Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: Moronic on July 02, 2021, 01:25:58 pm
-
Well I've now been out five times on my new Mercury, and today covered about 60km on a series of Melbourne bike trails that included smooth flat pavement, very rough old pavement, maybe 20km of road-like gravel, and quite a few shortish but steep climbs.
I know some of you cover that distance before breakfast when you're touring or running Audax events, but I have never been in that class and as well have recently restarted riding after taking a break for a few years. So for me that was a significant ride and about the limit of what I could comfortably manage.
I carried a few bits and pieces in a single small pannier. Here's how she looked today.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-kCpr8jX/0/bfc33826/L/i-kCpr8jX-L.jpg)
I am delighted with the way the build has come up. Especially given I did not expect much in that department. More on that in a bit.
I am going to record some early impressions, not so much to inform forum stalwarts but to inform potential new customers or maybe used buyers.
I'll begin with the unboxing, because that's when it dawned on me that I'd be getting more than I'd bargained for. I'm in Australia, so the bike had to come a long way. It came incredibly well protected: every component smothered in foam plastic or packed in labelled and padded bags. There was a lot more to the rebuild than I had expected, and the supplied instructions assumed a much less comprehensive breakdown, but the bits were supplied in a way that let me work it all out, and with grease preapplied where appropriate.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-zDr5Fgf/0/b96b6c81/M/i-zDr5Fgf-M.jpg)
The first surprise came as I began to remove the wrapping. From the images in Thorn's brochures, you'd imagine the paint was all anti-theft flat and dull. I'd seen other pictures in here, so knew better. But I wasn't prepared for the beauty of that grey in the flesh. And even these pics only get half of it.
Then as more emerged from the wrapping, the sculpted intricacy of the fork and chainstays. I could see nothing special about the fork from the brochure. Unwrapped it looked jewel like. And this is the cheaper ST version.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-sZPmTjh/0/61bf4cd2/M/i-sZPmTjh-M.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KP9Ffd5/0/7d3bf11d/L/i-KP9Ffd5-L.jpg)
Undersold or what? Why does Thorn do this? I can only guess it is to ensure that people who order their first Thorn really want one.
Okay that's the unpacking, which will have to do for now. Built but without the chain on, and with the seat on the seatpost where Thorn had set it, she looked like this:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-MBVVHVT/0/d468ac73/L/i-MBVVHVT-L.jpg)
Next: Ride impressions. ;)
-
To the ride impressions. It's going to be necessary here to distinguish elements that might be true of many options from elements specific to the Mercury 650b but I'll do my best.
For background, I cycled a lot in my teens, although not with a club or in organised events. At around the age of 16 I picked up a bargain bike used with nice lugs and possibly a butted reynolds frame, though it wasn't labelled. Came with tubulars and a single chainring, and I fitted a touring triple and 5-speed touring rear cluster. Lovely soft ride - in fact the fork was a bit wimpy torsionally. Managed a fun multi-day tour on it then swapped it for a new Peugeot PX10LE, with 531 tubing and again tubulars, to which I fitted the touring chainset and cluster. This was much stiffer and not nearly as comfortable, which surprised me at the time. That bike was stolen about the time I turned 20, and given I had got heavily into motorbikes it took me nearly 20 years to replace it.
The replacement was a Trek 7900 multi-track hybrid, with a steel unicrown low-rider fork, lugged and glued carbon-tube main triangle and quite heavy aluminium rear triangle that could handle panniers. The base weight was 11kg with seat and oedals, and as I picked it up heavily discounted I was prepared to accept a frame size way too small but with a top tube very long for its size. Came with Shimano XT MTB derailleurs. Used it over the next couple of decades as a mountain bike (there was enough clearance for 700x38c knobbies), commuter and multi-day tourer. The fit was never quite right but it did the job and rode quite nicely. Key limitation was torsional stiffness, which exhibited through the steering when loaded. Geometry I now recognise as randonneur - so I might have done better to bias loads to the front. Steering unladen was overly light and not terribly accurate.
For some reason after a driveline refurbish it started throwing its chain, and eventually a too hasty retrieval left a nasty gouge in the chainside stay. It's probably not weakened the stay a lot, since the aluminium seems quite thick at this point, but I wouldn't take it touring. Having decided it was time I got back into riding for fitness, I did a lot of research and purchased a Mercury - hence this review.
The first thing to say about the Mercury, a 61s with flat narrow bars, is that it fits me beautifully. Even though the seatpost as supplied by Thorn was adjusted way too high - I could barely get my toes on the pedals. Nevertheless I had asked for a fairly relaxed riding position, and with the seat readjusted that is what I have, with the 'bars set as supplied.
The fit alone seems almost wirth the price of entry. From the saddle, the bike feels very different from how it looks side-on. It looks like a big bike, but from the rider perspective it feels very compact, helped by the moderately steep (for a tourer) head tube angle and that fat 50mm Schwalbe G-One Speed tyre. I persistently experience it as a sport-tourer - just as Thorn claims it is. The long steerer tube with its spacers disappears as you're virwing it vertically, and overall I feel like I'm riding the cycling equivalent of a GT car - not light but small, sharp and comfortable.
I also enjoy looking down at the finely crafted lugged fork - so much nicer aesthetically than the unicrown fork that was fitted to the Trek and seems to have become the industry standard for steel.
Weight BTW on my luggage scale comes in at 13.8kg. That's with a Tubus Vega rack, full mudguards, dynohub, Edelux headlamp, Brooks Professional saddle, full-cage MTB pedals, and three bottle cages. Weight could be saved, at a price, from replacing the solid Thorn crank arms, the pedals, and the seat. I'm very comfortable with the weight, having expected that with the big frame and touring fork and the accessories and the 550g tyres it would have come in at mid-14kg. Then again, maybe my cheap scale is not all that accurate.
The ride quality is excellent, even if I thought I might have had a wee bit more compliance from the rear triangle. In that respect it feels roughly the same as the Trek, allowing for tyre differences. The fork is the Reynolds ST rim-brake verson with low-rider lugs, and with the big tyres comfort at the front is superb. You can feel the blades soaking up road hum in high speed descents - so on the question whether a steel fork actually does flex helpfully I'm a believer. The fork feels noticeably better than the steel Trek fork, and at the same time feels much more rigid torsionally. Forum regular PH has compared this fork with the alternative 853 fork on his Mercuries and says the ST fork is significantly less compliant. The 853 fork must be wonderful, but with the big tyre the ST fork is really, really good.
Andy Blance talks up Thorn handling, and from my experience so far he is well justified. It's great in a 'just right' sort of way - neither too twitchy nor too slow. On my regular ride there is a very steep brief climb up from a bridge underpass to road level, which includes an extremely tight left and right ess. I cleaned it once on the Trek but negotiating the left turn was so marginal that I walked it every susequent time. Helped enormously by the very low gearing I have for the Rohloff, the Mercury makes that turn feel safe and easy. It's the same in the way down: on the Trek I would unclip from the pedals in case I needed to dab; on the Mercury I've remained clipped in and felt safe. Likely the rigidity helps greatly here too.
Mid-speed handling in turns is helped greatly by those grippy, wide tyres, and the Merc carries momentum beautifully through twists and turns tyical of local cycling paths.
But it has been on the few occasions I've been able to enjoy winding high-speed descents that the Merc really shines. Here the rigidity, balance and accuracy of the rolling chassis has felt magnificent. I've done too few of these to say much more, except to observe that the exhilaration of a quick descent is enhanced very significantly by the confidence I have felt from the saddle. This was one of the less happy elements of handling on the Trek, so the difference feels very pronounced. It feels like on the Mercury I am going only half as fast on the downhills, except that I know I am not and quite likely I'm quicker.
The final touch on the handling comes from the tyres. The security added over the Schwalbe Kojac 700x35c slicks on the Trek is profound. Its particularly valuable on slick-looking surfaces but it's there all the time. You get used to accommodating the uncertain road grip of narrow rubber, but there's stress involved and I hadn't realised how much until I rode these big G-One balloons on winter trails.
Next: the Rohloff and other bits and pieces. :D
-
I've recognised that the fit info isn't much use without my measurements, so I'm 181cm tall with a barefoot standover height of 88cm. I clear the top tube comfortably but from Thorn's sizing chart I have long legs for my height and I would want the next size down if my legs were a couple of cm shorter. That means that for a fairly relaxed posture, the long steerer tube with its stack of spacers is not avoidable. I imagine that's a piece of Andy B pragmatism: Thorn this way can accommodate more sporty postures with a single frame shape (or two, if you count the two top tube lengths), which helps hold the price level at merely challenging.
So to the transmission. Yes I am starting to hear a little more grumbling from the hub in the lower seven gears, obviously amplified by frame resonance. It concerns me not at all, and it's way lower in amplitude than, say, the gentle rubbing of the chain in bottom gear on a marginally maladjusted front derailleur cage. Nor do I get any sense from the sound that it's holding me up. The drivetrain continues to feel - note, feel - more efficient than the derailleurs I have used in the past. I find nothing about it demotivating; quite the opposite - I feel more motivated than I did on derailleurs.
The gearchange action is certainly different and I'm still getting used to it. It rewards mechanical sympatico and might punish the hamfisted. Get it right and it's as smooth and quick as a rear derailleur change on the smaller cogs. Get it wrong and you can find yourself in a gear you weren't looking for, or changing through two gears where you had sought to change one. The key seems to be the load you have on the transmission at the point of change, and if subtlety is required that's because the Rohloff will in fact shift under light load - so you can get away with being sloppy and don't immediately understand the benefits of being accurate. I'm still working on the accuracy, and it's clear there is a fair bit of joy still to come. Rohloff suggests timing shifts for when the cranks are vertical, and that will be a neat trick if I master it. The 7-8 change is merely more demanding of accuracy: this is where sloppiness with load and timing is punished most severely.
