Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: Danneaux on July 29, 2019, 07:35:20 pm
-
Thorn's Instagram and SJS Cycles announced a new Nomad Mk 3 today.
Some changes and refinements I noticed...
• New paint options: Gunmetal Imron, Red Imron, British Racing Green Imron. I don't see Matte Black or Tonka Yellow listed as options. Logos and labels have been updated to match rest of the current line.
• A new right dropout with a 2-bolt adapter that allows either a smooth face ("dropout blanking plate") for Rohloff use or an optional derailleur adapter for preference or emergency. I spotted a cable stop on the underside of the right (drive side) chainstay in one of the Instagram photos.
• Both the main frame and the Mk3 (rim brake only) forks have removeable/reversible v-brake bosses sized to fit either 26in or 650b wheel sizes. SJS Cycles notes, "Sufficient clearance for use with mudguards and 26" tyres up to 2.35" or 650b tyres up to 60b". Forks "...Available in three different offsets to suit the corresponding Thorn Nomad Mk3 frames".
...and...
"Actual offset in millimetres provided to allow fitment to other makes or frames.
- Offset A = 48 mm
- Offset B = 53 mm
- Offset C = 60 mm"
Not sure if they are a suitable retrofit for Mk2 frames.
• There is a new disc fork that is Boost compatible with bolted through-axle and room for very big tires. the double-plate crown in the IG photo looks wider than the one on my Mk2 Nomad.
• Not confirmed, but the head tube looks a little taller -- extends further above the top tube -- than the one on my Mk2 Nomad, more like on the later Raven compared to the older Raven Tour. This would leave more room for Thorn's bolt-on steering limiter (designed to increase stability while parked and to prevent a headlight from bashing the downtube): https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/frames/thorn-steering-lock-limiter-striker-for-37-mm-head-tubes-1-18-inch-steerers/?geoc=US
• Looks like there are different/additional downtube cable guides compared to my Mk2 Nomad.
There may be other refinements, but I spotted these at a glance and thought I'd share. IG photos below.
Best,
Dan.
-
I initially was a bit bummed on the large jumps between gears on my Nomad with Rohloff. If I had a derailleur hanger for a chain tensioner I might have considered setting up a half step gearing system. My two derailleur touring bikes have half step gearing plus granny (triple cranks), so I am used to the half step concept. But I got used to the big jumps between gears on the Rohloff, no longer interested in that. My point is that I might have got the derailleur hanger option for my Nomad if it was available, but now no longer interested.
I wonder if they still put the brakes on the back side of the fork? I found several reasons to be frustrated with that, I would have preferred that they built the fork like everyone else with the brakes on the front.
The gray color looks very nice. I like the new graphics too. The gray looks exactly like the gray that I had on my 1989 Jeep Comanche Pickup Truck. I drove that truck for 17 years.
If the headtube is taller, that could complicate putting on suspension forks. I bought a new old stock RockShox (spell?) XC32 100mm suspension fork for my Nomad size 590M about five years ago. The steerer tube was uncut and it was a bit shorter than I wanted but I found most other forks that I looked at had a steerer tube that was even shorter. If my headtube was longer, I would have had more frustration in the process of trying to fit a suspension fork.
I see the rear frame disc mount is in the same place and same type, not the newer flat mount and not on the left chainstay. Some bikes now put it on the chainstay to reduce interference with rack mounts.
One of the photos that shows the rear dropouts shows air holes into the tubing. When I built up my Nomad, I applied Frame Saver to the insides of the frame although I suspected I really did not need it. But with those air holes (intended to allow the air in the frame to stay at atmospheric pressure during welding) will allow water to get into the frame, that makes treating the inside of a frame more important.
The photo that had the headtube in it, in the background there was a belt for belt drive.
I have no desire to switch to through axle on any of my bikes. But, when I built up my Titanium bike two years ago, the rear dropouts were attached to the frame with a couple small screws, one set of dropouts for 135mm conventional dropouts or I could have gotten dropouts for 142mm through axle instead. (I got 135mm conventional.) It looks like that option does not exist on the new Nomad, so the only through axle option would be the fork.
-
If the headtube is taller, that could complicate putting on suspension forks. I bought a new old stock RockShox (spell?) XC32 100mm suspension fork for my Nomad size 590M about five years ago. The steerer tube was uncut and it was a bit shorter than I wanted but I found most other forks that I looked at had a steerer tube that was even shorter. If my headtube was longer, I would have had more frustration in the process of trying to fit a suspension fork.
The Mk3 doesn't take suspension forks at all, hardly anyone went with suspension forks.
I see the rear frame disc mount is in the same place and same type, not the newer flat mount and not on the left chainstay. Some bikes now put it on the chainstay to reduce interference with rack mounts.
