Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Non-Thorn Related => Topic started by: flocsy on July 02, 2023, 10:44:44 am
-
Hi,
I am planning to buy a second hand touring bike, possibly Thorn, but not 100% sure yet. I live in Israel, so 95% of my tours I will need to pack the bike to fly somewhere.
So I am thinking that maybe an S&S coupled bike will be a good idea. I'd like to hear from people who already flew with S&S bike (and probably also with a regular bike). How much does it ease the preparations?
Anyone who uses soft S&S bag? Is it something you can pack and attach to your panniers during a 2-3 weeks long tour? I guess that is out of question with a hard case, that would need to be stored somewhere (and even then would only be useful if I return back to the same town at the end of the trip)
Does it matter for the packing if the bike has derailleur or hub gears?
Or should I just buy a regular bike and search for a bike shop in the destination a day before I fly back and acquire an empty bike box?
BTW anyone heard any reasoning why Thorn stopped producing S&S coupled bikes? Does it mean they discovered that there's some problem with them?
-
Thorn stopped producing the Nomad with S&S couplers because so few customers had requested one. There is nothing wrong with the technology itself – S&S couplers are very respected – and you can always pay a specialist framebuilder to install S&S couplers in a steel frame you already bought.
That said, S&S couplers might not be worth the bother even if you fly a lot. A lot of airlines these days offer low fees for bringing a bike. And the problem with S&S couplers was usually that people would have a dedicated suitcase for the bike, and then they would have to find somewhere to store it during their tour. If you fly with just a plain cardboard bike box, you can just throw the box away upon arrival, and get a new cardboard from a local bike shop before your next flight.
Does it matter for the packing if the bike has derailleur or hub gears?
Bent derailleur hangers are the number-one woe when flying with a bike. You generally need to protect the derailleur hanger with its own cocoon of cardboard. Of course, you can avoid the bother entirely by using a hub gear.
-
I have never flown with a normal bike in a big bike box. Have only flown with a bike in an S&S Backpack (soft) case. Have flown with my Thorn Nomad Mk II and with a folding bike.
I live in USA, airlines have been rather hostile to bicycle travelers with high fees. But, about four years ago, some but not all USA airlines dropped their oversize fees for bicycles. Prior to that S&S couplers were more popular than now. Fortunately, through savings on oversize fees and shipping costs, I managed to recover my costs for the couplers and the case before the fees were dropped.
I wrote up a lengthy post on unpacking my S&S bike a few years ago, that thread may answer a number of your questions, it is here:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13407.0
If I travel by airplane in the future, will I continue to use the S&S case instead of packing a bike in a bigger case? Since there no longer are oversize fees for a bike on the airline I usually fly, I am not saving any money to do so. But I probably will continue to use the S&S case because I can fit both of my checked bags in the trunk of a Prius, most taxi cabs in my community use a Prius. Getting a big bike box to and from an airport is not convenient if it will not fit in a taxi. The downside of the S&S couplers is that I have to completely disassemble the bike to pack it, and completely assemble it where I arrive. That is an hour and a half to two hours at each end. But, I built up teh bike from parts, thus I am comfortable doing that. If you are not mechanically inclined, that could be a more daunting task.
Can you carry the S&S Backpack case on the bike for a couple weeks? It would not be convenient. My tours have started and finished at the same location. The four side panels are approximately 30 inches (~75 to 80 cm) by 10 inches (~ 25cm), they are flexible but quite stiff and probably should be handled flat. The rest of the bag is a lot of stiff fabric but it probably can be rolled up or folded to a much smaller package. Maybe if you contacted the S&S company and aske them how big the package is if you buy a new S&S Backpack case, that package size will tell you how compact they make it for shipping. I bought mine a decade ago, I do not recall packed size.
I always suggest that derailleurs be removed from a bike before shipping. A steel frame with the derailleur hanger is usually robust and not a problem, but many if not most bikes now have a separate derailleur hanger that is less robust and easily bent out of alignment. Replaceable hangers are also considered a sacrificial component that can break instead of damaging the frame. On my titanium bike, I carry a spare derailleur hanger when on a bike tour. Hangers are brand and model specific.
I think a derailleur system might be a bit easier to pack in an S&S case, when I have packed my folding bike in that case I removed the cassette and packed that separately. A Rohloff hub has a big wide shell and that makes the spoked part of the wheel thicker, more volume is consumed. But as you can see in the photos to that other link, I have done it.
Wheel size, it is a lot easier to pack a 26 inch wheel in a S&S case than a 700c wheel.
Many of my friends will pay a bike shop to pack their bike at the end of a trip. A lot of people go to a bike shop to get a bike box at the end of a trip and pack it themselves. But you are betting that they will have a spare box that is big enough. Several years ago I went to a local bike shop, they did not have any spare boxes. They asked my bike size, said they would call me when they got a box for me. A couple weeks later they called, I drove over there and got the box. (I had a Land Rover, so I could carry a full size box at that time.) And, about a week before my trip I started to pack up one of my full size bikes that did not have couplers, and the box was too small. Made a few calls to other bike shops, and quickly gave up. For that trip, instead I brought my folding bike in my S&S case, I did not plan to do that but that was the simplest solution. I have heard of people using several boxes and taping them together to fit their bike. That is another advantage of my S&S couplers, I know I can pack that bike into the case, procuring a box is one less thing to worry about.
International travel, you almost have to have the bike on the airplane with you, otherwise customs people expect that a shipped bike is an import, which may involve customs. So, that makes packing a bike for air travel more critical. I know several people that have done a lot of bike touring, but have never taken a bike tour outside of USA for that reason.
There is nothing wrong with S&S couplers, as I noted above they are less popular now that some of the big USA airlines have dropped their oversize fees for bikes. In 2016 before they dropped the fees, I brought my bike to Iceland, flew Delta Airlines from USA, I saved $300 (USD) by not having an oversized case for the out and back flights. And in 2016, that much money went a lot further than inflated dollars do now. At that kind of price, you can recover your costs for S&S couplers and the case with very few flights. But now, they no longer charge for oversize boxes if they contain a bike.
Surly used to sell some models with S&S couplers, but I believe that they no longer do so simply because it is less popular in USA now.
Outside of USA, if S&S couplers are less popular now than they used to be, I do not know the reason. I think that aluminum frames can't be fitted with S&S couplers, thus some brands simply can't use them. And I think that more and more companies are switching to aluminum and away from steel. I can have them added to my titanium (derailleur) bike, but it would be quite expensive, so I am not doing that. Instead I just won't fly with that bike.
