Are bikes custom built in the west better than Thorn bikes?

[Moronic]

Asking for a friend ...

Actually for me. So far I'm completely knocked out by the feel, ride and ease of my new 650b Mercury, and I'm wondering whether it really gets any better.

In other words, whether Andy B's claim that some customers say the Mercury frame is the best they've ever ridden on is about more than the ignorance of those customers.

One of the things that helped me accept it was okay I was spending a big sum on a bike with a steel frame made in Taiwan was this story, by a young US bike builder who writes fabulously well for a bike builder:

https://bikepacking.com/plog/made-in-taiwan/



The story resonated because it made so much sense. Artisan welding, like most high crafts, is achieved only through dedication, and dedication is encouraged by circumstance. Circumstances in Taiwan at present may be more conducive to fostering of this specialist expertise than circumstances elsewhere,

So, given Andy B's well documented touring experience, is it likely that custom frame builders in the UK or other countries such as Australia build superior frames for their touring customers?

My guess is that some might for some customers. My other guess is that Andy's arduous miles and his Taiwanese contractor's skill bring us a product not easily matched at any price.

Am I just naive?

[mickeg]

I can't really say what the answer is, and that probably comes down to how someone defines the word "better" or "best".

I have never ridden a Mercury, am happy with my Sherpa and Nomad Mk II.

I have an average body shape, thus the average mass produced bike frame is designed for my body size and shape and I have no trouble getting a bike to fit me just fine.  If I had an unusually short or long torso for leg length, then I can see where custom would be of value.  And I suspect that if someone had some really unique needs for custom locations for brazed on fittings, then either custom or modification of an off the shelf frame would be needed.   

My titanium bike frame is an off-the-shelf standard size, but the company that made it will also make custom if you have unique or different geometry or desire different fittings.  I assume that the same welders work on both custom and standard sizes, as a welded joint is a welded joint.  Thus, I assume there is no difference in quality from that manufacturer.  But, the price will clearly be different for custom.

One interesting point on my off-the-shelf titanium frame, it has replaceable rear dropouts so you can have through axle or conventional quick release hubs.  And it has a disc brake mount attached with three M6 screws, you can use a post mount or a flat mount disc brake.  Presumably you would never switch from one to the other after you buy your frame, so there probably is no extra added value to have those options after the fact, but that is something you would probably never see on a custom frame because the custom would be designed and built for only the options you wanted.  My point is that an off-the-shelf design for mass production could be built with additional options for customization.

One other thing to consider, I know a gal that was getting a titanium bike custom built for her to use to ride PBP a couple years ago.  The bike did not get finished in time, so she had to borrow a bike instead.

[PH]

That article was an interesting read.  I've lived and worked in Taiwan, twice, first time in the late 80's and again in the late 90's, there's a lot I recognise but some important cultural differences are not really covered.  I know it's a generalisation, but there is a different attitude to work and taking pride in it, if someone's output was sub standard they'd be ashamed at having it pointed out, plus a different attitude to employment, so they probably wouldn't get paid for it either!  In the ten years between my visits, there was a huge shift in the quality and cost of output, it was no accident and required considerable government intervention to keep living costs down and the Taiwanese dollar competitive.  It's such a small country (A lot of which isn't suitable for development) they couldn't continue expanding in volume so switched to higher value products and many of their existing industries were sub contracted to mainland China.
By complete coincidence five of my six bikes are made in Taiwan, I've looked for the best bike for my purposes and that's just the way it went.  Of those Thorn is the only one where it's clearly stated.  Two others from British companies make no mention, one even has a Union Flag sticker!

The best bike is of course the one that suits both you and your use, once you've got that there's not much to be gained other than some frilly bits.  On a custom build you do get to chose all the fittings and finish, though the one-off builder will likely use other peoples designs for things like drop-outs and EBB's rather than having them made for their design.
Off the peg (OTP) bikes do obviously have to be built for an average, so a "Mercury" that was designed to never be ridden by anyone over 60kg might be a bit different to one with a max rider weight of 100kg. It could also be made to exactly match your size, rather than a range. How much better these things make it are debatable and most of that debate is about expectations and preference rather than hard science.
End of the day - if you have the perfect bike it doesn't matter if it cost £500 or £5,000.

[Moronic]

Thanks for the generous responses, and I've learned stuff from each.

Mickeg its interesting you raise the multi-use dropout trend. I'm reminded of a time long ago when I had bought a good hiking pack, which at the time came in three sizes and you bought for the length of your back. A year or so later the same company came out with an adjustable harness. I said to my outdoorsy brother, who had advised me: Might have been nice to have had the adjustable harness. He responded: "No, your harness fits you well enough. The adjustable harness is a cost-cutting exercise. It's heavier, less robust and less securely attatched - but it saves them from making packs in three sizes."

