriously bummed out by the 'glider. For most of the others, it seems to come down to the tradeoff between reduced/minimal chain maintenance vs. slightly increased (but barely noticeable, if at all) drag -- so long as you have a sprocket/ring ratio that's compatible with a 'glider.
I don't know the thickness of your ENO ring, but if you want to try the Surly stainless item, they're fairly cheap at ~USD 30. (I have a used one which is surplus to requirements - send me a PM if you're interested.)
Cheers, John
-
For some reason I just think a chainglider would not look right on a bike in this location. But if you are staying in civilization, then maybe it would look ok.
Sometimes I run a 44T chainring, sometimes a 36T. In the photo, I have both chainrings mounted, am using the 36 at the time that photo was taken. I would rather not give up my ability to easily switch sizes of chainrings.
-
Don't forget a Chaingliger if you go for a Rohloff hub.
Best bit of extra kit I have fitted to my own Raven.
I know John Saxby has been singing the praises of the chainglider but I had no idea it even existed until I started perusing the forums. I think the older models had issue scratching the hubs but I think the newer models are ok. Can these be used on long distance tours? Any real negatives using one?
John certainly helped me decide.
As for using them on long tours....
Mine had never been off since I fitted it 12+ months ago and I toured Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan for 2 months on rough dirty and dusty roads.
No issues at all.
I rode with a Spaniard who taped his rear ' gaps' shut but I think that was over kill.
Chain looked great at end of the tour.
A pal of mine won't use one since he says he likes to see any slack developing in the chain.
But once you have fitted and removed the Chaingliger a few times its very easy to take a quick peak whenever you want.
Changing the rear wheel requires the end pieces unclipped but adds no more than 5 mins to total change time.
-
Some of us do not use chain gliders, so don't jump to the conclusion that it is a necessity.
Just saw this quote.
Quite right.
I'm a fan but would never bang on and on about it. I had my Raven 2 years before I fitted a Chaingliger. A happy 2 years.
It's a personal thing.
I happen to like them.
-
Some of us do not use chain gliders, so don't jump to the conclusion that it is a necessity.
Just saw this quote.
Quite right.
I'm a fan but would never bang on and on about it. I had my Raven 2 years before I fitted a Chaingliger. A happy 2 years.
It's a personal thing.
I happen to like them.
I don't use the chainglider because it doesn't fit the Raven sport tour frame very well as Andre mentioned above. I also had real problems getting the surly chain ring to seat properly, possibly as it wasn't quite spherical. I did use it on my Raven tour which had bigger clearances and was reasonably happy with it. I did get some minor surface rust but it was generally a success. If I could get it to work on the Raven sport tour I would and I would imagine you would be OK on the new Raven.
-
Good morning all,
I have been thinking more about my rim choices and my original plan to use the Andra 30 rims. They are still very much on the top of my list but the new Velocity Cliffhangers have recently caught my attention....particularly the polished silver version. These seem to come only in non-machined sidewalls so, of course, my first question is if there is any disadvantage to this type of sidewall.
My second question concerns spoke count. The Thorn folks say that a 32 spoke count wheel is more than sufficient for touring...even for tandem bikes. However, it seems that most folks think 36 is the magic number. What are you folks using? Again, I don't plan on being on many dirt/rough roads but I would still like to be prepared for it if I can't avoid it.
Lastly, does anyone know of a good spoke length calculator. I have it all figured out for the Andra but now I need to get the spoke specs for the Cliffhangers.
Thanks again,
Dave
-
Good morning all,
I have been thinking more about my rim choices and my original plan to use the Andra 30 rims. They are still very much on the top of my list but the new Velocity Cliffhangers have recently caught my attention....particularly the polished silver version. These seem to come only in non-machined sidewalls so, of course, my first question is if there is any disadvantage to this type of sidewall.
My second question concerns spoke count. The Thorn folks say that a 32 spoke count wheel is more than sufficient for touring...even for tandem bikes. However, it seems that most folks think 36 is the magic number. What are you folks using? Again, I don't plan on being on many dirt/rough roads but I would still like to be prepared for it if I can't avoid it.
Lastly, does anyone know of a good spoke length calculator. I have it all figured out for the Andra but now I need to get the spoke specs for the Cliffhangers.
Thanks again,
Dave
I have no idea if a non-machined side means it is for a disc or not. Did it say anything on that topic?
For your rim choice, you need to decide what tire widths you want to use. I think Sheldon's data on inner (not outer) rim width and tire width is a good place to start.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/tire-sizing.html#width
Once you know what tire widths you are likely to run, using the chart you can find an ideal rim inner width you want, then start rim selecting and shopping.
I use tires on my Sherpa that range from 40mm to 50mm wide, I suspect for a Raven you would too. My rims on the Sherpa have an inner width of 21mm which works very well for that range of tire widths.
I used 36 spokes on my build, but that is because I could and I always do. The Rohloff instructions on page 41 (printed page 41, but Adobe page numbering is different) describes why a 32 spoke undished wheel is stronger than a dished wheel with more spokes. I think that is why for many years Rohloff only made 32 spoke hubs, they thought it was good enough.
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/user_upload/1_General_use_En_2015_03_web.pdf
I have heard that in some less developed parts of the world, 26 inch rims are easy to find if you need a rim than other rim sizes. But, I have never seen any specification of which is easier to find, a 32 or 36 hole rim. So, if you are in part going with a 26 inch bike because you plan to pedal to Patagonia, you might want to try to find out which rims are more likely to be available there, 32 or 36. Otherwise I think it really does not matter which you choose.
Spoke length calculator, I used the Rohloff chart (see page 42 at above link) for my rear wheel. I do not remember how I selected spoke length for my front wheel.
My rim criteria is probably quite different than yours, I run tires on my Nomad that range from 40mm to 57mm wide. Thus, an inner width of about 23 to 25mm (From Sheldon's chart, link above) would be ideal for me. When I bought my Andra 30 rims, I bought them because the Nomad brochure highlighted that as an outstanding expedition rim along with the 57mm wide Extreme tires I got. But when I received those rims, I was really surprised how narrow they are. When I measured them, I found the Andra 30 inner width is 19mm. Using Sheldon's website data, the Andra 30 is significantly too narrow for me when I use 57mm wide tires. Thus, I think I need to run a higher minimum air pressure on that rim than I would need if I had a proper rim for my tire width. So, I am sort of bummed about my rim selection. But if you plan to run 40mm to 50mm tires on your Raven, that narrower rim might be a good rim width for you. You do not have to be perfectly in the range that Sheldon's chart lists, but I think you want to be close to it. I have used 50mm tires on my Andra 30 rims and they worked ok. See photo, my Marathon Winter tires are 50mm wide on the Andra 30 rims in the photo.
-
Thanks Mickeg,
I don't anticipate that I will run over 40mm often for the type of riding I plan to do. I am OK with going with Thorns advice of a 32 spoke un-dished wheel. I am not a really big guy---around 180 pounds at my riding weight. I was trying to determine if there was a compelling reason to consider a 36 spoke wheel.
Concerning machined rims, here is what Rivendell says:
"Machined sidewalls? Nope, and here's why:
A rim starts life as a straight extrusion; and then it is rolled into a circle. Before it's rolled, all's well with the braking surface (sidewalls). But in rolling it round, the sidewalls get wavy. That's because the inner and outer circumference travel a different distance, in the same way as the runner in the inside lane of a track runs a shorter distance than a runner in the outside lane (assuming they start and finish on the same line). If the rim material were stretchy, maybe the outer portion (the part nearest a mounted tire) would stretch and get thin. But it's not stretchy, so instead, the inner portion develops waves, so that despite being on the inside, it still travels the same distance. It's like the runner in the inside lane running a curvy line to make up for his advantage. Is this making sense?
In theory, wavy sidewalls are bad, but only in theory. In fact, the degree of waviness is so small that it hardly matters. However, it is undeniable that perfectly flat sidewalls are the ideal, and have less of a tendency to draw attention to themselves on an initial test-ride. That's the whole deal, right there.
Nobody's happy when a customer applies the brakes and hears a squeal. It doesn't often happen with any rim, machined or not, but statistically it is more likely to happen on a raw sidewall than on a machined one. Because of that, rim makers have "solved" the squeal issue by machining the sidewalls.
You might think, so what's not to like? Well, something.
The side wall thickness starts out even, even as it gets wavy in the rolling. But when you machine the waves flat, you lop off the high spots, and that takes material away from the sidewalls. So although your braking surface may be flat, you end up with sidewalls that are thin here and thick there. Some rims start out extra thick to compensate for the shaving. But in those cases, the low spots that barely get skimmed remain disproportionately thick.
Since the waviness is so small to begin with, we think it's best to leave well enough alone, keep the wall thicknesses even, and let braking itself take care of the high spots, over time. It always does.
Sometimes when rims are machined, the tool isn't super sharp, and the process leaves visible, feelable grooves in the braking surface. While we're splitting hair with waves, we might as well continue it here by saying grooves are bad. They reduced the contact area between your rim and pad, so they make braking worse that way. And they're more likely, than a smooth surface, to trap water.
Machining rims is a way for rim makers to justify a higher price, and the only thing it does is make a rim worse, while making it seem smoother. You can still have a grand old time on machined rims, and they're not likely to cut your tour short. But all in all, we'd rather the rims were normal, and all the rims we sell are. In some cases, we've specifically asked the maker to NOT machine the rims when machining them was the default."
So, it looks like I shouldn't be too concerned with a non-machined rim....I think.
I'll check out the Rohloff chart for the spoke size. Thanks again.
-
Couple of notes:
1. You can trust Grant to have worked it out and spoken to the most knowledgeable guy in the entire world on any bicycling subject. If he says you don't want machined sidewalls to your rims, you don't want machined sidewalls. However, you don't want to take his fashion advice; he dresses grotesquely inelegantly, even for a Californian cyclist.
2. There are serious advantages to balloons and semi-balloons in the 47-55mm range, the fatter the better. On a different sort of bike I use 60mm balloons (the biggest a Thorn can take is 2.15in or 55mm) and have been absolutely bowled over by their speed and comfort; the whole affair is really counterintuitive: for a start, low pressure balloons have lower rolling resistance than thin high pressure tyres...
3. [EDITED, with thanks to the excellent MacSpud] The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 0.4x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit but there is benefit in going wider still. Let me say that again: Maximum benefit of wide tyres is achieved with a tyre no wider than 2.5x the width of the rim across the bead retainers inside the rim. That ERTRO now permits a lower multiple for balloons is a wrong decision, nothing to do with engineering, taken because in the growth of wider, lower pressure tyre sales a lot of rim manufacturers would have been stuck with unsaleable stock of outlawed narrow rims, in short a permission hostile to cyclists taken for the profits of component makers. So buy the widest (inside measurement) rims that fit your other specifications, which then allows for future changes of mind on tyre width. Personally, if I were fitting out a bike that could take a maximum 55mm tyre, I wouldn't fit a rim less wide across the beads than 22mm. My current bike has 24mm bead spacing Exal XL touring rims, but they're a bit hard to find in the open market. (I've ridden balloons up to 60mm on rims as narrow as 16mm across the beads, and no disasters befell me, but the tyres were noticeably squirmier, so probably I lost the rolling resistance advantage; on a difficult or even just a loaded tour, that could make a difference.)
4. I don't recollect any complaints being traced to 32 spoke Rohloff wheels, appropriately applied, and I have run the 32 spoke Rolloff on a bike that loaded for a day's painting trip weighs well north of an eighth of a ton for thousands of miles without any problem. However, the choice isn't merely based on engineering. If you intend fitting a hub dynamo up front, a common spoke count is 36. If you're trying to buy a new rim in Outer Grimanddustystan, you will be offered 36 holes or 36 holes, if there even is more than one rim to choose from. Now that 36 spoke Rohloff boxes are available for no or a very small premium, I see absolutely no reason not to choose the common 36 hole version for a touring or utility bike.
-
Thanks Andre for both the humor and advice. This is the type of sage advice I need concerning the 32/36 spoke debate.
As for the spoke length chart in the Rohloff guide, I will admit I am a bit confused. Ryde indicates that the 32 hole 26" Andra rim has an ERD of 535 which, according to the Rohloff guide, requires a 234mm spoke length and a 12mm Polyax nipple. However, The SJC folks are adamant that this rim should use a 238mm spoke with a 14mm Polyax nipple. Does that means the Rohloff guide is open to variances or personal preference?
The 32 hole 26" Velocity Cliffhanger I am also looking at has a 533 ERD and, according to the Rohloff guide, should also use a 234mm length spoke. Can I surmise that since the Cliffhanger's ERD is 2 less than the Andra's that SJC would probably recommend a 236mm spoke with a 14mm Polyax nipple for the Cliffhanger?
As I mentioned once before I never anticipated being this far down into the weeds when I started planning the bike build and my confusion continues with each new part I consider. Thankfully, I have all of you guys and gals to help me navigate through this madness.
Now Andre has me leaning towards the 36 hole rim (yes I am getting a SON28 for the front) so I have to start these calculations all over again...yikes!
-
I used the exact spoke lengths from the Rohoff chart, used Wheelsmith spokes and Sapim nipples, but I do not know the length of the nipples that I used. I did not know there were different ones.
Since you are now trying to figure out spoke lengths, does that mean you plan to build up your own wheels?
According to this link:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/rigida-andra-30-26-559-mtb-css-rim-rohloff-drilling-black-32-hole-prod13269/?geoc=us
- ERD - 541
I looked at a bunch of other Andra 30 pages too, all that I looked at said 541.
Does the Rohloff chart match what SJS says with 541?
-
Dave, my Raven has 32-hole rims both fore and aft, with a SON28 at the front & Rohloff at the rear.
The new (2015) profile Cliffhangers look well suited to the requirements of Rohloff + 26-inch rims. The older style, with a deep inverted V profile, didn't work so well for me, so I switched to Mavic XM719s. I didn't know about the intricate pro/con/doesitmatter arguments about (non-)machined sidewalls -- I made my choice based on the profile of the rim, and the current Cliffhangers share a similar profile with the Mavics, with the latter being slightly lighter.
The Raven will accept tires up to 50 mm wide. If you allow for those, then the usual recommendation is for 60mm fenders (10 mm total clearance.)
I have VO alloy fenders, 650B x 52 mm, so I expect that the widest tires I'll fit with those fenders will be 1.75's (44.5 mm). (That rules out 26 x 2.00 Supremes, for example.) There's always a bit of a judgment call on tire widths, as you probably know -- different brands can show actually-inflated widths at variance with their nominal/listed width.) The 650B fenders do give rather more vertical clearance than their 26" cousins. Looks a bit odd, but not weird (to my eye at least), and the extra vertical clearance is helpful for muddy going.
Cheers,
John
-
Hi Dave!
Playing devil's advocate for a moment here...why employ equipment that is much heavier-duty than you are likely to need?
A lighter bike is generally more fun to ride, and if you keep overall cargo weight in check, the need for heavy-duty components is less acute. Famed race car designer Colin Chapman was known for the phrase, "add lightness". It holds for bikes also. The flip side is once you start adding weight, a bicycle's avoirdupois multiplies because each addition is a smaller proportion of the whole on a heavy bike. Eventually, one can add whole kilograms and not notice much difference. This is not always a virtue, but has its place when it comes to true expedition touring where you sometimes need to carry a lot of weight in food and water to be self-sufficient.
Let me offer some perspective here...
I weigh 172lb/78kg and do often tour on really rough roads or cross-country occasionally carrying *lots* of water and food so I can go solo and unsupported. For desert crossings in high summer, I'm carrying 26l/26kg/6.9gal/57lb of water alone on rough surfaces, often unpaved and sometimes on no road at all. My Nomad is a sturdy, heavy bike intended to carry big loads on rough roads and all kitted up weighs 20k/44lb dry and unladen.
All this is carried on 26in wheels made with 32-hole Rigida Andra rims. My SON28 dynohub matches at 32-holes, the idea being I *could* swap rims in an emergency should the more heavily laden rear become damaged. I've never had a problem, thanks to several factors:
• 26in rims are considerably smaller in diameter than 700C. Spoke count can be lower because of better bracing angles and shorter spoke lengths.
• Rohloff hub flange spacing results in dishless wheels, as has been noted.
• Large-section tires ridden at appropriate pressures offer considerable cushioning to rider and wheel alike. Years ago when good 27in and 700C touring tires were largely unavailable in my area, I toured on 23-25mm racing-training tires aired up to 125psi/8.6 on narrow rims. They rode like iron bands and the unmitigated shock took a toll on rider and components alike. Fat tires ease impact loads tremendously and will allow lighter components without penalty.
In comparison, I also have a tandem with 26in wheels. It uses 36-hole Sun Metal rims and Suzue hubs, the rear with a solid axle and an Arai drum-drag brake and 1.5in road slicks. Thanks to 145mm OLN spacing, the rear wheel is close to symmetrical even with a freewheel. The previous owners were a team each weighing 170kg/375lb. Atop the 21kg/46lb bike, this made a total weight of 361kg/796lb. They rode it in multiple Seattle-to-Portland 325km/200mi road rides. For me, all-up with two fair-sized riders, a full touring load for two and towing a 57kg/125lb trailer, it weighs 272kg/600lb. Even touring on very poor gravel logging roads, I've not had a problem, but this is an instance where 36 spokes really are indicated by weight and use. Four more per wheel results in closer spacing and better support of the rim.
As another data point, I rode Forum member AndyBG's kindly loaned Raven Tour fully loaded on the roads of Eastern Europe on my double-crossing from Bulgaria to France and back. Bulgaria is stunningly beautiful, but their road surfaces are not. As bad as Belgium's cobbles in a different way, they offer craterlike potholes and "tar blowouts" -- ridges formed when heavy trucks drive over deep asphalt patches before they have dried. Mix in bedrock, riprap, underlayment, dirt, rocks, gravel, and flooding, and there's quite a mix. While I was unable to weigh my load, I often carried up to 8l of water through Serbia's two heat waves and likely hauled about 25kg/56lb of cargo including a fair amount of canned food to see me though unpopulated forest areas and Romania's western "eco-tour" route. Andy's bike employed 32-hole Rigida Andra rims fore and aft and the wheels never went out of true in my use. Depending on size, the Raven Tour was made with larger-diameter tubes and had a slightly higher cargo weight rating than the current Raven you are considering.
You may well intend to tour on really rough roads carrying a lot of cargo. If you do -- and do so often enough to justify the higher unladen weight -- then perhaps it would be best to go whole hog and get a Nomad with sturdier frame as well. If you don't intend to carry such loads, then a Raven with 32-hole rims should be fine. Depending on use (road surface and weight plus riding style), you can easily get away with using a rim lighter than Rigida's Andra and narrower tires also.
