Nomad V Sterling

[Inbred]

I currently have a Thorn Nomad, but I have the opportunity to buy a Thorn Sterling.
I was wondering how they compare with each other?
Is the Sterling significantly lighter/more agile?
I'm not planning any mega expeditions. Most of my riding is on paths and trails, with fairly light loads (Although, I'm not exactly lightweight myself).
On paper at least, the Sterling seems to make more sense.
I'd love to have both, but I can't really justify (Or afford), that.
Any advice welcome.
Thank you :-)

[geocycle]

I've not ridden a sterling but my understanding is that it is more of an mtb equivalent rather than the nomad which is an expedition tourer.  Both will be adaptable to different tasks but start from a different point.

[Danneaux]

Hi In'!

The Forum archives are your friend. From the main window, just click on Search and enter "Thorn Sterling" (no quotes) as your search term. Seven pages of results spool up, among them owner impressions in a variety of uses.

I have skimmed the most relevant for you from the first two pages alone, hoping they might help in your decision:
Difference between Sterling and Nomad:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11570.0
My Sterling (owner impressions):
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=10903.0
Touring with a Sterling:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3302.0
Introducing the Thorn Sterling:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=1481.0
Why was the Sterling discontinued?:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11435.0
Is the Sterling discontinued (owner impressions):
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3748.msg16067#msg16067
Ron's Sterling:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2006.0
Sterling Milestone

Best,

Dan. (...who wishes you good luck; 'can't have too many bikes  )

[Danneaux]

From the 7 Oct 2009 Internet Archives capture of Issue 09 - Aug 2009 Thorn Sterling brochure: http://web.archive.org/web/20091007191718/http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/Thorn_Sterling_lowres.pdf
It is still available to me and should be for you, but the Wayback Machine sometimes goes down, so I will reproduce designer Andy Blance's own words verbatim from page 7, telling what the Sterling is and is not so you can compare it to your present Nomad:

WHAT THE STERLING IS.
The Sterling is an improvement on our original Rohloff equipped MTBs...the “Enduro” and the “Catalyst”. The frame is lighter, the cable routingis better, there is even more clearance for UK mud (andclearance for tyres at least 2.4” wide!) The luggagecarrying provision is improved, a standard BlackburnMtn. carrier can be used with a rear disc brake and I havespecified stainless steel for all the guides and fittings. Fiona and I have moved across the kit from our RavenEnduros onto Sterling frames to test them, I have no intention of moving it back...the ride is superb and a
definite improvement! The Enduro climbed well...the Sterling is better. The Enduro descended superbly...theSterling is better. I was expecting (and prepared for) a slight loss of nimbleness on singletrack...but no, the Sterling is even easier to thread through the trails. In spite of all these improvements and the huge losses of the Pound against the Euro (making the Rohloff hub much
more expensive) the 2009 Sterling is slightly less expensive than the 2007 Enduro.

The Sterling is designed to excel in many different spheres and disciplines.

When the Sterling is being used to explore challenging off road routes, at home (the UK) and abroad, it is absolutely perfect and peerless and very economical to run! You
could accurately describe it as it as a “long distance, lightweight touring, hard tail MTB”...but as the Sterling has a an exquisite, top quality seamless, cold drawn, double butted and heat treated Cro-Mo steel frame
…we’d prefer to call it...
“a Rohloff Equipped, Action-touring, Lightweight, Wilderness-Optimised, Resilient-tail, Long Distance, MTB”… that’s a bit of a mouthful...but when abbreviated to“REAL WORLD MTB” it sounds much better!

The Sterling can be used fully and enthusiastically, as an endurance-racing cross country MTB...riding as quickly as your skill levels and the terrain will allow. Unlike many of today’s bikes, the Sterling will also carry a small amount of luggage, whilst travelling at such pace. Experience has shown that (especially over distance and even more especially in the event of a crash!) it is better
not to carry any more than you need to on your back (just stick to water, money, mint cake and keys)...the sandwiches, waterproofs, fleece, first aid kit, space blanket and (especially) tools, are best carried in a small bag, securely attached to the top of a “Blackburn Mtn. rack”

The Sterling will also carry up to 15Kg over severe terrain, if required to do so, as long as you make allowances for such terrain by “riding light” and “floating” over bumps. This means that ultra-lightweight, alpine cycle-camping and “Polaris” events are well within the Sterling’s remit. And, as it will do this, you can be absolutely certain that it will allow the “slightly overweight” to pootle around on bridleways and such like, possibly carrying a camera and tripod and whilst enjoying the simplicity and reliability of Rohloff, with the comfort of a proper suspension fork.

As mentioned earlier, I have designed a steel, suspension replacing fork, (with all the fittings required for touring) for the Sterling. Such a fork allows the bike to be used in situations where suspension is not required...holidays which are too long for the service interval for the suspension fork or for day to day use...why wear out your suspension forks on journeys where they are a hindrance rather than a help?

With Mt.-Tura forks fitted, the Sterling can lead a double life as a lightweight adventure touring bike, or as an all-year, all-weather commuting day to day bike. (See page 14)

WHAT THE STERLING IS N0T.
The Sterling is not designed to be used with forks with more than 100mm travel...the use of forks with more than 100mm travel is expressly forbidden and could result in sudden frame failure,
with the consequent risk of serious injury or death.