PH, informative comments on the culture in Taiwan. That's where I was headed. In the past I've imagined that the master craftsmen were in the UK or Australia or the US or Europe, and the craftsmen in Taiwan and even Japan could do a workmanlike job but for them it was just a job and they wouldn't understand the finer points or even the need for observing them. The article has made me wonder whether what makes a master craftsman is long exposure to work at high pressure for volume and accuracy, and the artisans of the West no longer have that exposure. There are no bike factories to apprentice in, and the custom builder charging 2000 pounds or more for a frame doesn't get - or need - enough orders to get really sharp.

Mickeg another thought: if you get a Nomad Mk 3 you'll get a splittable rear triangle so that a belt can be fitted. Whether or not you want a belt. Whereas obviously with a custom frame you could usually order somehing that did not use a bolt-up seat stay, if you did not want a belt. For some reason I find it a sad comment on the state of the art that even Thorn prices won't get you a non-split expedition tourer, But then maybe you can't feel the difference.

[Moronic]

The best bike is of course the one that suits both you and your use, once you've got that there's not much to be gained other than some frilly bits.  On a custom build you do get to chose all the fittings and finish, though the one-off builder will likely use other peoples designs for things like drop-outs and EBB's rather than having them made for their design.
Off the peg (OTP) bikes do obviously have to be built for an average, so a "Mercury" that was designed to never be ridden by anyone over 60kg might be a bit different to one with a max rider weight of 100kg. It could also be made to exactly match your size, rather than a range. How much better these things make it are debatable and most of that debate is about expectations and preference rather than hard science.

Yes that's the other side of it. I'm 83kg so likely close to optimum for a big-frame Mercury, assuming its optimal rider weight is more about design than luck. Can a custom builder really create something that rides just like you want it to ride, and taking your weight into account? Obviously they can get the size right, and avoid the need for a stack of spacers under the handlebar stem.

Anyway as you say, "amazing" is hard to beat, whether it cost a lot or a little.

[PH]

Can a custom builder really create something that rides just like you want it to ride, and taking your weight into account?

IMO there's two classes of custom builder -
The first might be better described as a la carte, they have a range of models and they're built to order in your size and finish. 
The other will start with a blank sheet and build an individual design. 
There are builders in the second category who will mix tubes from different sets and manufacturers to get exactly the desired levels of strength and stiffness.  Whether they get it right is of course another matter, they're basing it on their interpretation of what they think, you think, you want! Of course there's a downside, no prototypes, no evolution, no test ride! and a limited re-sale market.  It's a classic case of the output depending on the input, so the more they know the better chance of getting it right.  I could go to a builder and say, I really like X bike but the handling is twitchy and the back end flexes too much out of the saddle,  and they could probably build something the same but with those issues corrected.
Stiffness is largely determined by tube diameter, it's been understood for generations, the formulas are published all over the place and the results are predictable.  Much more recent on steel bike frames is the manipulation of tubes, shaping them to have stiffness in one direction while having more flex in another.  I don't know if this is as predictable. maybe computer modelling has made it more so.  It would certainly be a leap in the dark to have a one off heavily manipulated frame! 
The Mercury hardly has any straightforward tubes! And of course has evolved into the MkIII. Thorn also had Reynolds supply some tubes to a unique specification, another thing not viable for a custom builder.  ​

How much any of it matters, I don't know, I don't need to know, it's partly interesting but mostly irrelevant.

[steve216c]

This conversation reminds me a bit of one I recall from music magazines I used to read in the 80s and early 90s as a wannabe rockstar 

Identical looking Fender guitars could be had on London's Tin Pan Alley (Denmark Street) with discounts of up to 50% if you took the 'Made in Japan' one versus the same looking 'Made in USA' one. And while some of the music magazine I read were convinced the USA ones were built with more passion and heritage that they were clearly the one worth buying, I recall a blind test comparison in one magazine that couldn't find much difference either way except on price.
And they went on to suggest that the Japanese tended to be such perfectionists, that each one would be the same as the last, where the US made ones were more likely to suffer quality inconsistency.
As a business studies student at the same time, we visited a Toshiba factory in Wales. We were looking into the newfangled 'just in time' methods being introduced into the UK from Japan. Our Toshiba host told us an anecdote about component requirements from 3rd party suppliers that required a quality control pass rate of 99.5%. One of his far east suppliers apparently started shipping components with an extra box equating to 0.5% defective parts sorted with each order which all appeared to have been manipulated to be defective. On approaching the component supplier they apologized for the manipulations but insisted their defect rate was less than 0.1% and they were only trying to honor their contractual agreement as stipulated 