Flat mount limits rotor size, on the chainstay cable pull brakes can get water and dirt trapped in the cable outer.
One of the photos that shows the rear dropouts shows air holes into the tubing. When I built up my Nomad, I applied Frame Saver to the insides of the frame although I suspected I really did not need it. But with those air holes (intended to allow the air in the frame to stay at atmospheric pressure during welding) will allow water to get into the frame, that makes treating the inside of a frame more important.
The new Nomad frames are ED coated inside to prevent corrosion, the holes are necessary to make sure the excess ED coating drains when they are removed from the tank. Some people choose to seal these with Araldite when building up the bike, we can if you wish.
I have no desire to switch to through axle on any of my bikes. But, when I built up my Titanium bike two years ago, the rear dropouts were attached to the frame with a couple small screws, one set of dropouts for 135mm conventional dropouts or I could have gotten dropouts for 142mm through axle instead. (I got 135mm conventional.) It looks like that option does not exist on the new Nomad, so the only through axle option would be the fork.
Yes we wanted to stick with Q/R for the rear, the main customer base for our Nomads still want Rohloff and Rohloff say the Q/R version of their hub still functions the best with the least issues.
Any other Q's just ask!
-
Looking good, if I ever need an expedition style bike, I think that has all the boxes ticked. I like the idea of being able to run a derailleur if needed, though the chances of needing to are rare. Not so sure about the movable V brake mounts, not for any practical reason I just dislike the clutter of unused fittings. The Imron paint on my Mercury has proved itself to be the best finish on any steel frame I've had, good looking and tough, usually the choice is one or the other.
I know someone using an original derailleur Nomad from around twenty years ago, I see them on it every week and though not many components are original, it's still going strong.
-
Does anyone know when the Nomad MK3 will be available for sale? I would just be interested in buying the frame and fork as I already have a Nomad MK2 from which I would transfer all the components. I am also interested in finding out what the estimated retails cost of such items would be.
-
Does anyone know when the Nomad MK3 will be available for sale? I would just be interested in buying the frame and fork as I already have a Nomad MK2 from which I would transfer all the components. I am also interested in finding out what the estimated retails cost of such items would be.
Will show on the website in about a week, we have them physically here now though if you wanted to call sales and discuss 01278 441505
-
More photos are attached below for those who can't see them on Instagram.
I wonder if they still put the brakes on the back side of the fork? I found several reasons to be frustrated with that, I would have preferred that they built the fork like everyone else with the brakes on the front.
It appears you got your wish, George, as the brake bosses are now on the front of the v-brake fork and the crown appears to be very like one used previously on the Sherpa.
Most intriguing of all is the news the Nomad Mk3 is now belt-drive capable(!).
To summarize from the Instagram photos:
• Belt-drive option via a split in the right seatstay above the dropout-spanning brace. The seatstay split looks like an overlapping slug closed by two opposing allenhead socket screws in two threaded wells.
• 3 new Imron paint options and a new logotype; frame tubes ED coated inside to prevent corrosion, vent holes can be filled.
• New right dropout that is derailleur capable with a bolt-on adapter in place of the blanking plate.
• New downtube and right chainstay cable guides.
• No longer suspension-capable/no sus-fork option.
• Extended head tube which will likely result in fewer spacers.
• New disc fork that is Boost compatible for use with through-axles (keeping the standard q/r for the Rohloff in the interest of reliability) and a wider bi-plate crown; Accommodates tires up to 2.35" or 650b tyres up to 60b.
• New v-brake fork fork with reversible mounts to accept 26in or 650b wheel sizes. Rearframe also has reversible/removable v-brake mounts to do the same. Threaded brake adapter holes can be plugged with allen bolts.
Related items:
• Thorn Dropout Kickstand Adapter: https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/gear-spares/thorn-dropout-adaptor-with-kickstand-mount-18-mm/?geoc=US
...for use with OEM Pletscher ESGE KS18 Comp 18 Flex Stand: https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/oem-stock-bike-build-only/oem-thorn-esge-ks18-stand-blacktitan/?geoc=US
• Thorn Steering Lock Limiter & Striker for 37 mm Head Tubes & 1 1/8 Inch Steerers: https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/frames/thorn-steering-lock-limiter-striker-for-37-mm-head-tubes-1-18-inch-steerers/?geoc=US
[Credit for all photos and text, @ThornCycles Instagram account]
Best,
Dan.
-
...and more photos and text descriptions...
Best,
Dan.
-
Announcement of belt-drive option... (red arrow).
Best,
Dan.
-
Well that ticks a lot of boxes for me.
Versatile dropouts, disc brakes, belt drive compatible, kick stand and I even like the colour.
Hmmmm, is it 'Goodbye' to my Surly Troll ??
-
I did not see in the photos how to put on a belt, but I would prefer chain anyway, I can wait for a better photo on that.
