Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: wheezy on June 04, 2007, 04:22:36 PM
-
Sorry to be so superficial, but what's the general feeling about how these Ravens actually look?
Maybe it's my age, but I find the 700c wheel size more aesthetically pleasing than the 26ins. Mountain bikes seem to get away with it because of the huge tyre sizes, and the fact they're fashion items anyway, but more conventionally shaped bikes like the Ravens can look a bit awkward.
The smaller the frame, of course, the better they look, but I was just wondering; when catching sight of myself reflected in a shop window "Will my bum look big on this?"
Any Trinny or Susannas out there care to reassure me?
-
if you're worried about what the fashion police think, then don't get one. Lots of people on the C+ forum appear not to like the look of them. Although C+ magazine have nothing but praise for them. Cycling has always had an element of bling about it. It's just got worse as people have more disposable income.
If you're an independent minded individual, a free spirit, who knows a bargain when he sees one - then buy one. Only you know just how big your bum really is.
ians
about to be a proud owner of an RST (large size with 26" wheels)
-
Quite right, if you don't like it don't buy it.
I was just hoping to find out what people liked about the bike's appearance. I'm sure nobody's buying them without finding them attractive?
-
I find them neither attractive nor unattractive. What the RST looked like was not really a consideration for me. They are practical, fit for purpose and extremely good value for money. Maybe in time I'll warm to their aesthetics. In the meantime I can drool over road bikes with the best of them and my road bike is very very pretty. But I can't go shopping/touring on it.
A lot of people comment on the stack height (which I can understand to some extent). But if you look on some touring bike websites from the USA you'll see bikes with quill stems protruding miles into the air which looks less pleasing to my eye. But the Yanks don't seem to worry some much about what bikes look like - comfort seems to come first. Which, if you think about it, is the way it should be. Unless you have £000s to spend on a custom made frame and then you can probably have both looks and comfort.
Go on - get one. You know you want to.
ians
-
quote:
Originally posted by ians
A lot of people comment on the stack height (which I can understand to some extent).
I can't comment specifically on the Raven but Thorns do seem to have short head tubes. For instance, my 545M Cyclosportif (that, according to Thorn, is equivalent to 545mm c-c on the seat tube) has a 12cm head tube but the head tube on my custom frames are 14cm, despite being 535mm c-c! The resultant additional 2cm of spacers really do spoil the looks of an otherwise excellent frameset.
-
An interesting comment. We are drawn toward long slender lines and there are certainly some beautiful machines out there, including some of the van nicholas titanium or colnago racing frames and at the other end of the scale I love the lines of the classic Pashleys. Most other bikes are actually rather gawky and the headset stack on my raven tour is certainly a bit jarring to the eye, but I really don't mind. I personally value functionality over looks when it comes to bikes. A fully laden tourer or expedition-rigged landrover can be as beautifully engineered and as elegantly fit for purpose as a racing cycle or a sports car but neither would win prize for out-right aesthetics.
-
Can't the steerer tube be cut down once you've decided on the right height, in order to reduce the number of spacers?
-
Yes you are correct wheezy. The spacers allow you to accurately adjust the height. I asked for mine to be set at the same height as the saddle with a view to lowering it, but it's so comfortable I've not bothered so far. I could also flip the stem as it currently points slightly down which would reduce about 1cm of spacers.
-
Hi Wheezy,
Welcome to the forum
I own a Raven Sport Tour. It has a LOT of spacers (85mm) and I use an inverted stem! The bike is NOT classically beautiful, however in the 18 months that I have owned the bike the 'look' has grown on me. These days when I see bikes with an extra long head tube (and a short steerer) it now looks wrong!
One thing worth noting is that if you choose a black handlebar, stem and spacers then the eye won’t be drawn to them. Get a seat post to match.
(NB I am 6'1" and using drops, both of which add to the stack height)
-
quote:
Originally posted by wheezy
Can't the steerer tube be cut down once you've decided on the right height, in order to reduce the number of spacers?
Mine is.
I have no spacers above the stem but too many under the stem! The head tubes really are too short.
Perhaps the new Audax 853 will address this problem?