I think there is an arrogance to assume that 'Made in country X' can be used to define if something is better or worse than 'made in country Y'. I am sure Fender were concerned about their own reputation when looking for an alternate location to build guitars. And I have no doubt Thorn and other manufactures are selective in who their partner companies are when they have a reputation they wish to keep. Our economies are global and almost nothing manufactured is ever 100% from a single country, but a united nations effort of bits thrown together to fulfill a need.
So if your frame is built in Taiwan, your brakes from Japan, your hub from Germany, headset from Italy and saddle from Brooks of England- and the price and quality are pitched right, does any of this even matter if the bike fits you and your needs?

[Aleman]

I certainly agree with Steve on the guitar front. I have a clone of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul that was once owned by Peter Green and Gary Moore (the original not mine!). This was made in Vietnam by a company called Vintage. The tone of the guitar is exquisite, and between that and the real guitar, you would be unable to tell the difference. This was at the time that Gibson were in trouble with the EPA regarding timber from "Undocumented" sources., they had the option of paying a huge fine, or destroying the timber ... Much of the timber, including partially made bodies and necks ended up in Vientnam, where they were incorporated into Vintage guitars. Vintage were also given the original blueprints of the original humbucker pickups, and when someone (ex of Gibson) heard what Tom Wilkinson was doing, offered him an original Gibson coil winder, to assist in producing those pickups.

Vintage also make a clone of a 1961 Strat, and my guitar tutor went along to a demo where the owner (Thomas Blug) of the real 61 strat played the clone ( £250 ), his original (£2500), and a vintage tweaked ultra special edition ( £5000 ) ... You know what? No one in the audience could tell which was being played, even Blug had a hard time, and didn't nail it down either

My tutor, and somewhat luthier, has said that for sometime now, he has never had a Gibson or Fender guitar that has come direct from the factory that has not required some major sort of fettling before being playable, and yet Vintage guitars made in Vietnam for a fraction of the cost (£250 vs £2500) sound great straight out of the box.

"Made in Japan" used to be derogatory back in the 1960's, now, it's a marker for quality. Someone once asked me about what car to buy, my reply was "If it's someone else's money, like a company car, buy whatever you like. If it's your own money, buy Japanese!"

Before buying our Raven Twin I was looking at having a frame custom built by Bob Jackson, for Rohloff, with similar lugs that are fitted to Thorns ... Would I have been any happier with a custom built £5000+ frame compared to the £1800 Thorn Raven Twin?? I doubt it very much, indeed I had been looking at various options since 2015, including Thorn and Orbit, I bought the Raven last year purely on impulse given the price it was being offered at. I think I would be much more "Precious" about using the custom built, than I ever will be with the Thorn.

[mickeg]

I assume in both the west and in asia that craftsmanship will be comparable when it comes to things like brazing and welding.  Maybe there is something about the culture in a country or region to change that, but I do not have any pre-determined opinions that someone from one of those areas would be better or worse.  I am in USA. 

I do not think a splitable chainstay would be weaker unless there was something about the design that specifically made it weaker.

Given a choice for a Rohloff bike, I would prefer chain over belt.  I use different gearing by changing chainring  size and number of chain links, around home with a bike that is usually close to unladen I use a 44T chainring.  But touring with a heavy load or on mountain bike trails, the 36T gives me lower gearing.  Belt would complicate changing the range of gearing.

After I wrote my previous post where I was suggesting that since I can easily fit most off the shelf bikes, thus no need for custom, I did think of one other possible reason for custom.

It has been my observation that most manufacturers will make a bike frame design, and every size of that frame will have the same tubes.  Same diameter, same wall thickness.  Thus a 50 kg rider will get a frame with the same tubes as a 100 kg rider.  And that 100 kg rider might have much longer tubes too.  For that reason I could see an unusually large or unusually small person benefiting from a custom bike to get lighter or heavier tubing.  If I recall correctly, Thorn used a couple different sizes of tubing for the Nomad Mk II for smallest frames and biggest frames.  But other manufacturers, I have not seen that.

Also, why is it that most manufactures will have the same chainstay lengths on every bike size for a particular model.  If I recall correctly Thorn varied chainstay lengths for size, but a lot of bike manufacturers do not.  This made me curious, so I looked at the sales brochure for my Nomad Mk II, there were five different chainstay lengths.

So, in summary I think if you are close to the average size, then custom is unlikely to be a benefit.  But if you are unusually large or small, your bike might have been designed for a different size person, but lengthened or shrunk for you, which might not give you the best product.  I would not be surprised if the really big frame sizes from some manufacturers handle like a wet noodle when loaded with touring equipment and supplies.