If you are using panniers, I think S&S couplers are the best option for couplers. I think that one of the tandem bike companies has created another coupler system but I am unaware of any major bike companies that use it. Ritchey for several years has made a Break Away bike. That is a coupled system, but I think the bike is less robust. I have a Ritchey Break Away bike too (mine is badged as a Raleigh) but I would not recommend putting a heavy luggage load on a bike with the Break Away system. I however met a couple in Iceland that were traveling using bikepacking gear, no racks, and they had Ritchey Break Away bikes. But they were staying on pavement and were packed extremely light, where I was also traveling on 4X4 vehicle roads with my Thorn.
I hope I answered your questions, I spent much more time writing this than I planned. A few more notes, below.
No matter how you travel, you probably will benefit from having a luggage scale along. One overweight piece of luggage on one trip can pay for many luggage scales.
One more bit of trivia, if you are camping and flying, airline security occasionally want to see your camp stove. The two times when security has wanted to see mine, they said if they could smell fuel, they would confiscate it. I have not lost a stove, but making a liquid fuel stove and bottle odor free is complicated enough that now I only fly with butane types stoves. More at:
https://www.msrgear.com/blog/flying-with-a-camping-stove/
-
One more thing on S&S couplers. Every bike is a bit different, so how I packed my bike is likely not how you would pack yours. There is a lot of trial and error in trying to figure out how to pack the bike into the case so that it actually fits. After I did that the third time, I decided I needed better documentation. So, when I unpacked the bike, I took photos as I removed the parts, thus I could see what went in the case in what order and how it was oriented.
And that is a series of photos that I can put on my phone, along with notes for the next time I need to do that.
Trying to build a bike with a tiny little multi tool is a pain in the rear, bringing a few shop sized tools can make the process go much easier.
-
Thanks for the long reply!
To me it sounds like there is 1 big advantage if you have S&S coupling plus the bag: you don't have to waste time and nerves on finding a box for flying back home.
On the other hand maybe I should concentrate on the other (let's be realistic: way more important) parameters of the bike. Especially that I am looking for a used bike, which is harder to find (I mean one that really fits, especially having to do it online). And then try to be happy with whatever I found.
I'll ask another question: I am looking for a bike with flat bar (maybe butterfly, but certainly not drop bar), probably 26" wheels, but a bit flexible about that, and I guess that the question whether derailleur vs hub gears will be decided by the price. I've seen some rohloff bikes being sold below 800 GBP, but some sellers are asking for more than double that.
My tours will be in Europe (I like to watch world tour videos on YouTube, so the dream is there, but I'm not sure if I'll ever realize that dream, and if I'll do I'm pretty sure I'll know way more by then what bike I'll need for that, so "worst case" I'll buy another one and sell whatever I had) and I'd like to be able to get to not too hard core off-roads as well.
What I am not sure is how much it should bother me if I find a Thorn Sherpa or Nomad/Mercury or Club Tour and what are the real differences. If I understand correctly (but I'm here to learn!) then Nomad and Mercury are more or less the same with either derailleur or Rohloff hub. Am I mistaken? But I'm not sure what are the differences between Nomad and Sherpa because Sherpa is not included in the comparisons in the brochure.
-
I am looking for a bike with flat bar (maybe butterfly, but certainly not drop bar), probably 26" wheels
26" wheels are quickly becoming obsolete, because the industry has moved on to the sizes 27.5"/650B and 700c. Companies like Schwalbe have already stopped offering some of their quality tires in 26", and there are parts of the world where you won't find a decent 26" replacement unless you special-order it and wait for it to arrive by post. Thorn recommended 26" wheels for a long time, but the world has really changed in the last decade, and their advice is no longer reliable.
But I'm not sure what are the differences between Nomad and Sherpa because Sherpa is not included in the comparisons in the brochure.
The Nomad is a go-anywhere expedition touring bike with very large tire clearance, capable of cycling Alaska–Ushuaia or across Africa along offroad routes. If you plan to only cycle in Europe, the Nomad is perhaps more expensive and heavier than you need. The Nomad frame will, however, fit 650B tires and supports disc brakes, so it will serve a rider for many years into the future.
The Sherpa is a lighter derailleur-equipped (no Rohloff) bicycle that only supports 26" wheels and rim brakes. Both technologies are increasingly seen as obsolete, and quality replacement rim-brake pads and rims are special-order-only in more and more countries. The Sherpa also won't fit tires wider than 1.75" with fenders, and these days a wider tire is more fashionable for touring that will involve some chunky gravel. My ex-wife has a Sherpa (I have a Nomad) and even though she does mainly only commuting these days, she frequently complaints that her bike feels antiquated in this modern world.
-
My Nomad is the Mk II, which was available with S&S couplers as an option. That version of the Nomad in my size was rated for a capacity of 60 kg of luggage weight not counting the weight of the rider. That is a massive amount. In the first photo, I have over two weeks of food on my Nomad and I do not think I had the 60 kg limit.
Before I built up the Nomad Mk II, I bought a used Sherpa frame and fork, built that up in 2010. That bike was rated for 30 or 35 kg of luggage capacity not counting the weight of the rider. I think I may have exceeded that a few times. That is not S&S and is derailleur. Very good bike, solid and can carry a load well. Second photo.
In other words, the Nomad Mk II is capable of carrying roughly twice the luggage load that the Sherpa was. Both are 26 inch.
For touring continental Europe, a Sherpa would certainly work, as you would not be in far off remote places where the capacity to carry a lot of food is needed. But finding a used Sherpa with S&S couplers is very unlikely. I saw a used one on Ebay with couplers about four years ago, I remember that because it was close to my size and I suspected I could get it for a very low price. I chose not to bid, but it sold for very cheap.
If I was going to fly to continental Europe or the UK, I would probably take my S&S bike, but realistically my Sherpa would be a better bike for that trip because it is lighter.
I have a third touring bike to, I consider it my light touring bike, it has a titanium frame and has 700c wheels. Third photo. This would really be the best bike I have for a Europe trip where I am almost always on pavement, but it lacks the S&S couplings, so I would probably not take this one.
One other option would be to find a good quality folding bike that can handle the touring load. I do not have a recommendation for brand or model, I have no clue what is available in your part of the world. There are folders that can easily go into an airline size case that take 20 inch wheels that would be more than adequate to tour on.
-
BTW anyone heard any reasoning why Thorn stopped producing S&S coupled bikes? Does it mean they discovered that there's some problem with them?
Thorn stopped producing the Nomad with S&S couplers because so few customers had requested one. There is nothing wrong with the technology itself – S&S couplers are very respected – and you can always pay a specialist framebuilder to install S&S couplers in a steel frame you already bought.
S&S couplers are only available for specific tube sizes, so WorldTourer is correct that there wasn't the demand, but what demand there was dictated the design of all Nomad frames. Also correct that they can be retrofitted, but not to all frames, you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.