I've chosen 37-19 as the overall ratio and that is just about at Rohloff's permitted limit. Since I'm not very strong, the idea is to have a bottom gear that allows me to manage stiff climbs with a light camping load on. With the tyres I have that's about 15 inches, or roughly 22F-40R on a derailleur system. Any lower and I wouldn't be able to balance the bike, and yet with a moderate cadence I can balance her easily enough. As I get stronger I might go up 4 teeth at the front, which would add a little more than 10 per cent so I would still have a gear a little lower than my present second. An extra 10 per cent at the top would be welcome - yes she does spin out early.
Nevertheless I have a (marginally) broader range than is offered on the newly fashionable 1x12 derailleur systems, with more steps in between. It is an advantage of the low sprocket ratio that the road speeds at cadence are closer than if the gearing were taller, and the steps feel comparable with what I had on my 11-30 rear 8-speed cassette. It is actually fantastic to have such a choice of low gears - I can tune the gear to the grade very finely. It is also fantastic never to be anxious that the change into bottom gear might overshoot the biggest rear cog. This never happened to my derailleur systems in practice but I always felt some relief as the chain seated properly.
The other nice bit of course is never having to swap between front cogs, often with a compensating change at the rear to hold cadence. There is a lot less thinking and planning required, and I don't miss that a bit. The one downside of Rohloff's enforced sequential shifting is that sometimes the one-shift move to a big front cog is handy. That's rare though, and on a 1x12 you would not get that anyway.
I can see why strong riders and those who ride often in fast groups might prefer their close-spaced derailleurs, for sure. A Rohloff isn't for everyone; it just happens to match the sort of riding I like very well.
And I think that will do - I've put fewer than 150km on the bike after all. Questions and comments are welcome, of course. I may add stuff from time to time as I build up more miles.
-
What a great review Moronic.
You mentioned the ability to drop two or three gears when encountering one of those sudden steep pitches on on a lot of Melbourne bike paths.
BTW is the picture of the bike along the Mullum Mullum Creek path close to where the creek joins the Yarra?
Mike
-
Hi Mike, I'm glad you liked it - especially given you have one. ;D
Yes the snappy downchanges are handy. Of course you can go down gears pretty quickly on a derailleur transmission, and the 1x12 must have similar qualities. The big advantage over a triple is that you can change down as far as you like without also swapping front cogs.
The pic is on the Diamond Creek Trail, which by the end of the year will extend the Main Yarra Trail north to Hurstbridge. I'm yet to try the Mullum Mullum path - is it good?
-
Hi Moronic
The Mullum Mullum has plenty of opportunities for those three gear drops and quite a few twists and turns!
Mike
-
Excellent initial review Moronic, I recognise much of that and my experience is similar.
It took me a little longer to love my Mercury, I liked it from the first ride (And I already had 15 years with the Rohloff) but it took a while to appreciate where it excels.
Getting used to the Rohloff also comes with time, after a while it becomes so instinctive you forget about it and it rarely catches you out. It's other bikes that remind you, I was on a club ride yesterday and everyone else was crunching down gears and cursing when we rounded a corner for an unexpected sharp rise, a casual flick of the wrist and I'd dropped the equivalent of a chainring and couple of sprockets ;D
-
Thanks PH. Like and love - I've pondered that. Yes for me it was love at first ride, but doubtless that is about where I've come from and what I was hoping for.
I repeated my ride from last Friday today, this time with a friend who had a cyclometer that he reckons is accurate. It was a bit further than I had thought - 72km or 45 miles. Ive also been out a few times during the week, so did the distance pretty comfortably today.
Every now and again a purchase exceeds all my expectations and fulfills all my hopes. I've even softened in my assessment of the rear triangle and its compliance.
What kept surprising me most today was the fit. I'm so comfortable. :D
-
A teaser,
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-vw2bCt7/0/e6a48793/M/i-vw2bCt7-M.jpg)
A tour is scheduled for the week beginning 9 August. Short and sweet: I think about 275 km through south Gippsland, Victoria, Australia, over five days.
It is looking like all four panniers, although it is also possible I will take just two fronts and an Ortlieb trunk bag (incompatible with back rollers on my Tubus Vega rack).
Right now we're in an extended snap lockdown that restricts us to 5km from home, so maybe nothing will happen.
Threw some more air into the rear tyre for the load, and tonight rode with that 45psi and no panniers on the 50mm Schwalbe G One Speeds. All of a sudden the tyres were feeding lenough load into the frame that I could feel the frame respond.
All I can say is a) Wow!; and b) Andy B's raves seem ridiculously anaemic. He's a genius, and of course he can't say that but I can.
-
Looking good, hope you can get away.
Here in the UK what looked like the end of restrictions may turn out to be a very short break between them.
-
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-fKBDsHF/0/47e1aa6a/L/i-fKBDsHF-L.jpg)
About 20km into a 70km winter out and back on Melbourne's bicycle paths.
What stood out today was the resilience of the frame. It's superb.
And the fit of course.
-
Interesting and in depth review - thanks for taking the time to post
go well on your travels
-
Thanks R Bailey.
Yes it is looking like the trip through Gippsland will happen, barring another Covid incident over the next few days.
Partly connected with current Covid rules, it will be a four-bag trip with 7-10kg on board depending on how light I can pack. That's well within Thorn's rating for sweet handling. Will be interesting to see how well the Mercury carries a light camping load. I've made a test run for the fronts with more weight in them than I'll need for this trip, and while the steering was heavier it still felt balanced and pleasant.
-
And there goes the bike ride. Snap lockdown across the state from tonight and through next week. Five km travel limit. Oh well, I enjoyed my touring fantasies. :(
-
That's a shame, time to get creative, 5km touring and camping in the garden.
-
I feel your loss, Moronic, not least because I was looking forward to riding vicariously with you on your fine-looking new bike once your ride report(s) arrived.
I was amazed to read up-thread in your discussion with Mike about fine bicycle paths in Melbourne. When I lived there in the early 70s, you could ride along tram tracks that would mangle rims and put you down, or beside the beach in the middle of the night to escape the trucks from the Port in the daytime. Often on fine summer evenings after work we used to ride around and around the gardens in front of my house in St Vincent Place, or around and around the lake in Albert Park next door. Rush hour traffic, what rush hour traffic? Nobody even dreamed about bicycle paths...they were a political impossibility.
-
Is the distance limit based on length of journey or distance from home? I recall that during UK lockdown 2 our PM set an example by being seen on a bike 7 miles from home. That suited me as I had a 23 mile circuit which was never more than 7 miles from home. Nonetheless a lockdown scuppers the potential for any proper trips.
-
Thanks all for the well wishes. That the trip must be cancelled is disappointing - especially in the timing - but a long way from tragic. Yes I am lucky to have superb cycling paths on my doorstep that give me plenty of scope for touring the interior of a 5km radius over the permitted daily two outdoor exercise hours - and I will be out there.
Andre, I grew up in Melbourne through the 60s, 70s and 80s and you are quite right: there was little public interest in making life more pleasant for cyclists, albeit significant grassroots lobbying that became effective at the municipal political level and probably led us to where we are now. Yes, the tram tracks - I won't forget crossing one at a safe angle on a warm day, only to have a stray sliver of metal spike my front tubular, which deflated instantly. I picked myself off the roadway with cuts and bruises and a flattened rim - and then had to catch one of the trams to a place where I could rendezvous with a driver who got me home. They're still there, but now I could get to many places about town without crossing any.
Albert Park would have been a nice place to live. These days I think you'd roll the kilometer or so down to the bay, and could follow a beachside bike path at least down to Sandringham, with the option of using a marked bike lane on what is called Beach Road. On weekend mornings there may be so many cyclists on that road that cars become second-class vehicles. There may even be special road rules favouring cyclists in place over early weekend hours - I don't get down that way on the bike so this is just from hearsay and vague recollections of road signs I may have seen from a car.
You may be interested in what the City of Melbourne now says about cycling: https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/parking-and-transport/cycling/Pages/cycling-lanes-and-routes.aspx
"The City of Melbourne is committed to becoming a cycling city, with a safe and connected bicycling network for cyclists of all ages and abilities."
I grew up on the other side of town and a fair way out, and mixed it with the motor traffic on semi-rural roads through my teens. I was living in Eltham, about 25km from town on the Yarra, and had relatives a little north of Hurstbridge, a further 15km out by road, and so I got to know the roads in between pretty well. I moved across the continent in my mid-30s to Perth, where I was astonished and delighted to find excellent bike paths extending north and south from the city on both sides of the Swan river - a favourite was the 55km circuit from Perth to harbourside Fremantle and back, out on one side and return on the other.
Returning to Melbourne 20 years later I discover that I can ride from inner Melbourne through Eltham and to within 3km of Hurstbridge without sharing even 50 yards of my route with a car - and with work under way on the final kilometres. Much of this trail is paved, but about 10km would be good gravel. It follows local waterways and the railway line. If I swung right before Eltham, I could follow another trail a long way east out Mike's way.
Other directions have good options too. And as many of the trails pass near railway stations, if you get a bit weary you can ride home on a train, with bikes explicitly allowed on board.
-
Since this is a bike review thread, I'll add that the existence of this developing bike path network in Melbourne was the key reason why I bought a new bike, and also a key reason why I bought this bike - a Mercury 650b.
I've lived in two suburbs since returning to Melbourne, and easy proximity to a good part of the network was a part of the reason I chose my address. I'd formed the ambition to exercise more, and while I've had casual relationships with swimming pools and gyms I've not developed commitments. In Perth I lived near the mouth of the Swan River and could easily deploy a light sea kayak, but I saw little prospect of doing that frequently in Melbourne. Over the years and with a big gap in my second snd third decades, cycling had been my fitness mainstay. So the thought that I might quickly and safely access dedicated paths was appealing.
