Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: Martin on August 26, 2010, 10:54:04 pm
-
Not wishing to upset people but I have been given a 2005 Raven Sport to try, I race so I am reasonably fit. Took the bike to Cornwall for a week, lightish touring, found it very heavy, killer on the hills I was spinning like a nutter. Like and dislike the Rohloff, 8-14 our nice gears but the ones below seem like you are spinning and nut moving, obviously I am not used to that cadence but even so there was a feeling that I was expending more energy than I was actually moving forwards.
I am really trying to like the bike, it is in black very understated which I do like, I have a couple of Scott’s to race on, which I know you cant compare, and a trek 7.5 for shopping etc, ride everyday. Just find the Thorn a bit heavy. Can you convince me, I want to be convinced
-
If you don't like the RST (weight/gear-ratio-wise), why do you want to be convinced?
It seems to me that you're an inexperienced cycle-tourist riding a dedicated touring bike. It's a steel frame, so as you yourself point, your comparisons (expectations?) don't really have much credence. If you want to be convinced, it seems to me that you start out with the basics of reading Thorn's own promotional literature and forum feedback ref pros and cons.
Ref gearing, you might as well suggest racing on a mountain bike to come to the same conclusions. If you find the gearing not to your liking (e.g. too easy?), it's fairly obvious to say that you need to swap chain-rings accordingly, but there's plenty of feedback on the forum to suggest that the Rohloff isn't really suited to racing, but to touring. That said, the world record for the quickest round the world bike tour was done with a Rohloff - reliability is the primary characteristic.
Suggest that you try non-rohloff/thorn (touring bike) alternatives, and then come to back to the forum to further inform to your own conclusions?
-
I don't really understand the problem.
Why were you spinning so fast? Change up a gear or two if the cadence is too fast.
A Thorn Raven Sport Tour will be a bit heavier than a road bike designed for racing, that's because it's a touring bike and designed to take more of a beating.
The gearbox isn't that much less efficient than derailleurs and, in 11th, is probably more efficient.
Are you comparing a drop-barred road bike with a flat-barred Thorn? You can't compare in my opinion. I found it hard to live with my flat-barred Raven so I had it changed for drops and it felt much more efficient (because I was in my more comfortable riding position).
Tyres make the biggest difference though. There's no way you can realistically compare any 2 bikes ith different tyres. The 1.5" robust Marathons on my Raven would make any road-race bike feel heavy and sluggish if you were used to 23mm tyres.
You need to compare apples with apples which means comparing it with another touring bike capable of touring around the world.
Try riding a Thorn Raven ever day over a winter and compare the experience with a derailleur bike. I just oil my chain and hose it down. My derailleur bikes usually require a strip down (cassette and mechs in white spirit baths ..etc). Thorn's Rohloff bikes run as efficently in winter as summer (but they will never be as fast as a decent road-race bike over smooth roads).
-
I think the review by Tim Wainwright, Arrivee Magazine, sums up the RST very well.
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/thornpdf/ArriveeSportTourTestAutumn2006web.pdf
He quotes an all inclusive weight of 30lbs and used gears "slightly lower" for climbing. I had to change crank lengths and chainring size on my RST (now 42 x 16), I seldom go under 6th gear and have never been under 3rd (except once to check they actually work!). The top gear isn't so high, but once I'm doing over 24mph I am usually freewheeling anyway! It is also taking me forever to convince myself I like straight bars, but the proof of the pudding is I reach for the RST a lot more often than I do my lightweight audax bike with drops.
While at risk of repeating points made in previous responses to this question, I would sum up that with the RST you get an unusual machine with character, supremely comfortable, very low maintenance, and brilliant if you want to enjoy the scenery rather than being stretched out over a racing iron looking at somebody's wheel. The choice is yours ... ;)
P.S. The photo of the green Raven in that article was what convinced me I wanted a RST.
-
Thanks for the replies, I am considering another option which is the Van Nicholas Yukon, I know it is streets away from the Thorn.
I like the unusualness of the Thorn, I like that everything I read is so positive and yes they are comfortable and seem to have the to be able to take on so tough off road, but with all my luggage in Cornwall the hills were a killer.
I have read about guys on here touring at about 15mph on a fully loaded Thorn, they should enter the Olympics.
-
Perhaps it was the Cornish hills & your luggage that was the problem - not the RST ??
-
Maybe it was but I do at least 200 miles a week so I am bike fit but I do think the Thorn is heavy
-
Of course it's heavy in relative terms - it's a steel framed touring bike!!! However, I don't understand why it was suuucchh a killer if you are soooo fit and found the gears too easy - your account simply doesn't add up! ???