-
What I am not sure is how much it should bother me if I find a Thorn Sherpa or Nomad/Mercury or Club Tour and what are the real differences. If I understand correctly (but I'm here to learn!) then Nomad and Mercury are more or less the same with either derailleur or Rohloff hub. Am I mistaken? But I'm not sure what are the differences between Nomad and Sherpa because Sherpa is not included in the comparisons in the brochure.
We have to take some care when discussing Nomads, they've changed considerably over the models and not all comments will apply to all. The current version is possibly a bit less expedition grade than it's predecessor, I think it's almost come full circle, the original derailleur model was the same, so over the years it seems to have become more heavy duty and then back again, that it replaces the Raven and Sherpa as well as the previous Nomad seems to confirm this.
What we're talking about though are subtle differences, if you take any one of Thorn's 26" wheel tourers, it'll be capable of what another would be, just a bit better or worse in some scenarios than other. It didn't surprise me that Thorn rationalised their range.
There's more difference between these and the Mercury and Club Tour, both of those are primarily intended as on road tourers, the Mercury further towards the Audax/Sports end of the touring spectrum.
If you have all of those bikes on your shortlist, by virtue of them all being Thorns, then I'd politely suggest some more research to narrow down what you want from a bike. If for example you decided a Club Tour was the bike for you, then a similar bike from a different manufacturer would be a better option than a different model Thorn.
Do you have a bike now? What is it and how does it get used? There are some great touring bikes around, there's also plenty of people having great tours on much lesser bikes. The requirements for a good touring bike are that it's reliable and comfortable, there's an almost endless list of stuff we could add to that, just don't fall into the trap of thinking it's essential.
Good luck
-
Page 23 of the Thorn bible http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf has a comparison matrix and suggested loading. A bike that's built for a heavy load is likely to give a harsher ride when lighly loaded although one factor that isn't mentioned in that summary is the weight of the rider. The individual brochures, however, do mention this aspect by quoting a rider + luggage weight so a 70kg rider could potentially put up to 50kg on a Mercury as the combined limit is 120kg (110kg if using an 853 fork).
-
...
S&S couplers ..., you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.
I as unaware of this. WhY?
-
The current version is possibly a bit less expedition grade than it's predecessor.
I am curious why you think this. The Nomad Mk3 steel frame itself (which is all I bought, since my bike is my own custom build) is as strong and reliable as anything, so I assume you feel the difference between the Mk2 and the Mk3 lies in the parts that Thorn selects?
I will say that I was surprised – when I asked Thorn to detail a Nomad Mk3 build for a friend considering a purchase – that Thorn intended to install Schwalbe Almotion tires. Those are 2.15" and a nice ride on both asphalt and gravel, but they are comparatively flimsy compared to e.g. the Mondial, a real “expedition-grade” tire.
-
...
S&S couplers ..., you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.
I as unaware of this. WhY?
If* I've understood it correctly, not offering the S&S option meant not having to use tubing in the diameters required.
* The if is there to cover myself if I've misunderstood ;)
-
One other option would be to find a good quality folding bike that can handle the touring load. I do not have a recommendation for brand or model, I have no clue what is available in your part of the world. There are folders that can easily go into an airline size case that take 20 inch wheels that would be more than adequate to tour on.
I don't do air travel, but I do use a folding bike when I need to use other transport (trains, coaches, buses, cars, ferries).
When it is just a matter of one rail trip out and another back without train changes I sometimes use my full size tourer (Raven Tour, 26" wheels, Rohloff).
Otherwise I prefer using a modified Brompton 16" folder with a Rohloff hub gear and a Rohloff-specific rear triangle with integrated tubular steel rear rack (made by Kinetics). This will take about 80 litres of luggage if really necessary, but if possible I try and take much less, for example doing without cooking equipment if camping.
The riding performance is of course not so good as the fat-tyre Raven Tour, the small wheels and thin tyres aren't really suitable off decent tarmac surfaces and I reckon on a 5-10% penalty on average speed/mileage. The Rohloff and front luggage (keeps the front wheel down) means that on mountain roads I can climb anything that I can do with the Raven Tour, I just have to be more careful on long descents as the small wheel rims heat up more.
But handling the bike is much easier in transport. I have a nylon bag that folds up small enough to carry on the bike, this hides the fact that it is a bike and has let me take it in transport or other places where bikes are not normally allowed (urban buses, some ferries, some high speed trains).
A recent example was a hire car/walking holiday in Normandy last month with my wife. I took a Brompton, which fitted easily in the boot of the (small) car and used it for a 40 km half-day while my wife went shopping in the nearest town.
Something with 20" wheels (maybe one of the Bike Friday range or an Airnimal ?) would probably be better than the Brompton for touring, but not quite so easy to handle during transport.
At one time I had a 20" wheel Moulton APB. This was an excellent load platform and with the slightly wider tyres and full suspension it worked better than the Brompton on bad road surfaces.
But it required dismantling into several pieces (front frame and forks, rear frame, seat post handlebars and rear rack) so was rather unwieldly and not well protected in the nylon bags I used for transport. It would probably be more compact than a full size bike if using a hard case, but this is only an option if leaving the case and returning to the same place.
When I bought my Raven Tour in 2011 I did consider a Nomad with S&S couplings (this was available at the time). But when I visited SJS Cycles to finalise my choice I was advised that I could dismantle a regular frame (remove fork, remove bars, remove wheels ...) and get a slightly larger package than an S&S frame that would be acceptable in most cases (but would not meet airline size limits). So far I have never needed to do this.
-
The current version is possibly a bit less expedition grade than it's predecessor.
I am curious why you think this.
OK, these are my impressions, I don't have the numbers or experience to back it up, so if someone disagrees it won't upset me ;)
In 2003 or 4, not long after I'd bought my Raven Tour, I swapped for the day with someone who'd bought a derailleur Nomad a year or so before Thorn started offering Rohloffs. Apart from the gearing, we both concluded there wasn't a lot of difference.
The Nomad then reappeared as a Rohloff bike, promoted as a more robust option than the Raven Tour (Though by this time the Tour and Sport Ravens might have merged into the plain Raven, which was somewhere between the two). The UK built to order expedition bikes, EXP's, seemed to be dropped at around the same time. The Nomad MKII was marketed in the same sort of way, as the expedition model, other than being suspension corrected.
I haven't ridden either the first Rohloff Nomad, or the MKII.
My impression of the MKIII Nomad is that it rides fairly similar to my original Raven Tour, though there's 14 years between my last ride on that and the first on my Nomad, so not exactly a back to back comparison. The frame weights are only a few grams different, though the disc fork is a good bit heavier.