Using a Rohloff means you don't have as many options for wheelbuilding as you would on a derailleur drivetrain. Rohloff (and Thorn, in their experience based on field service by buyers and designer Andy Blance) have some very specific recommendations that need to be followed for a successful build. You don't have the freedom to alter spoke crossings, use asymmetrical lacing, or play around with various permutations of spoke gauges, hole counts, and rim weights. On the other hand, you don't need to. A 32-hole Rohloff wheel build is generally "strong enough" for most riders in most usage -- especially if built into 26in rims. 700C rims are a different story, but even then 32-holes have proven to be satisfactory for general touring use, but the margin is slimmer than with 26in.
I feel sure you'd be fine with 32 spokes, but four spokes aren't a lot of added weight. Even as rotating weight, the portion near the rim where it counts isn't much. Viewed that way, it is cheap insurance and the wheels will certainly be sturdy and likely to run truer with one broken spoke, allowing you to continue to camp where you can replace it at your leisure. However, it is unlikely you would really need that extra margin in practice on a Raven. As for rim availability in the back-of-beyond...time seems to have altered selection a bit. Where formerly 36 hole rims were the default to be found, it is now more likely to be 32, overwhelmingly the MTB standard for the last 15-20 years. At least this proved to be true in the out-of-the-way shops in Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia. 32-hole 26in/MTB rims are far more commonly available in shop inventory here in the Northwestern US than 36 at present.
In conclusion, I think you won't have to worry about sturdy 26in wheels if you use 32 spokes, but 36 won't hurt. Just be careful about spec'ing heavier-duty components than you are likely to need, else the finished bike can easily become heavier than you'd wish for pleasurable, lively riding in general use.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Dan, as usual, thanks...your well-reasoned devil's advocate viewpoint is always welcome. And of course, your reasoning is swinging me back into the 32 spoke camp. I do like the Andra rims but those silver polished new Velocity Cliffhangers are calling me.
Mickreg, I got the Andra 535 ERD figure from the Ryde website but, you are correct, the SJC website does list the Andra CSS Rohloff specific rims at 541 which corresponds to a 238mm spoke on the Rohloff chart. I assume that the Rohloff specific rims may have a slightly different ERD than the normal rims? In any case, it does look like the Rohloff chart is accurate. Not sure why Rohloff recommends 12mm nipples and SJC 14mm.
Well, I think I am going to order the Rohloff tomorrow and then I will have several more weeks to choose rims. If anyone else wants to chime in on the 32/36 choice, please do.
Thanks all,
Dave
-
...
. I got the Andra 535 ERD figure from the Ryde website but, you are correct, the SJC website does list the Andra CSS Rohloff specific rims at 541 which corresponds to a 238mm spoke on the Rohloff chart. ...
I noted that I used the spoke length from Rohloff chart, but I did not even know that Rigida became Ryde until I opened up the box that the rims were in, so I am 99 percent confident that I used the ERD from the SJS website.
Years ago I found an ERD printed on a Salsa rim was different than on their web site. I sent an e-mail to the company and asked which it was. The customer service guy was shocked that they had an error, then he was shocked that nobody had asked that before, then he was even more shocked that it took a long time for someone in the company to get a correct answer for me. Mistakes happen. SJS builds up a ton of those wheels with Ryde rims, so if you get the Ryde rim, I would trust SJS to have the correct data on spoke length.
But, I used 36 instead of 32 so I did not ask SJS what spoke length they used, I looked it up.
If you order the Rohloff from Europe, I screwed up when I ordered it. I used a credit card with a 3 percent currency conversion fee, I could have used a card with 1 percent fee. Don't make the same mistake I made.
-
Thanks Mickeg---I happen to have a CC with no foreign trans fee so I am all set....and you have to like the US/EU exchange rate these days.
-
One more thing to consider for rim selection - the Andra 30 rims from SJS are available in specific Rohloff drillings (different angle for the spoke holes), which should make a slightly stronger wheel than a normal rim. Don't know if this is the case for Cliffhanger rims.
As for 36/32, I went with 32 for the Rohloff as 36 wasn't available at the time, and Andra 30 rims with the CSS coating to reduce rim wear. I specified 32H for the front wheel as well. If I ever need to replace a rear rim while on tour I reckon that if I can only find 36H I could pinch the front wheel rim for the Rohloff and temporarily fit a cheap front wheel.
There have been reports that CSS coating may reduce braking effectiveness, but I haven't yet found this to be a problem.
-
One more thing to consider for rim selection - the Andra 30 rims from SJS are available in specific Rohloff drillings (different angle for the spoke holes), which should make a slightly stronger wheel than a normal rim. Don't know if this is the case for Cliffhanger rims.
A not-insignificant consideration. I have heard of riders having spoke breakage problems with Rohloff hubs...... solved when they rebuilt the wheel with the Andra 30 rim. The Rohloff's wider hub flanges places greater deflection on the spokes and using a normal drilling the spokes are bent out wider. Most of that bending occurs at the nipple leading to a stress point that soon fatigues. The Andra Rohloff drilling keeps your spokes straight and happy
As for 36/32, I went with 32 for the Rohloff as 36 wasn't available at the time, and Andra 30 rims with the CSS coating to reduce rim wear. I specified 32H for the front wheel as well. If I ever need to replace a rear rim while on tour I reckon that if I can only find 36H I could pinch the front wheel rim for the Rohloff and temporarily fit a cheap front wheel.
There have been reports that CSS coating may reduce braking effectiveness, but I haven't yet found this to be a problem.
I also have a 32 spoke Rohloff on Andra 30 CSS rims. I have carried in excess of 40kgs on the bike on long stretches of very rough outback roads. No spokes have given any problems in over 5 years now.
-
A not-insignificant consideration. I have heard of riders having spoke breakage problems with Rohloff hubs...... solved when they rebuilt the wheel with the Andra 30 rim. The Rohloff's wider hub flanges places greater deflection on the spokes and using a normal drilling the spokes are bent out wider. Most of that bending occurs at the nipple leading to a stress point that soon fatigues. The Andra Rohloff drilling keeps your spokes straight and happy
Here is what Velocity says about their drilling angle....I am not sure how it compares to the Rohloff specific Andra:
Spoke holes are drilled at an exit angle of around 4 degrees, and alternate from left to right flange bias at every other hole.
This info is taken from their rim info page which can be found here:
http://www.velocityusa.com/tech/rims/
-
When I cited the table for spoke lengths in their manual, that was the 32 spoke chart. This link is newer, you should use this table that has both 32 and 36 spoke columns.
http://www.rohloff.de/fileadmin/rohloffde/technik/speedhub/speichenlaengen/erd_32_36_Speichenlaenge_07_2015_de_en.pdf
I looked up my original order for spokes, I bought 232mm spokes for a 36 spoke build. The Rohloff table says that spoke should be used on an ERD of 535 to 538.
Even if the rim is 541 as cited by SJS, that would mean my spokes are only off by 2mm, and a spoke that is 2mm too short is not a big deal. (Too long and you might run out of threads before you get it tight, that is a big deal.) I just looked at my wheels, the front looks like my spoke length is right on but my rear wheel looks like I might have about 2 mm of spoke threading outside of the nipple on the rear wheel. See attached photo. So, I probably could have used 234 mm spokes and that spoke would be about right for a 541mm ERD according to the Rohloff table.
So, to summarize, my rear spokes might be 2mm too short, but my front are right on. Not sure how to interpret that when it comes to back calculating ERD. (Fortunately, my bike works fine so I do not need to worry about this stuff any more.)
I previously suggested that you order your spokes with the hub since the spoke length is odd for a Rohloff and Rohloff sells packs of spokes to make it easier to find the spokes you need. But, I am starting to think the best thing to do is to buy the rims you want and ask your wheel builder to measure the ERD from the rim. That takes more time, but you have the time.
Some bike shops have a spoke threading machine and can make custom length spokes. I used to buy my spokes from a local shop, they commonly cut to length instead of maintaining a large inventory of spoke lengths. I used to bring my hubs and rims in to them, they would measure ERD, calculate length, and cut and thread my spokes for me.
Regarding the angle of the nipple at the rim, that is why I used Sapim nipples on my Nomad. I checked my order form, I bought 12mm nipples. Sapim claims that their nipples are better for getting those odd angles on the rim. In the photo you can see I do not have a lot of nipple sticking out of the rim, but there was enough to get my spoke wrench on it.
http://www.sapim.be/nipples/brass/polyax
I used Wheelsmith spokes, in part because I always use their spokes. And Peter White likes them, that is a pretty strong endorsement. They sell their spokes in bags of 50, so I have more spares than I could ever use. And the Sapim nipples came in a bag of 100.
In USA it is very hard to find Sapim spokes, so I did not spend a lot of time looking.
I use the green spoke wrench on the Sapim nipples.
-
Thanks so much Mickeg for the valuable info and the photo. Yes, I think I will order the rims before I do anything else. As far as the nipple length 12mm vs. 14mm, I assume that SJC used 14mm nipples on their Andra's to get more of the spoke protruding from the rim. That is just speculation because I don't think a longer nipple does anything to increase when strength.
On another note, I did end up ordering the 32 hole Rohloff after taking into account the responses from forum members who offered their opinion. I can't thank everyone enough for your help with this project.
Dave
-
...
On another note, I did end up ordering the 32 hole Rohloff after taking into account the responses from forum members who offered their opinion. I can't thank everyone enough for your help with this project.
Dave
I think 32 would make sense for the front too, no need for 36 up front when you have 32 in back.
-
I think 32 would make sense for the front too, no need for 36 up front when you have 32 in back.
+1
Even if your rims have the Rohloff-specific drilling, the Sapim Polyax nipples offer an additional layer of security. My wheels, built for the people from whom the correct drilling angles were first devised, use both (in fact all three: there is also a Rohloff-specific Sapim Strong spoke with an advantageous special elbow angle, though I don't know if it is sold to the public or only OEM's -- ugly though, with an inelegantly sudden, short, fat butt) and they are a marvel of precision and longevity. Many builders consider the Polyax nipples to be an essential alleviation of the sudden angles imposed by wide hub/short spoke configurations.
The Sapim Strong spoke is already a level or even two up from what anyone else, especially the designers with roadie-weight-weenie backgrounds, consider necessary even for loaded tourers. If you're saving a few grammes by fitting 32 rather than 36 spoke wheels, Sapim Strong spokes are probably overkill, whereas you must anyway use nipples of some kind and thus may as well use Polyax which are pretty lightweight.
-
Rigida (now called Ryde) Andra30 rim review
http://www.cyclingabout.com/review-rigida-andra-30-rim/
-
I wonder why we don't hear about the Ryde/Rigida Andra 40 rim (http://www.ryde.nl/andra-40). With 25mm inner rim width to optimally fit 37-62mm tyres, as oposed to the Andra 30 rim (http://www.ryde.nl/andra-30) with 19mm inner width to optially fit 25-57mm tyres. I would have thought that they would be more suitable to many tourers who want wider more baloon like tyres, the wider inner width meaning that the wide tyres can be run at lower pressure without become overly squirmy when cornering hard.
Anybody with experience of the Andra 40 rims?
There are serious advantages to balloons and semi-balloons in the 47-55mm range, the fatter the better. On a different sort of bike I use 60mm balloons (the biggest a Thorn can take is 2.15in or 55mm) and have been absolutely bowled over by their speed and comfort; the whole affair is really counterintuitive: for a start, low pressure balloons have lower rolling resistance than thin high pressure tyres...
The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 2.5x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit but there is benefit in going wider still. That ERTRO now permits a lower multiple for balloons is a wrong decision, nothing to do with engineering, taken because in the growth of wider, lower pressure tyre sales a lot of rim manufacturers would have been stuck with unsaleable stock of outlawed narrow rims, in short a permission hostile to cyclists taken for the profits of component makers. So buy the widest (inside measurement) rims that fit your other specifications, which then allows for future changes of mind on tyre width. Personally, if I were fitting out a bike that could take a maximum 55mm tyre, I wouldn't fit a rim less wide across the beads than 22mm. My current bike has 24mm bead spacing Exal XL touring rims, but they're a bit hard to find in the open market. (I've ridden balloons up to 60mm on rims as narrow as 16mm across the beads, and no disasters befell me, but the tyres were noticeably squirmier, so probably I lost the rolling resistance advantage; on a difficult or even just a loaded tour, that could make a difference.)
The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 2.5x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit but there is benefit in going wider still.
Andre, I think you meant. The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 0.4x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit , or in other words, the width of the widest tyre you want to fit must be no wider than 2.5x the inside width of your rim across the bead retainer, but there is benefit in going wider still.
The Andra 30 with 19mm inner rim width and stated optimal tyre widths of 25-57mm has an inner rim to tyre width range of 1.32x - 3x (47.5mm being 2.5x)
The Andra 40 with 25mm inner rim width and stated optimal tyre width of 37-62mm has an inner rim to tyre width range of 1.48x - 2.48x
Looking at the figures, to me, the Andra 40 certainly looks preferable for any tyre even approaching what would be called wide i.e. 40mm plus?
-
Anybody with experience of the Andra 40 rims?
Only second-hand, Mac'. A friend in Bavaria just took delivery of a new bike with equipped with them as OEM parts. He is very pleased. His are 700C, fitted with 50mm tires. He is almost 2m tall and weighs a lot, so is pleased to have super-duty components available when he adds a touring load.
His bike (same brand as Andre's, but a different model chosen specifically because it was tested and rated for his intended body weight plus touring cargo weight) is designed for Schwalbe Big Apples, which he intends to run someday.
I think the big deterrent to fitting '40s is they weigh ~790g vs the '30s 647.5g in a 559mm ERD (26in size). The Andra 30 is already a pretty heavy rim. Adding ~140g *more* at the rim is really noticeable, though once up to speed and ridden in a steady-state, it wouldn't be bad. There's a sort of flywheel effect when using really heavy wheels at speed. It is acceleration that suffers, so you'd really feel the difference in stoplight sprints when commuting and when cranking slowly uphill. For comparison, the Mavic MA-2 double-ferruled 36x700C training rims I have fitted to my rando bikes weigh 452g each.
There is a connection between Ryde and Sapim, described by me here: http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3571.0
Best,
Dan.
-
I think the big deterrent to fitting '40s is they weigh ~790g vs the '30s 647.5g in a 559mm ERD (26in size). The Andra 30 is already a pretty heavy rim.
I reckoned the Andra 30 rims on my Raven tour were over 700g, so I checked the Ryde website:
http://www.ryde.nl/andra-30 and http://www.ryde.nl/andra-40
In 559 26" size Andra 30 are quoted as being 735g, whereas Andra40 are quoted as 750g.
If it's correct, not much of a difference.
-
I think the big deterrent to fitting '40s is they weigh ~790g vs the '30s 647.5g in a 559mm ERD (26in size). The Andra 30 is already a pretty heavy rim.
Dan, according to the Ryde website the Andra 30 559(26") weighs in at 735g whereas the Andra 40 559(26") weighs 750g. So according to the Ryde website there is only a 15g difference between the two rather than the 142.5g that you've quoted.
Edit:
Ah, I see that martinf has answered along the same lines whilst I was writing this reply.
-
Yep; you both are correct, but I see the persistence of other figures on third-party websites. For example:
https://www.bikeonlineshop.net/rigida/andra-30-rim-559-black
https://www.bikeonlineshop.net/rigida/andra-40-rim-559-black
SJS Cycles lists the Rohloff-drilled Andra 30 as weighing 735g:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/rigida-andra-30-26-559-mtb-rim-rohloff-drilling-black-32-hole-prod13565/?geoc=us
Still checking, as the third-party figures represent quite a discrepancy between Andra 30 and 40, as you noted (thanks! :) ).
All the best,
Dan.
-
The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 2.5x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit but there is benefit in going wider still.
Andre, I think you meant. The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 0.4x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit , or in other words, the width of the widest tyre you want to fit must be no wider than 2.5x the inside width of your rim across the bead retainer, but there is benefit in going wider still.
You're so right, MacSpud. I must've been up all night working, wiped when I wrote that. I've changed the original. Thanks!
-
The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 2.5x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit but there is benefit in going wider still.
Andre, I think you meant. The inside width of your rim across the bead retainer must be no narrower than 0.4x the width of the widest tyre you want to fit , or in other words, the width of the widest tyre you want to fit must be no wider than 2.5x the inside width of your rim across the bead retainer, but there is benefit in going wider still.
You're so right, MacSpud. I must've been up all night working, wiped when I wrote that. I've change the original. Thanks!
Andre,
I totally agree with you that tyre width to inner rim width should be kept within 2.5x, I think it would be preferable to keep it to somewhere around 2x.
I use Schwalbe Big Apple liteskins 55-559 (26 x 2.15) on an Andra 30 rim. I went for the Big Apple liteskins on your recommendation and love them. The tire width is 2.9x the inner rim width so the cornering gettings a bit squirley when cornering hard at the pressure I'd prefer to use them at, Some time in the distant future when I've worn through The Andra 30s, I'll try some Andra 40s.
-
Good info on the rims as I am now getting ready to start on the wheels....though getting the hub from Germany is going to take longer than I anticipated. I have been working with the Velocity folks and it is looking like I will be having them build up my wheels using their new Cliffhanger rims. I will most likely go with some Marathon Plus or Mondial 2.0 tires.
-
I haven't posted in a while because I have been patiently waiting for my Rohloff to arrive from Germany. It took almost a month mostly due to being held up in Chicago customs for 11 days. I picked it up at the post office this morning and will be shipping it directly to Velocity for the wheel build. I just hope it gets this much mileage when I am finally able to put it on the bike.
Which leads to my new dilemma. Seems that SJC is backordered on the Raven frame until early February and I have most of the other parts ready to complete the build. I had the Raven and the Patria Terra as my top choices and now I may consider making this an all German affair with the Rohloff, Son and Patria. Or I just may practice a little patience and wait. I guess I will spend the rest of the weekend making my decision.
Update: I just read Andre's blog concerning chain tensioning options and he made a compelling argument (indirectly) for considering the Patria...hmm.
Thanks again everyone for your help and if you want to weigh in on my current dilemma, feel free.
Dave
(http://Dinkel.us/hub.JPG)
-
My Rohloff from Bike24 came straight to my door via US Postal Service, no delay and I was surprised that there was no customs duty on it.
There was a duty on my Nomad frame of about 6 percent - plus $10 (USD) or something in that range. Thus the surprise with no duty on the hub.
I really have no problem at all with the Thorn eccentric.
Write down the serial number before you ship the hub off.
-
Hi, Dave
From what little I could find on the 'net in English, it appears to me as though the Terra is more comparable to the Nomad, not the Raven. It is a seriously heavy (20kg, weighed by an owner on Crazyguyonabike) expedition bike. I also read that it is made with straight gauge, non heat treated tubing, although that info is just from a forum post, so may not be accurate. Take that into account when deciding which bike is better for your needs, and which is the better value.