Just to hasten to add, I climbed an unpaved track to 10,000ft in Andalucia with the RST loaded with 12Kg, and found it perfectly up to the job, even as a 20 a day smoker!
Given your apparent ignorance of some of the most fundamental aspects of cycling, good luck in whatever you decide - you clearly know best! ::)
-
Why in any forum is there an idiot like you, what's up were you bullied and school and you are getting even. Thanks for those with the sensible posts, as for you get a life
-
"I have read about guys on here touring at about 15mph on a fully loaded Thorn, they should enter the Olympics" - I think you should look closer to home when labelling anyone an idiot - insulting the majority of forum users whilst you so blatantly don't "get it!"
I'm entitled to point out blatant contradictions and your apparent lack of general cycling knowledge and voice my own conclusions by way of response. Suffice to say that when it comes to knowing the right bike to choose to meet my needs, I'm one happy punter and you're clearly not - as I said, best of luck!
-
I've been told that hussain bolt was offered cloggs to run in but as a racer realized the sillyness of that so chose trainers... Can you imagine
If you are chosing a thorn touring bike to race with I can only think you would also choose a Austin allegro to race in formula 1
-
Hi Martin
I, like others here, have spotted the problem, which was trying the RST, loaded, in Cornwall. I think if you'd loaded one of your Scotts for the same ride you'd have wondered what had gone wrong with your usually quick and responsive bike.
I would encourage you not to give up on the Raven so quickly, I have great fun on mine doing everything from short commutes to audax, hills to plains, loaded and unloaded (never raced it though! except when seeing tri athletes who I feel compelled to overtake) I always look forward to riding it and don't get off at the end of a long day feeling completely beaten up, which every other bike I've owned has made me feel like.
The low maintenance and reliability are a huge bonus but not what makes me smile when I'm riding it.
Stick with it and you'll soon be vehemently defending the Rohloff and the RST with the rest of us ;)
-
Admirable sentiments Blacksail and good points made ref the qualities of the RST, all true.
However, I do think you're wasting your time with our friend Martin who clearly thinks that he is someway superior to us non-olympian thorn riders.
That said, given his apparent inability grasp the fundamentals of gearing, I'd like see to Martin race - I'd wager it would be quite an entertaining sight! :D
-
I suspect he'll be quite quick considering his 200 miles per week !
-
A future Olympian, no doubt! ;)
-
Intersting reading these comments from everyone, I have to say that if someone races regularly on a super lightweight (presumably carbon) road bike and uses a trek aluminium hybrid as a commuter, they will notice a massive difference on any thorn 26" wheeler. In my view a thorn is a proper bike, in the sense that its built for durability, comfort and maximum function with the ability to be taken anywhere on most surfaces. If martin was to do something like a self supported Landsend john o groats on a thorn he would realise exactly why thorn owners are so passionate about their bikes.
The fact that its heavier than a road bike will surely mean that its rider will be of a high level of fitness. It can be easy to assume that because you race you have a high level of fitness, but the experience of Martin on the RST would suggest that its the road bike doing some of the work rather than him.
Saying this I would not want to insult anyone on this forum as Martin has his own experience, views and opinions on our wonderfull hobby and I'm sure that Martins level of fitness is high and that his knowledge of his chosen bikes and his preferred sort of riding is equal to any thorn owners understanding of our sort of cycling. Its perhaps just a case of Martin adapting to the sort of pace, quality and feel that a RST will have, rather than pure speed.
What I love about thorns is that they exercise you very well, it keeps the rider in touch with what I would call proper cycling. What I mean by this is that for me cycling is not about speed, its about fitness, discovery and a feeling of freedom. My bombproof Sherpa is the best possible bike for this purpose as I am around 16 stone and with my commuting and including a weekend ride I am also covering about 200 miles a week.
It annoys me greatly when I come across cyclists on super lightweight road bikes that criticise mine for being heavy!! I've never raced a road bike and I have always wanted to try a carbon road bike to see how fit I am on a bike thats designed for speed. After my years spent riding mountain bikes and my Sherpa, I would guess that my fitness would show its self against road cyclists and compare well. I have previously considered buying a road bike but after just 2 years on my Sherpa I,m looking to invest in an RST simply because it fits exactly with what I need a bike for.
All I would say to Martin is that a Thorn is just not going to be as quick as your used to. What it will do for you is provide an absolute lifetime of service, pure function and comfort and perhaps put you in touch with a different feel of cycling. Racing and belting around means that people forget the scenery around them, it also means that your going from one place to another in the quickest time possible. If the weather is glorious and your exercising out on traffic free roads and you can take as much kit as you need for that ride then why would you want to be home quicker than you need to?!! No other bike will provide you with the opportunity to dissapear from civilisation for a couple of days any time you want to. I regularly load mine up and just go whenever and wherever I want to.