If you're planning to go out for several hours at a time, bike trails turn out to be pretty demanding. Their sealed surfaces are less well founded than those meant to carry motor traffic, and less well maintained. Some routes include long stretches of gravel. And they're full of tight turns, short but sharp climbs, narrow bridges, and narrow passages through gate-like structures that have been build to slow users either side of road crossings.
The Mercury with its Rohloff geartrain and big, comfy tyres is an utter delight on these routes, supplying comfort, roadholding and geartrain responsiveness that makes the derailleur machine it replaced feel like a relic of the steam age in an era of electric locomotion. "Here already?" Is a frequent thought at waypoints I pass on the Mercury, and that is not only because my capacity is growing swiftly. There is just so much less stress involved. I won't repeat the many explanations for that comment that I have given already.
The extra bit of course is the anecdotal evidence that public investment drives private consumption.
-
For a car culture, those are amazing, light-speed developments. Thanks for the link, containing even more amazing intentions.
-
@JohnR Nice rig, but why is the frame lock on the wrong side of the stay?? Where it is, a thief could just undo those 2 nuts and pull the whole wheel off. NOT possible if lock is still attached to the wheel inside the triangle.
My new Simcoe roadster came with the brazeons and 5 mm bolts for one of those, inside the triangle.
The only reason I stayed closer to home in lockdowns, is the cafes and service stations all closed the washrooms and benches.
The OPs rig doesn't get much better either.
And speaking of WEIGHT, LOL, a week ago I rode my 76 lb Rohloff tour bike, 128.6 miles on the hilliest highway here. Home is 664 m, and there's high points of 802 and 794m. Near 10 hours moving and 14Hr20min clock. My Olympic road ride. LOL. They went 16 miles farther and took 6:03:xx, but my bike is 60 lbs heavier and I'm 42 years older, and NO peloton. LOL. I lost near 7 lbs of fluid weight. So I was bonking and cramping. Over 25 miles I had to dodge the damn shoulder cracks. My mirror is indispensable for this. My Rohloff is working better every ride.
-
[I split the thread as it had wandered from Moronic's engaging account detailing is own Mercury to a discussion of weight. The weight discussion is here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14318.0 -- Dan.]
-
@JohnR Nice rig, but why is the frame lock on the wrong side of the stay??
Because Thorn put the rear brake cable on the front side of the chainstay (see photo).
And speaking of WEIGHT, LOL, a week ago I rode my 76 lb Rohloff tour bike, 128.6 miles on the hilliest highway here. Home is 664 m, and there's high points of 802 and 794m. Near 10 hours moving and 14Hr20min clock.
That's a long ride! Double the distance of my longest LEJOG day but less than double the time.
-
why is the frame lock on the wrong side of the stay??
There isn't a "wrong" side, it does the same job either way, AXA used to sell a bracket (Might still) to fit it to the outside using the brake lugs. I was looking at a Tern cargo bike that has one fitted to the front wheel, now that did look wrong, but again it was doing the same job.
-
[I split the thread as it had wandered from Moronic's engaging account detailing is own Mercury to a discussion of weight. The weight discussion is here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14318.0 -- Dan.]
Good idea to split the thread but the weight discussion remains relevant for many considering any Thorn, I imagine.
People coming to this review from curiosity about Thorns might learn something from the weight thread as well.
-
With a few more miles on the Mercury I can add a bit to the review. First thing to say is that the bike continues to delight. I'm using yet more presssure in the Schwalbe G-One Speeds x 50mm and now running about 40psi F and 48R. Notwithstanding what Jan Heine over at Rene Herse says about his tyre range it is pretty clear the bike rolls quicker at these pressures than at the 30-35psi I was running initially, and the main effect on comfort seems to be that the tyres flex less and the frame more.
I would still run the low pressures if I expected to spend a lot of time on really rough stuff, but at present I really like the firmer tyres and not least because they make the frame work. Even with the Reyolds ST v-brake fork fitted, the Mercury feels fantastically lively and resilient. Why this springiness in the frame should make the riding feel so enjoyable I don't know; I just know that it does.
BTW can anyone tell me what sort of steel goes under the label Reynolds ST these days? My guess would be that it's a thick-walled version of 631.
I'm getting stronger quite quickly and more often find myself spinning out in top (remembering that I selected a 37-19 overall ratio for what might fairly be called a great-granny bottom gear, at 15 inches). It's become unusual that I get down to that gear and my thoughts have turned to adding teeth at the front. However I find it quite pleasant and motivating to be grinding up a steep grade in third at 19 gear inches with the knowledge that I have in hand two further reductions, each of 15 per cent. I am quite sure the lower ratios will get more use if lockdown ever lifts again and I can get out for a proper loaded tour.
I am getting the hang of the Rohloff gearchange, and have just about mastered the recommended technique for shifting under load, which is to do so when the crank arms are vertical. Already I have become much more confident that I can swiftly drop a ratio or two in the middle of a steep ascent than I ever was in derailleurs. I've no complaints about the spacing of the ratios, and more and more of my shifts happen almost imperceptibly. I continue to experience the Rohloff drivetrain as highly efficient, in the sense that I am constantly surprised by how much progress I make with so littlle effort.
My choice of 650b x 50 tyres was driven partly by the good proportion of gravel surfaces on the best suburban bike trail I have access to and partly by a desire to avoid motor traffic when touring, which in southern Australia can be met by avoiding sealed surfaces and choosing instead gravel backroads. On gravel sections of the trail it occurs to me to say something here about Thorn's promotion of the 650b Mercury as a gravel bike. Given its provenance as an Audax-style fast road bike, might that be just hopeful marketing?
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tvckmJ8/0/870f0d2a/L/i-tvckmJ8-L.jpg)
From my experience so far I'll respond with an emphatic No, and a caveat. On the big-volume 650b tyres the Merc rides beautifully on gravel. There is extra comfort over narroer rubber, but there is also extra flotation and that feels very significant. On my Trek with its 700c x 35 Schwalbe slicks entry to a gravel section felt immediately slower, as the tyre bit through the gravel surface, and less secure. On the 650b Thorn I don't even notice that the surface is slower, and the security doesn't alter much either. On the Trek I was always glad to regain the tarmac; on the Thorn I'm indifferent as to whether I'm on tarmac or gravel. Which I suppose means it's a gravel bike. The steering seems to work really well on gravel too. And of course, it's nice to know I'm not bathing 3 + 8 (or more) cogs in fine grit.
The caveat is that some reviews of gravel bikes seem to see them as alternatives to mountain bikes, and I don't see that potential in the Mercury. I expect it will be brilliant on just about any road or track where you would comfortably point a 2WD car, but I'm not so optimistic about its performance on the sort of rocky, rutted track that would challenge a wartime Jeep or an off-road motorcycle. I'll likely restrict it to the sorts of tracks I'd consider tackling in a sporty looking luxury SUV.
-
BTW can anyone tell me what sort of steel goes under the label Reynolds ST these days? My guess would be that it's a thick-walled version of 631.
I'm enjoying your growing appreciation, whatever we've discussed about what makes something the "Right" bike you've obviously found it here.
In the latest Reynolds parts list I have (2018) there are only two tubeset forks blades listed, 853 and 631. There are several other blades listed as "Reynolds 'R' Butted Fork Blades" and as Thorn haven't given them a number I suspect it's one of these. Looking at the dimensions and the butting, there doesn't seem to be much difference between these and the 631, so probably just a different alloy. Apart from those listed as disc, 1.0/0.6 seems to be the thickness used by most, with very little difference in diameter, including the 853 which surprised me a bit, though it doesn't give the profile so maybe the thicker part is longer or the taper to the butted more gradual. Plus, as we know, Thorn are not restricted to what's in Reynolds parts list....
Thorns previous 700c only ST fork was Reynolds 531, I haven't seen those blades in a parts list for a while, though apparently Reynold will still supply on request. Whatever they were looking for with the newer forks, I can't see it having strayed far from that tried and tested formula.
-
Page 11 of the touring bike bible http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf discusses frame materials and page 30 discusses the non-disc forks (Reynolds 853 steel). My Mercury has the disc brake forks and page 31 says these are "Heavy Duty Cr-Mo Steel" without specifying any details. They are stiffer due to the need to accommodate the extra torque created by the disc brake and I place a lot of value on stopping ability in adverse conditions. The Mercury brochure http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/BUILD8MERCURY650bROHLOFF.pdf indicates Reynolds 853 steel for the frame and Reynolds 725 for the stays.
The key to using the Mercury on bigger / looser gravel is probably bigger tyres with more tread. Page 31 of the bible shows that the non-disc form can only take up to 54mm tyres but the disc fork can accommodate up to 65mm without mudguards. I can't see any similar details for the rear tyre options.
-
Page 11 of the touring bike bible http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf discusses frame materials and page 30 discusses the non-disc forks (Reynolds 853 steel).
There's three current Mercury steel forks, the disc you have, the 853 I have and the ST that Moronic has. So between us we have the full set.
There's also a couple of previous versions, though they were single wheel size, there was a QR disc fork and a 531 ST which I also have. The ST is a bit heavier and stiffer, but unlike the 853 you can fit a rack. I haven't looked in the Mega brochure for a while, but I'm sure it's all in there.
-
I must be close to capable of reciting the mega brochure by heart, after hours of trying to discern from it whether a Mercury would satisfy or disappoint me.
Thorn on p30 says the fork is Reynolds Super Tourist steel. I was hoping someone might know from arcane sources what alloy the current version of Reynolds Super Tourist was made from.