The link on Andre's post didn't work for me, so I couldn't read the article, but, I believe he says that the eccentric BB is a wearable part. I think it's going to be a long while before my eccentric becomes unusable. There is a fair bit of leeway with the adjustment. The chain can get quite loose, so it is possible when making adjustments to just use the divots that may already exist in the eccentric. If and when the eccentric becomes unusable, the ex VAT price is only about £25. You could just order a spare with the frame.
I'm guessing it'll be a couple of weeks before your hubs make the trip to Michigan and return shod in those beautiful Velocity rims. That'll only leave a month before SJS has the frames in stock. You don't want to ride your nice shiny new bike until Springtime anyway, do you?
-
Mick, mine came duty free as well and I was prepared for at least 3%. With the great euro to dollar situation at the moment, the Patria is about $150 less when shipping is factored in. I also like the fact It comes in a variety of colors.
Ron, you can read Andre's post by going directly to his blog and then clicking on his bicycling category. It is a few posts down and is good reading. It is not so much that the EBB is a wearable part, but the ease of adjusting the chain with the Rohloff specific drops that caught my attention.
Still, I will think about the pros and cons a bit more as I pack up the Rohloff and Son for their journey to Michigan. At least I don't have to worry about customs on this trip.
And if the winter is anything like today in Kentucky (70 degrees), I may be doing quite a bit of riding the next few months.
-
I can't imagine wearing out an eccentric. And, you do not have to adjust the chain that often.
Regarding riding in the near future, on the first graph the "departure" means variation from normal for that time of year.
http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/pauldouglas_1449705745_bell1.jpg
http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/pauldouglas_1449705760_bell2.jpg
-
I don't want to knock the Patria, but I looked into the brand seriously some years ago. There was an unresolved problem of dangerous shimmy on fast descents with the bike fitted with the balloons the management claimed it was designed for; I didn't like the way the management dismissed customer complaints; this is something you will never see Thorn do. I bought the more expensive Utopia Kranich instead, though their crossframe designs is a taste one acquires. (I did, in a very big way. Admittedly, though, I bought a semi-custom bike only because I failed to find a reputable brazier who wanted to build a 3D small tube design I made, and the Kranich was the nearest thing I could find. The reason I didn't buy a Thorn is that I'm an artist and I can't bear to look at a welded bike every time I ride, a reason that used to find amazingly little sympathy here, though I bet Bill at least will give me a bearing.)
If the Raven is your number one choice, I reckon you should hold out for it. The actual delay, as George already pointed out, is likely to be a couple of weeks, determined by when your built wheels are returned.
My article on chain length adjustment methods is at http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/tuning-out-chain-stretch-on-internal-hub-bicycles-fixies-single-speed-and-derailleur-bikes-by-andre-jute/
-
Mick, mine came duty free as well and I was prepared for at least 3%. With the great euro to dollar situation at the moment, the Patria is about $150 less when shipping is factored in. I also like the fact It comes in a variety of colors.
...
Five years from now you won't remember which one cost more. Buy the one you will want to own five years from now.
-
Thanks Andre and Mick,
I am torn but I will think about it while the wheels ar being built. I do like both frames so I think I will be satisfied whichever way I go.
Andre, I looked at the Utopia but their website is less user friendly being only in German. Their SilverMowe looks more traditional and appeals to me in a very good way but I am not sure how it compares to the Raven or Terra. The top tube looks very thin but they claim it is a "round the world" bike. I like having options and appreciate everyone's experience and advice.
-
The Utopia site google translates fairly well.
The reason I didn't buy a Thorn is that I'm an artist and I can't bear to look at a welded bike every time I ride, a reason that used to find amazingly little sympathy here, though I bet Bill at least will give me a bearing.)
Andre,
I see your Kranich is TIG brazed. I hadn't heard of TIG brazing until now whilst reading through the Utopia web site. I guess the brazing would originally have looked very similar to TIG welds (the stacked coins look), but being bronze they were able to be filled smooth easily. The TIG brazing is preferable to gas brazing as the heat is very localised so doesn't affect the tubing as much, having said that TIG welding though heating the tube more than TIG welding also keeps the heat fairly localised, but the weld material is stronger and more fatigue resistant than the braze material.
Maybe the answer to beautiful and very strong joint is to TIG weld and then TIG braze over the weld and file/linish to a smooth finish, more work but maybe worth the extra time and cost for a high end finish?
-
The Utopia site google translates fairly well.
They had a few bits of English that I translated for the sake of clarity for others interested -- I recently gave a test ride on my Kranich to a woman from about a 100 miles away who found me on the net and came on a Sunday -- that they asked if they could have. I imagine they didn't ask for more because of the likely cost. But that was years ago, and things have probably moved on since. It's a small firm and one of the owners answers correspondence in perfectly serviceable (if not instruction-grade) English.
The reason I didn't buy a Thorn is that I'm an artist and I can't bear to look at a welded bike every time I ride, a reason that used to find amazingly little sympathy here, though I bet Bill at least will give me a hearing.)
Andre,
I see your Kranich is TIG brazed. I hadn't heard of TIG brazing until now whilst reading through the Utopia web site. I guess the brazing would originally have looked very similar to TIG welds (the stacked coins look), but being bronze they were able to be filled smooth easily. The TIG brazing is preferable to gas brazing as the heat is very localised so doesn't affect the tubing as much, having said that TIG welding though heating the tube more than TIG welding also keeps the heat fairly localised, but the weld material is stronger and more fatigue resistant than the braze material.
Maybe the answer to beautiful and very strong joint is to TIG weld and then TIG braze over the weld and file/linish to a smooth finish, more work but maybe worth the extra time and cost for a high end finish?
The Kranich is built on specially designed and drawn Columbus tubes, so it follows that Utopia specced it for the assembly method. I assume that with Columbus's assistance changing the tubes' metal spec to allow for TIG brazing is a relatively routine operation. Utopia is well used to working with outside specialists; an amazing number of components made by others and now generally for sale were first designed by Utopia for their own bikes, or were designed and made only because Utopia promised to give them cachet of adopting them. As an aside, the Rohloff hub gearbox was designed for offroad racing, mud pluggers, and Utopia was the first manufacturer to specify it as standard gearbox on tourers; that's why Bernd Rohloff turns up at their annual barbie and owner party ("sommerfest" in the photo captions) in the forest at Utopia HQ.
My particular Kranich, now seven years old, is built with specially developed lugs and plugs. Plugs are in effect an internal lug. Where there is no external lug, the standard brazing is of such a quality and finish that the tubes appear to be cast as one piece. See the photos at http://coolmainpress.com/AndreJute'sUtopiaKranich.pdf
About this new-fangled TIG brazing... This change is necessitated because the Van Raam manufactory in The Netherlands has seen such a growth in their own designs (special adaptations for the handicapped) that they can no longer build the few Utopia bikes. Also, the old-fashioned braziers are no longer young -- see http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/cycling-history-personified-on-his-90th-birthday-my-bike-builder-is-honoured-by-volkswagen/ (http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/cycling-history-personified-on-his-90th-birthday-my-bike-builder-is-honoured-by-volkswagen/) -- and are not being replaced by apprentices coming up, as in days of yore. I reckon my bike, on which the old-style lugged and brazed frame is as new, will see me out. But if I ever need a new frame, I'd first like to see this TIG brazing close up before I lash out on it. I went to Utopia because their Kranich (English: Crane, the bird) was the closest thing to a design in small diameter stainless tubes I made and failed to have built, and of course because of their reputation for obsessive perfection; they're not called "the Rolls-Royce of bikes" for nothing. (A master machinist who worked with me a lot said to me, "Those ›fifl‡° Germans are the Continental cousins of those ‹›fifl‡‡ Japanese you designed for last year." He meant truly obsessed with getting the job done just so, perfectum, no variation, no excuses.) Anyhow, the new framebuilders already have a twenty-year relationship with Utopia, as the phosphor coaters of their forks, so they know the sort of quality expected, and Utopia has further invested €150,000 in new machinery for the contractors, so they're wielding considerable influence. I have no doubt Utopia's new construction method will be pleasing to the eye and the touch, and be conscientiously developed to be as pleasing in operation as their reputation calls for.
I do like my lugs...
-
Andre, I looked at the Utopia but their website is less user friendly being only in German. Their SilverMowe looks more traditional and appeals to me in a very good way but I am not sure how it compares to the Raven or Terra. The top tube looks very thin but they claim it is a "round the world" bike. I like having options and appreciate everyone's experience and advice.
As I said, Utopia is a special taste. The SilberMowe (Silver Gull) is a throwback to the '60s roadbike doubling as a touring bike. The apparently thin top tube is merely apparent: that bike is specified for 160kg load, has been tested for it (standard Utopia practice -- they test everything). and has circumnavigations to its credit to prove it; in general, you may take it that German businessmen do not lie, exaggerate or bluster like Americans, or supply crap and hope for the best; they'd go to jail for many standard American business practices. But the Silbermowe is a bit too commonplace for Utopia customers (believe it or not, the very odd Kranich priesterrijwiel -- priest's bicycle, from the time when priests wore divided skirted ankle-length coats -- is one of their bestsellers, the bike they're famous for), so at the end of 2015 the SilberMowe will be withdrawn. Meanwhile, if it is your sort of bike (and yes, it is pretty much an equivalent to a Thorn Raven or a Patria Terra), it is a luxuriously equipped Rohloff bike with a plutocratic name on it (easily removed if you want to be stealthy) for 2200 Euro while the last few sell out. See http://www.utopia-velo.de/shop/sonderangebote/ They also have some Silbermowe frames but the sizes are limited and you have to pay the full price of nearly a thousand euro (menubar acrosss the top of their page>Shop> Ersatzteil>Rahmen>scroll down a fair way); the built bike with all that desirable trim is clearly the way to go.
I can understand why the SilberMowe doesn't sell. Your German burger of means and a certain age (too old to care what anyone else thinks) sees all these fabulously unique bikes with provenance going back decades and very desirable historical connections, and he doesn't even glance at the modest Silbermowe before he puts down his money. But, on the other hand, the SilberMowe has a reputation as a superior all-rounder in a style that doesn't attract attention, and with the attention, thieves. It seems likely to me that the efflorescence of the Utopia range is the worst enemy of the pristine, traditional, capable SilberMowe.
By way of illustration of how the rest of the Utopia range is the SilberMowe's worst enemy, rather than bikes from Patria or Thorn: All the same, regardless of the Silbermowe's exceptionally generous 160kg load rating, if I were buying a self-supported circumnavigation loaded tourer with side trips to the rougher parts of the world, I too might be tempted to bypass the perfectly suitable Silbermowe for the Kranich or the London, both even more capable, both equally or perhaps even better-proven, and therefore with a greater margin of safety.
The Thorn owners have in a concurrent thread been bemoaning some really good Thorn bikes that fell by the wayside, in part because there were too many other attractive bikes in the range, true until the recent rationalization of the range. It happens to any innovative manufacturer sooner or later, and then there are often bargains to be had, with the added incentive that they're likely to become classics because nobody wanted them when they were current...
-
Andre, as usual thanks for your detailed responses. I did get a chance to peruse the Utopia website in more detail last night and do appreciate the work they put into their frames. I, like you, appreciate good design and like the lug work on both the Patria and Utopia. A couple more questions concerning the Utopia Kranach
1) it seems from what you wrote, the parts that are installed on the Utopia are very specific. Does it still use a standard 68 or 73mm bottom bracket, does it have bosses for standard V brakes, does it have a standard headset size (i.e, can it accept a 1 1/8 Chris King), can it accept both an internal or external gear mech Rohloff?
2) from the little I could read or translate on the Utopia site, the Kranach is considered a long distance touring bike...I assume you would agree.
I do like the fact that it is an easier step through which is something that is more important to me with each passing day...it's not as easy swinging my leg over the top tube of my LHT as it used to be.
To further clarify my position on a frame choice, the Thorn was a front runner simply because of the great reviews it received and because it was easy to find and research on the WWW . I am certainly not going to discount that but the great things about forums like this is that it exposes me to more possibilities and other considerations I should be thinking about.
With that said, I would certainly add the Kranach to my list but I fear the parts that I have accumulated for the build would be incompatible with the frame. I know they will work with both the Thorn and the Patria.
-
in general, you may take it that German businessmen do not lie, exaggerate or bluster like Americans
Andre, please don't take this the wrong way, but I did have to chuckle a bit at your comment concerning German businessmen...as I have a 2015 VW diesel sitting in my driveway at the moment. Still, I get your point and, in general, you are likely correct.
Dave
-
A couple more questions concerning the Utopia Kranach
You're welcome
1) it seems from what you wrote, the parts that are installed on the Utopia are very specific. Does it still use a standard 68 or 73mm bottom bracket, does it have bosses for standard V brakes, does it have a standard headset size (i.e, can it accept a 1 1/8 Chris King), can it accept both an internal or external gear mech Rohloff?
It's the other way round. Parts designed for Utopias and in particular the Kranich have become standards, for instance the taller, nylon-filled, premium BUMM lamp bracket. You may think it is a ridiculously small thing, but without the BUMM 471LH bracket, all your expensive lamp will light is the top of your balloon tyre; this is what I mean by obsessives: no detail too small to attract the full attention of a partner.
In general, you may assume that any standard part fits on the Utopia. Standard British-threaded bottom brackets fit (68mm). There are bosses for rim brakes but they need to fit around a very wide tyre -- there's no point in buying a Kranich, a bike designed from the ground up to use the Big Apple as its suspension, and then fitting tyres narrower than 47mm; I went for the full 60mm and am glad that I did. I use Magura HS11 rim hydraulics for their progressiveness; here is rare example of the standard part not fitting: the brake booster of the Magura setup is too narrow to fit the bosses on a fork wide enough to take a 60mm tyre, so Utopia makes their own wider brake booster but no one actually fits it because it wrecks the progression of the brakes and makes them nearly as sudden as disks, which I consider uncivilized. The HS11 are, ironically considering they are such superior brakes and so much in character with the bike, the standard no-cost, cheap, option on the Kranich and my understanding is that almost no one chooses the socalled "upgrades" or even the available oversize booster. Standard 1-1/8 headset; I have a Cane Creek S6 copy, built by Cane Creek for Humpert, which I imagine will see me out, which came as standard when my bike was built. I suppose you could fit a Chris King, but it requires special tools, and I don't know that the extra cost would be justified when you can get a Cane Creek S6 for a bargain (possibly already included in the price of the frame and fork) -- the S6 is the headset that created the Aheadset standard; it's a classic.
The Kranich is designed for the nearest thing to a straight cable run from the rotary control on the handlebar to the gearbox, with brazed inserts in the frame under the downtube for machined cable guides for the Rolloff, the rear brake and the rear lamp. Bare wires would just be exposed and cause trouble, I think, though you could no doubt rig up a fitting for them. In any event, I've never heard of a Kranich that was not built with the EXT fully enclosed transmission cable set. (I imagine the Utopia bosses take the same view as I do of the bare wire fad, that it is an unfortunate leftover from road bikers trying to save a gramme or two, and likely to cause trouble sooner or later.)
You can rest easy: A Kranich builds up with standard parts.
2) from the little I could read or translate on the Utopia site, the Kranach is considered a long distance touring bike...I assume you would agree.
Try putting the URL of Utopia into the classic version of Google Translate.
The Kranich is a heavy duty circumnavigator, if you want it to be, a bike you can really load up and it will still be stable. I use mine as a utility bike, a day tourer (usually loaded up with my painting gear in the pannier baskets), a shopping bike, a fast downhiller (the local roadies get nervous breakdowns about breaking their twee little bikes if they try to keep up with me on the rough lanes around here -- read my article about riding balloons fast on this board to grasp how awesomely fast this large tourer can be once the rider understands it just shrugs off the road). There are fittings for low loaders, racks for panniers, and the wheelbase is pretty long (my bike is nearly two meters long) so that you can carry large panniers without striking your heels. The thing is that like a Bentley Turbo, it isn't so much what the Kranich can and has done that you'll never explore, but the confidence all that extra capability inspires. (This is also a major selling point with the Raven -- you're probably not going to tour Patagonia, where the capybara, water rats the size of a calf, try to eat you, but the designer did and you could.) By the way, check out the frame weight and be amazed: in standard luxury touring trim (racks, electrics, everything you don't get on an American or British bike without paying extra) before water and luggage, the complete Kranich weighs 15-16.9kg -- that's what you get when you pay for special lightweight Columbus tubes. I have aluminium bikes from Gazelle and Trek that are heavier than the much bigger Kranich.
I do like the fact that it is an easier step through which is something that is more important to me with each passing day...it's not as easy swinging my leg over the top tube of my LHT as it used to be.
An excellent point. I was getting to be of an age when leg-over was inelegant and becoming dicier by the year. I'm glad I bought a low step-over bike or I would have had to replace it long since.
To further clarify my position on a frame choice, the Thorn was a front runner simply because of the great reviews it received and because it was easy to find and research on the WWW . I am certainly not going to discount that but the great things about forums like this is that it exposes me to more possibilities and other considerations I should be thinking about.
Thorn is perpetually on my shortlist, even though (as I explained in a companion thread to Bill) rationally I know Thorn isn't going back into the business of lugged handbuilt bikes. But I hung out here before Thorn arrived on my shortlist for a very good reason: the Thorn designer proofs his own bikes, and he isn't a boutique jerk, like so many others. When Andy Blance specifies a part, you can be certain it's the least expensive part that is 110% guaranteed not to let you down.
With that said, I would certainly add the Kranach to my list but I fear the parts that I have accumulated for the build would be incompatible with the frame. I know they will work with both the Thorn and the Patria.
Have no fear. With the possible exception of brakes you may already have that are too narrow to fit the Kranich fork and seatstay wishbone, and possibly if you've ordered rims too narrow for balloons (not a deal breaker), everything else will fit the Kranich straight off the shelf. Ah -- there is a small fly in the ointment: you need a 26.2mm seat tube but they give you one (suitable for Brooks saddles) with the frame, I believe, and I had no trouble buying one from my standard free delivery Irish component pusher, Chainreactioncycles.com. But some of the fancier ones, like a lugged Nitto that I really fancied when Julian bought one, don't come in 26.2mm.
I had a good chuckle at you having a VW diesel...
-
About this new-fangled TIG brazing
My particular Kranich, now seven years old
Ah, I thought that your bike would have been TIG brazed, I misread, they have been learning & testing TIG brazing for 10 years but not using it in production for 10 years.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.utopia-velo.de/radratgeber/bau-der-stahlrahmen/wig-loeten-die-revolution/&usg=ALkJrhieuwaTRU8zbtW1aRu418GQPaDMMg
built with specially developed lugs and plugs. Plugs are in effect an internal lug. Where there is no external lug, the standard brazing is of such a quality and finish that the tubes appear to be cast as one piece.