I think a thorn would provide any racing cyclist the opportunity to slow down and enjoy whats around them whilst providing them with a different type of fitness and experience on a bike that could ultimately benefit their racing and balance there cycling mentality. I suppose in the end its a case of each to their own,
I hope Martin doesn't feel like everyones on his case!! Give the thorn a chance Martin, you might rediscover something about your hobby.
-
Thanks Beef
As I said at the beginning of the post I want to like the Thorn, the reference to riding a lot was a way of stating that I am not unfit and therefore should be able to get the Thorn moving quickly.
Shame that is a great bike wit some disappointing attitudes to reasonable questions from owners, might buy the bike wouldn't join the owners club
-
There's something that doesn't hang right in your account, Martin.
Surely if you were spinning too fast despite the weight of the bike and your luggage, it was undergeared? That's just a matter of changing the chainwheel for one with more teeth to make you comfortable.
But then you also say that the low gears were too low, that you were spinning away getting nowhere. Why were you in these low gears if you didn't need them to haul yourself, the bike and your luggage up the hills of Cornwall?
The comparison between a sports car and a diesel estate may be apt for some unfit riders, but I think that in the case of a 200 mile a week rider like you, the comparison should be between a nippy little sports car and a big V8 saloon -- you have the legs for both. You drive them differently but you get there as quickly. I honestly think you're like a guy who moved up from Mazda M5 to an S class Mercedes, and now complains that Mercedes doesn't have quite the feel of the little sports car! What infuriates Fred to rudeness is that you don't seem to grasp that the intention of the creators of your racing bikes and the borrowed Thorn are fundamentally different. This besides the fact that the geartrain clearly wasn't set up right to suit you.
One more thing. With these big touring bikes, the tires have a much greater effect on how you can use them and how they relate to you than might at first seem obvious. If you still have the Thorn, read Andy Blance on the Thorn site on the use and feel of the different tyres, and spend a few bucks on trying the different types and width of tyres; you might surprise yourself. I went from 37mm Marathon Plus to 60mm Big Apples on one of my bikes and gained on every aspect -- I wouldn't have believed that if I hadn't tried it myself, which is why I suggest you try it rather than merely take advice.
Hobbes
-
Thanks for re-stating the obvious (very well) about this descrepency about his experience and the gearing. I think until Martin acknowledges this (to himself at least), in lieu of making negative assertions about the speed of Thorn riders and missing a key point about cycle touring in general, he won't be in a position to move on his self-professed negativity about the RST. . Cycle touring for most is not ultimately a racing discipline but one of pleasure, especially on an RST (assuming correct set up, appropriate loading)
That said, it's great to see so many so many people write so passionately about their RSTs.
Martin, if you can bring yourself to read it, I refer to you a thread which a number of people have said they have found very useful in deciding to buy the RST.
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=775.0
-
...I would not want to insult anyone on this forum...
What infuriates Fred to rudeness...
Superb diplomacy from two posts in this thread, but too subtle for Fred, who should realise that the continuing snide remarks aren't necessary.
-
Wrong Joatamon, in my opinion - your comment simply adds fuel to the fire.
"The continuing snide remarks aren't necessary" - there is nothing snide about my last post, just a simple restatement of self-evident truths, an offer of potentially useful information and an acknowledgement that I wasn't Martin's favorite person.
However, why say you don't want to insult anyone and then insult them simply for having the validity of your account politely (up to that point at least) but soundly questioned!!?? "I have read about guys on here touring at about 15mph on a fully loaded Thorn, they should enter the Olympics." Personally, I couldn't help feeling total contempt for this comment and the lack of understanding or respect it conveyed about cycle touring and the pleasure gained from it by the majority, and therefore the likely pleasure to be gained from the RST.
And yes, it did infuriate me to rudeness (well put Hobbes) given Martin's ongoing refusal to acknowledge the self-evident validity of points already made and restated by Hobbes and others. If the basics aren't stated and acknowledged, the possibility of a productive debate becomes very difficult.
Diplomacy by Martin - I have to categorically disagree.
-
If you really can't see the snide remarks in post #19 and that your posts have escalated from sarcasm to insults, I'm pleased I don’t know you in real life.
As for Martin, well, he got you sussed very early on.
-
Joatamon.