The only other box that is not checked is the three bolt holes in a row for a Salsa Anything cage on each fork blade.
I am surprised that a Tubus rear rack is being installed in one of the photos instead of a Thorn rack. But what surprises me the most is that it is not a Logo. I like the way the Logo mounts the center of gravity of the load lower on the bike.
...It appears you got your wish, George, as the brake bosses are now on the front of the v-brake fork and the crown appears to be very like one used previously on the Sherpa.
...
Yeah, I had considered buying a Tubus Smarti rack for my Nomad when the Tubus Tara did not fit very well, the horizontal bar was far from horizontal on the Tara. I also like to hang my panniers a few inches higher than standard low rider racks for when I am off road. Then I realized that the Smarti would likely not work out so well with the brake bosses in the wrong place.
I have a small little rack on my Sherpa mounted on the canti brake bosses, that won't work either.
Initially I planned to run canti brakes, but there is no way to put on a cable hanger. I did have canti brakes on the rear for a while, but later changed to V brakes when I found that Tektro made a brake that had a long enough arm (110mm) to clear the fender over my 57mm wide tire.
And fitting the fork into the S&S case would be easier if the brake bosses were on the same side of the curve of the fork blades.
Soon after I built up the Nomad it seemed almost every month I was coming up with one more reason why the brakes on the back were even more frustrating.
But now that CSS rims are no more, I would be more inclined to consider a disc for one wheel.
I built up my Lynskey with a disc on rear and rim brake on front, having one disc brake for rainy days would be nice. My heavily loaded Nomad with rim brakes front and rear was hard to stop one day in Iceland when a bus passed me and the bus driver then realized he was passing the road he wanted to turn on to, so he hit the brakes very hard, which meant I had to hit my brakes very hard too.
-
Think I'm gonna need a larger shed..
-
But what surprises me the most is that it is not a Logo. I like the way the Logo mounts the center of gravity of the load lower on the bike.
I've ridden a bike with a Vega then the same bike with a Logo with 25kg of panniers, the logo lowers the bags but also puts them further back often moving the centre of gravity behind the rear wheel and turning the bike into a wheelie machine up hills.
-
Eight years on and my Thorn Nomad Mk2 is still running the Pletscher Multizoom clamp-on kickstand and very happy with it too..... despite Thorn telling me that it would void any warranty if I used a kickstand ::)
-
Eight years on and my Thorn Nomad Mk2 is still running the Pletscher Multizoom clamp-on kickstand and very happy with it too..... despite Thorn telling me that it would void any warranty if I used a kickstand ::)
Only six years for me, I built up my Mk II in 2013. And I was not aware of the warranty issue until after I had installed my Greenfield stand. In the up position in the second photo.
A friend of mine broke a Greenfield like mine while on a tour with his Cannondale touring bike. But he can be pretty hard on equipment, I only use my stand where the bike feels pretty stable and does not lean too far over which would put more stress on the kickstand.
-
But what surprises me the most is that it is not a Logo. I like the way the Logo mounts the center of gravity of the load lower on the bike.
I've ridden a bike with a Vega then the same bike with a Logo with 25kg of panniers, the logo lowers the bags but also puts them further back often moving the centre of gravity behind the rear wheel and turning the bike into a wheelie machine up hills.
I can see how the Logo puts the center of gravity in the load back another 5 or 10 mm, the part of the pannier where your heels could hit is often on a slight angle so lowering the pannier about 55 mm could mean that you have to push the pannier back another 5 to 10 mm to avoid heel strike.
But I can't see how that small of a change could have made such a big difference to turn into a wheelie machine.
First photo, my Nomad with an Ortlieb Back roller on it, you can't see the hub in the photo but I would guess that the hub is only about 3 inches (~~ 75 mm) forward from the pannier center of gravity. The part of the rim that is horizontal in the photo would be directly above the hub axle so it is pretty easy to guess where the hub is.
Second photo with a Carradry pannier on the Logo. Looks like center of gravity of the pannier is also only about 3 inches behind the hub. I had to custom fabricate my own lower hook for the Carradry, the pannier hook did not play well with the Logo. My do-it-yourself hook is a bent and drilled piece of Aluminum bar stock with a piece of inner tube rubber over it to reduce chaffing and silence any rattles.
-
Hi ....is the new MK3 Nomad disc only fork compatible with my MK2 Nomad frame? If so which offset should I choose? Also, If I change my wheel size to 650b whats the max tyre clearance I will have on the rear end?
thanks Pete
-
Hi ....is the new MK3 Nomad disc only fork compatible with my MK2 Nomad frame? If so which offset should I choose? Also, If I change my wheel size to 650b whats the max tyre clearance I will have on the rear end?