Yes, the way they use internal lugs is really interesting, I can see why you like them.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.utopia-velo.de/radratgeber/bau-der-stahlrahmen/mit-und-ohne-muffen/&usg=ALkJrhi6kgLCkKTbXuUEsdPU0h60fhA8QQ
This change is necessitated because the Van Raam manufactory in The Netherlands has seen such a growth in their own designs (special adaptations for the handicapped) that they can no longer build the few Utopia bikes.
Yes, they've moved production to The Rainbow Industry company, a 9 year old company co-founded by Wim Höfmann, the previous frame building production manager of Van Raam.
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utopia-velo.de%2Fradratgeber%2Fbau-der-stahlrahmen%2F&sandbox=1
As I said, Utopia is a special taste. The SilberMowe (Silver Gull) is a throwback to the '60s roadbike doubling as a touring bike. The apparently thin top tube is merely apparent: that bike is specified for 160kg load, has been tested for it (standard Utopia practice -- they test everything).
Some of their testing and jigs.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.utopia-velo.de/radratgeber/die-montage-in-saarbruecken/pruefstaende-in-der-produktion/&usg=ALkJrhi1xyW_-Y8BJ2I9vWD7mJZfCe2-mw
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.utopia-velo.de/radratgeber/die-montage-in-saarbruecken/rahmen-gabel-bearbeiten/&usg=ALkJrhiW9QT5bDdxZwxhPzX7OFekI3vRLw
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sl=de&u=http://www.utopia-velo.de/radratgeber/die-montage-in-saarbruecken/laufradbau-bei-utopia/&usg=ALkJrhgZJudet_mUGzNxxH-ARKNOSGLR6g
There is interesting reading thoughout the Utopia site.
-
There is interesting reading thoughout the Utopia site.
With a Utopia, you're not just buying a bike, you're buying into a philosophy and a system (1), personified by all those amazing jigs and testing machines you give links to (2), and a family too, which meets once a year in a Sommerfest (a sort of Druid gathering without the human sacrifice) in the forest beside the factory, when you can rub shoulders with Bernd Rohloff and sing along with him around the campfire.
On the other hand, the Thorn forum is much, much livelier... We got Jags and Utopia ain't!
(1) Same with Thorn, except conducted in English rather than German. It's less easily seen with Thorn, because their bikes aren't overtly odd, but the principle of the designer knowing what is right, regardless of what the mainstream does, can be read on every single page of the Thorn literature; it's the whole raison d'être of Thorn. (What we discussed the other day in another thread on Thorn defining its niche is just the Harvard Business School version of the same story.)
(2) Some of that expensive work most Utopia owners will never see or appreciate in detail, because their bikes are serviced once a year by their dealers and owners are not encouraged to mess around. But I used to rebuild vintage Bentley, and turn postwar Rolls-Bentley into sports cars, and there's a similarlity of feeling in the smooth takeup of fasteners to the thread, the ease of aligning boltholes (no bodgers in my tool chest!), suchlike small things one only notices if one has experience of assemblies by oldtime master fitters and turners, you know, the chap in the photo standing next to your granddad with the oily hands and the emery cloth spilling out of the back pocket of his overalls. The wheels on my Kranich haven't seen a spanner since new and the spokes are as tight as the day they were built. For my bike's third or fourth birthday, I borrowed a tensiometer but was soon sorry, I was so bored by all these spoke tension readings matching the original computer-printed build record.
-
Had a look at the website to see why people were craning their necks 'n' such -- those are splendid bikes indeed, with the attention to detail evident in the closeups. I especially liked the look of the SilberMöwe, though I had to dig in my heels so's not to be easily gulled by the name. The special price of the SilberMöwe is very good, even by the currently wretched Cdn$/€ exchange rate.
Had I known about these bikes when I was looking at the Thorn line, I'd have given them serious consideration. A couple of considerations would probably weigh in favour of the Raven. One would have been Cdn duty (13%) on complete bikes; that additional cost, plus shipping, is then the basis for 13% sales tax here. (By buying my bike in parts, I avoided much of that extra cost.) The other is weight: My Raven weighs in at 13.6 kgs, nearly 3 kgs less than the SilberMöwe with similar equipment. The Utopia Roadster, also an attractive bike, falls between the two, but is also almost 2 kgs heavier than the Raven.
-
, the chap in the photo standing next to your granddad with the oily hands and the emery cloth spilling out of the back pocket of his overalls.
The chap with the oily hands was my granddad!
-
Is that a bullethole in the rear window of that car, Jim? Go on, tell us you had a bootlegger grandfather, and you know where his secret stash of soon-to-be 100-year-old bourbon is...
-
a bootlegger grandfather
er, that would have been the Chicago side of the family. 'nuff said!
-
Another piece of the puzzle complete as I received my new Velocity Cliffhanger wheels back from the Wheel Department today. They turned out extremely nice. Mounting the tires though was a major ordeal, blood, sweat and tears....literally! The last major piece of the build is still the frame and I am still going back and forth on that decision. I am still heavily leaning toward the Patria Terra and have been discussing it in more detail with a German dealer the last couple of weeks. I am going for a bit of a retro feel so I do like the lugs...kind of like Andre and his Utopia.
Andre, I did look at the Utopia but I don't really think I would go bigger than 50mm on the tires and it's very difficult finding someone that sells Utopia. They also apparently don't respond to e-mails and the Patria factory has been very responsive. Hopefully they are getting better with their customer service and product...though everyone I corresponded with that has a recent Terra has been very happy with the frame.
I wanted to thank everyone again for their help guiding me through this process. Happy Holidays and hopefully my next post will include a photo of the complete bike.
(http://dinkel.us/Cliff.JPG)
-
Those are beautiful wheels. Looking forward to your complete bike, whatever it is.
-
Hi Dave!
I agree with Andre, those are indeed beautiful wheels, and they will go well with whatever frame you choose. It is good to see your dream coming to fruition and it is always wonderful to spec and contemplate a new ride.
...and hopefully my next post will include a photo of the complete bike.
This is a good time to once again remind everyone the Thorn Cycling Forum is fully owned by Thorn Cycles and functions as a community for owners and prospective owners to gain information about Thorn bicycles and for mutual owner support after purchase and is a way for Thorn to provide technical support and sales notices through Dave Whittle of their Workshop.
In other words, Thorn kindly pays the rent on our little playground, so it would be unkind to openly promote directly competing models as one might do in a more general, third-party forum. Thorn designer Andy Blance has taken pains to avoid posting some key geometry numbers so he will not aid competitors; promoting competing brands on their Forum at Thorn's expense is akin to biting the hand that feeds, however unintentionally as I'm sure is the case here. I've let it go on so far because it does sometimes take awhile to narrow choices down to a Thorn over other marques. I know we've all been glad to help you in your quest and hopefully you will remember Thorn bicycles favorably regardless of your choice.
Most of us own more than one bicycle (I'll admit to a small fleet) and avoid discussing our "others" in detail for this reason. For example, though Andre has a Utopia, he has links to it offsite and generally limits his discussions here to matters common to all bikes, such as lighting, security options, Rohloff drivetrains, and pedelec conversions where the item happens to be mounted on his Utopia but could as well be used on a Thorn.
Most members realize this, though I will sometimes receive specific requests to endorse a competing model directly or post photos of a competitor. To be fair to everyone and to Thorn's interests, as Administrator, I must say "no" to all unless it is a Thorn or used as a way to illustrate a product under discussion that can be used on a Thorn or does not compete. Occasionally, a competing model will appear in the Bikes For Sale board so a prospective Thorn owner can fund a purchase, and this I generally allow.
With best regards,
Dan.
Danneaux
Thorn Cycling Forum Administrator
-
I notice that your Rohloff hub is the 'internal mech' version, but all images I have seen of the Patria Terra show it fitted with the 'external mech' Rohloff version.
-
Now is it my eyes or what but those nipples look onesides off centre, should they not be straight?
remember Marc Beaumont had major problems with spokes breaking because of this.just saying maybe my eyes are playing up. :o
-
Now is it my eyes or what but those nipples look onesides off centre, should they not be straight?
remember Marc Beaumont had major problems with spokes breaking because of this.just saying maybe my eyes are playing up. :o
If you meant that the nipples look like they are perpendicular to the rims instead of parallel with the spokes, I think you are correct. May be an issue down the road. I wonder what the velocity warranty is?
-
That's probably what i mean mick thats a word i wouldn't be using to often. ;)
-
Now is it my eyes or what but those nipples look onesides off centre, should they not be straight?
remember Marc Beaumont had major problems with spokes breaking because of this.just saying maybe my eyes are playing up. :o
Yes there looks to be a fairly big angle between some of the spokes and their nipples, but if the wheel was well built then this shouldn't really be a problem. That was not the reason for Mark Beaumont's spoke breakages.
-
Sharp eyes, Anto -- I was dazzled by the gleam of the silver (dark & wet here these days, eh?), and didn't notice what you, mickeg and Rual picked up.
A few observations, as I have some history with Velocity rims:
> The profile of the 2015 Cliffhangers is more rounded and flatter than the inverted V which the earlier Cliffhangers had -- mine were 2014 vintage. My first reaction to Dave's 2015 rims was that they'd be better suited to using a Rohloff than were my older rims.
> My Cliffhangers had a narrow innermost section, where the nipples exit the rim, and with standard drilling, the nipples were too perpendicular. (That section was fairly thick, as well--hence strong, but also allowed little play for the nipple to be angled as it went through the rim.) Hence, the spokes had to bend at the nipple in order to mate with the Rohloff. The 26" rims required more of a bend, hence more stress on the spokes. (My LBS had made a hash of the original lacing of the spokes, which made the problem worse -- they later corrected their mistake, lacing my new Mavic rims free of charge.) I used my Cliffhangers for a season, maybe 3000 kms, with no spoke problems, but I could see breakages ahead, so changed to Mavic rims. Everything much straighter all around, although probably not 100% so, as one would have from a Rohloff-drilled rim such as the Andra.
> The nipples & spokes on Dave's 2015 Cliffhangers seem to show some of the same characteristics of my original lacing on my 2014 Clifhangers, though not to the same degree.
> Question/suggestion for Dave: Do you use / could you perhaps use the Sapim "polyax" nipples, which allow the nipple to pivot slightly inside the rim, so as to get a better outward angle as they exit the rim? Are the new Cliffhangers thinner in cross-section where they are drilled, to allow the nipples to be angled slightly?
Hope that's helpful -- good luck with these details, Dave.
-
Thanks all for the observations. I am not sure if what you are noticing is reality or a result of maybe a little camera distortion from the being so close to the wheels with the iPhone camera. I will double check later this evening. I had these built by The Wheel Department division of Velocity and they say they do a lot of OEM Rohloff builds for bike companies and sent along a pic of a line of Rohloff wheels at their shop ready to be dispatched. They recommended the DT Swiss Competition spokes and DT brass nipples---at least that is what is shown on the invoice. They also have Sapim spokes and nipples listed on their website so I assume this is their typical build recommendation. They also have a very good wheel guarantee (which I hope I never have to use).
Danneaux, I completely understand your comments and will mention that a Raven is certainly not out of the picture. If I do end up with a non-Thorn bike, I will post links to it on my travel blog--not directly on this forum.
RU, the Terra works with both the int and ext gear mech...it was one of the first questions I asked.
John, thanks again as usual for your detailed response concerning your experience with the old model Cliffhangers. I did take a look at a few of the spokes and nipples last night and didn't see much of a problem but I will inspect them more closely this evening.
Thanks all again for your help and Happy Holidays.
Dave
-
....RU, the Terra works with both the int and ext gear mech...it was one of the first questions I asked....
Yes, no doubt it will work with both versions, I just wondered if the cable guides on the frame are along the down tube rather than along the top tube then it might not be ideal for the internal mech version, I know it can be run with the exposed cable section parallel with the chainstay though.
-
Now is it my eyes or what but those nipples look onesides off centre, should they not be straight?
remember Marc Beaumont had major problems with spokes breaking because of this.just saying maybe my eyes are playing up. :o
Yes there looks to be a fairly big angle between some of the spokes and their nipples, but if the wheel was well built then this shouldn't really be a problem. That was not the reason for Mark Beaumont's spoke breakages.
Rual what was the problem marks wheels i watched his video a dozen times, full sure it was a thread and nipple issue.
-
Now is it my eyes or what but those nipples look onesides off centre, should they not be straight?
remember Marc Beaumont had major problems with spokes breaking because of this.just saying maybe my eyes are playing up. :o
Yes there looks to be a fairly big angle between some of the spokes and their nipples, but if the wheel was well built then this shouldn't really be a problem. That was not the reason for Mark Beaumont's spoke breakages.
Rual what was the problem marks wheels i watched his video a dozen times, full sure it was a thread and nipple issue.
Overtensioning was the main issue but also I think the spokes were slightly too short so were not fully engaged into the nipples, I also seem to remember something about the threads being cut rather than rolled onto the spokes but I might be wrong on that bit.
He got the wheels rebuilt in Poland with a much slacker tension and these held up for most of his trip, although he got a cracked rim in Australia too.
-
i messaged him on facebook ;)
i shall report back.
-
What a person does not want is shown by the red-x'd illustration below (source: http://www.sapim.be/nipples/brass/polyax ), though it is even worse if the bend comes in the middle of the spoke threads.
Best,
Dan.
-
....RU, the Terra works with both the int and ext gear mech...it was one of the first questions I asked....
Yes, no doubt it will work with both versions, I just wondered if the cable guides on the frame are along the down tube rather than along the top tube then it might not be ideal for the internal mech version, I know it can be run with the exposed cable section parallel with the chainstay though.
Rual--the cable guide screws below the left chainstay and not the left brake boss like on the Raven. Dan, thanks for the illustration--though it scares me now to look at my new wheels. I know that Comotion cycles in Portland, OR uses Velocity rims for the majority of their Rohloff builds. Again, I'll check it out tonight
(http://www.dinkel.us/guide.jpg)
-
Yes I am familiar with that way of running the cables using the internal mech, it does make them a bit more exposed to gunk etc from the road and tyres though, compared to the way the Raven runs the cables along the top tube and down the seatstay via the brake boss.
You might have to re-orientate the axle plate on your hub as (as Dan pointed out to me elsewhere) at the moment it is oriented for use with the brake boss cable route. You can tell from the relationship between the reaction stub on the axle plate and the cables.
-
Rual....I'm going to leave the axle plate alone for the time being because the Raven is still very much in the picture...working with the German dealers is a much more time consuming process than I anticipated and I would already have the Raven built if SJC had my size in stock.
Now that we are upon the holiday season, many of the European bike manufacturers are closed for several weeks so I may just wait until the end of January for the Thorn. I was never very good with patience...I have boxes full of parts and I, naturally, want to do something with them. However, it looks like whatever route I go, I will still have to wait at least until early February to get a frame.
I guess I can roll the wheels down the street with a stick while I am waiting ;)
Dave
-
Dave, now that you have those spiffy silver wheels, maybe you can revisit once more your original preference for a red Raven ;)
Slightly more seriously, good to hear that Velocity are confident in their recommendations on spokes, based on their experience with Rohloffs.
One detail about my older Cliffhangers: When we swapped them out, I looked at the offset of the spoke holes, and I found it to be very slight, each hole barely off-centre towards one side of the rim or the other. The holes in the Mavic rims have a more obvious offset (maybe more evident because of the eyelet?), not a lot, maybe .5 mm or so. Without seeing the current Cliffhangers side by side with the older ones, I'd assumed that the flatter profile of the current rims would allow more offset in the drilling.
Further to Rual's comment about the placement of the internal-shifter cables: I took my Raven for a wet/muddy ride in late November, and when I returned, my cables had barely any crud on them. The inside of both chainstays, and the lower run of the Chainglider, however, were filthy with encrusted grey mud. Mind you -- that's on a matte-black bike: probably wouldn't be so evident on a slick red 'un :-)
Good luck with your on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand in the coming weeks,
John
-
John, you have a great memory and are a better mind reader. I have been looking at that red Raven on the SJC website every day.
-
Good morning--
I took a look at my new wheels last night and did see what, I believe, some of you were noticing. It looks like an ever so slight bend at some of the nipple entry points. I also found a photo on Cycle Monkey's site of the old style Cliffhangers that John used that shows this same issue. I attached a photo and circled some of the areas that I think some of you were pointing out. Cycle Monkey is the US distributor of Rohloff hubs and they also use a lot of Velocity rims...I believe that Velocity may also build some of the wheels for them. I will say that I am a little concerned but not to the point of panic. I also ordered several replacement spokes and I will get some spare Polyax nipples just in case.
(http://www.dinkel.us/spokes.jpg)
Dave
-
Take those wheels back .your going to have problems once your put loaded panniers on the rack to much stress to handle bent nipples .
sorry for being a buzz killer but better to have them sorted now and not when your on tour.
other than that good news have a good christmas.
jags.
-
here u go check this out at 11 minutes.he gets his wheel rebuilt in poland further on in this .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBMGbHanLU
-
Take those wheels back .your going to have problems once your put loaded panniers on the rack to much stress to handle bent nipples .
sorry for being a buzz killer but better to have them sorted now and not when your on tour.
other than that good news have a good christmas.
jags.
I watched the video and am still a bit unclear concerning what caused Mark's issue. In an interview in the article link below, he indicates that the issue was caused by over tensioned spokes in the initial wheel build. One of the things that Velcoity stresses with their wheel build is getting the spoke tensioning as precise as possible. I'll keep an eye on things and I'll have a whole year of riding under my belt before my big planned trip so I hope that serves as a test of the wheel build.
http://www.bikeradar.com/us/gear/article/interview-mark-beaumont-18628/
-
I wouldn't worry too much about the spoke angle at the nipple, I imagine the vast majority of people who use Rohloff hubs do not have special rims drilled specifically for Rohloff. If your wheels were put together by a decent wheelbuilder I'm sure they will be fine. Although the angles in the second picture you posted don't look as severe as the angkes on your own wheel.
-
Good morning--
I took a look at my new wheels last night and did see what, I believe, some of you were noticing. It looks like an ever so slight bend at some of the nipple entry points. I also found a photo on Cycle Monkey's site of the old style Cliffhangers that John used that shows this same issue. I attached a photo and circled some of the areas that I think some of you were pointing out. Cycle Monkey is the US distributor of Rohloff hubs and they also use a lot of Velocity rims...I believe that Velocity may also build some of the wheels for them. I will say that I am a little concerned but not to the point of panic. I also ordered several replacement spokes and I will get some spare Polyax nipples just in case.
(http://www.dinkel.us/spokes.jpg)
Dave
They are two cross, so the builder got that part right.
I assume that Velocity will back up the wheels if you start breaking spokes, they can't afford to get a reputation for wheels falling apart. But if you sent them an e-mail with a concern, keep a copy of it and their response. Having documentation that you had a concern could help a lot if you have arguments with them later.