-
quote:
Go on - get one. You know you want to.
ians
Well I do, but I also want loads of other bikes. Trouble is, I can only have one, and it's got to be able to do everything well, including looking right (to me).
I've been looking at cyclocross bikes, as they seem to be a decent compromise, albeit a bit racey, but Thorn don't go there, and I'm not completely convinced by any that I've seen.
So the Audax 853 is up for replacement is it? That's interesting.
-
Form follows function.
I think the Land Rover analogy sums it up.
My 531, 700c tourer is like a Jaguar Estate, pretty quick, handles well, can carry a fair bit of stuff but isn't a Ferrari.
My Raven Tour is more of a Land Rover Discovery, it can do all the above but can carry a bit more and has some ability on rough tracks. It can be equipped with more serious off-road tyres if required.
The Land Rover Defender is more akin to my MTB.
Long Steerer tubes, IN MY OPINION, are incredibly useful on a touring bike. See the many "Where can I put my computer" discussions on forums. Long Steerers allow the addition of accessory bars.
Also. it's not a level playing field, I see many Quill stems raised to their maximum setting, nobody seems to say anything about them.
If you look at some of the Reviews on the Thorn website, you will see many photos of people riding 26" bikes of several types. I think they look rugged, purposeful and not odd.
Riding my 1.5" tyres over rough roads convinces me more that..."I don't care what it looks like, it feels like a magic carpet".
On top of that you can send it back after 3 months if you decide your bum looks big in it.
-
It's all opinion, so here's mine
26" wheeled, compact frame bikes are ugly. I've never seen an exception, Orbit, Roberts, Dawes, Yates, Cannondale, Mather, Mercian...I’ve seen what I consider to be ugly 26” whelers from all of them. Discussing spacers etc is just arguing about the degrees of ugliness. The bigger they are, the uglier they are. The only possible exception is MTBs seen in the right environment. The further away from that they get the worse they look, so a chunky tourer looks slightly better than a skinny road bike.
The only consolation is that when you're riding it you're not the one looking at it and the looks make bugger all difference to the ride.
-
Yikes!
-
Personally I don't think the aesthetics of my Rohloff EXP match those of a skinny road bikes, or trick mountain bikes. However I think my EXP's sexiness lies in what I know it can do (carry huge weight over long distances with minimal maintenance).
I think it's great that everyone likes different things. Nobody's opinion is wrong, even if we don't agree with everyone else. We have a shared interest in bikes and cycling, even if we do it in varied ways and on varied equipment.
Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder (apologies for the cliche).
-
quote:
Originally posted by PH
The only consolation is that when you're riding it you're not the one looking at it
unless of course you ride past shop windows - wondering if your bum looks big.
Wheezy - sounds as if you want to ride with drops? A cyclo-cross bike seems a good all-rounder - C+ certainly promote that view. But - you didn't tell us what you actually want the bike for. It's usually horses (or donkeys) for courses. Or fitness for purpose. I'm lucky enough to have more than one bike so I chose the RST for a particular purpose.
And sometimes things that are ugly can be (techically) beautiful. Which is why I drive an old Citroen car.
-
Going on the C+ forum and raising your head above the parapet and shouting 'Thorn' can lead to pages of folk, most very knowledgable, telling you where you went wrong. It's true that there is a very small set of formulas which make a really great bike. But, for me it's 'horses for courses' and what I've bought reflects what I want to get out of cycling.
My Raven Tour is one year old tomorrow and we've done 5828 miles. I had a few days off the bike through illness last year so it should over 6000. If I didn't like it I wouldn't run that sort of mileage up on it. Mine has been described as the 'vicar's bike' and a 'laura ashley armchair with wheels'. Those who mock me have done less than half the miles on their ultra modern carbon racers. My favourite response to a friend at work who calls my Raven 'Massy-Ferguson' is 'Just how much is a cassette and chain these days?'
-
I've just done over 3000 miles on my Raven Tour now.
1) I've Audaxed up to 300km in a day on it.
2) I've just (Today) done my Personal-Best time on it round my 15 mile "Lunchtime Circuit"
3) I've carried a full camping load through Devon, Dorset and Hants.
4) I've commuted with a heavy load up to 46 miles a day.