The MKIII is a full on tourer, but not IMO excessively heavy, as it says in the Thorn literature it could be built up with 700c wheels in a configuration to take 25kg luggage on the rear and it would be the same weight as building up a Mercury to take the same luggage, which on that would have to be F&R.
It isn't always easy to decipher Thorn literature, it'll tell you all bikes are all things to all riders, and we know that can't be true. But I ask, if the Nomad is a full expedition bike and the Mercury is a Sports Tourer, what's filling the middle ground? The largest segment of the market.
We might also consider that the World of expedition touring has moved on, for a start many of the participants no longer call it touring. And whatever they do call it, they're far more likely to be on bikes such as the Surly Ogre than anything in the Thorn range.
So that's it. My impression is the Nomad could easily be put into service for an expedition, as could the Raven Tour, but that it's primarily aimed at that middle ground.
My Nomad is my daily ride, in the build I have it, it's around 2kg heavier than the Mercury, it's most challenging expedition is the trip to the farm shop, whether the above impressions are right or wrong, it doesn't feel overbuilt or overweight for the use it gets.
-
I've flown with my Raven 5 times using a used box from my local shop.
Airlines vary in their policies but never had an issue.
Recently used KLM from UK via Amsterdam to Bangkok. Bike was not weighed either direction. Bike arrived safe. An extra £71 each way.
Re the 26' issue; I've been reading the doom and gloom posts for some time.
While in Thailand I took time to ask at local shops if they stocked 26ers.
Yes, no problems Sir, was the answer. Re quality; it varied. Marathon were available, usually.
Just a snap shot view. I'm not waving the 26" flag as best. Plenty of folks appear to be well informed.
I'm not about to buy another bike but I think I'd consider 26's.
Best
Matte
-
Re the 26' issue; I've been reading the doom and gloom posts for some time.
While in Thailand I took time to ask at local shops if they stocked 26ers.
Yes, no problems Sir, was the answer. Re quality; it varied. Marathon were available, usually.
You might still find Marathons in shops, but once various 26" versions are sold, they aren’t coming back. Schwalbe already discontinued the Marathon Plus Tour for all 26" widths except for 2.00" (so unusable for frame owners who can only fit 1.75" plus mudguards). The 26" version of the Marathon Mondial is on the way out, and the Marathon Almotion was never made available in 26" from the start.
You’ll still find cheap 26" tires and tubes in countries that have a lot of old bikes around. However, those won't be quality tires and tubes. I've read several times blogs about touring sub-Saharan Africa where the rider is forced to install a locally made tire, only for it to completely fail within a month.
-
But I ask, if the Nomad is a full expedition bike and the Mercury is a Sports Tourer, what's filling the middle ground? The largest segment of the market. We might also consider that the World of expedition touring has moved on, for a start many of the participants no longer call it touring. And whatever they do call it, they're far more likely to be on bikes such as the Surly Ogre than anything in the Thorn range.
The Nomad Mk3 is definitely up for an expedition (on the Baja Divide I carried my full load plus 13L of water at times), but yeah, there is less need today to offer a bike that intentionally looks overbuilt when people are doing bold expeditions on Surly frames like the Ogre and Bridge Club. This is aided by the fact that young people today are hauling much less luggage (a single phone has replaced a laptop, camera, GPS, and music player, and there is so much ultralight gear now). Since frames are already strong enough, what really matters now is tire clearance.
I do worry about Thorn’s ability to maintain its reputation in the bespoke-expedition-bike world. From many conversations with my fellow bikepackers on the road, there seems to be an expectation now that any bespoke builder will offer a frame compatible with the Pinion gearbox, and with the choice of a carbon fork and tubeless tires. Tout Terrain paved the way, and VSF Fahrradmanufaktur and Comotion are now offering such. The Nomad Mk3 does fit a belt drive and disc brakes and that’s great, but things are moving quickly and Thorn’s product looks merely average now, comparable to an entry-level bike like Surly’s. Does the company plan to hire a new frame designer to replace the retired Andy Blance, or are they calling it a day?
-
You’ll still find cheap 26" tires and tubes in countries that have a lot of old bikes around. However, those won't be quality tires and tubes. I've read several times blogs about touring sub-Saharan Africa where the rider is forced to install a locally made tire, only for it to completely fail within a month.
Thanks. That's put me off my next sub-Saharan African adventure. I read blogs as well. Very informative usually.
I wonder what countries always stock quality tires that aren't 26"?
Best
Matt
-
I wonder what countries always stock quality tires that aren't 26"?
Already nearly five years ago, my conversations with the innumerable bike shops on Calle San Diego in Santiago, suggested that the quality tires available in the better Chilean shops had shifted to 700c long before, and quality 26" was now a special-order-only item. I’ve heard scattered claims that this trend has spread through other parts of Latin America.
-
...
S&S couplers ..., you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.
I as unaware of this. WhY?
If* I've understood it correctly, not offering the S&S option meant not having to use tubing in the diameters required.
* The if is there to cover myself if I've misunderstood ;)
Maybe it is just that Thorn does not offer it from the factory like they did the Mk II. Or maybe it is an oval tube?
S&S up to 2 inch.
http://www.sandsmachine.com/spec_ssc.htm
-
...
Something with 20" wheels (maybe one of the Bike Friday range or an Airnimal ?) would probably be better than the Brompton for touring, but not quite so easy to handle during transport.
...
I was thinking Bike Friday which has 20 inch wheels, but they are in USA as I am. Shipping, customs, things get complicated and I was thinking better to buy from a manufacturer that is located on the same continent as the buyer.
The gal in the first photo was on a group tour that I was on, her trailer was her travel case for airline travel and it was where her stuff was carried instead of panniers. She was pretty happy with her Bike Friday.
My folder is a 24 inch wheel Airnimal Joey. It is a lot of work to fit that into my S&S case. Second photo.
-
I was thinking Bike Friday which has 20 inch wheels, but they are in USA as I am.
BF is one of several bicycle makers in my town (manufacturers in scale rather than individual custom makers who also live and work here in greater numbers but with much lower production). I have toured their factory a number of times over the years and sought their help to identify one of their frames I own. It is apparently an early prototype for a New World Tourist or Pocket Llama and is unserialed.
Bike Friday's production facility is domestic to the US and is quite different from other scaled facilities I have seen and toured (Co-Motion is also located here and builds in-house and I saw their operation from the beginning...actually before). BF's consists of a series of production stations and for many years (I don't think it has changed), each new employee was required to build their own frame as a way to gain complete familiarity with every aspect of the production process.