I copied and pasted the following from Page 16 at the Thorn publication Living with a Rohloff, January 2012 update, by Andy Blance:
Many people question whether 32 spokes are enough…
especially on a tandem. We can report that 32 spokes
are certainly enough…in a correctly built wheel…even
for tandem use! Unfortunately we had several cases of
spoke breakage on the tandems until we discovered the
cause…incompatible rims! The flanges of the Rohloff
hub are so large that, with most rims, the spokes tend to
bend as they leave the nipple, eventually this causes
them to break at the nipple…a type of failure which was
unheard of…until it
happened! We solved the problem at source...we now
have rims drilled so that the spokes leave the rim in a
perfectly straight line, since doing this, no more tandems
have had broken spokes. If a wheel is strong enough for
tandem use, it will survive any other kind of touring use.
the odd broken spoke…broken spokes are very easily
replaced in a Rohloff hub as the sprocket does not need
to be removed to replace the spoke. I consider that this
is an acceptable price to pay, for the performance
benefits, of such rims, on this type of bike.
There have been a few isolated cases of the flange
cracking at the spoke holes. Rohloff say that this is due
to undetectable flaws, in the alloy billet, prior to
manufacture. As of Aug 2011, Rohloff have made
considerably more than 100,000 hubs, so the chance of
this happening to you is very, very remote.
-
This is one of the stated advantages of the Ryde Andra30 rims - Rohloff-specific drilling to avoid spoke stress at the nipples.
-
From my experience and these pictures I am convinced it is not the hub nor the spokes, it is indeed the rim.
Regards,
John
-
Just a quick update that I took John Saxby's sage advice and ordered the red Raven frame today...I needed to end this madness at some point and finally make a decision. Hopefully I will have some photos of a completed bike to share later this month or early February. Thanks everyone for your input and guidance...they were key reasons I decided to stick with my original plan to go with the Thorn.
-
Good choice, Dave! Reckon that a red 'un is going to be marginally faster -- at least its rider will feel faster, which is really all that matters, no? Look forward to the photos!
-
Thanks again John for your help and suggestions. i have only the fenders left to purchase and noticed from reading the forum and then looking at some of the pics of your Raven, that you have the Honjo metal fenders. I have a couple questions concerning those. First, I believe you mentioned in the forum that you have the 52mm version...how much horizontal clearance do you have with the front fork and rear stays...will the fork and rear area accept 62mm Honjos? Did you install them yourself and, if so, how would you rate the difficulty of installation?
On a somewhat related note, is a question of running the wiring from the the front light to the rear light. I have read some folks using metal HVAC tape to tape the wires to the underside of the rear fender and then up through a hole drilled in the fender near the rear light (with a rubber grommet placed in the drilled hole in the fender).
I am looking for creative (and hopefully somewhat simple) ways to elegantly route the dyno and light wires.
Dave
-
On a somewhat related note, is a question of running the wiring from the the front light to the rear light. I have read some folks using metal HVAC tape to tape the wires to the underside of the rear fender and then up through a hole drilled in the fender near the rear light (with a rubber grommet placed in the drilled hole in the fender).
I am looking for creative (and hopefully somewhat simple) ways to elegantly route the dyno and light wires.
I note up-thread that you [will] have a rear rack.
Are your lights going to be fitted to this rack?
If so, you could route the rear light wire(s) alongside the rear brake cable outer from the head-tube to the seat tube.
Then, you route the wire under the top deck of the rack. I do this along the centre-line (to avoid pannier hook interference via (i.e. inside) a length of cable trunking that is glued + zip-tied and painted black to match the [Thorn] rack.
This places the wire(s) in just the right place to reach a light that is attached to the back of the rack.
If you are instead using a fender-mounted rear dynamo light then HVAC metal tape might be a better answer.
Personally I would not route along the inside of the fender potentially necessitates drilling the fender
but would instead route the wire(s) over the top of the fender along the centre-line.
-
Where you mount the fender under the fork crown, it is possible that it will rub on the paint under the crown. When I built up my Sherpa, I put electrical tape over the paint on the fork crown where the fender would have otherwise chaffed on the paint. That way my paint won't rub off the fork crown and start to rust.
Don't cut your fender stays too short in case you later want fatter tires. On my Sherpa, I built it up first with the fattest tires I expected I might ever use and that way my fenders had all the clearance I would need.
-
On a somewhat related note, is a question of running the wiring from the the front light to the rear light. I have read some folks using metal HVAC tape to tape the wires to the underside of the rear fender and then up through a hole drilled in the fender near the rear light (with a rubber grommet placed in the drilled hole in the fender).
I am looking for creative (and hopefully somewhat simple) ways to elegantly route the dyno and light wires.
Dave,
I've had really good luck routing my wiring down the downtube, then gluing it inside the rear mudguard lip, exiting it out a small grommet-lined hole in my SKS rear 'guard to the rack-mounted taillight on my earlier Sherpa and current Nomad. I used Dean's R/C micro-connectors. Following my success, John Saxby performed a similar installation and seems equally pleased with the result. The internal wiring used on some of my other bikes is not possible with a Thorn thanks to their careful efforts to shield the tubes from direct water entry -- all the tube vents are shielded or internal, a real boon for extending tube life.
Here are some links with descriptions and photos of my wiring on two Thorns. Some of the photos were attached before our latest Forum upgrade and so have only generic thumbnails, but if you click on them, fullsize versions will appear:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3896.msg17113#msg17113
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg39091#msg39091
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg38847#msg38847 <==<<< This is the taillight-specific wiring post.
The same scheme can be used with a Raven, but routed under the top tube using the Rohloff and rear brake cable guides placed there, then making the jump to the rear mudguard at the Rohloff/V-brake cable stop. I'd suggest Dean's connectors here again, as they are reliable, don't corrode thanks to their gold plating, and allow removal or replacement of the rear mudguard or other components as necessary for maintenance or accident repair.
Light wiring of this sort can be expanded to include wiring for a charging system, as I did successfully twice on Thorns and a number of times on my other bikes and those of friends. Variations of this wiring scheme have proven robust on my other bikes, including one with more than 32,000mi and another with mileage in excess of 28,000. It has also worked well for wiring my Extrawheel trailer with charging system and taillight.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Dan for the comprehensive reply concerning the routing. I have not heard of those Dean connectors before. I can see how they could be beneficial. Can you tell me exactly what type of connector to use and how the wire attaches to them...any soldering involved?
-
Can you tell me exactly what type of connector to use and how the wire attaches to them...any soldering involved?
Hi Dave!
All part numbers and descriptions are in the first link in my above post:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3896.msg17113#msg17113
Yes, they require soldering. It is not difficult: Tin the ends of the connector and wire leads, then "flash" the connection with the hot iron tip to minimize heat transfer into the connector. Be sure to slide some head-shrink tubing well up the wire first, then after soldering move it onto place and shrink with a heat gun.
Dean's has recently redesigned some of their connectors. The Model 2NB, P/N 1002/1225 is still widely available in existing stocks, however. Some similar connectors use crimp connections, but are often not as reliable long-term and may not be gold-plated for corrosion resistance. The same concept can be employed using larger Supernova connectors.
You can find a number of references to wiring and connectors in the Forum archives if you use the search function. Most topics have been covered in detail, so it is a quick way to find answers without having to post and then await a reply. I wrote and posted a little tutorial on how to easily and effectively search the trove of information, available here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4390.0
Best,
Dan.
-
I use ones like this.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/U-S-Seller-Gold-Tone-40-pcs-2-8mm-Crimp-Terminal-Female-Male-Connector-Spade-/111865765772
I picked those because that is what B&M used for taillight wiring at the headlight. I no longer use a B&M light, but I had already standardized on these connectors.
One disadvantage of what I am using - I have a few times found that the connectors connect together with greater strength than the strength of where I crimped the wiring, meaning when I pulled the connectors apart I pulled the wiring out of the connectors. Thus using a soldered connection can be better than what I did.
In the photo you can see where I use these connectors to connect the yellow wires and the wires that come out of my headlight. I used some black electrical tape on the male connectors to prevent shorts.
I use a battery powered taillight, so my wiring does not extend aft of the fork crown.
If you affix the wiring to the inside of the fenders, you might want to put a connector in the wiring where it starts at the fender in case you later remove the fenders for any reason.
-
Hey mickeg,
How are you finding the Axa Luxx 70? I have the Axa Nano Plus and am thinking of upgrading to the Luxx 70 Plus.
-
Thanks Dan and Mick, I have been looking at the merits of the Dean soldered method vs the crimping method and I do prefer crimping mainly because I think it might be the easier method...and I think I'd rather invest in a good crimping tool rather than a soldering set.
As far as the rear fender, I think I will do what Dan did and drill an entry and exit hole in the fender, install rubber grommets and then install a stretch of wire glued to the inside bead with connectors coming out each grommet hole. This will allow me to remove the fender like you pointed out. I think this would be a lot easier using crimping than soldering (I think).
I am glad that you have provided me with these options because I would have run the wire directly from my rear light to the front light (via the underside of the rear fender) in one long run and not even considered the difficulty of removing the rear fender if I needed to.
-
Hi Dave,
Some notes on fenders, and a couple of add-ons on lighting circuitry:
1) Fenders:
1.1) Brands: I'm using VO Zeppelin alloy fenders, size 650B x 52 mm. Sorry if I misled you into thinking that I had Honjo fenders. I had wanted to get a pair of those when I was assembling my bike, but they weren't available when I needed them. Compass Bikes do offer Honjo 650B x 58 mm hammered fenders, and they look the business (and for USD 189 they should!) You mention a 62 mm Honjo, though -- I didn't see that measurement on the Compass site.
The VO Zeppelins are USD 120/pr cheaper, and the 52 mm width works very well with my 26 x 1.6 Supremes. The latter are 39mm actual width inflated, so fit well within the Zeppelins, which are 52 mm external dimension.
VO fenders are, in my experience, very good quality, sturdy, and reasonably easy to fit. (More on that below.) VO sell both 650B and 26" fenders, the latter in stainless and alloy, 60 mm width. (I didn't see a 62 mm measurement.) Their fenders are also a good length, both fore and aft.
I also prefer alloy to plastic. I opted for the 650 B size, because I planned to use 1.6 or 1.75 tires, both of which will fit within my 52 mm fenders.
1.2) Fenders and Raven measurements:
* On the rear, there's 65 mm of space between the inner sides of the seat stays on my Raven, at the point of the lower edge of the Zeppelins, i.e., net ~13mm total clearance. So, no problem in fitting a 58mm Honjo, or a 60mm VO or Gilles Berthoud stainless. If you fit a 26" fender, rather than a 650B, you might get a little more width clearance, as the 650 fender sits slightly higher above the tire, by about a cm.
* At the front, it's a slightly different picture: At the level of the lower edge of my 650B Zeppelin, I measure just 60 mm total clearance between the inner sides of my forks. This is reduced a little from what I'd expected by the presence of a lug. Maybe if you used 26" x 60 mm fenders, you'd have a little more clearance. I couldn't check that on my bike without removing the wheel. Maybe, however, you'd need to compress the edges of the fender slightly, to clear the forks, and/or add some tape mickeg suggests.
* If you used 650B fenders at the front, say 58 mm Honjos, you should have just enough clearance. A bit of protective tape would be useful, though.
1.3) Mounting the fenders: I didn't do this work -- my LBS assembled the fenders. I did, however, modify my front Zeppelin fender this past fall. I reduced the overall length by about 10 cms, and re-drilled the shortened fender, both to accept a different mudflap and to mount the fender stay higher up, and almost parallel to the ground. I found this adjustment easy to do, once I had managed to reconcile myself to cutting the fender. (Alloy is easy to work with, if you have a good range of good quality drills, files, and hacksaws.) As always, measure twice (or three times!), cut (or drill) once. Don't even think about doing such changes in situ.
Note: The VO fenders don't rub on the bottom edge of the Raven's head tube, because the fender bolts screw into the tapped hole in the bridge across the steerer, and the top of the fender is cushioned by a nice plump leather washer, part of VO's hardware. No need to tape the lower edge of the head tube, therefore. Good idea to inspect/oil/replace the leather washer occasionally, as it can dry out & does get compressed between the fender & the bridge across the steerer.
2) Lighting circuits: I use a SON28 hub dynamo, with circuits only to my headlight and Sinewave charger. At the rear, I use a couple of good quality removable battery-powered tail lights (Planet Bike & Portland Design Works), one on my seat bag and one on my rack. I charge the batts via my Sinewave charger.
* It's very useful to install connectors in your rear circuit, to allow removal of the fenders without also removing your wiring. I learned this when reassembling my daughter's bike this past year, after she had shipped it from Berlin. She has a Stevens touring bike with integral lighting, as German bikes do, and her Shimano circuit has a couple of very nice plastic M/F connectors. Both are outside the fender, one behind the seat tube & the other atop the fender behind the light itself. The wire is routed inside the fender.
* Following Dan's model, I used Deans connectors on the lower front circuit on my Raven. The SON28 has piggyback connectors at the hub tabs, which allow me to run 2 circuits, for the light & the charger. I installed Deans connectors just above the drip loop, about 10-12 cms from the hub tabs. There are two pairs of connectors, 1 pair in each circuit, each of which has 2 wires. The Deans connectors are quite easy to use -- both M and F plugs have a little ridge at the end which you can grab with your fingertips. The value of using the Deans (or other) connectors is that you can remove the wheel without having to constantly remove the wiring from the tabs on the hub. My experience is that, once the blade connectors are pushed onto the tabs, the whole lot is best left alone.
* My experience with this setup has been generally positive. I had to re-reach myself to do soldering. This meant buying a soldering kit. One of those is lot cheaper than the pro-quality crimping tool sold by Peter White. I have a crimping tool as well, but it's an inexpensive item I bought years ago from Canadian Tire, and it does not work very well for the finer crimping required by small-calibre bicycle wires.
* On the whole, my light-and-charging system has worked well over two seasons. I did encounter one problem this past season in my soldering, almost certainly a result of bad technique: one wire in the connections to my Deans connectors had gotten bent in the soldering process (too brittle, from too much heat? too tight a squeeze from the heat sink on the wire?) and eventually I had an intermittent break in the circuit. Luckily, the other circuit worked faultlessly, so I just switched the two circuits so that my light worked and my charger didn't. I didn't need the charger this year anyway--didn't have enough longer tours that required charging my batts, cellphone, or camera.
* This fall, as part of my year-end service on my Raven, I traced the fault, cut off the faulty wire/connector, and re-soldered the connection. Note: (i) I didn't re-use the connector. I had bought more than I needed when I first bought them. (ii) I had made the drip loop long enough to allow me to cut off a cm or two, to re-solder the connection. (This was pure dumb luck, not foresight.)
* I did find that one of the two piggyback connectors didn't work very well -- it was always a bit loose in its fit with the tab on my hub. I replaced it. That meant a crimping connection, but I added some solder to it. So far, the new one works fine.
* Also this past fall, I decided to fit connectors into the upper part of my front circuit, so that I could disconnect the charger and the headlight circuits if I ever needed to remove the front fork, without also removing the wiring from charger and light. These connections lie flat against the side of my head tube, above the fork crown, covered from view, sort of, by black electricians' tape which matches the matte-back finish of my bike. For these connections, I used the modified M/F blade connectors sold by Peter White as a regular SON fitment. These are crimped, not soldered -- I figured that, unlike the lower connectors near the drip loop, I wold not be using these very often, so they wouldn't be under the stress of regular removal. (Sinewave do sell inline tubular gold connectors, which are a bit less bulky, but they have to be soldered, with a small surface area for the connection, and I didn't trust my technique to make an effective joint. So, I used the flat blade connectors.)
I hope that's helpful, Dave. It's about the sum total of my knowledge on all this -- take it FWIW, but I'm happy to defer to the much greater experience of people like Dan and mickeg in these matters.
Cheers,
John
-
Dave,
If you glue the wire inside the fender, I would suggest using a beta-cyanoacrylate gel and clothespins over waxed paper to hold the wire in place while it cures. The beta-cy makes for a more secure bond with the plastic used in SKS 'guards.
I would also suggest routing the wire at the edge of the fender, near the bead. If routed down the middle, it can take an awful pummeling from rocks if you ride much on gravel.
It is possible to tap into the foil used in SKS fenders and use it as a taillight lead. There are usually three separate strips/circuits available. It is a bit tricky to remove the plastic enough to expose the foil, but if you use stainless M3 machine screws and secure them with nylock washers, then cover the finished terminal with super glue, the connection can remain good for years, even decades. I have a set I made 30+ years ago that is still going strong -- description and photo here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2273.msg16261#msg16261 No separate wires needed, but it is a bit tricky, as mentioned. I used ring terminals on the ends of the light wires to connect.
Best,
Dan.
-
One other thought on the wiring, Dave...
When I make a new purchase and install it on one bike, the displaced part gets moved on down to the next bike in the fleet and so on in a sort of food chain or bicycle version of musical chairs.
For this reason, I will soon be equipping my dyno headlights with a Dean's connector at about the same point in the lead as the length of the attached taillight leads, the idea being easier removal and installation of my headlights while leaving the wire runs intact on the frame. It seems B&M (and other makers, for that matter) are introducing greatly improved headlights on an annual basis, and some of the new ones are improved enough to justify replacement even while still working (for example, my Nomad got a new Cyo Premium; its old IQ Cyo R with nearfield vision and horrid hotspot will be moved to my late father's bike (now under reconstruction as a "gravel grinder" for my use).
Forum member JulK (Julian) has another reason for a quick-disconnect headlight: Security. He has an Edelux pinched while parked some years ago, and now takes his light with him when he leaves, thanks to the addition of a couple Supernova gold-plated connectors. I believe forum member JimK also uses the Supernova connectors with some success. They are much larger than the Dean's and good for only one circuit each, but connect and remove easily and have proven reliable.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks John and Dan,
The 62mm fenders offered by Compass are the 650b smooth fenders...I am a little concerned that they will be too wide. At maximum, I will be using 50mm tires so I thought the 62mm fenders would be ideal but I guess the 58mm would also work.
Dan, I was perusing all of my options for inline connectors and settled on the Supernova connectors even before I read your post...they seem like the perfect solution for me. Also read your recommendation on the super glue which I will most likely do and I may also place a high adhesive HVAC metal tape over if to be extra sure.
Not sure how long it will take SJC to ship the frame but I am rally anxious to get this built up...with all of the parts I now have, one of the rooms in my house looks like a mini bike shop.
-
Hey mickeg,
How are you finding the Axa Luxx 70? I have the Axa Nano Plus and am thinking of upgrading to the Luxx 70 Plus.
Very happy with the Luxx 70 Plus. I wrote the comments at the link below a few weeks after I got it, I just looked at those comments again and I would not change any of my comments.