Welcome, Chill! I suggest giving SJS Cycles a call or email with your query so they will be sure to see it. Dave Whittle, Thorn's Workshop Supervisor has moved to a new career elsewhere, so it may take a little while before someone with his ready expertise is available here.
Best,
Dan.
-
Hi All!
For those without Instagram access, Thorn has posted more detailed photos and updated text on the new Nomad Mk3. As the photo indicates, RED is one of the new colors and the frame sports cable stops and guides for a front mech as well as a rear derailleur. In addition, these routing guides, the seat clamp and the eccentric BB shell are all stainless. This will eliminate the possibility fo rust on these parts and should virtually eliminate seizing of the eccentric insert within the shell (provided both are greased with an anti-seize for good measure). The keen-eyed among you will notice an additional change: The BB shell is split and uses two pinch-bolts to secure the eccentric. This will eliminate "dimple damage" to the eccentric and make adjustment easier while extending service life. The Nomad Mk3 eccentric is anodized black, not gold as used on the Mk2.
There are addition detail shots of the rear derailleur adapter and Rohloff blanking plate as well as the adjustable bolt-on v-brake bosses that will accommodate both 26in and 650b wheel sizes and frame split designed to accommodate belt drive.
[Credit for all photos and text, @ThornCycles Instagram account]
Best,
Dan.
-
...and...
-
...and the same Instagram post includes an updated photo of the Orbit XL2 headset.
Best,
Dan.
-
Ah, yes. Pinch bolts on the BB. Is this an idea used by other manufacturers?
I have often thought that the piercing method currently used is a bit of a design weak link. Sure, it's been around for a while and rarely hear complaints but the method looks odd to me.
I wonder if the next generation of Ravens will have pinch bolts?
-
Thanks for posting the additional detail. I see a lot of changes that look interesting. Clearly a lot of thought went into the re-design.
***
If I was considering buying one now, I would have to think hard about the merits of the newer design with some of the extras versus the older Mk II that can take a suspension fork.
When I initially built up my Nomad in 2013, I had no interest in buying a suspension fork.
Less than a year after I built up my Nomad, a friend of mine started organizing a mountain bike trip. Since I lacked a mountain bike I faced the dilemma of either renting a full suspension mountain bike for the trip, or buying a suspension fork (and a cheap telescoping suspension seatpost) and converting my Nomad into a hard tail mountain bike with drop bars. I bought the suspension fork and was glad I did so, a year after first mountain bike trip, I went on another mountain bike trip with the Nomad with the suspension fork. I liked having the Rohloff for mountain biking.
***
The removable canti brake posts, I have not seen others mount them that way. You can flip the plate over to move the post up or down for the two wheel sizes, I think that makes this bike the only bike where rim brakes can be installed for two different wheel sizes. That is a very elegant solution, someone was very creative. My only concern would be that the force a V brake exerts on the posts can be considerable and I am not sure if the mounting bolts are up to the task, if I bought a Mk III I would consider using one of those brake booster plates that we used to see over a decade ago to reinforce the canti posts.
This is what I mean by the booster plates, I have not seen anyone use one of these for years.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/MTB-Bicycle-Bike-Alloy-Brake-Booster-Cantilever-V-Brake-Cycling-Accessory-Well/283492053413
***
No mention of S&S. I wonder if it is not mentioned because there is no change, or if not mentioned because they are no longer an option? I have no idea how many are sold with or without S&S, but I am glad I have S&S on mine.
Generically I think USA airlines with their high fees have been more hostile to bicycles than European airlines, but this is less of an issue now because recently both American and later Delta airlines announced that they were eliminating their oversize fees for bike boxes. But still getting a bike to and from an airport is a lot easier in a smaller case. I expect I will continue to use my S&S couplers when I fly with the bike.
***
The eccentric, I see merits to both designs. The older design on the Mk II has the disadvantage of having to keep your adjustments to specific points you have used before to avoid turning a row of divots into a groove. The newer design has the disadvantage of having to slightly flex a very stiff robust piece of steel to loosen or tighten. The older design I suspect takes longer to adjust. I follow the advice I got on this forum years ago which is to remove one of the bolts so that I can see the locations of pre-existing divots in the eccentric (past settings) when I make the chain adjustment. Thus, the time it takes to completely remove and then replace one bolt likely takes longer to adjust. And the new design has infinite adjustment which clearly is an advantage.
I am assuming that the new eccentric is the same size as the old one, thus big enough that you do not have to resort to half links in trying to adjust the chain.
***
Maybe it is my imagination, but I think the gray color was metallic paint and the red is not. I liked the gray better.
***
I mentioned this before, I would have preferred the disc mount to be on the chainstay instead of seatstay.