Weirdly, the table on p31 specifies "heat treated" for the 650b/700c ST fork but omits this for the 700c-only fork. Reynolds 631 is not heat treated.
Thanks for all the info PH and JohnR. I'm still curious, so might send an email to Thorn.
Bottom line though, it's a superb fork for my application. Hard to imagine the 853 version could be better even unladen - but then PH you don't need to imagine.
JohnR it looks like the disc version gains 20mm of clearance axle-crown from using the twin-plate crown. Hard to see from the pics but that's what the table tells us. Hence the bigger tyre compatibility. Yes I'm not clear either on how that works at the rear.
I'm glad if people familiar with the model are enjoying my extended reflections. My idea was to write the sort of thing I'd love to have read myself when I was shopping.
I'm also interested in generating an antidote for the misinformation that still comes up quite prominently when you Google Thorn or Rohloff. Apparently Thorn bikes are appallingly ugly, burdonsomely overweight, and stubbornly old fashioned, while the Rohloff feels like you're pedalling in treacle and its seals apply a drag brake that restricts your speed on downhills.
My reality with the Mercury opposes all that directly: the frame is beautifully shaped and finished and its proportions are very pleasing to my eye; the weight impost for steel is negligible; the design for a bike with this use-envelope leads the market; the Rohloff feels like you're pedalling in Teflon; and the Rohloff applies no restriction on your speed downhill or anywhere else. I hope Thorn gets around to ordeing more frames.
-
Releavant addition: PH was quite right in another thread to recommend protecting the paint from wear under the control cables. I've used a plastic film once and perhaps still sold as Con-tact but now available under different names.
-
I'm also interested in generating an antidote for the misinformation that still comes up quite prominently when you Google Thorn or Rohloff. Apparently Thorn bikes are appallingly ugly, burdonsomely overweight, and stubbornly old fashioned, while the Rohloff feels like you're pedalling in treacle and its seals apply a drag brake that restricts your speed on downhills.
My reality with the Mercury opposes all that directly: the frame is beautifully shaped and finished and its proportions are very pleasing to my eye; the weight impost for steel is negligible; the design for a bike with this use-envelope leads the market; the Rohloff feels like you're pedalling in Teflon; and the Rohloff applies no restriction on your speed downhill or anywhere else. I hope Thorn gets around to ordeing more frames.
Perhaps Thorn bikes become overweight because it's so easy to attach things to them? As I noted in the weight thread, my Mercury is the better part of 10kg heavier than when I took it out of the box (I'm currently investigating diet options for the bike).
Perhaps the Rohloff hub is slightly less efficient than a derailleur system in optimum condition, but for how long does that condition continue unless the rider is a fanatic who diligently cleans the drivetrain after each ride? And, as you'll discover, the Rohloff hub, like a fine wine, improves with age. At 6,000 miles the Rohloff hub on my Mercury is shifting very sweetly. I hope that anyone thinking of buying a Rohloff hub will find and read this http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornLivingWithARohloff.pdf .
-
The misinformation I'm talking about rarely came from owners or from this forum - just the usual internet chatter from uninformed people with an opinion to share. Someone had bought something at the Thorn shop one day and had picked up a Nomad and decided it could anchor a ship, for example, and offered that as a comment on Thorn bikes in general.
It's the usual story: people with something critical to say will take opportunities to say it, whereas people having a great experience will keep that to themselves.
Even on this forum, I'd read everything I could find about the Mercury more than once, and while people were obviously happy with their bikes, or mostly so, I remained hungry for more detail.
So in this thread I thought i'd supply that for others. It's good to hear that the hub wears in quite quickly, JohnR - especially since the shifting on mine is pretty smooth anyway. Remarkable really to have a major bicycle component that wears in over a very extended lifetime rather than wearing out. Even a fine wine improves only on the shelf - once uncorked its performance peaks fast then declines.
-
Moronic wrote:
I'm also interested in generating an antidote for the misinformation that still comes up quite prominently when you Google Thorn or Rohloff.
You're doing very well indeed, Moronic, and I say that as professional writer and popularizer since I was 13.
Remarkable really to have a major bicycle component that wears in over a very extended lifetime rather than wearing out.
My favorite bike mechanic, who owns several heavily-used Rohloff gearboxes, says, "A Shimano Nexus lies itself down to die just about the time a Rohloff is run in." Mean time between failures for the Nexus, according to Shimano's German distributors, is 50,000km. Mean time between failures for the Rohloff is -- unknown. The last time I looked, several years ago, there were known Rohloffs with 160K kilometers/100K miles on them. The number of breakages, even counting the ones that pointed to obvious abuse, were statistically insignificant, the number of total irrecoverable failures were nil. At that point I decided it was an answered question: my Rohloff will see me out. It would be a waste of money, even here in the wilds of West Cork, to buy a spare Rohloff wheel against the day my Rohloff wheel had to go to Germany.
By the way, if you haven't caught up to this fact yet: every few years Rohloff talks about a lighter, nimbler model, and then just quietly disappears it, clearly because they consider that the inevitably higher rate of breakages will damage their reputation for rock solid engineering. There's always enthusiasm for the lightweight model among the old road racers who grew up in a weight weenie cycling culture, but I won't buy one. I'm an old Porsche driver: I like the most solid German engineering. I reckon that for the quality of engineering and its longevity the Rohloff box is just the perfect weight.
Also, it might interest you to know that the Rohloff was designed as a German agricultural implement for mud plugging cyclists (Bernd Rohloff's own sport), without a thought for tourists. It was just happenstance that Utopia-velo, who don't march to anyone else's drummer and was looking for a stronger box than the Nexus, picked it up for touring bikes, and later the strong-minded parties at Thorn discovered it fitted their concept of their touring bikes well. The rest of the tourist niche manufacturers picked up the Rohloff because they saw two aspirational bike makers doing so, sometimes not quite understanding why Utopia and Thorn had chosen it.
-
For the longterm record that Moronic is creating here, I've taken this statement up at http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14325.msg106915#msg106915 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14325.msg106915#msg106915)
Perhaps the Rohloff hub is slightly less efficient than a derailleur system in optimum condition, but for how long does that condition continue unless the rider is a fanatic who diligently cleans the drivetrain after each ride?
-
Reynolds 631 is not heat treated.
Indeed, heat treated 631 becomes 853.
-
Well I sent my compliments to Thorn, thanking them for supplying such a great bike and then enquitpring of the material in the fork blades.
Got a reply from Robin, painstakingly responding to each of my compliments and then telling me that a document specifying the grade of steel used in the fork would be in the building somewhere but he was too busy to chase it down. ;D
It occurred to me that as peculiar as Thorn's methods of promotion might seem, they work.
-
At the risk of triggering a long discussion on lighting, I'll comment briefly on the SON dynamo and Edelux II headlamp Thorn offers for the Mercury and other models as an accessory.
I hemmed and hawed over this, and eventually went for it. The argument against is that battery lights do a good job these days. And unless you're commuting on the bike or running Audax events, you might not often need lights.
Having fitted hub lighting, I have found it's extended my riding in a way that battery lights likely would not have (for me). If the opportunity is there for a late evening ride, I will take it. And I can embark late on long day rides secure in the belief that I'll have lights to get home with.
With a frequency that has surprised me, I also set off for fitness rides of an hour or so after dark.
None of these opportunities would have been unavailable if I had instead purchased a battery system. However, I doubt I'd have used the battery system in the same way, and I doubt I'd have developed a reliable charging routine.
I find drag from the hub imperceptible - with the light set to auto, where it switches on automatically even in persistent shadow in daytime, I have no idea whether the light is on or off.
The beam thrown is astonishingly useful. On the narrow local bike paths, it throws an illuminated tunnel down the road 100 metres or more, lighting the vegetation on both sides as well to about shoulder height. I'm quite comfortable that I can see what I need to.
-
I have a Son dynamo on my Raven Tour.
Did I pick you up correctly? If the light is on, there is ( slightly) more drag?
I had thought the dynamo was ' working' all the time.
Asking as one who doesn't know Watt from an Amp.
-
Did I pick you up correctly? If the light is on, there is ( slightly) more drag?
Yes, there's no free lunch (Or light*) it's been thoroughly tested and this thread gives a link and some detail:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14185.0
Can you notice the difference? I can't, I frequently get home and realise I've ridden all day with the lights on, then imagine how much faster I'd have been with them off...
*An early Shimano model had more drag with the lights off, but that was down to poor circuitry and they soon corrected it.
-
I have a Son dynamo on my Raven Tour.
Did I pick you up correctly? If the light is on, there is ( slightly) more drag?
I had thought the dynamo was ' working' all the time.
Asking as one who doesn't know Watt from an Amp.
And you've made the point beautifully. Compared with light off, the hub is much more draggy with the light on. But even "much more" is so little that you had assumed it made no difference.
-
Old but still relevant dynamo test at
http://www.myra-simon.com/bike/dynotest.html
contains the ur-discussion of generator drag, and converts it into a road slope.
Anyway, since the lifespan of the LEDs in modern lamps is 50K hours, there's no reason not to run bicycle lamps 24/7, including as daylight running lamps. Mine are never switched off.
-
What an excellent review,Moronic.
Bikes looks fantastic
I think I could just sit down in wonder and look at it for 3 cuppas(a good 90 minutes)
I think I would have been overwhelmed when getting it. By your writing you seem a more measured man than myself who would have rushed to assemble it,then made some hash of things.
Your review and memory of past machines and experiences I question. I only do so because I am never sure. I know lots on here can say about cycling qualities and handling issues. But unless a bike is over exaggerated in set up I tend to forget which one I prefer. Then,I have to ride a bike for,say,a time before I get to know it...then like or dislike it. Setting up a saddle for me is a day's job,with lots of minor alterations and wotnot. This can go on for 5 days or so: boring,and annoying.