[PH]

Also, why is it that most manufactures will have the same chainstay lengths on every bike size for a particular model.  If I recall correctly Thorn varied chainstay lengths for size, but a lot of bike manufacturers do not.  This made me curious, so I looked at the sales brochure for my Nomad Mk II, there were five different chainstay lengths.

The chainstay length doesn't have any effect on rider fit, it's a consequence of other factors - Wheel and maximum tyre size, mudguard clearance, pannier clearance (This may be relevant as a rider with longer cranks and bigger feet would want the panniers further back). 
It's one of those things where you have to join the dots - what is useful for different size riders is a change in BB drop and a lower BB results in a longer chainstay to put the wheel in the same place.  Do the Nomad's differing chainstays have a correspondingly different BB height?

[mickeg]

Also, why is it that most manufactures will have the same chainstay lengths on every bike size for a particular model.  If I recall correctly Thorn varied chainstay lengths for size, but a lot of bike manufacturers do not.  This made me curious, so I looked at the sales brochure for my Nomad Mk II, there were five different chainstay lengths.

The chainstay length doesn't have any effect on rider fit, it's a consequence of other factors - Wheel and maximum tyre size, mudguard clearance, pannier clearance (This may be relevant as a rider with longer cranks and bigger feet would want the panniers further back). 
It's one of those things where you have to join the dots - what is useful for different size riders is a change in BB drop and a lower BB results in a longer chainstay to put the wheel in the same place.  Do the Nomad's differing chainstays have a correspondingly different BB height?

So, you are suggesting that it makes sense for a small frame size to reduce the scale only on the front part of the bike but not on the back.  And same with the larger size frame, to only change the scale on the front?  That makes no sense to me.

Bottom bracket height?  That is a ground clearance issue.  Yeah, a 165mm crank on a smaller frame is shorter than a 175mm crank arm on a larger frame, but I do not think that was your issue.

[Moronic]

Here's a nicely crafted case of building to size:

https://cyclingtips.com/2018/08/bikes-of-the-bunch-llewellyn-custom-bicycles-lugged-colossus/



A renowned Australian builder makes a bike for a big bloke that uses huge main tube diameters and lugged construction, with the lugs fillet brazed rather than cast and the tubes silver-brazed into them at low temperature.

Comments from the purchaser in the ride experience sound luke-warm to my ear, but that doesn't mean it's not fabulous.

Looked at the other way: a huge amount of work has gone into ensuring that the joining process heats the tubing as little as possible. How subtle is the felt experience of all this care?

[PH]

So, you are suggesting that it makes sense for a small frame size to reduce the scale only on the front part of the bike but not on the back.  And same with the larger size frame, to only change the scale on the front?  That makes no sense to me.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Why would you change it? It's behind the rider, it has no effect on the way they fit the bike, what difference do you think it makes? Every time you adjust your EBB you change the chainstay length (It's measured from the centre of the bottom bracket to the centre of the rear wheel axle) do you notice? it's the length it is because that's the length it needs to be, for the reasons given earlier.
A shorter chainstay will slightly quicken a bikes handling, but that's neither dependant on size or desirable on an touring bike.

[JohnR]

It's an interesting subject. I see two levels of customisation. Thorn frames and forks are custom made in batches and a range of sizes to Thorn specifications and then assembled to suit the customer sizes and needs. Individual custom made would be for someone with either unusual body geometry, frame geometry requirements or weight or wanting non-standard drive-train components (eg how many frames are specifically designed for a Rohloff hub gear). In my own case I doubt if the all-up weight (bike + rider + baggage) of my Mercury will ever exceed 100kg (so far never over 90kg) so a lighter frame might be more comfortable. However, I suspect any difference would be less than that due to, for example, tyre choice. A key factor in me getting a Mercury was that it was made for the Rohloff gears.

[mickeg]

So, you are suggesting that it makes sense for a small frame size to reduce the scale only on the front part of the bike but not on the back.  And same with the larger size frame, to only change the scale on the front?  That makes no sense to me.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Why would you change it? It's behind the rider, it has no effect on the way they fit the bike, what difference do you think it makes? Every time you adjust your EBB you change the chainstay length (It's measured from the centre of the bottom bracket to the centre of the rear wheel axle) do you notice? it's the length it is because that's the length it needs to be, for the reasons given earlier.
A shorter chainstay will slightly quicken a bikes handling, but that's neither dependant on size or desirable on an touring bike.

Please do not conclude that my non-response is concurrence with your opinions, we obviously disagree on the importance of bicycle geometry and whether or not one-size-fits-all design is appropriate.