***
With the new one being derailleur ready, I wonder if they are trying to pick up some of the shoppers that previously would have bought the Surly Troll. I used to think that Surly copied a lot of Thorn concepts in building the Troll, but the Troll clearly was more flexible in taking either a IGH or derailleurs. But I am not a fan of the Troll horizontal dropouts.
***
With some of the bike manufacturers pushing 650b so hard for mountain bikes, Thorn was smart to make the new Nomad capable of both wheel sizes. It makes me wonder if the chainstays are longer for a bigger wheel diameter in the Mk III?
***
The closeup photo of the eccentric on the Mk III also showed chainstays that appear to be shaped for a wider tire than on my Mk II frame.
***
When the new brochure is complete, it will be interesting to compare all the changes.
*****
-
Pinch bolts on the BB. Is this an idea used by other manufacturers?
Matt, the Tout Terrain bikes have pinch bolts, so that the eccentric can be adjusted with a 5mm Allen key (sez the advert.) I seem to recall having seen a photo, but can't track it down.
-
I am pretty much clueless on anything to do with belts, but one thing I have heard is that you have to have the belt tension spot on. Since the new Mk III eccentric design allows infinite adjustment and the old method on the Mk II does not if the eccentric already has some divots pressed into it, maybe the old method was not good enough to be used with a belt? If so, since they are making the new frame belt-ready, perhaps they had to make the switch to a method that can set the belt tension with more precision?
-
If anyone owns a Mk II and if they might want to sell it some day, they should download the current PDF of the sales brochure for reference. Once the stock of Mk II frames are gone, the Mk II brochure might be harder to find. I saved a copy of the brochure today to my hard drive.
-
I am pretty much clueless on anything to do with belts, but one thing I have heard is that you have to have the belt tension spot on. Since the new Mk III eccentric design allows infinite adjustment and the old method on the Mk II does not if the eccentric already has some divots pressed into it, maybe the old method was not good enough to be used with a belt? If so, since they are making the new frame belt-ready, perhaps they had to make the switch to a method that can set the belt tension with more precision?
I think you're right that a belt is fussier than a chain when it comes to tension, though by how much I wouldn't know. I've found a chain isn't fussy at all, anywhere between straining the bearings to falling off seems to be fine.
The split bottom bracket design is also to be found on the Mercury of course, I first saw a Tout Terrain with this on Peter White's website, where he considered it the best method, I copied it on my custom frame (between the Raven and Mercury) Having used both I'm in agreement with Peter White, I think it is the better system. The clamping is well within the tubing steel's elasticity, there is no strain. I can't tell weather the Nomad has four bolts or two, the Mercury has four and although it does no harm I think it's possibly overkill, Thorn overestimated the torque required to hold it securely and revised the advise. The indent type worked faultlessly for me as well, though it also needs some understanding, I've seen a BB shell distorted by some overenthusiastic tightening and there was no way it was going to be round again, if I ever buy another frame it will be well down the criteria.
-
...
The split bottom bracket design is also to be found on the Mercury of course, I first saw a Tout Terrain with this on Peter White's website, where he considered it the best method, I copied it on my custom frame (between the Raven and Mercury) Having used both I'm in agreement with Peter White, I think it is the better system. The clamping is well within the tubing steel's elasticity, there is no strain. I can't tell weather the Nomad has four bolts or two, the Mercury has four and although it does no harm I think it's possibly overkill, Thorn overestimated the torque required to hold it securely and revised the advise. The indent type worked faultlessly for me as well, though it also needs some understanding, I've seen a BB shell distorted by some overenthusiastic tightening and there was no way it was going to be round again, if I ever buy another frame it will be well down the criteria.
My Nomad Mk II has two bolts. The photo that Dan posted of the bottom bracket on the Mk III shell looks like it has two bolts too since you can only see one in the photo, if there were three or four you should see that in the photo but with two and if one was hidden under the tubes in the photo then you would have a photo just like was posted.
Some of the companies that have an internally expanding eccentric that grips the bottom bracket shell would say their system is best. And I can see their point, but if an internally expanding one ever had some corrosion or some grit that got into the threads that prevented it from easily contracting, that could be a big problem to fix. I have not seen the eccentric that Rodriguez uses (the Bushnell), but from what I have heard it is probably the best system but is also the most expensive.
But in the big picture, type of eccentric is pretty low on my list of criteria and I have no interest in trying to switch my Nomad Mk II to another type.
I am not sure when the Nomad Mk II first came out, but the oldest Mk II sales brochure I have on my hard drive is April 2010. So, spring 2010 to summer or fall 2019 is over nine years, that is a long time for a single bicycle model to exist without modifications.
-
Thanks for posting this......the Mk3 looks lovely - particularly the British Racing Green. I now know what my next bike will be - all I have to do is get permission.
-
Thorn's Instagram account today announced a new Step-Through version of the Nomad Mk3. As before, Credit for all photos and text, @ThornCycles Instagram account.