My own Bike Friday frame (it is not yet a "rider", I inherited it in pieces) surely does fold quickly and compactly, much moreso than when I have "Rinko'd" my own fullsize tourers and road bikes, see: https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2022/09/09/can-you-pack-a-bike-the-japanese-way-without-losing-your-mind/ ), but I honestly prefer my own creation, a full-suspension Folder with 20in/406mm BCD wheels I have brazed together from scratch including a unique locking hinge design that is my model for patent submission. This reminds me I really must prioritize the little bit of work needed to complete it, now down to just a front derailleur mount and some cable stops...plus wet paint. I can say my early test rides do point up the benefits of a bike that folds-down similarly to a Brompton but uses 20in x 1.5 tires with mudguards (which I cast from PVC resin). If you already have a Brompton and would like 20in wheels/tires, then you could do worse than explore the subframe and fork offerings from Eerder Metaal in the NL. Like Kinetics, they supply the parts needed to modify a basic Brompton subframe to meet larger needs. See... https://www.eerdermetaal.nl/brompton_winkelcollectie.html They also make a variety of useful parts for carrying cargo on the bike in some unique ways. I think they'd make a nice parts partnering with SJS Cycles' Brompton sales line. See... https://www.eerdermetaal.nl/brompton_webshop.html
Best, Dan.
-
...
S&S couplers ..., you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.
I as unaware of this. WhY?
If* I've understood it correctly, not offering the S&S option meant not having to use tubing in the diameters required.
* The if is there to cover myself if I've misunderstood ;)
Maybe it is just that Thorn does not offer it from the factory like they did the Mk II. Or maybe it is an oval tube?
S&S up to 2 inch.
http://www.sandsmachine.com/spec_ssc.htm
I was wondering about this too so I checked the Thorn brochures. The frame size matrix for the Nomad Mk3 appears to show that the frame tube dimensions are the same 9/6/9 gauge Mega Oversize diameter as used for the Mk2. So it would seem that S&S couplers could be retro-fitted to the Mk3. The cable guides on the chain stay (cable box side) might need altering as well.
-
My impression is the Nomad could easily be put into service for an expedition, as could the Raven Tour, but that it's primarily aimed at that middle ground.
My Nomad is my daily ride, in the build I have it, it's around 2kg heavier than the Mercury, it's most challenging expedition is the trip to the farm shop, whether the above impressions are right or wrong, it doesn't feel overbuilt or overweight for the use it gets.
The overall weight limit in the current mega-brochure is 160 kg for Nomad frames, 130 kg for Club Tours frames and 120 kg for Mercury frames.
And according to the current brochure for the Nomad Mk3 26" wheel build, for on-road use the maximum possible luggage load is 60 kg, the recommended max for good handling is 40 kg.
This is significantly more than the corresponding loads for my Raven Tour (40 Kg and 24 kg), which is slightly more suitable for heavy loads than the Raven model that replaced both the Raven Tour and the lighter Raven Sport Tour in the Thorn range around 2010-2011. In current options the Mercury with 650B wheel build is quoted at 38 kg and 28 kg.
The wheels, tyres and racks (and nowadays choice of front fork) used for a build will play a significant part in load capacity. So, considering the current Thorn offerings for Rohloff (Mercury and Nomad), by varying the components used it is possible to build a bike for several different uses from lightweight day rides (light build Mercury) to expedition touring (heavy build Nomad), with a fair bit of overlap between these two extremes where either frame would do.
The Thorn brand racks are very strong, it is possible to use 6 mm rack bolts for the rear rack on the Nomad frame (not on the Raven Tour - I asked), which contributes to the greater maximum load allowed on the Nomad - advantage, possible to carry 30 Kg just on the rear rack without affecting handling, so one can save the weight of front rack and front panniers for "ordinary" cycle-camping. Fitting wide rims and tyres also helps when carrying heavy loads.
For long distance touring I think the maximum I have ever had is about 23 Kg when I left home with a lot of perishable food to use up, perhaps a bit more for a few kms after filling a 10-litre water bag for wild camping.
For utility shopping trips I sometimes go over the 40 Kg max, but only for short distances on good roads. For really heavy utility loads I have a large trailer that will comfortably cope with 80 Kg. So I don't really need the extra capability of the Nomad.
I'd consider a heavy-build Nomad if I ever intended doing an expedition-type tour in remote places where large quantities of food and/or water need to be carried. And perhaps if predominantly using rough tracks with a camping load.
-
My tours will be in Europe (I like to watch world tour videos on YouTube, so the dream is there, but I'm not sure if I'll ever realize that dream, and if I'll do I'm pretty sure I'll know way more by then what bike I'll need for that, so "worst case" I'll buy another one and sell whatever I had) and I'd like to be able to get to not too hard core off-roads as well.
What I am not sure is how much it should bother me if I find a Thorn Sherpa or Nomad/Mercury or Club Tour and what are the real differences. If I understand correctly (but I'm here to learn!) then Nomad and Mercury are more or less the same with either derailleur or Rohloff hub. Am I mistaken? But I'm not sure what are the differences between Nomad and Sherpa because Sherpa is not included in the comparisons in the brochure.
You're getting a lot of good info here, and you'd likely get stuff even more helpful if you offered a stronger sense of what you think you'll be doing.
For the difference between a Nomad and a Mercury or Club Tour, you might think about it in terms of how often you'll be able to resupply with food and water.
A Mercury will carry a lightweight tent, sleeping mat, sleeping bag, stove, and sufficient clothes fairly comfortably, and probably without even needing front panniers if you invest in compact gear. And it will handle that on gravel roads and lanes.
If you're planning to ride from town to town in Europe, a Mercury could handle months-long camping tours no problem, and there are reports of people using them for just that.
Same for the Club Tour, which is just about a derailleur gear version of the Mercury.
Point being that you don't need to carry much food or water. Either bike could carry the above plus enough food for a couple of nights between towns, probably enough water as well.
The Nomad can do this too, and if you fit light running gear it won't weigh much more than a Mercury.
However if you're purchasing used, it's more likely you'll find Nomads built for their primary purpose, which is touring where you have to carry with you many days or perhaps weeks worth of food, and over very rough roads or tracks. Such as Mickeg's example posted above.
I'm sure they'd be fine on a Euro trip and loaded like you'd load a Mercury or CT.
It's just that they'd be heavier and stiffer than you'd need. That's only a problem if you make it one.
-
...
The Thorn brand racks are very strong, it is possible to use 6 mm rack bolts for the rear rack on the Nomad frame (not on the Raven Tour - I asked), which contributes to the greater maximum load allowed on the Nomad - advantage, possible to carry 30 Kg just on the rear rack without affecting handling, so one can save the weight of front rack and front panniers for "ordinary" cycle-camping. ...