Shish! You have the bees knees there. Please give my regards to Wycheproof: the town where time can stand still,and so you somehow have more of it.
Luverly bike. Good write up. Happy travels. Hope some normality return soon.
-
I'm happy you enjoyed the read, tyreon, and thanks for the compliments on the bike.
Yes I'm almost shocked over how much I enjoy the look. Before it arrived, I had just about resigned myself to celebrating the function and ignoring the form.
As for the three cuppas - I'm with you on that, even if I've never quite got to three.
It's understandable you'd question my recollections of how past bikes behaved. Let's just say they're "true for me" - as in, I'm not consciously fabricating. Same with the comments on handling etc really. The point of my recording the former was to provide some context for how confidently readers could accept the latter.
I think it might be a few decades since I last passed through Wicheproof. IIRC it was in the local news this week as the local government area with the highest proportion of residents vaccinated against the plague.
-
I've realised that in responding to tyreon's comments there's a bit I could add for context.
In a previous life I made a lving from reviewing the performance of recently released motorcycles, and so I'm in the habit of analysing the handling and general responsiveness of single-track vehicles.
My experience of various bicycles is broad but thin. So I'm no expert there. OTOH I have likes and dislikes that aren't wholly ignorant.
-
I've realised that in responding to tyreon's comments there's a bit I could add for context.
In a previous life I made a lving from reviewing the performance of recently released motorcycles, and so I'm in the habit of analysing the handling and general responsiveness of single-track vehicles.
My experience of various bicycles is broad but thin. So I'm no expert there. OTOH I have likes and dislikes that aren't wholly ignorant.
You know what feels good for you and what appears better. Thats good enough for you...and for me.
Somewhere about this forum someone was saying comparison works best for them when the comparison is over-exaggerated so that they can think 'that doesnt work'. I guess I am somewhere there. I think I know and have knowledge of some experience,but limited compared to others. I think in reviewing the set up and the personal experience of riding different cycles I would get confused. Its just me. I think I have to ride a cycle at least 10 miles to decide if it suits what I want it for and is suitable. I'm pretty sure I have faffed around with my own set up on my own bicycles to come back to what it was in the beginning. Very annoying. Whatever works for you,works for you...tho you can always faff about with stuff somewhat to come back to find your original thoughts and observations about matters correct.
-
My fastest ride on my Mercury was when I first got it when I took it for what I expected to be a fairly short ride which became longer and longer as I couldn't think of a reason to head for home. I think all I carried was a small saddle pack with a few tools. I then loaded the bike with a rack and rack bag so it was better equipped and, not surprisingly, the rides became slower. My recent LEJOG highlighted that the bike had become overweight compared to most so I've been trying to do some weight saving.
One move was to replace the rack and rack bag with a Carradice Lightweight Audax saddle bag supported by the Carradice Bagman. I didn't weigh everything but the weight reduction is less than 1kg. However, I was surprised to note that the bike felt faster in headwinds and cross winds so i have to assume that a saddlebag is aerodynamically more efficient than a rack + rack bag.
The other change I've made is removing the durable but heavy 50mm Schwalbe Almotion tyres and refitting the G-One Speed tyres. The front tyre is that which came off the bike last autumn and still has plenty of life but the rear one was more worn (see photo at http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13962.msg103816#msg103816 ) so I've fitted a new tyre. The old front tyre was fairly willing to seal as tubeless but the new rear tyre needed a hundred miles on the rim with an inner tube to smooth out the kinks where it had been folded before it was willing to seal against the rim. The result is a bike that has lost a bit of weight, looks more appropriate for day trips (which is all I'm doing - even the supported LEJOG was effectively a series of day trips) and perhaps, most important, seems to go faster. The G-One Speed tyres do a much better job of smoothing out rough tarmac than the Almotions (greater comfort encourages more speed) but I will be fitting other tyres with more tread for the winter months when the roads get mucky but first there's this trip https://www.bikeadventures.co.uk/product/uk-south-coast-explorer-2021-22/ to be enjoyed.
-
Absolutely perfect bike there Moronic, except for 37/ 19T?? WTF. That's seriously into Can't-a-hill-a-phobia. 79 GI won't outrun an old fat dog with arthritis. LOL. It'll take you 2 days for a 1 day ride.
Get a 42T on there. That'll still be as low as anybody here.
One day I had a 30 mph tail wind and was going 27 mph in 115 GI. I also use it going up the back side of dips. You'll have ZERO momentum after waiting for speed to get down to where you can use 79 GIs. Not to mention you won't get much momentum either. I use every last gear, on any highway with hills.
My SA 3 speed has 84 GI. Yesterday I used it 13 miles straight on the flat freeway. That was mile 82 to 95 on my ride.
Cheers.
-
One day I had a 30 mph tail wind and was going 27 mph in 115 GI.
Maybe instead of criticising you should learn to pedal properly ;)
i don't mean that of course, pedal how you want, but for most people 90" is plenty high enough for 30mph. I've no need for any gear over 100", I've no need for any as low as Moronic either, it doesn't mean either of you are wrong, just that I'm right.
-
Absolutely perfect bike there Moronic, except for 37/ 19T?? WTF. That's seriously into Can't-a-hill-a-phobia. 79 GI won't outrun an old fat dog with arthritis. LOL. It'll take you 2 days for a 1 day ride.
Get a 42T on there. That'll still be as low as anybody here.
One day I had a 30 mph tail wind and was going 27 mph in 115 GI. I also use it going up the back side of dips. You'll have ZERO momentum after waiting for speed to get down to where you can use 79 GIs. Not to mention you won't get much momentum either. I use every last gear, on any highway with hills.
My SA 3 speed has 84 GI. Yesterday I used it 13 miles straight on the flat freeway. That was mile 82 to 95 on my ride.
Cheers.
Helpful comments from a review perspective, thanks. Will help people get a sense of what gearing to choose.
A few things come into it. Rider strength is one factor. Expected terrain is another. Expected load is a third. Accustomed cadence, as PH notes, is one more.
A related element is the ease and low cost of re-gearing the Rohloff.
I was coming to the Merc with weak legs, and with the prospect of a self-supported camping tour before the end of the year that would incorporate a couple of Australia's stiffest "alpine" climbs. In addition, I was excited to be able to gear that low with no related problems of chain management (shifting on to tiny front cog, needing huge rear mech capacity etc).
Further, my typical day ride incorporates no flat, straight, smooth sections whatsoever of more than 200 metres, and is well protected from winds. There are only three brief points on my 70km out-and-back where I could wish for more than 77 gear inches, at my starting level of strength.
Plus, that 70km was around my endurance limit for a day. If I'd had the strength to put in 95 miles (155km) or more I may well have geared taller.
And especially if I expected a lot of smooth, flat riding. I've had occasion recently to cover a few km of smooth tarmac with a gentle downhill grade and mild tailwind and yes indeed, I can't maximise those advantages because I spin out.
Otoh that is not such a bad problem to have, and especially if you've no wish to set records. I'm not convinced either that a top of 77 inches costs me much momentum on dips - although again that will be partly because I'm not strong. There is a good example on a route I've adopted recently, and I doubt there's much difference between my pedalling up the far side at 100 inches until I need to shift down, and my waiting until my speed falls to a level I can match at 77 inches.
As I get stronger - and that is happening fast - I may well add a few teeth at the front as you suggest. Otoh I may not, given that I doubt the bike will see many long, flat, smooth stretches of bitumen. I've specced it for cycle-trail day rides and gravel-road and trail multi-day tours.
While elapsed time and momentum on dips are relevant, I suspect the main thing I miss from low gearing is that very opportunity to whiz along for kilometres on end in top gear, wind-assisted and pedalling at a sustainable cadence. I have done that on other bikes at other places and times and it's a fantastic feeling. If my expected use envelope predicted a lot of opportunity for that, I'd be more motivated to gear taller.
-
One move was to replace the rack and rack bag with a Carradice Lightweight Audax saddle bag supported by the Carradice Bagman. I didn't weigh everything but the weight reduction is less than 1kg. However, I was surprised to note that the bike felt faster in headwinds and cross winds so i have to assume that a saddlebag is aerodynamically more efficient than a rack + rack bag.
The other change I've made is removing the durable but heavy 50mm Schwalbe Almotion tyres and refitting the G-One Speed tyres. The front tyre is that which came off the bike last autumn and still has plenty of life but the rear one was more worn (see photo at http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13962.msg103816#msg103816 ) so I've fitted a new tyre. The old front tyre was fairly willing to seal as tubeless but the new rear tyre needed a hundred miles on the rim with an inner tube to smooth out the kinks where it had been folded before it was willing to seal against the rim. The result is a bike that has lost a bit of weight, looks more appropriate for day trips (which is all I'm doing - even the supported LEJOG was effectively a series of day trips) and perhaps, most important, seems to go faster. The G-One Speed tyres do a much better job of smoothing out rough tarmac than the Almotions (greater comfort encourages more speed) but I will be fitting other tyres with more tread for the winter months when the roads get mucky but first there's this trip https://www.bikeadventures.co.uk/product/uk-south-coast-explorer-2021-22/ to be enjoyed.
John your Merc looks fantastic in that shot - shows me how sweet a small-frame 650b version can appear, and even in red. ;D ;D The black-and-tan tyre combination does no harm either.
Interesting comments on the saddlebag vs rackbag. I'd have been surprised too. I'm still enjoying my Tubus Vega and Ortlieb Trunk Bag combo though(1340g all up plus contents), and it is very easy to forget they are there.