5) I've done leisurely sunny-Sunday Pub Rides on it.
6) I've washed it with soapy water and a brush a few times
7) I've changed 25ml of oil in the hub (15 minute job)
8) I've replaced a chain (for a no-rust one)
The bike will do everything (quietly), apart from Race, with the minimum of fuss/maintainance and the maximum of comfort.
Trust me when I say that the bike is designed correctly.
I think it looks bloody lovely in a chunky, purposeful sort of way but I really don't care too much.
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u249/freddered/IMG_5056.jpg)
(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u249/freddered/Beer%20Camping/BournemouthProm.jpg)
-
My Cyclosportif has done me proud and seen me through my first 200km, 300km, 400km and 600km audax rides but nobody will convince me that the design is right and mine only fits me by use of an excessive number of spacers. The head tube is at least 2cm too short. It's got nothing to do with fashion police or spacer police. A traditional frame with a 545mm c-c seat tube will have a head tube of at least 14cm whilst my 545M Cyclosportif has a 12cm head tube! It's just wrong!
To be fair, it's a superbly well-built frameset with perfect fillet brazing, a stunning paint job and good handling but, to me, it will always be a flawed diamond. I'd love to buy another Thorn but not until they address this issue.
-
I think it should be reported to the Head Tube Police.
-
Freddered – Yours looks like one of the smaller sizes for the shorter legged gent. In many ways it looks like a scaled (though chunky) 700c bike, and all the better for it. Unfortunately my own legs account for 90% of my total bodily height, and the larger frame sizes look increasingly out of proportion to the wheels.
Maybe a super-extended seatpost and stem would work for me. (Did I mention my arms are so long, I can pedal with my hands?)
-
First Post on this forum so please be gentle!
I brought a cyclosportif last month for my 40th, which isn't until the 13th June so only a few days to wait[:D][:D][:D]. I have not been allowed to ride it so have had to content myself with staring longingly at her (Sugar Blue is in the Kitchen next to my favourite chair).
As for appearances I think she is stunning. I looked at a giant SCR 1 but then I would have a bike like everyone else on the road. I followed a bit of advice that I saw on the C+ forum: pick a bike that fits what you will do most of the time. I tend to cycle relatively quickly for a couple of hours in the Southdown’s. Knew I’d never tour (Wife doesn't cycle) but thought I might do a credit card C2C. The thorn ticked all the boxes as they say.
I’ve only a few days to wait until I can ride her. If she rides as good as she looks then I think I’m in for a long and happy relationship. I’ll let you know how we get on[;)]
I'd post a picture if i could work out how to do it!
-
quote:
Originally posted by wheezy
Freddered – Yours looks like one of the smaller sizes for the shorter legged gent. In many ways it looks like a scaled (though chunky) 700c bike, and all the better for it. Unfortunately my own legs account for 90% of my total bodily height, and the larger frame sizes look increasingly out of proportion to the wheels.
Maybe a super-extended seatpost and stem would work for me. (Did I mention my arms are so long, I can pedal with my hands?)
It's a 537S (originally I had 537L with Comfort Bars but swapped to drops and needed shorter top tube for reach). I'm 5'10".
Why don't you get one, ride past shop windows for 100 days and send it back if you don't like the reflection. Chances are you'll like what it feels like so much that you won't care about your reflection.
-
Nice one WindyRob! You'll certainly find it a versatile machine. Apart from audax, I've done a light tour (three days with two nights B&B) and might even do the odd long-distance time-trial on mine as I don't have a suitable TT bike at the moment.
The two best things about it for me are the stiffness at the back end (must be those beefy chainstays because when you press hard on the pedals you can feel the bike respond with forward motion) and its stability when descending - it's easily the best bike I've had when descending at speed. I think the steel fork and oversize headset help make it rock solid.
(http://img3011.photobox.co.uk/67064591d292000dd7cc4df3b1d80047be6df0b89d3844c64b93a3e177aae79c54d8b2a7.jpg)
Anyway, let us know how things go when you take her out.
-
quote:
I think it should be reported to the Head Tube Police.