The attached photos show a gunmetal grey Imron finish, which really shows off the details nicely. It appears no features are lost in the Step-Through model, as it even includes bosses for 3 bidons.
Best,
Dan.
-
...and some more photos showing details of the Thorn Nomad Mk3 Step-Through edition.
Best,
Dan.
-
Thorn's Instagram account today announced a new Step-Through version of the Nomad Mk3.
Although this frame is meant for heavy touring, it could also be a useful option for heavier people that can't deal with a high top tube (might be me as I get older).
-
Thorn's Instagram account today announced a new Step-Through version of the Nomad Mk3.
Although this frame is meant for heavy touring, it could also be a useful option for heavier people that can't deal with a high top tube (might be me as I get older).
I think the step through version for other models is limited to only the smallest frames. We will know more later.
My Nomad Mk II has a lot of slope to the top tube. You can see in the photo that I have a lot of seat tube showing above the frame. Mine is a 590M size. My Sherpa for comparison is a size 610S and has a lot less seat tube showing above the frame.
I do not swing my leg over the saddle to get on, instead I stand immediately behind the handlebar and stem, apply the brake so that the bike does not move when I am on one leg, sharply bend my right knee and swing my right knee over the top tube in front of the saddle, not over the saddle.
On a bike that is lightly loaded, I might lean the bike over to the side more to lower the top tube when I get on, but on my Nomad when it is heavily loaded I try to avoid leaning it to one side too much.
-
I think the step through version for other models is limited to only the smallest frames.
Very probably. But I can get a reasonably comfortable riding position on my wife's very small Raven Tour Step Through 390, on condition of fitting a long stem to get enough reach and a very long seatpost (if using a bike of that size permanently I'd fit a steel seatpost rather than aluminium).
Recent Raven Step Through frames are a tad higher at 420, and a fair bit longer, so I expect the Nomad 3 Step Through will be similar. The next version of the catalogue will probably have the height end length dimensions.
-
Like George, my Nomad is a Mk2 590M and I tend to mount the bike similarly. It has a pronounced downslope to the top tube I've found useful many times as I dismounted in really rough country and found myself suddenly needing the extra standover clearance. I can think of occasions where the extra clearance afforded by the step-through option could be pretty useful in similar circumstances.
The confluence of tubes just above the chainset might make a really handy grab handle for lifting and portaging the bike at train stations and across fallen logs. I often find myself reaching for such a point, missing on my 590M.
Best,
Dan.
-
I used the (very) low "top tube" on my wife's Raven Tour Step Through 390 yesterday, it was very useful when carrying the bike over some steps on a lock gate crossing.
-
My wife had her Mk1 Nomad modified by dropping the top tube/seat tube junction by 100mm to give better access. She had considered swopping out the frame for a Thorn ST but thought it to have "too many tubes" and the appearance to be less than pleasing. She would also have lost the S&S couplings.
The frame was sent to Bob Jackson Cycles for the modification, she's very pleased with the results and the improvement in ease of use.
Rob
-
I think that makes this bike the only bike where rim brakes can be installed for two different wheel sizes.
No, Santos does it also on the Travelmaster 3+
https://www.santosbikes.com/en/bikes/travelmaster-series/travelmaster-3
(https://www.santosbikes.com/templates/yootheme/cache/dubbele-remnokken-e3b27af8.jpeg)
Nice bike, the new Nomad mk3! Almost bought a mk2, but went for 650B+ instead.
-
There are a few others, but the Nomad is truly versatile and two bikes can now be built in completely varying spec.
There is a drop bar, 650B x 60mm, Hydraulic disc, 2x11 speed bike in progress for the show room too ;)
-
The Mk III frames are posted on the SJS website with pricing, along with some remaining Mk II stock.
https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-nomad-frames/
They do not appear to offer an S&S option on the Mk III, at least not yet.
Mk III sizes include the long top tube version and a short top tube version. Previously the Mk II version did not include a short version, but it did include a medium version. Thorn specifically recommended that the Nomad be fitted with flat bars, not drop bars.
The Thorn bike list still does not list the Mk III, but lists the Mk II version.
https://www.thorncycles.co.uk/bikes
Since the short version in other models was designed for use with drop bars, I suspect that they have withdrawn that recommendation against drop bars for the Nomad Mk III. I suspect most readers know that I have drop bars on my Mk II Nomad. I have a Medium top tube size and the size of my frame is a bit smaller than I would otherwise take if they had made a short top tube version, for comparison my Sherpa is a 610S size and my Nomad is size 590M.
I might be lucky that my frame is a bit smaller, I might not have been able to get the larger frame in my S&S Backpack case, the bike is a very tight fit in that case.
-
What? No Tonka Yellow? Is that then really a Nomad?