I bought a suspension fork for my Nomad Mk II. And about a year later was planning a trip that would have been on single track, would have had to carry a lot of food and water, etc. I bought the rear Carradry panniers, as I wanted more volume capacity than my Ortliebs.
I do not own a Thorn rack, I use a Tubus Logo EVO, rated at 40kg on my Nomad Mk II for touring. I loaded up my rear panniers and added a brick of about 5kg (in the paper bag on top of rack) to simulate food weight. And tried it out. The handling with all the weight on the back was not very good.
To make a long story short, that trip never happened, so I can't say how it worked, all I know is that the test ride handling was not that great. Photos attached.
-
On the topic of Bike Friday, I gave a tiny bit of thought to investing in their latest frame and fork, but I have a pretty big fleet already, decided against it in the end. But I was thinking it would make a great touring machine.
https://bikepacking.com/bikes/bike-friday-all-packa-review/
I was thinking with a rear rack and small panniers on back, for touring in areas where you do not have to carry a lot of water or food, but were still camping, it would work fine for that. Or for credit card touring.
-
My impression is the Nomad could easily be put into service for an expedition, as could the Raven Tour, but that it's primarily aimed at that middle ground.
whether the above impressions are right or wrong, it doesn't feel overbuilt or overweight for the use it gets.
The overall weight limit in the current mega-brochure is 160 kg for Nomad frames, 130 kg for Club Tours frames and 120 kg for Mercury frames.
It would seem that my impressions of the various models of Nomad are not supported by the figures. Not the first time I've been wrong, though in my defense I'm pretty sure the rhetoric in Thorn's MKIII marketing presents it more as a general purpose bike than it did in the MKII.
-
So here is a crazy alternative suggestion. If flying with bike is complicated and cost intensive, how about sourcing a bike locally on arrival. For Eur 200-300 you can find a fair range of well but often hardly used bikes on 2nd hand market. If you are flying in/out of same airport perhaps seller would agree to buy bike back for half the price if you return it undamaged at end. Or you send it via Surface mail, fly it back with you, sell it to bike shop before returning or just donate it to a charity shop before flying home.
Of course I love and prefer my own bike, but there comes a point where it makes little financial sense if transport costs are too high.
I often had same thoughts renting cars when travelling. A cheap old car is often cheaper than a weeks rental. But insurance and tax for non resident visitors make that a more complicated option than a bike might be.
-
So here's a bit more about myself and my plans, and what I have:
I have an 1993 GT Timberline with Shimano Altus A10. It's a "classic" chro-mo MTB frame, with 1 catch that kind of prevents me from using it for touring: it has short chainstays (+ the usual GT 3 triangle frame) that makes it not practical with panniers. I did have a rack and some panniers in the '90 and dis some touring (I think some of it would maybe be called bikepacking, though at times I had a huge backpack on my back to carry all the stuff, which was not very healthy) The truth is that while this was my main bike until a few months ago I did not use it a lot in the last 15 years. (I also have a Trek 3500 (aluminium) from 15 years ago that I used to carry the child seat for short rides around the village, but it's junk with Shimano SIS that I wouldn't take for a week tour, nor is it feasible to upgrade it)
Last year I saw some inspiring youtube videos about touring in Europe (later also all over the world) and one day I asked my 10 year old son if he wants to come with me to a spontaneous bike trip, which he obviously couldn't reject, so in 48 hours we were sitting on the plane to fly to the Netherlands. I wanted to start "small", and easy, and where would it be better than in a place with no hills and lots of safe bike lanes. At the beginning I planned to buy some good-old but relatively cheap mountain bikes and either re-sell them at the end or if they are really worth then maybe take it back with us and then build something out of it. At the end it was a logistical nightmare (find a bike for me and for him in the same city...) so we went to rent 2 "dutch bikes", totally unfit for touring anywhere else in the world, but were just right in Holland for 8 days of ride.
Ever since I am dreaming/planning to do something more serious. What it will be (and when) is not crystal clear yet, but there are some clues:
- last year I had a tear in my shoulder, which still is not 100% cured, and have some other problems in the same arm/palm, so I am looking for a more comfortable seating position than my current bike. Anyway I'm 46 so probably with time I'd anyway want to be more and more comfortable. I guess this definitely affects the frame sizing options, and in theory maybe even the fork, but see that further down.
- If there weren't the above health problems, I would definitely go for the more practical fork that enables me to mount front panniers (and probably even with the problems, though maybe I just need to add another fork and switch them on demand depending on the amount of stuff we need to carry for the upcoming trip).
- even though I had a drop-bar bike when I was a kid, I wouldn't use it now. My GT has flat bars with bar ends that I am used to it. So flat bars with Ergon 5 or comfort bars (maybe butterfly, but probably not).
- I still have small kids so it's likely I'll carry more than my share, like I did last year. Though I have to admit that it wasn't really more than what I would have carried if I was alone. My son carried his clothes, sleeping bag, and I carried mine + tent + food which I would anyway. But what I am trying to say is that this is one more reason why I prefer the fork with the front rack mount.
- We live in Israel, so not much domestic touring. Small country, and most of the year it's hot. So we'll need to fly 95% of the time when we'll want to do a multi day trip. (Though I hope that with time and experience we might do some local backpacking as the kids grow, but still most of the tours will be abroad)
- For the same reason I started to read about S&S couplers. Sounds like having them with a soft case might be a good way to "get away" from Israel and get back (without having to search for a bike box for a few days on the way back) On the other hand if this is what makes a bike expensive, and there's an "identical" (there's no such thing in the custom built Thorn world...) bike without S&S but for much cheaper I'm not sure which one would I chose. Maybe then the color would decide ;)
- I think the next few years I'll try to go to Europe, start on Eurovelo routes and slowly move to more remote, challenging places.
- I fancy a dynamo hub, will certainly want one on the long run, but realistically I don't think it's a deal breaker. For Europe I can do without, and though I don't like the throw-away batteries, it looks like if the right bike for the right price finds me and this will be the only thing missing I'd go for it.
Since I am in Israel and the closest Thorn bikes in the UK, it is quite a challenge to buy a used bike. Some of them are so far from London that it adds another 8+ hours just to get there from the airport. I could buy one online and ship it to some hotel in London (I'm sure they'll get a heart attack when it arrives :) or to some friend nearby, but then I'd need to pay for a bike I've only seen in pictures, maybe live video, but not much more than that. Or I can go and see one, but then would I walk away after 5 hours of flight and 8 hours on bus + train if I discover something is not right? If anyone has experience buying expensive bike online, let me know what you've learned...