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11153.msg81461#msg81461
Thanks Dan and Mick, I have been looking at the merits of the Dean soldered method vs the crimping method and I do prefer crimping mainly because I think it might be the easier method...and I think I'd rather invest in a good crimping tool rather than a soldering set.
...
I usually just use a short Vice Grip for a crimping tool, but maybe that is why the wire sometimes pulls out of my crimped connectors.
...
Not sure how long it will take SJC to ship the frame but I am rally anxious to get this built up...with all of the parts I now have, one of the rooms in my house looks like a mini bike shop.
My frame from SJS came pretty quick to my home in USA, maybe a week after I ordered it. Fortunately I was at home when the mail carrier arrived with it since he needed a big check for customs duty.
-
I will be using 50mm tires so I thought the 62mm fenders would be ideal but I guess the 58mm would also work
Dave, it's worth checking on the actual inflated width of different 2.00"/50 mm tires. My Marathon Supreme 26 x 1.6", for example, nominally 40.6 mm, are about 2 mm less when inflated (approx 38.5 mm).
I seem to recall reading/hearing of measurements of 47 mm actual for inflated 26 x 2.00 Supremes, but I may be off base there. If so, they'd work well enough with 650B x 58mm fenders. Anyone got a reading on these?
Which 2" tires do you plan to use, Dave?
-
A quick follow-on at the risk of sounding technically pedantic:
Rim width affects the width and height of inflated tires as well, so can be worth checking before committing to a strategy. John's suggestion to check actual inflated width will account for this variance, which can be as much as 2-3mm.
I just checked my inflated 26x2.0 Duremes and got 47mm section width, same as a pair of 26x2.0 Supremes on a friends' Andra 30 rim, same as mine (the sidewalls seem to be the widest part by a small margin). I've found actual casing width can vary 1-2mm depending on tire pressure and age -- they seem to stretch a *little* bit over time. Ran F/R pressures of 32/37psi today, and the section widths measured 47/48mm.
All the best,
Dan.
-
John, I am going to start with 2.0" Marathon Mondials because I got them new for next to nothing from someone that never used them. I know these are rather heavy tires and that, ultimately, I may be better off with a narrower and lighter tire.
-
A couple of further thoughts, Dave:
1) Might be best to wait on your fender decision until you have rims & tires fitted on the bike, so that you can choose your fenders according to more precise measurements. Shouldn't take too long to get fenders from, say, Compass or VO.
2) From Dan's report, I'd say that you could probably work with ~47 mm as the actual measurement. That suggests that a 58mm or a 60 mm fender would suit for your nominal 2" tires. Maybe/maybe a 62mm fender would fit the Raven's forks, but it's not clear to me that the size of your tires would require the wider fender.
3) A 58 or 60 mm fender would also be fine if you were to go to, say, a 1.75"/44.5 mm tire in the future.
Hope that's helpful, Dave, and good luck with this maze of details.
-
(This was pure dumb luck, not foresight.)
No need to confess. "Serendipitously,..."
Dan, the link given in the text of http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2273.msg16261#msg16261 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2273.msg16261#msg16261) to another post with an alternative connection method is broken, and seems worth fixing. [Done, Andre, plus fixed the self-referential "loop links" and re-uploaded the attached photo so the thumbnail works. Thanks, Dan.]
Dave, super-useful thread you've started here. John and Dan have already given you the headlines, but you should in addition check that the inside width of the fender is adequate to your tires' width as measured. With SKS plastic fenders, a P65 just barely covers a 60mm Big Apple and most other large Marathon derivatives, because there is no rolled bead; its problem is a lack of headroom over the tyre because it isn't very much domed; consequently my rear lamp is wired over the fender to avoid the wire being abraded underneath... But with metal fenders you may be rather surprised at how much space the rolled edge consumes, narrowing the space available for the tyre. Also, if you do decide on the SKS plastic fenders, note there are two lengths; the short ones, which I took because the long ones were out of stock, look really sporting but in the wet are a joke for posers; the long ones work better; get the spray diffuser for the rear end of each fender and the front cap for the front fender as well -- they're optional extras, not included in the prices, and worth having for extra control over spray. Order two sets of spare rubber caps for the fenders stays.
-
Thanks, Andre. That's a good point about the rolled bead on alloy fenders -- I couldn't readily measure the actual inner diameter above the bead on my Zeppelins, without removing the wheel. (The bead, of course, enhances rigidity, creating a common swings-and-roundabouts dilemma.)
It may be worth checking, Dave, to see what stainless fenders look like in cross-section (how marked is their bead?), and comparing weights between alloy & stainless.
-
...if you do decide on the SKS plastic fenders, note there are two lengths; the short ones, which I took because the long ones were out of stock, look really sporting but in the wet are a joke for posers; the long ones work better...
The long ones surely work better, no question, but shorter ones have an advantage on Romanian trains, where the front wheel hooks seem to be set unusually low, allowing the bike to rest on the end of the rear fender, loading the stays. A somewhat shorter mudguard allows the bike to rest directly on the tire. This can also be handy in freight elevators. Some platform luggage elevators fit a Raven Tour diagonally with about 3mm of clearance once the doors closed. I don't think my Nomad would have fit.
As mentioned earlier, Thorn kindly and thoughtfully provided threaded fittings beneath the steerer (a sort of brazed-in daruma) for a convenient and secure fit. However, it does leave the bolt head hovering directly over the center of the tread. If you decide to run a really robust front tire *and* go through a lot of mud, this is where it will rub. Not a huge issue with 26x2.0 Marathon Deluxes riding AndyBG's kindly loaned Raven Tour on Romania's more rural roads, but something to keep in mind when the sloppy stuff gets really thick.
His SKS mudgaurds were the 65mm variety, as I recall. They didn't appear as svelte as narrower ones when traveling on pavement, but the extra width provided welcome additional protection in wet/muddy conditions. The rear 'guard did have an unfortunate notch near the bottom on the right side, intended to clear a moving derailleur chain. Mud tended to dump out of this opening onto the right chainstay, but it did no harm except for looking a bit untidy. If you often run on sloppy surfaces, it might be worth considering a wider set. They can be notched for fork clearance if necessary his weren't.
Another point for consideration: I fitted a rear 'guard to the front of my Nomad. The longer length means the water exits at reduced velocity and the stream is aimed at the ground so I no longer ride directly into the blowback of my own spray. I've been very pleased with the result and everything stays so much cleaner and drier. Forum member MartinF adopted a similar setup and seemed well pleased with it. Story and photos here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg23847#msg23847 (with photos unfortunately corrupted by the Forum update; I'll upload new ones soon)
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg23943#msg23943 (photos comparing short original with longer version)
A couple of photos are attached below, showing the extended front 'guard.
A final point: I've found a generous front mudflap does wonders for keeping the entire drivetrain and my feet much cleaner and drier and greatly reduces cleanup and maintenance and extends service life. I've had good luck with BuddyFlaps: http://www.buddyflaps.com/
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Andre, Dan and John,
As usual, a lot of info to digest. The Raven frame has been despatched and it should arrive in the U.S. soon so I will wait until I receive it to check on the measurements for the fenders. I am glad to hear that Thorn has the brazed-on daruma...that was actually going to be my next question as many of the metal fenders seem to require this type of connection.
Dave
-
What is a "daruma"? Is it a hollow fitting, or is it a fitting that fits through a hollow tube or, more, precisely, a fitting that makes attachment to a hollow tube possible?
-
What is a "daruma"?
The latter, Andre; you've figured it out. Here's an example of the item, this one from Velo Orange: http://store.velo-orange.com/index.php/accessories/fenders/vo-fork-crown-eye-bolt-for-fenders-and-racks-fork-crown-daruma.html (http://store.velo-orange.com/index.php/accessories/fenders/vo-fork-crown-eye-bolt-for-fenders-and-racks-fork-crown-daruma.html)
It's a fair question, though. When I first saw reference to it, I thought it was maybe a typo from "Warum?", given the heavy Teutonic influence in our forum. Then I wondered if maybe it was a yoga posture. But then I saw that it was also sold by Compass Bikes in Seattle for fastening alloy fenders, so concluded it was indeed a Real Thing, with its own well-defined (if not understood by all) purpose in life. I'm still not convinced by it--it looks like the fender-fastening equivalent of the baffling trick of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps--but it is sold by reputable firms, and Thorn thinks enough of it to build one into their steerers, so whaddoeyeknow?
-
You learn something new every day. Thanks, John.
-
At some point (soon?), when I begin to de-clutter my mental closet, "daruma" will be stuffed into the near-to-overflowing box labelled "Esoteric bits, value unknown" ;)
-
Getting really close now...that was extremely fast shipping!:
-
No headset fitted?
-
No headset fitted?
No, I had them remove it and send it loose. I have a Chris King ready to install.
Installed the BB tonight and the cranks and checked the chainline which seems to be dead on with the 126mm spindle length.....have to give White Industries some credit for the recommendation because I took a chance buying that in advance. Waiting on a stem to arrive and I'm ready to complete the build.
I did end up getting the 58mm 650b fenders and I am a bit concerned they will just fit inside the fork....a little shaping may be necessary. So far so good with my component choices. I am sure I may run into an issue and have to have a second option lined up.....I'm just hoping it's not the fenders. Oh well, I may have to pay the price for being impatient.
Next post with pics will (hopefully) be the final build.
Dave
-
Next post with pics will (hopefully) be the final build.
Waiting with greatest interest for some Gallery entries!
Sure glad the frame arrived so quickly. It is a real beauty; the red simply glows. :)
Best,
Dan.
-
Nice! Looking forward to seeing the final steed :)
-
... Waiting on a stem to arrive and I'm ready to complete the build.
...
I bought an adjustable stem years ago. I usually build up a new bike with the adjustable and do not make final decisions on which stem to buy until I have ridden a hundred miles or so. Then I order the exact one I need.
I usually do not cut the steerer tube. But I did on my Nomad since that is an S&S bike and I wanted it shorter for packing. But I waited for hundreds of miles before I cut it. Then I intentionally cut it long as that is better than cutting it too short. I later cut it two more times to make sure I did not cut it too short.
I do not know if you plan to use a handlebar bag or not, but if you do, using the Thorn accessory bar or a second stem can mount the bag lower. But you need more steerer tube for that. The photos are of my Sherpa with 2nd stem and short piece of PVC pipe. On my Nomad I use the Thorn Accessory bar, 55mm.
-
Love that red frame.
Getting a few centimetres of elevation if you've sawn the steer tube short can be very expensive. Accessory bars can be mounted above as well as below the stem.
-
I did get the accessory bar but still not sure if I want to use it with a traditional handlebar bag or if I want to get a Bedrock or Revelate roll for the front of the Jones Loop bar.
I won't do anything wth the length of the steerer tube until I have ridden it for a while.
I have done a little work on it since I got it yesterday....installing the BB and cranks, seatpost and seat and brake levers, shifters and some bar tape on the handlebar.
I will have my LBS do the majority of th build as I don't have anything to press the headset and I don't want my first foray into bike building being something this high end.
I hope to take everything to the LBS next week and hope it is all together by th end of the month at the latest.
-
Ah theres no fun it that build it yourself .
bartape is usually the very last gem to fot ,kinda says Yeah baby your ready to rock. 8)
-
I did get the accessory bar but still not sure if I want to use it with a traditional handlebar bag or if I want to get a Bedrock or Revelate roll for the front of the Jones Loop bar.
I won't do anything wth the length of the steerer tube until I have ridden it for a while.
I have done a little work on it since I got it yesterday....installing the BB and cranks, seatpost and seat and brake levers, shifters and some bar tape on the handlebar.
I will have my LBS do the majority of th build as I don't have anything to press the headset and I don't want my first foray into bike building being something this high end.
I hope to take everything to the LBS next week and hope it is all together by th end of the month at the latest.
I should have mentioned this earlier, when using bars or brake levers that I have not used before I usually do not put on bar tape until I have ridden it several times, that way I can get my brake levers exactly where I want them. But, I do not know if your cables go under the tape or not.
Much of this whole thing started with you asking questions about the eccentric. Have you figured that all out by now?
-
Much of this whole thing started with you asking questions about the eccentric. Have you figured that all out by now?
Mickeg, yes, that seems ages ago. I know all I ever wanted to know about eccentrics and more. Actually, I know a lot more about bikes in general and that's a very good thing. I am now much more comfortable working on my bikes and have done a little more on the new Raven tonight...mounting the brake arms on the frame and fork. Not sure if my LBS will have anything left to do if I keep this up.
I also learned a lot about gearing calc, BB spindle length/chain line calculations and Q factor. Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge.
As for the bar tape, I am using a Jones Loop bar and I only taped the inner section that will be closest to me....no cables in that area.
-
Good evening---
I bought some of the Schmidt coaxial wire from Peter White to start building the sections of wire for the lights but have a question. Other than hiring a brain surgeon, what is the best way to strip the outer black insulation to preserve the uninsulated ground wires that wrap around the inner insulated cable? I tried to do it very carefully using some wire strippers but cut right through those ground wires. I was thinking maybe an Exacto knife?
I did test a nice cheap crimper I bought and it does a great job on the small connectors that will go on the Son and Luxos making me wonder how many folks actually buy the $240 Knipex crimper on Peter's website.
Dave
-
Great to see Things Happening, Dave!
I know all I ever wanted to know about eccentrics and more.
The Brits treasure eccentrics, bless 'em :)
-
...what is the best way to strip the outer black insulation to preserve the uninsulated ground wires that wrap around the inner insulated cable?
The best method I've used for separating the wheat from the chaff (or the mesh from the center conductor) on coaxial Schmidt cabling is to use the scissors on a small Victorinox "Classic" Swiss Army Knife. In the States, WalMart has them at the sporting goods desk for as little as $8-12, depending on location.
I cut the wire off using v-jaw cutters (for a clean end; think cable/housing cutters), then approach from the end with the scissors.
If you place the fixed jaw of the scissors down, then push ahead gently, the effect is like a seam ripper, and the cover opens without snagging the outer mesh. When I've gone as far as I need, then I just make a 90-degree cut each side from the end until I've gone 'round and severed the insulation.
From there, I slice and move the mesh to one side, twisting it lengthwise to make a separate conductor I can solder to or secure separately. An alternate and equally viable method is illustrated here: http://www.wikihow.com/Strip-Coax-Cable
Works a treat.
-
Or these http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/schmidt-automatic-wire-stripper-prod23933/ ;)
-
Great to see Things Happening, Dave!
I know all I ever wanted to know about eccentrics and more.
The Brits treasure eccentrics, bless 'em :)
I thought he was talking about us. <Insert chuckle here>
-
Or these http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/schmidt-automatic-wire-stripper-prod23933/ ;)
Dave, if I worked in your shop, I would definitely have that item but for my one off project, I think I will try Dan's suggestions and see how I make out. If you see me place an order for one of those in the next day or so, you can assume I failed.
Dave
-
I think you meant you would follow Dan's suggestions, not mine.
I did not use the fancy wire you have. I think mine was 20 or maybe 22 gauge multistrand. And zip tied to the fork blade. The wire is yellow in the photo.
My wiring system is not grounded to the frame, thus I need two wires. My taillight is battery powered, thus I only need wire from the hub up to the light unit which is also attached to the fork. Thus, very simple wiring system.
I have two 26 inch wheel touring bikes (Sherpa and Nomad Mk II), but only one wheel with dyno hub. That is why I have a separate set of connectors are the top near the light unit. Thus on each bike I ran wires along the fork blade and have a connector at the bottom on each bike that plugs into the hub.
This way I can easily move the dynohub wheel from one bike to the other. Well, not that easy, I have to also switch brake pads since the dynohub wheel is a CSS rim and my non-dynohub wheel is not CSS.
-
I think you meant you would follow Dan's suggestions, not mine.
Yes...corrected. I believe I will have a similar setup as yours and then have a second wire run from my Luxos U back to my taillight, although I am still trying to determine exactly how I want to do that. I think I will take the simple approach for the moment and zip tie it from the rear rack and then follow the brake or shift lines back to the front of the bike. I know I had ambitions of drilling the fenders and installing connectors in several places but for now, I think I will wait to do that.
Dave
-
That's smart, Dave. Wiring is one of those things you don't want to hurry.Two reasons: Lamps are actually the thing that you change most often on a touring bike, in part because the science of LEDs right is moving so fast, in part because until very recently every road-legal lamp was £$%^&*() so upgrading was seen as a safety measure beyond considerations of cost. (My wife actually said one day, "For a 140 euro that will make you more visible to drivers, you're hesitating?" She didn't like my explanation that in a year there would be a still better lamp.) And you really want to give yourself time to think carefully before you drill components or solder on bits -- and, human nature being what it is, the first assembly of a new bike is not an ideal moment to take time out to think carefully.
For now, tiewraps are your friends.
-
Dave --
I have the Luxos U headlight with a tail-light, and I didn't use any bike-specific wiring. I went to a local electrical supply shop and bought a length (3 metres?) of sheathed 2-wire wiring. I couldn't find a photo of it on the Internet, so I'll try to describe it. Inside are two wires, each with its own insulation. Around both wires is a plastic sheathing, and there is some kind of cotton string padding inside the sheathing with the wires. Unlike some other wiring that I have seen, the outer sheathing is not molded to the inner wires, so it is easy to cut the sheathing away to expose the inner (still-insulated) wires. The diameter of the sheathing is slightly less than that of coax TV cable (at least, the North American type of coax cable). Of course, the wires inside are not coax.
I can upload a photo if that would help.
It was much cheaper than bike-specific wiring. However it is thicker but perhaps less fragile (and uglier too?). I use tie-wraps to fasten it to the frame. I route the wiring along the bottom of the top tube then back through the middle of the rear rack.
I also used Supernova gold connectors for all the connections. Expensive, but great. For connections that are disconnected somewhat frequently, they are much nicer than spade connectors, which can be hard to disconnect without yanking the wire out of the connector.
My wife actually said one day, "For a 140 euro that will make you more visible to drivers, you're hesitating?" She didn't like my explanation that in a year there would be a still better lamp.
Andre, your wife asks why you aren't spending more money, and you argue with her? :)
- Dave (another Dave)
-
Dave--thanks for the advice. I did get 10 feet of the special Schmidt wire from Peter White along with a couple packages of the Supernova connectors so I think I am all set. The Supernova connectors are crimp connectors, not soldered correct?
I am going to run a short length of cable from the Son hub and terminate it with a pair of the Supernova connectors.....about 8-12 inches of cable so I can remove the front wheel without having to remove the connectors from the SON. I believe Dan gave me that suggestion a while back. Then I will run another cable length from that short cable to the Luxos.
The light I have in the back is one of the new Son taillights....a very small but powerful light. That has a permanently attached 8 foot cable that I can either run directly back to the headlight or I can use the Supernovas again to split the cable. I am leaning towards the split cable, creating a short cable from the headlight terminated with the Superonovas then terminating the taillight with the Supernovas also and connecting near the fork crown...again this is similar to what Dan suggested.