Martin first displayed sarcasm/insult with his olympic remark (not a snide remark!?), effectively rebuffing the validity of comments made and akin to throwing toys out of the pram because no-one convinced him of the qualities of the RST on the basis of the incoherent logic/experience and/or lack of knowledge that he communicated.
After calling me an idiot (not blatantly insulting?) at which point I considered subsequent remarks fair game given his ridiculous ongoing denial ref cycling basics - I'm not saying that they weren't mocking but you're missing the point that I wasn't "continuing" to be so as you claim and as I made clear.
In fact the escalation from first making snide remarks and escalating to baseless insult can be traced firmly back to Martin himself - funny how that this seems to have escaped your apparently advanced powers of perception! That Martin/yourself seem unable to accept comments about the standards by which he himself would be apparently judged and would judge others (hence my comments about his olympian aspirations) says it all really.
As for having me sussed, it helps to show objectivity and accuracy in the first instance......funnily enough, neither quality spring to mind ref either your or Martin's contributions.
As for not wanting to upset people and wanting to be convinced, I'd say I had Martin sussed from the first posting of this thread.
-
The inquest on who said what, when and why is unnecessary - it's there for all to read and judge for themselves.
Feel free to continue to paint your colours on the wall.
-
Interesting to see that you now suddenly regard detail as unnecessary, because it simply doesn't now suit you to consider it - in your earlier post you went to the length of refererencing post 19 (!!!???) to criticise me - you were more than happy to concern yourself with the detail! What a total hypocrite you are! :o
Regarding my colours, I don't particularly care whether they conform to your clearly whimsical values. I think it is sufficient to say that I don't suffer fools (or hypocrites) gladly!
-
Typical and predictable behaviour - attack the poster instead of dealing with the issue.
It's not about me, it's about your rudeness in this thread, you can wriggle and excuse yourself as much as you wish but at the risk of repeating myself, it's there for all to read and judge for themselves. Everyone can see who first lit the match.
Post# 19, one of your snide posts, is the one before Reply #19. I'm quite certain you know that even if you're blind to the tone of the content.
-
Is the detail relevant or not relevant? pls make your mind up ::)- Ref post 19 my point was that you actually felt obliged to count the posts to make your point. If that is not being concerned with detail, I don't know what is.
However, now that we're back to dealing with detail, I haven't for one minute denied that I was rude. The notion that you have me wriggling is laughable and self-delusional on your behalf.
"Typical and predictable behaviour - attack the poster instead of dealing with the issue" - To use your own analogy, continue to paint your colours because the truth lies much closer to home than you think - making offensive judgements whilst completely overlooking the facts because they don't suit you.
By way of illustration:
"Every one can see who lit the first match" - Yep, kindly refer to yourself to Martin's comment on Thorn riders and the olympic standards which was clearly insulting and dismissive of cycle-tourists and feedback provided to him. As a cycle tourist and RST owner, I found it offensive. If you're suggesting the match was lit before then, I think your sanity would have to be questioned.
Clearly, objectivity and accuracy are not your forte, or to use another of your analogies, it's clear the detail is simply all too subtle for you. Now, if you want to sustain this personal attack on me, I suggest that you spare the forum and do it by sending me a PM.
-
I keep saying, the evidence is there. You keep referring me to this, that and the other but I've already read it - all of it. I really haven't missed anything. I've visited enough fora to know that everyone posts differently, some use smileys, some don't, some are eloquent, some are blunt, there's verbose, there's concise, and all that leaves the reader to figure out the body language. That's the subtlety that I think you're missing. You think your rudeness and on-going snide remarks are justified by a throwaway remark, I don't, and I think, reading between the lines, that other contributors were uncomfortable with it as well.
Anyway I'm quite content to leave it for the audience of this thread to decide for themselves whether your language was appropriate, or "fair game", as you put it.
I will not make another post in this thread, and it won't serve any useful purpose by discussing it off-line. Even if you post some more criticism of me - I'm sure you will - my case is resting here.
-
Suffice to say the entire basis for your personal attack has been based on my being rude which I never for one moment denied, have never denied the evidence, so pretty pointless really - your wildly inaccurate misjudgements simply served to reignite the whole issue because I felt obliged to defend myself against them.
Again your refusal to acknowledge detail or to entitle anyone else to their perspective of them in conducting an exercise of pious moral outrage says far more about you.....
We'll have to agree to disagree.
PS - Now that hostilities have subsided, it simply would have sufficed to say "Fred, don't you think you are being a bit OTT?" to which I would have responded to effect of "Probably, sorry!" - A host of inaccurate related statements/accusations/judgements was only ever going to inflame the suitation and serve to blow things out of proportion.
-
Any one for a happy meal ?