I find it hard even to check whether a bike is stolen because either I trust the seller tells me what's the serial number or I can't read it on pictures (the paint on Thorns is so thick you need to be a professional photographer to be able to take a shot (or even 3) and be able to read the serial number) Where do you check it? I found https://www.bikeregister.com/ and https://stolen-bikes.co.uk/ What can I say, even if I was looking at a stolen bike and checking it in these sites it would be impossible to identify them, though it's probably because most people don't know the serial number and don't even have a picture (not that it would really help, unless the bike was stolen last week in the same city, but I think the bad guys are a bit more sophisticated than that anyway)
I know the Thorn bikes are fore more than a lifetime (and my middle specced 30 year old GT having been kept in the house is in a pretty good shape, so a tough Thorn should be even more so) but I think it's ok to plan for 5 years only. If I'll realize my dream and take a month off work 5 years from now (or even 3) and after having some experience I'll know better a) what bike I need, b) even more importantly that I really use the bike every year for at least one 2 week tour, then I'm totally OK investing in another bike that'll fit "the big trip".
At the beginning I was thinking to buy some cheap "touring" bike (not Thorn) for 200-300 GBP, or a better one for 400-500 GBP including some panniers and stuff I'd anyway need to buy for a tour. And I do see some lucky bidders winning really cool stuff sometimes. Were I based in the UK I would probably already have something like a Ridgeback World Panorama or even some cheap, old Dawes touring bike. I guess that if I'd found a good one then it'll be more than enough for the next 5 years. Another advantage would be to be able to sell it locally just as a "city bike" and lose less money ('cause I don't think anyone would appreciate a Thorn or even any Rohloff bike here, they just don't know what it is)
Then I fell in love with the Thorn brand (eventhough I've never touched or even saw one in real life) and I thought I could maybe get a Sherpa, maybe add some used panniers, and go.
Then I started to think that maybe I can put some more money (7-8-900) and get a bit newer bike (though I'm not sure if "newer spec" has much value for me, 'cause I think I'll be fine with rim brakes for a few years, though there might be some improvements I didn't learn about yet) and get a Rohloff gear that seams to be useful, but not sure if it's worth the money at this stage given the 0 chance I'll be able to sell it unless I find someone who'll buy it online with shipping From Israel back to UK, which means it'd be at a reasonable loss)
And then there are bikes in the 1300+ range that are either even younger or in better shape and most probably better equipped, that seem to be the dream bike I'm sure I'll want in 5 years, but I'm not sure if the investment is right today.
-
So here is a crazy alternative suggestion. If flying with bike is complicated and cost intensive, how about sourcing a bike locally on arrival. For Eur 200-300 you can find a fair range of well but often hardly used bikes on 2nd hand market. If you are flying in/out of same airport perhaps seller would agree to buy bike back for half the price if you return it undamaged at end. Or you send it via Surface mail, fly it back with you, sell it to bike shop before returning or just donate it to a charity shop before flying home.
...
On my Canadian Maritimes trip in 2019, in a campground I met someone that was doing that. Unfortunately I do not have a photo of the bike.
He was from the UK. He said he bought a used hybrid bike, I think it was in Toronto. Had to buy a front rack, if he brought one from the UK, it did not fit on the suspenstion fork. Bought a cheap Axiom front low rider rack, might have used hose clamps to attach it. He brought his four panniers from home. I met him in Nova Scotia, so he already had gone quite a distance. And he was going to New York City from where we met, his daughter lived there. His plan was to give away the bike at the end of the trip if his daughter did not want it.
We did not talk long, the campsite was very thick with mosquitos. So I did not hear much more for details.
That said, it can be hard to find a bike on the used market that fits really well and will be reliable. The guy I met was retired and had plenty of time, but finding a good bike when you may have to get back to your job in a week or two could really complicate scheduling.
-
though in my defense I'm pretty sure the rhetoric in Thorn's MKIII marketing presents it more as a general purpose bike than it did in the MKII.
The rhetoric does just that.
IMO Thorn now cover the whole range from light day rides to expeditions with just two frames, Mercury and Nomad 3.
This is considering only the Rohloff-specific options, but even the distinction between Rohloff and derailleur is blurred, as I believe you can now fit derailleur gears to a Nomad and Rohloff to a Club Tour.
Not necessarily a bad thing, as in the middle ground of loaded touring there is currently a choice of a lightweight (relatively) Mercury frame or a heavyweight Nomad frame.
-
Wow @flocsy that's a lot of background, and interesting!
It seems to me you've got a few things on the go here:
1. You're keen on bicycle touring but would need to fly to and from the site of each tour.
2. You want to take children with you.
3. You've got excited about Thorn bikes and would like to own and tour on one.
4. You would have to purchase your Thorn in another country, most likely England.
5. You're wary that these enthusiasms won't be sustained, and therefore want to limit your initial investment.
6. Your touring will be in Europe for the foreseeable future, with tour durations of 1-2 weeks.
I don't see an easy way to tie up all these threads. The only thing I'll offer is that it might help to de-prioritise the penny-pinching. Old, cranky, poorly sized equipment will kill your enthusiasm pretty fast, where a bike that fits you well, is nice to ride, and doesn't break will maximise the chance you'll have fun and do more.
Okay, you might still decide you're over touring and have to sell at a loss. So what. You'll have given your dream its best shot.
Also, here's an option for rented cycle touring in France, where they supply you with a proper touring bike with panniers and route maps.
https://www.bretonbikes.com/homepage/cycling-holidays-in-france
You could have a two-week camping holiday for what you list above as the cost of a mid-price bike (GBP 400), get bikes for the kids as well for about half that each, and be in a much better place to work out what comes next.
-
Wow @flocsy that's a lot of background, and interesting!
It seems to me you've got a few things on the go here:
1. You're keen on bicycle touring but would need to fly to and from the site of each tour.
2. You want to take children with you.
3. You've got excited about Thorn bikes and would like to own and tour on one.
4. You would have to purchase your Thorn in another country, most likely England.
5. You're wary that these enthusiasms won't be sustained, and therefore want to limit your initial investment.
6. Your touring will be in Europe for the foreseeable future, with tour durations of 1-2 weeks.
I don't see an easy way to tie up all these threads. The only thing I'll offer is that it might help to de-prioritise the penny-pinching. Old, cranky, poorly sized equipment will kill your enthusiasm pretty fast, where a bike that fits you well, is nice to ride, and doesn't break will maximise the chance you'll have fun and do more.
Okay, you might still decide you're over touring and have to sell at a loss. So what. You'll have given your dream its best shot.
Also, here's an option for rented cycle touring in France, where they supply you with a proper touring bike with panniers and route maps.
https://www.bretonbikes.com/homepage/cycling-holidays-in-france
You could have a two-week camping holiday for what you list above as the cost of a mid-price bike (GBP 400), get bikes for the kids as well for about half that each, and be in a much better place to work out what comes next.