The Sterling is not designed for “taking big air” or for large drop-offs.

The Sterling is not designed to withstand heavy landings, especially repeated heavy landings, from poorly executed wheelies. (I’d hate to ride long distances on the bike that was!)

The largest size Sterling is not designed to be ridden by cyclists taller than 6’ 4” (1930mm) . The Sterling is made from fairly lightweight tubing and, being an off road machine, which is expected to have to soak up some punishment, it is therefore not suitable, as an MTB, for heavyweight riders. Maximum rider weight with full (15Kg) luggage carrying capacity is 13.5 stone (189lbs or 86Kg) Maximum rider weight with 2kg of luggage is 15 stone (210lbs or 95Kg) Whilst the Sterling makes a superb bike for selfsupported, cross-country, endurance-racing, I don’t consider that it could ever be totally competitive in XC racing...unless the conditions were really, incredibly, seriously muddy...but if you race to “take part” then it will do the job very nicely indeed!

If you are in with a chance of winning an XC race, somebody will surely be footing the bill for your kit and you won’t be interested in the economical nature and potentially long service life of the Sterling!

The Sterling is multi-functional...but even it can’t do everything and, even some of the things it can do, can be done in a superior fashion by one of our other bikes.

If you don’t intend to use the Sterling’s capacity for disc brakes, or it’s capability of using a suspension fork and if you also never plan to use the Sterling’s ability to swallow really fat tyres, then you would find the Thorn Raven Sport Tour a far superior machine than a V brake Sterling, with rigid forks running on 1.75” tyres.

If you don’t intend to use discs or suspension but would like to use fat tyres and you also wish to carry quantities of luggage, you would be much better off looking at our Raven Tour or at our
Nomad S+S.

If you want to carry vast amounts of luggage over whatever terrain presents itself, I believe that there is only one bike in the world which can do this properly, you should look at our (very expensive) eXXp (see pages 16 and 17) and try and find the money for one from somewhere.

Best,

Dan.

[lewis noble]

Hello In'

I had meant to reply earlier, but I had IT type problems and misunderstandings . . . .

I rode a Ripio for several years, a derailleur version of the Rohloff Catalyst and Sterling, and I think very similar to them in terms of purpose, frame etc. Ripio had disc brake fittings though I uysed rim brakes.

I loved the Ripio, and rode it a lot, excellent, predictable and stable on trails and poor surfaces.  Never had a better bike for that.  I had a Thorn rack on it.  I lightened it up by fitting 1.6 tyres and DT Swiss rims, lighter chainset etc., and rode it on a London to Paris charity ride - fine on that, comfortable and totally reliable, but on the heavy side for that sort of event.  I eventually spent more and more time on road riding, and swapped all the components onto a Sherpa frame, saved about 4 kg and better posture for longer rides, but I still miss the Ripio when I see people going round trails and tracks.

I think the same would be said of the Sterling, versatile bike, and probably more suitiable than the Nomad for general riding.

Good luck.

Lewis

[PH]

I eventually spent more and more time on road riding, and swapped all the components onto a Sherpa frame, saved about 4 kg

To clarify - are you saying the frame set was 4kg lighter
Did it have suspension forks? I guess that would account for a big chunk of it. The difference between the heaviest frame I've ever owned and the lightest is less than half of that, and the Sherpa/Raven isn't the lightest.
I know it's easy to obsess about weight, it's a convenient measure, but IMO it's the effect of weight that makes the difference and that's dependent of what and where rather than the grams.  My Mercury is around 1kg lighter than my full on tourer, but if I added weight to even them up, the Merc would still ride like the lighter bike it is.

[lewis noble]

Me again . . . The Ripio I bought, in around 2008 or 9, was the last To pip Thorn had, and I bought it built up from SJSC with pretty basic componentry - and so sold at a price I could afford. With Thorn Expedition rack, 2" Dureme tyres, guards and fittings, it weighed around 15.5 kg if I remember rightly. I fitted a different chainset (to get lower gears), with external bearings, and lighter wheels and tyres in the time I owned it.  Wheels transformed the feel of the bike. My Ripio had a Mt Tura fork, good, but quite heavy, this not as heavy as most sus forks. The components were swapped over to an S (sbort) Sherpa frame, with lightweight 853 fork, and that bike weighs in at around 12.5 kg. Also has lighter rack.

I find the Sherpa more comfortable as the top tube is shorter , and the basic frame is a little lighter.

So a variety of factors (and costs!) contributed to the lighter weight. As I say above, the DT Swiss rims and 1.6 Supremes transformed the Ripio (I was doing less and less trail type riding) and are still running true on the Sherpa.

The Ripio frame and fork went to A dy in Bulgaria.

Hope this helps. I reckon the Ripio / Catalyst / Sterling frames were great, shame they never caught on.

Lewis

[PH]

Me again . . . The Ripio I bought, in around 2008 or 9, was the last To pip Thorn had, and I bought it built up from SJSC with pretty basic componentry - and so sold at a price I could afford. With Thorn Expedition rack, 2" Dureme tyres, guards and fittings, it weighed around 15.5 kg

Thanks for clarifying Lewis, when you wrote "swapped all the components onto a Sherpa frame, saved about 4 kg" I took it to mean the frame swap saved that and couldn't get my head round how heavy it must have been!