That was my first thought, when reading about the details, but after I saw that, now finally, I can have a Gates drive, I started to wonder if the Yellow "signature" was really that important, after all. :)
One important question I have is if the maximum tyre size is any wider than the Nomad v2? What is the max width for the 26 and the 27+ tyres?
-
The v brake fork is Sufficient clearance for use with mudguards and 26" tyres up to 2.35" or 650b tyres up to 60b.
The disc brake fork is
Sufficient clearance to be used with mudguards and;
- 26" tyres up to 2.8"
- 650b tyres up to 60b
- 700c tyres up to 40c
Sufficient clearance to be used without mudguards and;
- 26" tyres up to 3.0"
- 650b tyres up to 70b
- 700c tyres up to 50c
-
I am a tad confused by the geometry on the Mk3. I'm going by the size matrix here: http://www.sjscycles.com/Instructions/Thorn/Thorn_Nomad_Mk3_Frame_Size_Matrix.pdf
There appears to be less slope on the top tube and higher standover height measurements. The seat tubes are longer, the bb drop has been increased by 2.5 - 5mm but the seat tubes have increased by 65 - 95mm. The TT slope has been cut down from between 100 - 165mm on the Mk2 to between 70 - 100mm on the Mk3, also the size designations don't seem to add up. For example, the 620L Mk2 seat tube C to C is 520mm + top tube slope 100mm = 620mm, whereas the 61L Mk3 seat tube C to C 585mm + top tube slope 70mm = 655mm so what does the 61 in 61L signify? The 61L Mk3 has a 10mm longer head tube at 208mm as opposed to 198mm on the 620L Mk2, are the forks also 25mm longer making up the difference? At first, I thought it must be because of the seat tube and head tube which appear to protrude further above the top tube on the Mk3 than the Mk2 but no that can't be it, the measurements are C to C.
What am I missing here? First, it seemed strange and against Thorn's design philosophy for them to raise the top tubes.
Then, whereas the Mk2 range had 9 different lengths of seat tube with eight of the frameset sizes using Mega Oversized tubing and two frameset sizes being Standard Oversized tubing, all this was done for overall ride quality. Now the frame tubing is all Mega Oversized throughout the whole Mk3 range and with only 5 different lengths of the seat tube (the seat tube of both the S & L being the same length as each other for each size). That also seems to go against their stated design philosophy.
As I said, I am a tad confused. I'm hoping better and brighter minds than mine will be able to explain it to me.
-
I think the step through version for other models is limited to only the smallest frames.
Very probably. But I can get a reasonably comfortable riding position on my wife's very small Raven Tour Step Through 390, on condition of fitting a long stem to get enough reach and a very long seatpost (if using a bike of that size permanently I'd fit a steel seatpost rather than aluminium).
Recent Raven Step Through frames are a tad higher at 420, and a fair bit longer, so I expect the Nomad 3 Step Through will be similar. The next version of the catalogue will probably have the height end length dimensions.
martinf, there are two step through frame sizes of Nomad Mk3 40S/T & 47S/T http://www.sjscycles.com/Instructions/Thorn/Thorn_Nomad_Mk3_Frame_Size_Matrix.pdf
-
martinf, there are two step through frame sizes of Nomad Mk3 40S/T & 47S/T http://www.sjscycles.com/Instructions/Thorn/Thorn_Nomad_Mk3_Frame_Size_Matrix.pdf
Interesting. The 47S/T looks to be a very long frame for a step-through design. At 580 mm virtual top tube length, that's 5 mm longer than a Raven in the big 600S size. Seat tube is also reasonably long at 505 mm.
I reckon I could be very comfortable with the 47S/T if with advancing age I ever have trouble getting my leg over a standard frame.
-
I knew that Thorn was an unusual company in that their chainstays were longer on the larger frames. A lot of other companies use the same chainstay lengths for all sizes, as that is a shortcut that makes manufacturing a bit simpler if all chainstays are the same through the entire size range. But I had not realized that Thorn has different chainstay lengths for the S frames compared to the L frames on the Mk III.
My Mk II is a 590M. The 590M and 590L have the same chainstay lengths (according to their 2012 Fall brochure) which is probably the reason that I had not noticed that they used different chainstay lengths on other sized M and L Mk II frames.
A touring bike should always have a pretty long chainstay for heel clearance on the panniers. I wonder why the different chainstay lengths for the same sized S and L frames? A size S frame is unlikely to have smaller panniers.
-
A touring bike should always have a pretty long chainstay for heel clearance on the panniers. I wonder why the different chainstay lengths for the same sized S and L frames? A size S frame is unlikely to have smaller panniers.
You need to look at all the geometry together and come to your own conclusions, or trust that those designing know what they're doing.
Looking at chainstay length, without considering seat tube angle is a mistake, the bottom bracket is in a different place relative to the saddle.