As Andre mentioned, no need to get fancy at this point....I just want everything installed and working and then I'll revisit everything a bit later on down the road (literally and figuratively).
Dave
-
The Supernova connectors are crimp connectors, not soldered correct?
I crimped (actually, squashed) the Supernova connectors, although they probably can be soldered, if that is your preference. As a side note, a friend of mine is an aircraft mechanic, and he told me that wiring on airplanes is always crimped, never soldered. Due to the vibrations in the airframe, the soldered connections can come loose, because they are brittle.
I am going to run a short length of cable from the Son hub and terminate it with a pair of the Supernova connectors.....about 8-12 inches of cable so I can remove the front wheel without having to remove the connectors from the SON. I believe Dan gave me that suggestion a while back. Then I will run another cable length from that short cable to the Luxos.
This is exactly what I did, for the same reason ("because Dan did it"). I'm glad that I did.
The light I have in the back is one of the new Son taillights....a very small but powerful light. That has a permanently attached 8 foot cable that I can either run directly back to the headlight or I can use the Supernovas again to split the cable. I am leaning towards the split cable, creating a short cable from the headlight terminated with the Superonovas then terminating the taillight with the Supernovas also and connecting near the fork crown...again this is similar to what Dan suggested.
I have a B&M Toplight taillight, and I did the wiring the same way. A short (6 inch) pigtail, with a Supernova connector.
I also have some other very bright taillights (a pair of Niterider Universal taillights) which used a Niterider 6-volt battery pack. After 7 or 8 years of use, the battery doesn't hold a charge anymore. So I bought a cheap (from China) battery holder that holds 4 AA batteries in series, and thus outputs 6 volts. The battery holder had a bare wire connector, and I cut the end of the wires from the taillights, and then made my old wiring and used the Supernova connectors. It works great. I'm not beholded to Niterider to buy their batteries, and when (not if) the AA stop holding their charge, I can just buy new ones. (If only there was a way to power them from my SON28...) I'm a bike commuter, not a bike tourer (not yet!), so it isn't a problem to recharge my batteries at home a couple of times a week.
- Dave
-
Note: The VO fenders don't rub on the bottom edge of the Raven's head tube, because the fender bolts screw into the tapped hole in the bridge across the steerer, and the top of the fender is cushioned by a nice plump leather washer
While everyone helps me sort out the lights, I wanted to circle back and discuss the fender install one final time. I know John mentioned in a previous post that he mounted his VO to the brazen on daruma on the underside of his Raven's fork crown. I received my fenders today and took a look at my fork again and thought I would see a single tapped hole in the bridge on the underside of my fork crown but notice the bridge has two screws with a bunch of spacer washers. I assume I will use both screws to mount the fender?
I'll see if I can attach a pic in a bit.
I think I will have my LBS mount the fenders but I was just curious because it looks like I may be one leather washer short if I need to user both bolts.
Dave
-
I received my fenders today and took a look at my fork again and thought I would see a single tapped hole in the bridge on the underside of my fork crown but notice the bridge has two screws with a bunch of spacer washers. I assume I will use both screws to mount the fender?
Dave, my fender is mounted with just one bolt into one of the two holes in the daruma (the forward one, if memory serves.) Works fine, though I guess the mounting would be more secure with two bolts (make sure your LBS gets 'em in line!) I check my bolt for tightness periodically -- have to remove the wheel to do so, as VO's mounting bolt has an allen hex-head. Good idea to use a spot of blue Loctite. The leather washers tend to dry out and get squashed by the pressure as well. VO does sell spare fender hardware, incl washers.
Cheers,
John
-
Thanks John....just dropped off the parts at the LBS this morning and let them know about the fenders and a few other items I want to ensure are handled correctly. They are very detailed oriented so I am keeping my fingers crossed that it all turns out well.
Dave
-
On my Nomad and on my Sherpa, I used one bolt, not two.
On my Sherpa, I sometimes use the largest tires that will fit. And the fork crown is the limiting factor for my Sherpa, other parts of the frame offer more clearance. Thus, I did not want any spacers under my fork crown, but I have a washer in between the fender and fork crown. The fender touched the painted underside of the fork crown, so I put PVC electrical tape over the paint where the fender touched it to prevent the fender from chaffing through the paint.
On my Nomad I used a plastic spacer that I cut to fit for length. I painted the spacer with some yellow nail polish that is a reasonable match to the paint. I think the spacer was sold as a nylon bushing in the hardware store.
If your frame had any plastic protectors over the brake cantilever posts, you could bring one of those to stores to shop for color match in fingernail polish.
-
Sneak Peek and one more request for advice--
My LBS completed the majority of the build today and I will be riding the Raven over the weekend to see what needs tweaked. I attached a couple of photos as a sneak peek....I will attach more when it is completely done. You will notice that the stem is fairly high on the uncut steerer......I will probably drop that a couple inches.
The biggest issue my LBS had was with mounting the front fender....because it will extend so far in the front (a little beyond the red arrow in the picture), they believe it will rattle around too much. They discussed possibly cutting it shorter or, best case scenario, finding a way to attach it on each side of the front rack loop area that extends over the tire. I could get a second fender stay but we don't have anywhere to mount it on the fork with the rack in the way. Anyone have any idea of how to secure it better than using just one stay and screwing it to the daruma under the fork? Is this really an issue?
Thanks again everyone for working with me through this process. I think the end result is excellent and I look forward to getting the fender issue sorted and many more pics posted next week. Have a great evening.
Dave
-
Hi Dave!
All congratulations on seeing your lovely machine so far along.
If the leading edge of the fender does extend as far as your red arrow, then I would share your bike shop's concerns about so much of the extension hanging free. The most likely point for fracture initiation and propagation would be at the Daruma hole -- provided the flopping end did not first touch the sides of the tire. I do think it should be secured.
As you will have seen from my own "Danneaux's Nomad" gallery, I repurposed a rear fender (mudguard) for greater coverage as a front fender and used a spare bridge and stays to secure it to the front rack itself.
In your application, I would use a vinyl or rubber-coated stainless steel "P-clip" wrapped around the rack hoop, then bolt the P-clip to the leading edge of the fender. You might need to use a short steel extension to bridge any small gap. This should secure it properly and minimize any chance for fracture.
It is nice to see your new bike looking so good and very close to complete. I really think the fender issue can be resolved most quickly and easily through use of a P-clip...perhaps with the aid of a short metal extension.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Very nice looking bike, Dave! The red and silver really looks the business.
A thought on the front fender question, along the same lines as Dan's:
> I have a slightly different front rack (Arkel low-rider), which also has a front bracing loop, although mine is much more vertical than yours.
> I thought about adding a fender stay to my 52 mm VO Zeppelins just aft of my rack bracing loop, and more-or-less vertical to the ground. My idea was to use just one fixing bolt between the stay and the fender, at the very top. Then, I could attach the small fender-stay P-clamps onto the lower mounting bolts for the rack, where they bolt into the threaded bosses on the Raven's forks just above the dropouts.
> In the end, I decided not to do it -- the extra stay isn't really necessary, as the front part of the fender is fairly well fixed in place. The additional fender stay would have made the front end a little more "busy" visually.
> You might be able to do something similar on your bike, so that you'd have a vertical fender stay aft of your forward-canted brace. This would provide extra support for your fender. It would also make the front end more "busy", but if onlookers don't like it, well, they can adjust their expectations, no? (If you don't like it, that may be more complicated...)
> A third option, beyond Dan's, might be to, ah, cut your superb Honjo fenders. Sorry to even think such a thing, but it probably should be tabled, even if it's not a real option.
-
Dan and John, thanks much. John, your option 3 did cross my mind at the bike shop today but my LBS wasn't keen on the idea....and I wasn't too. I will have to see the fender in place again...I kept it at the LBS. I wish I would have brought it home with me so I could more easily visualize my options.
I am leaning towards just installing it like you and see if I encounter any trouble. I did a Google search tonight and saw many bikes setup with metal front fenders with just one stay and the daruma connection (see attached). I will ride it this weekend to get a better feel for the fit and then work with the LBS on the fender decision early next week.
[Photo edit by Dan]
-
On my 2 Thorns, I have extra long front plastic mudguards like Dan, with the same extra stay arrangement which fits nicely to the Thorn low-loader rack.
On one present bike and a few previous family bkes I have or have had metal mudguards that extend forwards slightly less. Stainless steel, not alu, as was fairly common here in France 20 to 30 years ago.
I found a long front mudguard would touch the tyre if not secured, generally when riding on off-road paths, so I always secured the front end, generally to a platform type front rack, or with extra stays on the bikes without front racks.
-
Thanks Martin,
I do like the idea of a small secondary platform rack, I know that Nitto seems to offer many styles. The issue is finding one that works with the Thorn fork. The solution below is ideal but it just wouldn't be compatible with the Thorn.
Dave
[Photo edit by Dan]
-
Dan and John, thanks much. John, your option 3 did cross my mind at the bike shop today but my LBS wasn't keen on the idea....and I wasn't too. I will have to see the fender in place again...I kept it at the LBS. I wish I would have brought it home with me so I could more easily visualize my options.
I am leaning towards just installing it like you and see if I encounter any trouble. I did a Google search tonight and saw many bikes setup with metal front fenders with just one stay and the daruma connection (see attached). I will ride it this weekend to get a better feel for the fit and then work with the LBS on the fender decision early next week.
[/quotWHAT you can't go posting photos of none thorn bikes shame on you ;D ;D :o
-
Jags, I will admit that I was a bit guilty posting those photos but I didn't have an adequate way to explain in words what I was trying to convey. Being a new Thorn owner I was hoping I would be granted a bit of latitude. That said, I want to make sure I adhere to forum rules and would not be upset if Dan removed them. BTW, I have been scouring the Internet for an eloquent way to deal with the front fender and the P clamp seems to be the best method. I don't mind buying a second stay like John mentioned but I have to check where I could connect it to on the fork or rack. I really do like the idea of mounting a small platform rack, like a Nitto, but I can't seem to locate one that will work. The Nitto M18 seems like one that would work but it seems to be the only Nitto missing a mounting point for the fender ( I won't post a picture of it on a bike ;) ).
Dave
[All fixed. -- Dan :) ]
-
Some people have bought a rear fender to mount on the front to get the back part lower instead of relying on a mud flap. If your front fender is that long, you could mount it further back, that would give you less fender up front where it does not do any good and more fender in back where it does.
If your fenders are silver metal, that would likely leave an unsightly hole where the existing bracket is removed from, but covering that hole somehow would obviously be an option, I just do not know the best way to do that.
The best example I can think of is how Jan Heine set up his rando bike. Note how low his front fender is. But you don't want to roll off any curbs that way.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/getting-your-bike-ready-for-randonneuring/
-
Most people with the Brooks B17 have it level or the front slightly up. So, when you start doing your test rides, keep a wrench in your pocket to make adjustments as you go. I put some electrical tape around my seatpost about a quarter inch up off the frame so I can see a small gap there. If the gap disappears, the seatpost slipped down. And that tape helps me keep track of where I started if I make adjustments over time.
Note in the photo, the front rack on my Sherpa. I have the low rider Tubus Ergo and the Nashbar small one mounted on the cantilever brake mounts. Sunlight also makes a small rack like that but I do not like the Sunlight one as much. The orange thing in the photo is my polartec vest on that Nashbar rack. Unfortunately for you, the Nashbar is only available in black, not slilver.
-
The best example I can think of is how Jan Heine set up his rando bike. Note how low his front fender is. But you don't want to roll off any curbs that way.
https://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/getting-your-bike-ready-for-randonneuring/
Thanks Mick for the advice in the last 2 posts. I bought the fenders from Jan so I am going to ask his advice as well.
Dave
-
Reckon Jan Heine would have the advice if anyone would, Dave. I recall him saying in a review or blog somewhere, that he preferred the Honjo fenders because they used two stays. This fixed them more securely.
If you're using just one stay on your fender, as i have on my Raven (below), I don't know just where the "cut-off" point (sorry-o!) might be, forward of the fork crown, nor how the width, density & curvature of the fender (hence its wiggle-and-flop factor) would be affected by the cutoff point. FWIW, the foremost tip of my 52mm alloy fender is 28 cms from the fork crown, maybe 29 from the daruma.
If you leave the fender at its current length, I'd recommend another fixing point of some kind.
I guess that the additional obvious point in all this is that one can always cut off metal, but it's really hard to add it back later.
A note on that photo, BTW: The lower part of the front fender is now about 10 cms shorter than it used to be. Before I made this rainy day ride late November last year, I cut off 10 cms, because I found that, with even a trimmed leather mudflap, I kept banging the mudflap and occasionally fender on steps, curbs, and even the ground if I leaned the bike over a long way when dismounting. In the current setup, my mudflap ends more or less where the fender used to, possibly a bit higher. I remounted the stay as well, so that it's nearly horizontal, instead of canted upwards to the mid-fork boss as it used to be. (Looks better to my uneducated eye.) On that one rainy/muddy ride, I didn't notice any more rain-&-crud spraying onto my downtube/'glider/cranks/pedals/shoes than before.
Good luck with this detail, anyway. (As you've probably found about details, it's all a bit like hiking in the hills -- "There's always one more ridge.")
-
Dave only winding DAN up ,he cracks up when other bikes are posted on here. ;D ;D ;D.
i see compass bikes have a new stainless front rack out small type looks super strong and well made.
jags.
-
On a touring/utility/commuter bike it's definitely worth going for the longest mudguard you can fit at the front, both forward and downward, so it is worth going to some trouble to fix it securely. I found that even an inch at the front* makes a difference to the rider's comfort on a wet day after only an hour or two in the saddle.
* SKS used to sell -- may still do though I haven't seen it offered in a while -- a rubber dress up fitting for the front of the front mudguard which extended it by less than an inch; on SKS short "sports" version of the P65 I found that even that little made difference to both the state of my clothes and my temper after a ride of only 22km. For a while I fitted a stiffly curved rubber SKS "mudflap" to the front as well as the rear of the mudguard, but it got damaged and wasn't replaced, so I can't find a photo.
Fine looking bike, Dave.
-
Dave,
I'm reasonably certain a Rivendell "Mark's Rack" could be configured to fit your bicycle. Many others of this sort won't, because they depend on an unthreaded through-hole at the fork crown. The Mark's circumvents this requirement and otherwise looks much like the one you identified as "ideal" in your photo.
Link here: http://www.rivbike.com/product-p/r1.htm
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Andre and Dan--
Yes, I saw that rack on the Riv site yesterday and thought it could possibly work...and it is a beauty to boot. I am still unsure how it attached to the fork and it doesn't look like it has a dedicated mount for the fender. I will check out the video they have posted...I really like the looks...and what's another $140 at this point, right?
-
Sorry just noticed those two bolts on the top of the Riv rack.....I'm sure that can be used along with a spacer if necessary.
Dave
-
...just noticed those two bolts on the top of the Riv rack.....I'm sure that can be used along with a spacer if necessary.
Yep.
Best,
Dan.
-
Dave your bike is pure class honest to god ,love that crankset first thing i noticed .wheels look awesome as you yanks would say us paddies would say CLASS .
anyway your health to ride it stay safe and keep her clean..
man i love bike's .
jags.
-
Thanks jags....I think I will be able to get a decent idea of how I want to tweak it this weekend. 60 degrees F. In Kentucky on Saturday.
Still on the fee on the fender. I still think the easy way out is using a p clip on the rack loop and one of these on the fender....though I do love that small Riv rack:
-
Dave,
It isn't too difficult to engineer a fender (mudguard) and light mount for a front rack.
Below, you can see three photos of one I quickly milled from 6061-T6 aluminum billet for the front rack on one of my randonneur bikes. The pinch bolt for the clamp simply extends into a tube I double-threaded so a buttonhead allen screw secures the fender from below. My front fender is plastic and extends a good way forward of the rack (it is a repurposed rear fender, as on my Nomad). All threads and fasteners are M5 x 0.8mm. The light wire feeds through the mount to serve as a stress relief.
Last photo shows the comparison with my Nomad.
You needn't go to so much work to get the same result...
Either longer bolts with plain spacers or a double-threaded spacer would nicely secure your front fender to the underside of a Mark's rack, using the eyelets intended for the crown mounting tang.
I think I would prefer to secure the fender end to the rack hoop using a P-clip. This would allow you the option to later fit or remove a small platform rack while keeping the lowriders and fender intact.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Dan, I wish I had your engineering skills. It is difficult to tell on the picture of your Nomad, but does the front fender stay connect to the corner of your front rack? I am asking because I have the option of doing that as well but I would need about a 1/4 inch spacer to use on the rack end.
Thanks again for presenting me with all of these options.
Dave
-
It is difficult to tell on the picture of your Nomad, but does the front fender stay connect to the corner of your front rack?
Yes.
More pics in the "Danneaux's Nomad" gallery:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.0
Some were corrupted in the Forum upgrade, but if you click on the generic thumbnail icons, you should be able to see enough to get some idea. Links...
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg22537#msg22537
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg23847#msg23847 <= Detail photos here
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4523.msg23943#msg23943
Best,
Dan.
-
Beautiful build, Dave! And that crankset! Wow!
I see your bike shop installed the Shimano "power modulator" that came in the box. If you've been for a ride you have found out that it should be called a "power reducer" as its purpose is to keep people from flying over the bars and calling a personal injury lawyer before they come to rest. The good news is that the brakes work just fine and are in fact even easier to modulate with it removed.
When you manage to stop riding long enough to take some more pics it would be nice to see a closeup of those beautiful cranks, and the rims and tires. I'm interested to see how little the tires bulge on those nice wide rims compared to my skinny lightweight DT Swiss rims.
Congratulations!
Ron
-
I see your bike shop installed the Shimano "power modulator" that came in the box. If you've been for a ride you have found out that it should be called a "power reducer" as its purpose is to keep people from flying over the bars and calling a personal injury lawyer before they come to rest. The good news is that the brakes work just fine and are in fact even easier to modulate with it removed.
I've never heard of these things, and never seen a bike with them fitted.
-
I see your bike shop installed the Shimano "power modulator" that came in the box.
<nods>
its purpose is to keep people from flying over the bars and calling a personal injury lawyer before they come to rest.
A task at which it does not always excel. See: http://www.proactiv-gmbh.com/documents/UK_BA_Shimano_V-Brake_Deore.pdf which notes...
The power modulator is a device that makes it easier to control
braking by increasing the cable stroke at the brake lever within a
certain constant range of braking force.
If the effective operating range of the power modulator will be
exceeded, the lever stroke and the brake will operate as a normal
V-BRAKE brake (sensitive and powerful). In that case, the brakes
may operate more powerfully than intended and may cause the
wheel to lock up. Therefore it is essential that you fully understand
and test the performance of the power modulator before use.