-
John your Merc looks fantastic in that shot - shows me how sweet a small-frame 650b version can appear, and even in red. ;D ;D The black-and-tan tyre combination does no harm either.
For the record the frame is described as "Thom Mercury MK3 Frame - Red lmron - 55cm-L for 46 mm Forks with 700c / 650B / 26 inch Thom Mk3 Steel Disc Fork- Red lmron - 48mm Offset A." I bought it ready built as a demonstrator but it also features in Thorn's brochures.
Schwalbe seem to have changed the G-One Speed tyres to have the tan sidewalls. I've got another waiting for when the front tyre needs replacing (but by then I'll probably need yet another replacement on the rear which seems to wear faster so I need to look out for another at a nice price).
-
At the risk of triggering a long discussion on lighting, I'll comment briefly on the SON dynamo and Edelux II headlamp Thorn offers for the Mercury and other models as an accessory.
I find drag from the hub imperceptible - with the light set to auto, where it switches on automatically even in persistent shadow in daytime, I have no idea whether the light is on or off.
Quoting myself here from earlier in the thread because a funny incident the other day threw further, um, light on the question of hub dynamo drag.
I'd been running the headlamp on 'sensor', but had noticed that it would switch on in mild shadow. So for an early afternoon ride I decided I would switch it off. And then forgot to do so. As I cycled along a local cycling path I remembered my plan and realised I could probably turn the light off from the saddle. Which I did.
Sure enough the bike did feel like it was running along a little more easily, and I said to myself that the dynamo drag was probably something you got used to, hence did not notice, but it was significant nonetheless and it felt great to have freed myself from it. A few kilometres down the trail there was vegetation cover that might have switched on the light had I left it on Sensor and I reflected again on how swiftly and easily the bike was running now that I'd turned the light off.
You can probably giess what's coming. On the way home I elected to stop at the crest of a climb and take in a view. Parking the bike I noticed that the light seemed to be on. I looked carefully. It was on! I looked at the switch. Operating it from the saddle I had evidently got disoriented and moved it in the wrong direction: at the moment when I believed I had switched it permanently off, I had in fact switched it permanently on, and it had remained on since.
Yes, immediately I switched it off. Did I notice, this time, a liberating sense of ease? No. I enjoyed the downhill from the crest and then cycled the rest of the way home, forgetting even to monitor my intuitions about rolling resistance.
And so that's how much difference a SON dynamo hub makes to your sense of smooth progress. ;D
-
And so that's how much difference a SON dynamo hub makes to your sense of smooth progress. ;D
Yes, but if you get home and realise you've unintentionally ridden all day with the lights on, you can imagine how much faster you'd have been if you'd turned them off.
-
A yes of course, and with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, ;D At my pace roughly 0.25km/h and I could spend a whole evening attempting to imagine just how much faster that is.
While we're on slow travel, I'll add a comment on gearing. I'm continuing to get stronger, and so I resort to my 15-in bottom gear less and less often.
However, I tackled a steep climb yesterday that was maybe 15 min of pavement and gravel, and did use my lowest ratio. I spent much of the climb congratulating myself on just how useful that ratio was. It feduced the torque demand enough that I could enjoy the climb rather than suffering it. Steering was no problem whatsoever.
-
Well the moment you've all been waiting dor is here - I'm about to take my Mercury on an actual tour, starting Firday. It is Wednesday night and I'm on holiday but still havent packed. I have however ascertained that a Thermarest sleeping mat rolled up in a tarp will fit securely between my Ortlieb Trunk Bag (it's a rack bag) and the seat tube and post, which means I can probably get away with just Ortlieb front rollers on low rider racks and the Trunk bag, for this trip of a few hundred kilometers in very clement weather.
Likely the report win't post for a week or two, but who knows - perhaps I'll be bored and upload as I go. Meanwhile, readers can learn that Thorn has earned a wagged finger over the past couple of months for failing to tighten adequately the bottom bracket bearing, which has caused me grief I didn't expect to bear on a three thousand pound bicycle. The whole saga is reported on this forum here (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14416.0), and ends happlily.
Hazard of buying internationally. If I'd had a local bike shop build up the bike, they'd have caught the error. I didn't, which was just about ignorance. I am getting it though that a Rohloff Thorn is for those who understand and appreciate mechanical things. More to come.
-
Great news.
Your route? Approximately.
As much as I'd like the a day by day progression please make ' enjoying the tour' number one priority.
It's your time.
You only live once, which is enough if you do it right. - Mae West
-
yay, hope you have a good one!
-
Enjoy, mate! 👍
Seriously envious here: cold-dark-wet, snow &/or freezing rain in the offing, time for my Rohloff's annual oil change.
-
So the tour is complete, and the story of the tour can be found on the Tours subdivision of this forum, here (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14459.0). Thanks for all the well wishes, and Matt2matt yes we did prioritise pleasure, as readers will see.
There are some comments about the bike but the tale focuses mainly on the six-day journey. I learned a little bit more about the bike on this trip but not all that much.
First, here is how it was loaded. Ultimately, this configuration fell under the classification "Tried to be clever".
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-FtvBpjD/0/87b168f0/L/i-FtvBpjD-L.jpg)
Tellingly, I can't even remember what I'd thought would be so clever about it. Possibly I was worried that if I didn't do it this way I would have too much space, as I possessed only two Ortlieb Back Rollers that I could have substituted for the Trunk Bag.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-8WRJgfG/0/02c91726/M/i-8WRJgfG-M.jpg)
Taking only the three bags left me very tight for space and I ended up with 4kg on each side of the fronts rack. So here is the first observation I can make about the bike: the ST fork handles 4kg a side with aplomb, but the low-speed steering does get a bit weighty. Doubtless that is because Andy Blance went for a mid-trail geometry rather than the presently fashionable low-trail, so that the bike would steer nicely unladen. Andy observes in (I think) the Thorn Megabrochure that the Mercury is designed to carry most of a load at the rear.
I'll note though that there was no particular problem with the steering being loaded in this way. It just felt unnecessarily heavy - unnecessarily, given that I coukd have carried much more of the weight at the rear if I'd had more space.
Also, the heaviness became more obvious as my speed decreased, and it was most noticeable on steep climbs. On steep descents, the extra weight probably helped. Certainly, the Mercury steered beautifully through through high-speed bends when laden this way.
What else? It was nice to be bolting on the front racks, because the bosses were perfectly placed and maximally available. Where my late-'90s high-end Trek hybrid supplied au unthreaded through tube in the fork that accepted a long bolt that tightened only against the tube, the Mercury has a threaded lug on each side.
I learned that on corrugated gravel roads the bike rides terribly unless you drop the tyre pressure well below maximum, and beautifully when you do. More detail on that one is here (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14463.0).
Finally, there were no issues at all with ridgidity under the 12kg load that I carried. This was made particularly plain on the several winding high-speed descents we encountered. I had absolutely no sense that the bike was struggling to keep its wheels in line under the load (my body weight was about 84kg). Rather, it felt magnificent and steered perfectly. Andy rates this model as capable of carrying 18kg with relaxed, sweet handling on rough dirt roads and I could have reached that figure by adding just 6kg at the rear. I found no reason to doubt that assessment.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-z49GgHt/0/800ec112/XL/i-z49GgHt-XL.jpg)
-
First, here is how it was loaded. Ultimately, this configuration fell under the classification "Tried to be clever".
That made me laugh! But without such cleverness we'd never learn anything.
It's all a compromise and there is only one way to find out what works best for you. You could just do what someone else has found works for them, and that might be just fine, but you'll never know if something could be better unless you try it. I'll make different compromises for different trips and am lucky enough to have different bikes to throw into the mix. I don't always get it right, but can't remember ever getting it drastically wrong, certainly never enough to spoil a trip. The only camping my Mercury does is 1-3 day trips and one of the days is likely to be without luggage, I try and keep the load below 10kg, though as I'm 7kg heavier than you I have less capacity to play with. Any trip longer than a long weekend is likely to be 2-3 weeks, I want more comfort and less compromise, my kit is likely to be 16 -18kg, still mostly on the rear and I'm unlikely to use the Mercury.
-
Yes I'll be interested to see how my touring develops on this bike. It's certainly way more capable of carrying a load than the carbon-tube Trek it replaced, and although that has some nice design features it's a toy by comparison. Since I've seen your reports of touring pub to pub with 160km days, PH, I can guess you're producing a lot more power than I am and hence can handle a bigger load and can also stress the frame a lot more.
While I didn't shrug off the 12kg I was carrying, the Mercury certainly seemed to and I'd be hoping to keep loads near there even if I did add capacity for more volume. The interesting question will be whether I can find routes that allow frequent resupply while steering clear of large towns and the vehicle density that goes with them.
How about touring on gravel with a Mercury?
I've remembered I had wanted to comment on this, having given some thought to it during the tour. The key here was to get the tyre pressures down. Once I'd done that I was really impressed with how the Mercury handled the gravel. There was never a moment when it felt unsuited to it, albeit my experience on that front was still quite small. Let's just say I am looking forward to planning a trip on roads that are mainly gravel, and more so than I had been before this trip.
-
Since I've seen your reports of touring pub to pub with 160km days, PH, I can guess you're producing a lot more power than I am...
That flatters me in a way that the reality doesn't! I'm just very comfortable sat on a bike all day.
-
Brief report on an experience yesterday arising from my cycle enthusiast brother rocking up for a 90-minute spin where he could try out the Mercury. Mike spends most of his riding time on fast group rides with his full-carbon Trek road bike. But for this ride, which would take place on tar and gravel cycle paths local to me, he had brought his long-time touring steed, a Shogun brand rigid MTB that I am guessing is well over 20 years old.
