Community > Thorn General

Mercury or Nomad MK3 700c

(1/12) > >>

Nichwell:
Hello and many thanks for your help. I am looking for a bike for audaxing, general commuting and I hope some extensive touring in Europe. I am really drawn to a rohloff equipped bike for ease of maintenance however I have never used one. My initial thought was of the Mercury as it seems to be closest to what I was looking for. I would really welcome your thoughts and recommendations.
However Sarah at Sjs mentioned the Nomad MK3 700 and the fact that it is adaptable for derailleurs, rohloff or even belt drive. Now that is a big plus as that doesn't commit me to one particular system. But it does seem rather robust for what I have in mind. I read in the brochure that the Nomad loaded is roughly the same weight as the Mercury loaded but the Mercury is more lively. Now I am not sure I am too bothered about exciting handling but I am sure that I am at the age where hauling more weight than I need to up a hill is not what I want to do. I am not by any means a weight weenie and I have always preferred steel but equally if I don't need to I would rather not.

PH:
Hi, welcome to the forum, they're both good bikes, here's my take on it:
I have both and although there's a lot of overlap I never have any indecision about which to choose for any given ride. 
The Mercury is more fun, all that subjective stuff, engaging, rewarding... I Audax and light tour on it, plus use it for all those on-road rides with light luggage where the main intention is to enjoy the cycling.
The Nomad is more sure footed, a bit dull, maybe even boring, though sometimes that's exactly what I want.  I use it as a day to day bike, for anything involving off road, and touring that requires more than a change of clothes. It occasionally tows a trailer and if I need to park it somewhere it might get knocked I have the impression it'll withstand that better than the Merc.
If I were to do the same ride on both, I'd enjoy the cycling more on the Mercury and the scenery more on the Nomad, it isn't a question of better but different.  Having said that, there's no ride I've done that I couldn't have done on the other, I've done a 200km Audax on the Nomad and a couple of camping trips on the Mercury, I never felt that the bikes were not capable of it, just that they weren't ideal.
Don't worry about the weight, at least nowhere near the top of the list, it's a consequence of design and it's that which effects the feel. rather than the grams.  In a similar spec they could easily be brought to within a kg of each other, so in terms of effort/propulsion the difference is negligible.  Unloaded, the Mercury is more comfortable, the Nomad is noticeably stiffer, you can mitigate that with tyre and wheel size, but then you widen the difference in other ways. I can swap wheels and forks between mine, get the weight down to a 800g difference, but in their usual configuration there's 3.2kg between them. 
The Mercury is my favorite bike, the Nomad my most ridden. Which would suit you better depends on which part of your riding you prioritise, what touring you plan, how much Audaxing, how you ride, what you like... On paper the Nomad is a better do it all bike, but for me a lot of that stuff could just as well be done on a cheap hack, so I would choose the Mercury. 

It is mostly opinion of course and there's a nice broad range of that on this forum.  We won't all reach the same conclusions, we'll all have our own preferences and subjective tests, though the physics is the same for everyone.

iGom:
I went through much the same process some months ago.  I’ve wanted a Rohloff bike for ages, although always deterred by the expense, and earlier this year decided if I didn’t get one soon it would be too late (age!).  I have a lovely Thorn Audax which has been my go-to bike for 15 years and I wanted something similar, but with straight bars.  I’ve used the Audax for long day rides, moving-on B&B tours and even moving-on camping  tours - ensuring I take as little as I find possible (still two panniers & a lightweight tent).  I’ve done two similar camping trips with my Mercury and it’s been great.  They were not moving-on, but the rides of ~50 miles to & from the campsites were fine.
I also have a heavy-duty touring bike, more suited to four panniers and a bigger = heavier tent.  I’m sure I will still be using that sometimes.
I had a similar discussion with Sarah, but after a little thought remembered I was looking for something Audax-like, so stuck with the Mercury.  No regrets.
Remember that Thorn offer a long trial period – 90 days I think it was.
Final caveat – you have to make your own decision of course.  But I’m sure they are both great bikes.

JohnR:
Frames of essentially the same weight can be designed for different loads through choice of tubing size. How strong and heavy are you? I bought a Mercury thinking it would be the ideal bike on account of the Rohloff hub but didn't appreciate that it was designed for significantly more load (including myself) than I would ever put on it so the result was a fairly firm ride although 50mm tyres on 650b wheels helped. IIRC the design maximum load of a Mercury is 120kg (rider + baggage) but I never exceeded 75kg. Given the deteriorating state of UK roads it's nice to have a bike which isn't so stiff that it tries to shake your teeth out but that stiffness is needed to carry a big load. However, it wasn't a bad bike and I clocked up nearly 8k miles on it before it was rehomed. My current Rohloff bike is a DIY fitting of the hub onto a frame designed for derailleur gears (more here if you want to read it https://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14396.0).

Before the Mercury I had another bike with a belt drive (and the Rohloff hub that I'm currently using). I had bought that thinking it would be a very low maintenance bike but riding it through a winter resulted in an ever-increasing amount of creaking noises. Eventually I gave the belt a good scrub and the bike became quiet again - not as low maintenance as I had expected. I subsequently rode my Mercury which I had fitted with a Hebie Chainglider (discussed elsewhere on this forum) through a winter with far less maintenance. Before you embark on a belt drive bike you need to be confident about the gearing ratio you want to use as the parts are expensive and any change to the gearing involves replacing two of the three drivetrain components. Given your plan to use the bike for different task then you may need different gearing depending on the load and the anticipated cycling conditions. Changing the gearing on a normal Rohloff bike is much cheaper.

Subject to not exceeding the loading recommendation, the Mercury would be ideal for the touring you envisage but less good at the other tasks. If you are a lightweight person then consider the Mk 4 Audax which is Rohloff-compatible. It has a more compliant frame but limited to narrower tyres than the Mercury.

Nichwell:
Thank you very much indeed. Exactly the sort of help I was looking for. I think that whilst a test ride could be helpful, I don't think I could really make a reasonable selection without the sort of experience that is on offer here. JohnR in answer to your query I am returning to cycling seriously after quite a long lay off with knee trouble. During that time I have accumulated a lot of flab but not much strength! Unfortunately, I don't think I will have problems with the frame being too stiff. Thanks for the views on the belt drive. I was really in too minds about it anyway and I think the cost of changing gears has made up my mind on that score.
PH you mention changing forks and wheels, would you mind giving more detail? I ask because I am considering buying a frame set rather than a complete bike and building it up partly for that reason and partly as it is less likely to be immediately noticed by my beloved and cause problems with the domestic bliss. Downside of course is not being able to take advantage of thorn's generous returns policy.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page