The power modulator is not equipped with a function to
prevent the wheel from locking up
The good news is that the brakes work just fine and are in fact even easier to modulate with it removed.
<nods vigorously>
I've never heard of these things, and never seen a bike with them fitted.
While I do not(!) prefer them, some people do and actively seek them out and fit them. For further consideration, see:
http://si.shimano.com/php/download.php?file=pdf/um/SI-79Y0C-001-ENG.pdf
http://www.bikeforums.net/bicycle-mechanics/772136-shimano-sm-pm40-power-modulator.html
http://forums.mtbr.com/brake-time/shimano-power-modulator-v-brakes-349988.html
Best,
Dan.
-
Ron, thanks--attached are some more pics. Concerning the brake modulator, I had no idea what it was and I just left it. The cranks are White Industries ENO mountain bike cranks--a spiderless design that looks very clean. I have them protected with adhesive crank protectors and I didn't do such a good job on the right side as there are several bubbles. Another thing of note are the pedals from a Canadian company called Blackspire. All of my biking life, I had used primarily Look and Speedplay clipless pedals and was used to being locked in. When I recently bought a used Surly LHT, it came with platform pedals and before I could change them out I rode it several times with the platforms and just loved it.
I did go out on a 20 mile test ride yesterday in 70 degree January weather--albeit a bit windy. The biggest thing I learned is that the Mondials are too wide and heavy for my liking. I think Andy Blanche is spot on saying these work great for expeditions but not for primarily tarmac riding (which will be 90% of what I will be doing). I am going to give the Marathon Supremes a try as I prefer a narrower tire. I kind of liked the elevation of the handlebar but I may drop it an inch and try that. I absolutely love the Rohloff and anyone that argues that derailleurs are better is either delusional or a flat out liar (maybe I am being a little too strong with my opinion ;)) I still have to learn the proper technique of shifting at the bottom of the crank rotation or pausing very briefly while I shift.
The rest of the bike seems spot on. I was worried that I might have gotten too large of a frame but that notion quickly disappeared when I started riding.
I'm looking forward to my first big ride on the Oregon coast in June.
Dave
-
Terrific photos of a lovely bike, Dave! So glad you were able to do a test-ride and in such warm weather, too. Send some to me here in Oregon! :D We've still got storms, flooding, and lost a sizable chunk of US Highway 101 (the main N-S coastal connector) to a sinkhole a couple days ago. I'm still riding, but the flooded roads are determining my routes.
The needed momentary pause for Rohloff shifting will soon become second nature. Think of it as "shifting at top-dead center" (top of the upstroke) -- that seems a bit easier for some.
Best,
Dan.
-
The biggest thing I learned is that the Mondials are too wide and heavy for my liking. I think Andy Blanche is spot on saying these work great for expeditions but not for primarily tarmac riding (which will be 90% of what I will be doing). I am going to give the Marathon Supremes a try as I prefer a narrower tire.
Duremes are also good tyres, not quite as fast as Supremes on good tarmac, but IMO a better choice for gravel tracks and other reasonably light off-road use. I have both Duremes and Supremes (on different bikes).
But, AFAIK, Duremes are now only available from SJS cycles.
-
My experience with Duremes squares with Martin's. I like the tires very much with two caveats:
Mine have never run exactly "round" at the tread despite being seated evenly at the bead (the rigid-bead versions are not so round as the folding models in my experience) and the sidewalls can be a bit vulnerable when running through deep, sharp-edged rock (road ballast). With that in mind, I've found them to be reliable, viable all-'rounders just as Martin has said. There is "enough" tread to provide a reasonable mechanical lock on loose surfaces while being smooth enough to not materially impede progress on good pavement. Ride quality has been good.
That said, I found the Marathon Deluxes on AndyBG's Raven Tour to be very well-suited on my long European tour and especially so on Bulgaria's rough roads and tracks. They ran nicely round, the sidewalls were seemingly sturdier than the Duremes, and the interlocked tread worked well on mixed surfaces. I do think they may have been heavier than my Duremes, but I don't have numbers to compare.
Best,
Dan.
-
Adhesive crank protectors? What is that?
I generally recommend making small but frequent fit adjustments, instead of an inch, a quarter inch at a time, but keep adjusting until perfect, can take hundreds of miles to get it perfect but once you are close to perfect adjustments are less frequent.
I learned how to bicycle on a British 3 speed. And for many years rode derailleur bikes before indexed shifting was invented, so on those older bikes you always let up on the pedal pressure when you shifted. So, Rohloff shifting was pretty normal to me.
Derailleur bikes, my newest build (over the past few months) is a derailleur bike. I consider myself unbiased, I ride both.
Pedals, I prefer the two sided pedals for touring, one side SPD cleats, other side platform. Shimano M324 or A530.
Oregon Coast? Do you have the guidebook yet? I used the fourth edition (2005) which I think is still the current version. Slightly dated however, locations of grocery stores, etc., change over time. You can sometimes find the book used at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Bicycling-Pacific-Coast-Vicky-Spring/dp/0898869544/ref=sr_1_cc_1
I wrote up my observations from Oregon and California at this post:
http://www.bikeforums.net/touring/953756-southt-north-pacific-coast-highway-concerns-3.html#post16933424
I think we stopped at every safeway store we saw, the sale prices required that you sign up for their special card (free) which we did. Do not forget to bring a cork screw.
-
I am quite happy with Duremes in 50mm width. I used a Dureme on the front and Extreme (also 50mm) on back for gravel and mixed gravel/pavement touring on my Sherpa.
But, I recently bought another Dureme. The one that arrived in the mail was the tandem bike version, very stiff and could possibly be the slowest tire I own. Have not installed it yet, not sure if I ever will. My positive comments on the Dureme were on the solo bike variety, not the tandem version.
If my understanding is correct, the Mondial replaced the Dureme and Extreme. But I think the Dureme and Extreme may roll much better, I thought they rolled quite well, but the Extreme on pavement was quite noisy.
-
Mick,
There is a company called Crankskins who make clear adhesive vinyl patches to put on frames and cranks. Sort of like helicopter tape precut into different shapes. I used them on the frame where fenders and cables could rub and they also sent me crank sized protectors that I put on the entire length of the crank. I think thy come in 8-12mm thick.
I do have a brand new set of A530's I bought to put on my LHT but now I am getting so accustomed to the platforms, I don't feel the need to install them...that may change at some point.
I bought the 1.6 inch Supremes which seemed like a good compromise tire for the type of riding planned.
Thanks for the info for the Oregon ride. Now that the bike is almost finished, I can move on to planning the ride.
-
On the adhesive, I understand. I do not try very hard to protect paint except on derailleur bikes where you can have chain slap on the chainstay where I put something on there. (No chain slap on Rohloff bike, not needed.) My Campy cranks, most of the printed lettering has worn off.
I have never used the Supremes, but the reports I have read about them suggest that you should be very happy with them.
Where and when for Oregon? Flying there, driving, or taking Amtrak? I took Amtrak to Portland, bus to Astoria, then Amtrak from San Fransisco home.
Dan is quite knowledgeable on Oregon, more so than me.
-
Tour plans are subject for another thread, but I am happy to add details and ruminations when it erupts. ;)
Keeping in mind the need for a new thread on the tour part, you may wish to get a head-start on forming and posing questions by reading these links:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4691.0
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4691.msg29409#msg29409 <== For your proposed timeframe.
https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=tS&doc_id=12264&v=2m
It can be awfully cold and wet in May and June on the Oregon Coast, so it would be wise to take some really good rain gear and not be averse to changing plans. Hypothermia is a very real risk. The roadside paths are most ridable southbound and have the best views; the storms also come from the south-southwest, with "good weather" winds coming from the northwest. Result: If you hit storms, you not only get wet/cold, you have really stiff headwinds. In good weather, you not only get superb views from atop 100m high cliffs, you get a most welcome push from tailwinds.
All the best,
Dan. (...born, raised, and living in Oregon)
-
Tour plans are subject for another thread, but I am happy to add details and ruminations when it erupts. ;)
Dan--yes, I will review the posts you provided before I create another. I will be working at the Portland Convention Center for two weeks in mid June. My adventure will start on June 24. I may just do a circle route starting and ending in Portland and possibly following this route:
https://goo.gl/maps/CSaE3PVdp512
Looks like I may run into some elevation so I will rely on your expert opinion.
Yes, I will certainly bring a corkscrew but I am looking forward more to the beer you have out that way.
I think the thing I am most concerned with is how to get my bike from point A to B when I am not riding it. Luckily, the organization I work for will be shipping it our for our convention but I have to get it back. I know Portland is the bike capital of the West (and maybe the US) so I may just have a shop ship it back to me...or at least pack it up for me.
Dave
-
You're welcome to PM me, Dave. I can't promise an immediate reply as I am pretty busy at present, but will answer as soon as I can.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Good afternoon folks....I wanted everyone to know that the Raven is complete and attached is one of the photos. I will post some others later. I will be installing the lights myself sometime in the next couple of weeks. I can't thank everyone enough for helping me through this and for teaching me more than I ever hoped to know about bike building...and that I had to be somewhat proficient in math to work through some of my decisions. Thanks to the folks at Cyclesmith's in Louisville for their attention to detail throughout the build process. A short 13 mile test ride home from the shop in freezing weather and the bike was rock solid. The difference between the Mondials and Supremes was night and day...a definite improvement for the style of riding I expect to do.
-
What a beautiful bike, Dave. Thanks for posting a picture. I like that classic red/chrome theme.
I like how you ended up connecting the front fender to the rack. It looks very tidy. I think you will notice a big difference in how clean the bike (and you) stay when riding in the rain. I also have a rear fender on the front of my bike (copied shamelessly from Dan). If you get a chance, can you post some close-up pictures of that fender/rack attachment? It would be very useful for other people who want to customize their bike like you have done.
- DaveS
-
Dave,
Here is the photo of the front fender attachment to the rack. The only think I am concerned with the front fender is that it looks like the cut ends of the fender stays come very close to the front fork and could scratch it ....I assume I can add another washer to move it out a bit (sorry for the blurry pic). I post a few more in another post.
-
Some more pics...
-
Last ones...
-
Yes, those fender stays are quite close to the paint. You could either cut them a bit shorter, or possibly fit a rubber cap on the end. Planet Bikes sells these caps (and other fender hardware) quite cheaply, and has free shipping in the continental US.
http://ecom1.planetbike.com/smallparts.html#fender%20parts (http://ecom1.planetbike.com/smallparts.html#fender%20parts)
- DaveS
-
Thanks Dave.....I might see if I can round them off a little with a grinder....that's the one thing the LBS really kind of missed.
-
Just take them off the bike first. :)
By the way, how do you like the Jones handlebar? I had one on my Nomad for a month or so. It was very comfortable, but I found it to be too "casual" for riding in traffic. I found that my steering wasn't as precise as with normal straight bars. I now have the Thorn flat track bar, and it's perfect for me.
- DaveS
-
Dave, you have hit the nail on the head with the Jones bar. I do like it quite a bit for comfort but I am finding it extremely twitchy particularly in low gear riding up hills. It is a bit unsettling when you have cars right next to you going 50mph. I will try it a little while longer to see how I adapt. If I can't seem to get the hang of it I may look for a polished silver straight bar to stay true to my color scheme. I can't seem to shake myself of certain aesthetics.
-
Wow! What a wonderful final result, Dave, perfectly suited for your needs and wholly unique.
Whenever I see a newly constructed bike, I am struck anew at how bicycles with the same frames can be personalized to look and sometimes function differently thanks to individual selection of components and accessories. Yours is like no other!
May it serve you well for many adventures ahead, and may you make many happy memories together.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Ah! Forgot to ask...
Have you conferred a name on your lovely new steed?
Best,
Dan.
-
Thanks Dan...yes, I'll have to ponder this whole naming thing when I am out on a long ride. I may have to wait for my Oregon adventure.
Dave
-
Beautiful bike. Make sure you lock it, even if you just run into the store for a moment. A friend of mine got to the grocery store, forgot his lock. Decided that his old bike was too ugly to worry about if he was really quick. Ran into the store, was in it less than 5 minutes and came out, the bike was gone. But, fortunately the thief abandoned it about 100 yards (or meters) away, probably because of the friction down tube shifters.
My community issues bike licenses for a small fee. I never bother to renew them, since enforcement is non-existent, but I always license a bike once so there is a record of ownership. Also, decades ago my dads bike was stolen, when it was recovered they contacted him because he had licensed it and when found they knew who to call. A friend of mine has a daughter whos bike was stolen, a few days later she saw it posted on Craigs list with a few modifications, she called the police but they would not do anything because she had no proof of ownership - the license would have served very well for that.
I do not know what is on the top tube, please elaborate?
You said you will be installing the light, my Nomad the threaded hole in the fork that my light is installed on was slightly aimed to one side and I could not get the light to aim perfectly straight. If that happens to you, I ended up using those spherical shaped washers like on brake pads to be able to aim the light better. I hope I am clear on the types of washers, I am not sure what their official name is if they have one. But if you have the same problem and have a spare brake pad holder, ...
I cut a front mudflap from the black plastic lid on the largest size Folgers coffee container. Attached it with two really short bolts and nuts.
If you are looking for a place to store extra spokes, I usually put them in the seatpost, but I use drop bars. Those handlebars you have look straight enough you could put the spokes inside the handlebar.
No bottle cage below? For touring I put a bottle down there, but for riding around home I store a tube, tools, saddle cover for rain and tire levers in a container that I leave in my lower cage.
I assume you know that you should grease the seatpost where it contacts the frame. That helps prevent dissimilar metal corrosion.
The best part of putting this time into it for assembly is that if you have a problem on a bike tour, you probably know exactly what you need to do to fix it. So, I am glad you put the effort in, it pays off in the end.
-
Mick, Abus U lock and cable lock on its way.
The item on the top tube is a leather top tube protector. It is natural leather like the seat and handlebar tape but doesn't match perfectly yet. I will have to treat it a little to get the color a bit darker. A fellow in central Ohio makes them.
One of the main reasons that I wanted one is because I like all things leather. A secondary reason, again, has to do with aesthetics. The frame is wonderful and the Thorn logo is very tasteful but that Raven logo on the top tube is plain awful...so I didn't mind covering it. Thorn needs to have someone redesign it or just remove it entirely. Of course, I may be a bit too picky. I'm sure I'm too picky.
-
I usually have a piece of foam pipe insulation on my top tube when touring, then if I have to lean it against a post or pole I can without damage to the paint. It is a little hard to see in the photo, but it is there. I usually leave it on the part of the top tube that the handlebar or brake lever would hit if the front wheel moves to the side when on the kickstand. It is a little easier to see in the second photo.
-
Dave, out of curiosity what's the U piece sticking up from the top tube near the nose of the saddle?
Robbie
-
Robbie, that is just a leather loop that is attached to the leather top tube protector and is used to lock the bike to an object using a U Lock so that you don't scratch the bike frame withe the U Lock.
Dave
-
Well, I may have run into my first problem with the frame....or specifically, the fork. I was going to mount the Luxos U to the fork crown this afternoon and noticed that the screw in the front of the steerer tube was a bit loose. I screwed it in to tighten it before I started my little project and noticed that it didn't tighten at all. It screws in fine as normal and then when it reached the end of the threads, it keeps turning. I removed it completely and then reinstalled it and it screws in fine but when it reached the point where it should tighten, it keeps turning as I continue to turn it clockwise. I thought it might be the screw so I grabbed another one and tried and it does the same thing. Before I contact Thorn, I wanted to make sure this isn't normal behavior...I don't anticipate it is but I wanted to check with the folks here that have more experience with their Thorns.
-
Sounds like the threads are stripped.
An M5 bolt threaded into mine just fine. Mine are a Sherpa and a Nomad, but not Raven. I assume Raven also is threaded for an M5 bolt.
But before you contact Thorn, make sure it is an M5 bolt you are using, it should be the same size bolt as the water bottle cage bolts.
-
Mick...it is the same bolt that came with the fork. According to the Thorn website, it is an M6 bolt. As I mentioned, it threads just fine but just doesn't tighten. I hope the threads aren't stripped after I have made it this far. I wouldn't want to have to get a new fork just for this and I certainly don't want to deal with re-tapping threads....I don't have those types of tools in my possession. Not that I need the light right away but it would put a bit of a damper on the bike build project.
-
Can you just put a nut on the other side? With a lock washer... seems like it ought to hold.
-
Have you screwed it in beyond the threaded section? Try a few washers and see if it tightens.
-
Jim, if the hole extended all the way through on the other side, that would be the ideal solution but the Thorn forks only have a hole threaded into the front of the crown. I could probably still do that but it would probably require me to remove the fork and fenders entirely and then try your solution. Other option is a inserting a heli-coil if it would accept it.....and final option is to get a new fork I hope I don't have to go this route).
-
geocycle...I will try that now.
-
No luck.....tried three washers and it still just spins as I turn it clockwise. I guess I have no option other than to work with SJC first.
-
I was unaware that a bolt came in that hole from SJS. My Nomad, I do not recall and my Sherpa was bought used from someone in Canada.
On both my Sherpa and Nomad, it is an M5 bolt. If they changed to an M6, that is news to me but I have not been watching how frames are changed over time so it is quite possible that it changed.
Usually if the bolt extends all the way through the other side, it is an M6 because that is how sidepull or centerpull brakes are installed, a bigger bolt is used on brakes.
Some hardware stores in USA might not stock the right length if it is an M6 to go all the way through with a nut on the other side.
I concur with contacting SJS.
-
Mick, I'm fairly sure it is a M6. I wish the bolt hole did go all the way through to the other side of the fork crown so I could use a long bolt with a lock washer but for some reason Thorn doesn't do that. Just one threaded hole in the front of the crown. I am more than a little bummed that this has happened as everything else went well. I'm sure something like a helicoil or timesert insert would work but I will wait on a response from Thorn...I emailed them earlier and hope they get back to me tomorrow.
-
Good afternoon all--
Just wanted to let everyone know that SJC was kind enough to send me a new fork but I found something unexpected when I moved the race to the new fork. I was unscrewing the M6 screw from the old fork and the entire screw came out including an insert I never knew was there. Apparently these forks are not tapped directly but have a M6 insert installed. So, the threads weren't stripped---it appears that the insert became loose and was just rotating as I tried to continue to tighten the screw with insert attached. See pics of the screw, old fork and new fork. I assume the new fork also has an insert.
-
but can you not drill straight through nut and bolt job.
-
Great to know what the problem was and that sjs did the right thing by you. Thanks for reporting back.
-
but can you not drill straight through nut and bolt job.
Jags, yes I am sure that would work but I believe that SJC wants me to send the old one back or render it unusable.
DD
-
;)sure send it back get a new one so.