-
And I thought Martin was paying us a compliment with his statement about averaging 15mph on loaded RST touring bike / Olympics ! - Maybe Martin could confirm this?.....
-
I have a Raven Catalyst set up with rigid forks, etc. It is similar to the RST in some ways. I must admit I think I know what Martin means. Sometimes with a heavy touring bike you end up in a low gear grinding up a hill where on a light unladen bike you can keep in a higher gear, put on the pressure and keep it moving fast. If you try and sprint a heavily laden Raven out of 'grinding' mode the bike won't respond. Your only option is to stick in the low ratio and spin. This would be the same for any heavy touring bike but the feel of a Rohloff in a low gear is different and at first it doesn't feel quite right. I got used to the sensation and now like the low ratio feel of the bike.
But..... I like standing on the pedals at least some of the time. I know it's not supposed to be as efficient but I like it. The Raven is great for combining spinning with honking! You can spin for a while and then when you feel like standing on the pedals you click the shifter up a gear or two and off you go. Then when you feel like a rest you click it back into a lower gear, sit down and spin. You can't do that half as easily with derailleur gears!
-
Hi all,
Not long back from India and catch up on all the posts.
Some interesting comments on this thread but the one I agree with most is from Hamish
but the feel of a Rohloff in a low gear is different and at first it doesn't feel quite right.
I remember well when I first tried the RST / Rohloff that I often felt like I was travailing much slower than I actually was especially when I was climbing. That was getting on for 20,000 miles ago. The RST has being my main ride for just under 5 years. Now when I ride a dérailleur I find that odd!
A Rohloff is never going to win in a sprint race but the efficiency difference is pretty small and certainly wouldn't make more than a few minutes difference in a day of loaded tour cycling (at most). Given the reliability advantage and the easy maintenance schedule I would never go back to a dérailleur!
Mod hat on - PLEASE can we keep it nice I don't want to lock the thread!
-
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
-
Another illuminating compliment, no doubt!
-
Sorry the ZZZ was rude, I was drunk just back from a party, ridden the RST home that's what lead me to check the post as I haven't ridden it much recently as been on my road bike and trying some time trials which are murder. I think that I do need to try a different chain ring as had it in first gear last night testing it and I think I could have walked quicker.
Good to see the post seems to have run and run although there seems to be a bit of confrontation going on.
As you can see still have the bike although haven't bought it yet, he hasn't asked for the money either, did buy a TT bike though
-
Easy now Martin, your confession of being human and succumbing to temptation just might incur the judicial fury of self-appointed thought & behaviour police! Repent I tell you, Repent!* ;)
(*or insert other choice pronouncement with the investigative and moral cohesion of the Spanish Inquisition here)
On a conciliatory note, if you’ve barely been on the RST despite the golden opportunity, it strongly suggests that it’s not a priority for you given your preoccupation with racing. You’ve benefited from a fairly in-depth analysis of RST pros and cons from a bunch of clearly experienced and enthusiastic owners/riders - I’ve yet to come across an unenthusiastic owner. If this doesnt sufficiently enthuse you to change the chain ring, then, without in any way wishing to be critical, you probably don’t have a need for the RST. If you’re looking for a competitive audax-specific bike, look elsewhere I’d suggest but if you’re looking for a reliable tourer for non-expedition tours, you probably won’t do much better than the Raven Tour or RST depending on the specific type of touring you want to do. I think Blacksail's comment about not feeling beaten up at the end of particularly long rides succintly sums up the RST – my view of the RST is that it's a tourer sent from heaven.
-
And just to make sure I took my RST to Devon loaded with light camping equipment and had a wonderful time even the 25% bits. 3 days, 600 km and 6,000 m climbing. Won't say I was fresh as a daisy on my return but am looking forward to the next adventure.
for the record my avg was nearer 10 mph than 15
-
Sounds good Blacksail - the speed (for me) is not important but sounds reasonable given the distances, the load, and the climbs - that all equates to quite a challenge, and a very enjoyable one at that, no doubt all the more so for being on an RST!
-
I am delighted that Fred and I seem to have bonded, or am I missing his advances towards me and thank god blacksail found Devon challenging I thought I was a wimp
-
From insult to amorous insinuation? There's nowt as queer as folk!
Over and out!
-
i ride 120 to 140 miles per week im not fast sum 9mph average
-
Longest run on the RST was Oxford to Kendal in two and a bit days. On the commute I estimate around 14 mph, pretty flat and around 6 miles one way. On a longer journey around 12 mph.
On longer journeys just packing some clothes and spares in a saddle bag, and using motels/b&b.