Mike liked the Merc, but the most interesting discovery from this exercise may have been mine. The Shogun was a good bike in its day, built from a butted cro-mo frame in Japanese steel and with a steel unicrown fork. Mike had fitted 26x1.5-in tyres with a road-touring style grooved tread. We rode our own bikes briefly while Mike checked all was well with his Shogun, then swapped. Our inseam lengths are all but identical, and both bikes were equipped with Shimano clipless MTB pedals.
While its derailleurs were old and their cables in need of lubrication, I thought immediately that the Shogun rode really well. It also felt fast, and the drivetrain efficient. We rode a section of the trail I know very well. It includes a steep, bumpy descent followed by a km or so of mainly flat and even more bumpy going, all on tar. The bumps are mainly from where longitudinal cracks in the tar have been patched. I've always felt the Mercury to ride superbly through here, treating he tar almost as though it were smooth and feeling very secure. I was impressed to discover that the Shogun felt great through here too. Steel is real, I was thinking to myself. And, I thought, while the heat-treated steel in the Mercury frame might be better, the Shogun still soaked up the bumps very nicely. We continued on paths that included some gravel and dirt to our turnaround point, where we stopped for a chat and swapped back to our own steeds.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-vSxbvc6/0/075b4d4e/L/i-vSxbvc6-L.jpg)
The contrast was immediate and very palpable. The liveliness in the Merc was apparent even at low speeds, and its effect was exhilarating. I had certainly been ready to climb off the Shogun by then, but had attributed my failing enthusiasm largely to the onerous gearchanging and painful plastic saddle. Suddenly I was newly aware of how comfortable and encouraging the Merc was by comparison. It felt like it was half the weight of the Shogun (real difference may have been under a kilo, with the Shogun having been stripped of ancillaries), rolled much more easily, and had a drivetrain significantly more efficient. It danced where the Shogun had plodded. Mike spoke of the Mercury having elicited in him a sense of ease. Having reflected on my experience over the ride home, I proposed that when I had regained my bike I felt like I had stepped off a very nice little donkey and onto a gazelle.
Of course that hadn't prevented Mike from climbing swiftly past me at a couple of points on the way home. That exciting feel didn't give me more speed directly. However, it had certainly contributed to my putting miles on the Merc over the preceding six months, so that his overtakes had required him to work.
The point is not, of course, that my 3000-pound Rohloff Thorn felt better to ride than a 500-pound MTB built last century and for heavier duty. The point is just the stark difference in feel, unladen, between this workmanlike Japanese frame made from butted cro-mo and Andy B's Mercury design in butted heat-treated cro-mo.
It's a point that may interest people considering a Thorn who are wondering how to evaluate Andy's claims for the Mercury's ride. Could it really feel very different from the mid-price butted cro-mo steel MTB, tourer or road bike that I've had in my garage for years, such a shopper may ask himself. Umm, yes it could. ;)
-
Interesting observations. I wonder how much of the apparent difference was due to the more comfortable saddle and sweetly-shifting Rohloff hub which may be slightly less efficient than a derailleur system in optimum condition but the balance changes when the derailleur system gets used.
Does your chain need adjusting? It looks a little slack in the photo.
-
It's always a pleasure to read you enthusing about your bike, we share some of the same opinions, though I'm a little maybe less sure about the attributes that lead to them.
Unless all other factors are the same it isn't possible to single out an element with any degree of certainty, in this case the glaring difference is the wheels and tyres. I swapped my Raven (Which I liked in an unexcited way) to a custom ti frame, same hubs and attachments, slightly heavier, same riding position, different steering geometry, completely different feel. Was that the frame material, geometry, wheel size, tyres? I have no idea, maybe a combination of them all. I'm not saying one was better, but I far preferred riding the ti bike, just felt more rewarding.
That's the point - if a bike feels fast it is, partly because that feeling is more important than the numbers, and partly because if it feels more rewarding to put the effort in you will. But they have to be radically different bikes to alter the physics, something like 90% of your effort goes into displacing air! We only have that 10% to play with, that's why your brother will pass you on either bike, that's why my Audax time on the Raven wasn't hugely different to on the Mercury...
I don't know why I like riding the Mercury so much, that mix of compliance and stiffness which I think comes from the tube shaping contributes, but I suspect it's mostly about the geometry. Apart from passing some time on a forum, I don't need to know...
-
Its a strength for readers and a fun element of posting a review like this here that others experienced with Thorn can add critical analyses.
There is a story posted here (http://www.habcycles.com/m7.html) from a 1996 magazine in which an Italian maker built seven bicycles to order that were alleged to be identical except for the steel in the frames, which ranged across the Columbus range from straight gauge manganese moly to butted heat-treated cro-mo. The writer couldn't distinguish the two extremes in a blind test.
In another fun story posted here (http://www.bgcycles.com/new-page-1) along similar lines, the testers could distinguish a frame built from expensive heat treated steel pretty easily from one that was not, and in a blind test preferred the one that was not.
Simple logic dictates that the tube material doesn't tell the whole story. If it did, then a frame of 5mm wall thickness tubing that weighed 20kg bare would feel the same as a frame in typical bicycle gauges.
Nevertheless I'm pretty comfident in attributing the liveliness I reappreciated in the Merc to the frame. Obviously it's not just the frame material that generates the feel but also the design. And for all we know, the special skills of contemporary high-end Taiwanese welders.
Yes, other bits also contributed: comfort, geometry, Rohloff slickness, tyre size, the presence and absence of inner tubes, etc. If we can accept that these contributed, I think we've poor grounds for ruling out the frame as a contributor.
PH fun story about the switch to TI. :D JohnR, the chain seems to be wearing unevenly. I'm happy for now with the tension at its tightest point.
-
One factor in steel frame design must be the design loading. I would expect a frame in higher strength steel to give a firmer ride under light loading than a frame in slower strength steel of the same weight. Conversely, the frame of lower strength steel may become too elastic when heavily loaded.
JohnR, the chain seems to be wearing unevenly. I'm happy for now with the tension at its tightest point.
Your chain wear should not yet be perceptible. If the chain tension is uneven when the cranks are rotated then the primary suspect on my list would be that the chainring is slightly off-centre. This can usually be fixed by loosening the chainring bolts, adjusting the chainring position and retightening. It's not unknown, however, for chainrings to be slightly eccentric in which case I would be identifying and marking the tight position and then slightly enlarging the bolt holes to allow more adjustment of the chainring position.
Edit: Inserted missing "not" before "yet".
-
One factor in steel frame design must be the design loading. I would expect a frame in higher strength steel to give a firmer ride under light loading than a frame in slower strength steel of the same weight. Conversely, the frame of lower strength steel may become too elastic when heavily loaded.
I'm sure we've been down this road many times and the answer is always no. As it says in the Bruce Gordon article Moronic linked to above:
"This extra hardness doesn’t help the rider any – it just gives your frame builder something to talk about. But the increased tensile strength allows Tange to reduce the wall thickness, and hence the weight, of the Prestige tubeset without compromising durability or crashworthiness."
EDIT to note that weight saving is a whopping 150g
Alternatively, it also allows a larger diameter tube in a thinner gauge, so a stiffer tube without the weight penalty.
-
Its a strength for readers and a fun element of posting a review like this here that others experienced with Thorn can add critical analyses.
Yes all good fun, though once we stray away from the hard facts it becomes more opinion than analyses ;)
I'd read those two articles before but not for a while, the conclusions are interesting for what they are, but there's still a danger of extrapolating beyond what's demonstrated, testing A-C and concluding A-Z. Bruce Gordon changed a tube away from the usual, we don't know how much diference that would have made, or if the same experiment in a different style of frame would provide the same results. The options are pretty much infinite, that's why no two frame builders agree! Local well established frame builders (Since the 1940's) recommend Reynolds 631 for just about everything, another well respected builder believes Reynolds lowly 520/525 is the best material for touring frames, another has 531 made to special order because they'll tell you there's nothing else like it....
Then there's Thorn's legendry Reynolds sticker from am early Audax bike, I'm not even going to try and guess what was gong on there, but I know a few people who had them and they were apparently the Audax bike to have at the time
-
;D. "It's that 708 seat tube that makes all the difference."
-
I've had confirmation from a recent micro-tour (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14602.0) that my Mercury carries a load with much more aplomb when it is biased to the rear.
For the trip I fitted a Tubus Logo Evo rack, which carries rear panniers an inch or two lower and further rearward than the Tubus Vega I had fitted previously. Essentially the Logo is a Vega with an extra rail welded on each side. The rails add about 200g.
I used Ortlieb Back Rollers, and strapped a mattress and groundsheet to the top of the rack. That allowed me more volume than I had available on my prior tour of South Gippsland, without recourse to front panniers, and I carried the same 12kg weight.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Mg38swc/0/ac0d4633/L/i-Mg38swc-L.jpg)
Yes I was a little stronger for this trip, and the pace was very easy. Nevertheless I was astonished by how much more easily the bike rode when loaded this way. Out of sight, out of mind? I suspect the more relevant difference was much lighter steering from the mid-trail geometry than when the bike was front loaded, which meant it was easier and less stressful to balance when climbing in low gears.
I think it would still be great with front panniers added if I needed more volume. But I would aim to place the least dense items up front, and maximise weight at the rear.
I've also abandoned an idea I had about balancing loads front-rear by running small panniers (eg Ortlieb Sport Rollers) at each end, where I need more volume than Back Rollers can carry alone but not much more. I think now I'd stick with the Back Rollers and load them up, and run the Sport Rollers or similar on the front just half full.
It is an advantage of the Logo rack that you get plenty of heel clearance for large panniers.
-
Absolutely loved reading of your experiences on the Merc, Moronic thank you. Surprisingly little on the twitterweb about this bike.