I think you summed that up rather well.
My opinion of this is that each brand of bike offers different models, if you get too enthusiastic for one brand of bike, you may miss out on some of what is going on in the rest of the biking world.
I am not saying anything is wrong with Thorn, I am happy with the two Thorns I built up. I am going to put about 30 miles on one of my Thorns today. But there are a lot of other brands out there that can offer alternatives. After my most recent Thorn purchase, I built up two other bikes that are not Thorns.
For example, the rest of the biking world has switched to through axle bikes and wheels. I personally see no great advantage to that and none of my bikes have through axles, I only list this as one major difference between Thorn and other brands. There is a reason that Thorn has not embraced through axle like the other brands, Rohloff hubs are not (yet?) using through axles and Thorn is heavily invested in Rohloff bikes.
That said, some of the other brands at times make changes more to chase fads or attempt to set trends. Sometimes that works and sometimes it does not.
-
;) Thanks mickeg.
On the through axles, I imagine they're all about accommodating the forces generated at the dropout by disc brakes. Thorn designer Andy wasn't very happy about the implications of discs for the flexibility of the front fork, but IIRC (can't be bothered checking) the disc forks he specced for Thorns did/do have a through axle.
For the OP, the Raven presented right now in the for sale section of this site looks like an excellent buy, if it happened to fit. Appears to me it's priced at less than the reale value of the Rohloff alone. And after purchasing a Rohloff equipped Mercury, I don't expect ever to own another derailleur bike. That hub is the gift that keeps on giving. Mickeg, I know you aren't quite on the same page - just offering an opinion for the OP, who has little sense of what might be good about the late Herr Rohloff's contribution to the cycling world.
-
On the through axles, I imagine they're all about accommodating the forces generated at the dropout by disc brakes.
Yes, but the industry's decision to adopt disc brakes is motivated especially by an accident that occurred around 2010, where a wheel held by a QR popped out under high torque, and the victim sued the bike maker. This was a freak accident, but the mere possibility of being held liable has scared the whole industry into adopting through-axles. There used to be a website detailing the original lawsuit and various companies’ responses to it, but I cannot find the link.
just offering an opinion for the OP, who has little sense of what might be good about the late Herr Rohloff's contribution to the cycling world.
My own feeling from interacting with the community is that Herr Rohloff’s contribution is quickly being forgotten, because the buzz now is about Pinion’s contribution. “Oh, you’re still riding a Rohloff?” is a comment I have heard multiple times from bikepackers I have met on the road in recent months.
-
;) Thanks mickeg.
On the through axles, I imagine they're all about accommodating the forces generated at the dropout by disc brakes. Thorn designer Andy wasn't very happy about the implications of discs for the flexibility of the front fork, but IIRC (can't be bothered checking) the disc forks he specced for Thorns did/do have a through axle.
For the OP, the Raven presented right now in the for sale section of this site looks like an excellent buy, if it happened to fit. Appears to me it's priced at less than the reale value of the Rohloff alone. And after purchasing a Rohloff equipped Mercury, I don't expect ever to own another derailleur bike. That hub is the gift that keeps on giving. Mickeg, I know you aren't quite on the same page - just offering an opinion for the OP, who has little sense of what might be good about the late Herr Rohloff's contribution to the cycling world.
I have not been employed in the bicycle business for 51 years, so I really do not know what drove the through axle decision. But I have a couple friends that feel strongly that through axles are a good idea, they say that the rear triangle on their full suspension bikes are stiffer with through axle.
And I have heard people complaining that with quick release they were always having to adjust their disc brake for alignment problems each time they removed and relaced the wheel. But my one disc brake is on the rear on a quick release axle bike and it is always aligned perfectly every time I put the wheel into the frame, not sure why so many other people can't get it in right. Perhaps their dropouts were not made with tight enough tolerances?
It was a bit over a decade ago that Trek recalled a lot of bikes. The reason was that the quick release lever on the front wheel had a lever that could, when opened move inwards towards the wheel far enough to get stuck between the cut outs on disc rotors. I have never owned a Trek, but I was a bit surprised at this. I could not figure out why people were not using the quick release lever correctly, but then one day I saw a co-worker close the quick release on her front wheel. She did not use the lever to close it as a cam action lever, instead she assumed that the lever was there so you did not need a wrench, she used the lever to rotate the skewer until it got tight and quit turning. My co-worker was not an idiot, she was a scientist with a couple of degrees. But, no bike sales person had ever explained to her how a quick release worked, so she had been doing it wrong for decades. Perhaps too many bikes were sold by bike sales staff that neglected to explain how bikes work to customers, and that was why through axles were needed?
For several years I had heard that on the front wheel on a disc brake bike you should put the quick release lever on the right side, not left side of the bike. I did not know why, and I have never owned a bike with a disc on the front wheel. But when I saw that recall by Trek, it was clear that was the reason. Apparently not everyone had heard that and most bikes when sold had the lever on the left, not right on the front.
It was not long after that when through axles started coming out. My Lynskey, I bought the frame in 2017. There are replaceable dropouts on both right and left sides, could be fitted with quick release or through axle. I opted for quick release. In the photo, you can see the replaceable dropout on the non-drive side, there are two small holes in the 10 oclock and 2 oclock position on that dropout, there are a pair of M4 screws in those holes that hold the dropout in the frame. (The manufacturer did not use locktite on the screws, that was a huge mistake, but that is another story.)
I was a little surprised when the Nomad Mk III came out that it did not have replaceable dropouts for either option when they planned on some Nomads being sold as derailleur bikes. I know a few people that now will not buy a quick release bike.
For some things, I prefer a Rohloff bike, for some things I prefer a derailleur bike. At the cost of Rohloff hubs, I only have one Rohloff bike, several derailleur bikes. I see advantages and disadvantages to both. I suspect everyone reading this has ridden both, so I won't elaborate on my opinions on why I think there are advantages to both.
-
For the OP, the Raven presented right now in the for sale section of this site looks like an excellent buy, if it happened to fit.
If you mean the Raven "Adventure" (maybe they cut it off a tandem? ;) in ebay, then it's too big for me IMHO. I'm 175cm, that bike is 587L (it has a mid-tube standover height of 82, which is my crotch height in shoes)
-
She did not use the lever to close it as a cam action lever, instead she assumed that the lever was there so you did not need a wrench, she used the lever to rotate the skewer until it got tight and quit turning.
Interesting. How did she first open it? I suppose they did secure it correctly in the shop. Or maybe they took off the wheel to help her put it in the car...