-
A touring bike should always have a pretty long chainstay for heel clearance on the panniers. I wonder why the different chainstay lengths for the same sized S and L frames? A size S frame is unlikely to have smaller panniers.
The rider of size S frame will likely have smaller feet and maybe shorter cranks too.
-
A touring bike should always have a pretty long chainstay for heel clearance on the panniers. I wonder why the different chainstay lengths for the same sized S and L frames? A size S frame is unlikely to have smaller panniers.
I agree with you, mickeg. If I need a certain length of chainstay on a flat handlebar bike to prevent heel strike whilst keeping the centre of gravity of the pannier from being too far behind the rear wheel axle, I will also need that same chainstay length on a drop handlebar bike. (Edited. Of course, mickeg, you're correct. The COG of the panniers is behind the rear axle not in front.)
You need to look at all the geometry together and come to your own conclusions, or trust that those designing know what they're doing.
Looking at chainstay length, without considering seat tube angle is a mistake, the bottom bracket is in a different place relative to the saddle.
PH, I do agree with you, especially on a racer or audax bike. Not so much on a tourer built for carrying extreme weighs. When adding extreme loads it is more important to be able to place them within the axle centres. Also, looking at chainstay length and seat tube angle, the Nomad Mk2 620L has 72.5° seat tube angle and 479mm chainstays and the Nomad Mk3 61S also has 72.5° seat tube angle but 459mm chainstays.
If I at 6'5" with size 13-14 UK feet were to buy a drop bar Nomad, I would want the geometry of the Mk2 620M rather than the Mk3 61S for heel clearance, I would also prefer it's seat tube length, standover height & slope, seat tube angle. I would probably also prefer it's 595mm TT.
The rider of size S frame will likely have smaller feet and maybe shorter cranks too.
brummie, I disagree. I think that the rider of the S frame is more likely to have the same size feet but be using drop bars rather than flat bars, especially now with the longer seat tubes and taller standover heights. At least, as likely, in my opinion.
-
martinf, there are two step through frame sizes of Nomad Mk3 40S/T & 47S/T http://www.sjscycles.com/Instructions/Thorn/Thorn_Nomad_Mk3_Frame_Size_Matrix.pdf
Interesting. The 47S/T looks to be a very long frame for a step-through design. At 580 mm virtual top tube length, that's 5 mm longer than a Raven in the big 600S size. Seat tube is also reasonably long at 505 mm.
I reckon I could be very comfortable with the 47S/T if with advancing age I ever have trouble getting my leg over a standard frame.
martinf, It certainly looks like a step-through frame made for tall folk. :)
-
This discussion does bring up another possibility that I had not considered. Maybe drop bar users are more likely to have smaller feet? <Insert chuckle here.>
I have three touring bikes and used to have a fourth, assuming that the published data is accurate:
- Nomad Mk II 590M, 466mm (I assume the length is to the center of the eccentric, so length
would vary slightly with chain wear, etc.)
- Sherpa Mk ?? 610S, 450mm
- Lynskey Backroad L, 445mm (All sizes of this frame have same chainstay lengths.)
- Surly Long Haul Trucker 2004 (I no longer have it), size 58cm, 460mm (All sizes had same chainstays.)
Thus, when i switch to a different bike than I used for my most recent previous trip, I need to move the pannier mounting brackets to adjust for different chainstay lengths.
I think the center of gravity of my rear panniers on my Nomad Mk II is about 3 inches (~~ 75mm) aft of the rear axle when I am using Ortlieb Backrollers. First photo attached.
And when I use Carradry rear panniers, I think the center of gravity is also aft of the rear axle by about the same amount, second photo.
-
I have three touring bikes and used to have a fourth, assuming that the published data is accurate:
- Nomad Mk II 590M, 466mm (I assume the length is to the center of the eccentric, so length
would vary slightly with chain wear, etc.)
- Sherpa Mk ?? 610S, 450mm
- Lynskey Backroad L, 445mm (All sizes of this frame have same chainstay lengths.)
- Surly Long Haul Trucker 2004 (I no longer have it), size 58cm, 460mm (All sizes had same chainstays.)
Do they all have the same BB drop? I don't mean to sound argumentative, but part of the information doesn't tell the full story.
As you rightly say anything with a EBB will have variable CS length and ST angle. there are people who say they're sensitive to these small differences, maybe they are, I'm not.
-
I have no clue how bottom bracket drop relates to chainstay length and potential for heel strike on panniers.
-
I have no clue how bottom bracket drop relates to chainstay length and potential for heel strike on panniers.
It's a triangulation, in much the same way as the difference between the actual top tube length and the effective one when comparing frames with different TT slope. If you were to compare the actual with the effective with an expectation they offered the same reach/heel clearence you'd be mistaken.