I have acquired a Mark 3 700c 55L (thanks Ray - I named this bike after you!), upright bars and Rohloff - 2021 model. After years of riding a Boardman Alu hybrid with front suss, this bike came as a bit of a surprise. The steady plodding performance of the Boardy replaced by a slightly nervous, skittishness that was at first a bit of a shock to the system. Like swapping a Hunter for a Racehorse. But over the weeks I have started to get the hang of the lively handling, its definitely a very, very responsive and spritely ride. I have now swapped out the tires and lowered the pressures slightly and that has tamed the front end a wee bit, but it is still a very sporty ride when unloaded.
The Rohloff was a shock too. I found that I was getting some clunky changes at first until I began to 'feel' my way across the planetry gears - just backing off slightly at point of shift and waiting a second (literally) for the gear to engage fully before getting back on the power. That sounds like the old Sturmey style, but it isnt, takes a second, and after a while you really don't notice - it becomes instinctive. Once you have developed the Rohloff riding style, its super slick. Like everyone else says, the whirring noise in 7th is noticeable, but for the other 13 gears the hub runs almost silently (well on my model with low mileage at least). Now, I'm loving the advantages - changing down at junctions, slipping down 10 gears at the top of a climb ready for a descent (no more mad spinning as the derailleur descends and the front cogs drop. Just makes things so much easier. Its a wonderful thing. And maintenance is a complete joy. Compared to the SRAM single its a marvel - gone are the days of endless derraileur adjustments and faffing with shifter barrels - its a dream.
The frame is super comfy too. I had a suss front fork and Thudbuster seat post on my hybrid, but honestly, this gorgeous steel frame has so much give (compliance?), there is hardly any difference over gravel - and that's with the ST touring front fork too. And that means less power lost to the rubber springs and air suss. It seems to handle gravel really well. I'm not contemplating devilish rocky trails on this bike, but its just fine and totally assured when I veer off the broken British tarmac and onto the quiet byways.
I swapped over my B17 Special onto this bike - I have had it and cherished it for over 10 years and that makes a huge difference on a new bike - new suit, same shoes. All I can say is, my Strava segment times are coming down across the board - hills, flats, downhills and offroad. Some of those best times were set on a Surly Pacer audax bike, so it shows how good this bike is. I'm 10 years older and heading towards 60 and the bike still hauls me along at a good brisk rate.
The frame finish is exceptional. The brazes do show, they are not super smoothed like in the old days but they are immmaculate. The lugs are wonderfully crafted - a work of art. The paint is gorgeous in glossy gunmetal grey. Its one hell of a bike.
So, my next question for you Thorn gurus is about the loading. It certainly has all the lugs and eyelets that you need for 'light touring' (Andy's phrase), the 'Bible' says the 'sweet spot' for loading is 25kg distributed 30/70 (ish) front and rear. I have not yet fully loaded up the Merc, that will come in Spring with the Canti Way and then France (Eurovelo 4 in Brittany). 25kg (50lb) seems plenty to me - I still recall lugging a 35lb backback on my DoE Silver trek - that had three days kit and heavy old fashioned stuff in 1979. So getting under 25k with lightweight gear should be no problem (OK so I still have my Saunders Jet Packer but that is a thing of wonder and still mint after 30 years - a keeper). Most bikepacking set ups are way under 25kg, so I can't see an issue (again Thorn underselling?). I use the traditional approach of front and rear panniers (I know, I know, so old school right?).
Absolutely loving the Merc, for me Thorn are the very best despite all the flat-earth posturing they do (I see they will now split the frame for Gates belts!!! - there must be huge angst in Bridgewater over that). I completely trust Andy and Robin - the mechanical TRP Spyke rear disc and front vee brake option that baffled me at first now makes total sense. As does the geometry, long stem and flat bar options. They just get it bang-on. The bike fits like a glove and even for this old dog, its just so comfortable over the long haul - no more aching neck and back.
I'm never going to circumnavigate the globe - I don't have enough life left for that. My trips are a week, two weeks - maybe three at absolute max. My mileage is in 100s not 1000s per tour and a chilled 50 miles per day. I'm definitely a cycle-tourist! I was wondering if any of you Thorn devotees have toured a Merc and what were your conclusions? I really would love to know.
And on a final thing. I ride pretty much solo all the time. Its not necessarily out of choice. I do love the solitude, but sometimes, when I am hanging around waiting for darkness, it would be great to share a beer and some laughs - oh yes and to hug a wheel into the wind!. So jealous of the couples I see touring together - Mrs M will just never be persuaded! What are your thoughts about three weeks of solitude? Is it even a thing? Cycling is a love affair, so that is never going to stop me.
Anyway, if you have made it this far, thanks. Any insights would be greatly appreciated.
And, I love riding this bike. (Did I give you that impression?)
-
That’s a nice write up Steve! I have a Raven Sport Tour which has many similarities with the Merc, bar the wheel size. I certainly recognise the skittish start which then became silky smooth when you adapt. I don’t camp so will not carry more than two panniers part filled and a bar bag at most. I also tour solo which I must prefer as you can meet up with people for chats easily enough. Having complete confidence in the bike helps when riding on your own.
-
I think you are right #geocycle, I have always ridden solo, apart from the odd day ride. So, that's how it will stay I think - cycle at my own pace and do my own thing.
-
And, I love riding this bike. (Did I give you that impression?)
I think that comes across clearly ;D
Glad you're getting on so well with it. Your impressions are broadly in line with my own, I see it very much as a sports tourer, somewhere between a touring bike and an Audax, maybe slightly more towards the latter. That's how I feel about mine anyway, other riders with different bike builds may come to different conclusions. I've used it a few times for short B&B type tours, but mine isn't suitable for a camping load, even with lightweight kit (15-18kg), I'd be at the top end of (or slightly over) the recommended weight limit. That doesn't make it unusable, but it exaggerates those handling characteristics that are a pleasure unloaded and it become less of a relaxing ride. The way to see how it suits you is of course to load it up and give it a go. Look forward to hearing about it.
I sometimes tour in a group, usually a club where the riders know each other, I enjoy the social side and the shared experience, but there are compromises on the riding and the route. Mostly I tour on my own, not often for longer than a couple of weeks, more likely ten days. My solo tours are mostly about the riding, sightseeing from the saddle rather than between the rides. I'm fine with my own company for a couple of weeks, though that's probably enough for me, I'm usually glad to get home. One thing I notice is that people are more comfortable talking to a solo traveler than a group, I'm more likely to have interesting conversations with strangers when alone. We're not all the same (Thank goodness!) I know people who won't ride solo even for a day and others who love their solitude.
-
And, I love riding this bike. (Did I give you that impression?)
I've used it a few times for short B&B type tours, but mine isn't suitable for a camping load, even with lightweight kit (15-18kg), I'd be at the top end of (or slightly over) the recommended weight limit. That doesn't make it unusable, but it exaggerates those handling characteristics that are a pleasure unloaded and it become less of a relaxing ride.
Mr Blance claims 25kg for 'sweet handling' plus 2kg on bar bags and 2 ltres of water. That's for road focused touring, with sealed or good surfaces. But I agree, the lighter the better! Here is his holiness' chart from the 'Bible.'
-
I was wondering if any of you Thorn devotees have toured a Merc and what were your conclusions?
Steve, I bought a new Mercury Mk 3 earlier this year. Ian's review played a significant part in my decision, tho' I had to sell a couple of other bikes to make it happen, one of them a splendid 2013/14 Raven.
In mid-August, I wrote some notes on an overnight journey I made in late June -- here: http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14555.30 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14555.30) This is in the thread, "Rides of 2022", posts around #42.
All very positive :)
-
mine isn't suitable for a camping load, even with lightweight kit (15-18kg), I'd be at the top end of (or slightly over) the recommended weight limit.
Mr Blance claims 25kg for 'sweet handling' plus 2kg on bar bags and 2 ltres of water. That's for road focused touring, with sealed or good surfaces. But I agree, the lighter the better! Here is his holiness' chart from the 'Bible.'
The brochure does make interesting reading, though now you have the bike, opinions are best formed by miles ridden rather than words written.
In case it wasn't clear, I was talking about my bike and my experience. A few Mercury riders have posted their opinions on this forum, they are quite varied, which is what you'd expect, much of it is subjective, even from the designer!
My bike has a suggested 16kg sweet handling luggage load and a 110kg maximum weight limit, by the time I've added clothing, tools, water, bar bag and panniers to my 92kg, there isn't 16kg left to hit that sweet spot, as I said mine isn't suitable for a camping load.
-
Absolutely loved reading of your experiences on the Merc, Moronic thank you. Surprisingly little on the twitterweb about this bike.
<big snip>
And, I love riding this bike. (Did I give you that impression?)
Thanks Steve. Great to hear that you're enjoying the bike so much, and that you're experiencing the review as accurate. I've also enjoyed reading your comments on the bike, which seem to reinforce mine.
Just on the touring front, 25kg sounds like a fair bit to me, and maybe not necessary if you're touring in places where you're never more than a day or two from resupply. I believe Andy B when he says the Merc can handle it, but I don't think he meant to suggest it as a target to aim up to. I'd have thought you could get a fair way with 16kg if you packed judiciously and used lightweight camping gear.
Reiterating what I said on where to put the load, I was simply amazed at how easily the Merc carried 12kg all in rear panniers last time out, as opposed to the same weight largely in front panniers the time before. Suddenly I saw where Andy was coming from in his appreciation of the way the bike could whisk 25kg along if it were a rear biased weight distribution.
-
In mid-August, I wrote some notes on an overnight journey I made in late June -- here: http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14555.30 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14555.30) This is in the thread, "Rides of 2022", posts around #42.
All very positive :)
I have just read your post John and commented on that, thanks for flagging it. Insightful and helpful as ever!