Nah! I find the 'Bernard Cribbins There-I-was-digging-this-hole' approach is better. [;)]
-
so how do you add an image to a post, does the image have to be on the net first? Because when i cut and paste the image it opens a new internet explorer page and this one is lost.
Sorry to hi-jack the thread but i just want to show her off, is it too much to ask?[;)]
-
For me, I upload to NTL/Virgin Photobox. Open up two IE's with one on the forum and one on Photobox. Find my target picture on photobox, select it, right-click, copy the properties and paste it into my reply adding (img) and (/img) at the start and finish.
Edited: The brackets need to be square brackets [ ]. When I used square brackets in the text above it thought I was adding a photograph and put up the red cross of death square!
-
quote:
Originally posted by WindyRob
so how do you add an image to a post, does the image have to be on the net first? Because when i cut and paste the image it opens a new internet explorer page and this one is lost.
Sorry to hi-jack the thread but i just want to show her off, is it too much to ask?[;)]
Join Photobucket.com
They have a neat [/IMG] link already created to cut paste
-
quote:
It's a 537S (originally I had 537L with Comfort Bars but swapped to drops and needed shorter top tube for reach). I'm 5'10".
That's interesting. I'm also 5'10", and the RST I test rode was a 536L. I still had loads of TT clearance on the 561, but maybe the smaller bike with a longer stem would be OK. It sort of goes against the grain to be altering the fit of a bike rather than going for the largest appropriate frame size first.
-
On checking again, I am 5' 11".
I have, comparitively, short arms and long legs so reach is always an issue.
I sat on bikes at SJSC until one felt right. It was the 537. 3500 miles later I know I made the right choice. I've sat on it for 20 hours in a day and, although most of my body ached, I couldn't have managed 20 hours on any of my other bikes. I've done 10-12 hours at a time in comfort a few times.
-
I've joined Photobucket so here goes....
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z304/WindyRob/DSC00171_edited_lowres.jpg)
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z304/WindyRob/DSC00172_edited.jpg)
-
Very nice.
That reminds me..I must start saving for the Thorn Audax.
-
Great Looking bike, Happy birthday for tomorrow!
-
i'm tempted to try the Midsummer corker 100k Audax event this weekend on her. it says on the website over 2000m of climb; anyone done it before, and how bad is it?
Rob
-
Awesome! What size did you go for and do you want to sell it to me? I need a spare!
-
Blimey, you don't half get blown off topic round here.
-
It used to be worse, believe me!
Have you decided to go for an RST then?
-
No, I continue to blow hither and thither on the winds of... something. I've been trying to settle on a decision for months, and the more time passes, the more hesitant and indecisive I get. This afternoon I'm off to see a local frame builder, which will undoubtedly confuse me even more.
-
Robin Mather perhaps?
-
That's the fella. Do you know him, or his work?
-
Does he give 100 day money back guarantee if you don't like the finished product?
If not, buy a RST first. It avoids making a big mistake
-
quote:
Originally posted by wheezy
That's the fella. Do you know him, or his work?
No, I don't know him but made a tentative enquiry for a frame back in 2004 and he responded in a most courteous manner. For various reasons (including dithering on my part, wanting a really traditional lugged steel frame and cost!) I made a wrong decision and had a frame built by Bob Jacksons.
Anyway, I enjoy a dip into his website and just wish that he updated his gallery a bit more often! He seems much more open-minded than some frame builders I've contacted.
-
Bit slow on the uptake here, but might Thorn use these short head tubes to maximise standover height...?
***Opinion warning*** ;-)
Yeah, it looks a little weird, but functions well, allows LOTS of adjustment and at least they don't resort to using those frankly ghastly very upright stems... Ugh.
-
On a compact frame then standover height isn't really an issue as 2cm on the head tube doesn't mean a 2cm increase on the standover.
And as for the "ghastly very upright stems" then doesn't a short head tube push you into the direction of upright stems and/or an excessive amount of spacers?
-
Good point about the head tubes! Hmmm, why DO they have such short head tubes...?
Again, it's just my opinion but think a stack of spacers looks better than "the "ghastly very upright stems"".
-
quote:
Originally posted by jawj
Again, it's just my opinion but think a stack of spacers looks better than "the "ghastly very upright stems".
Amen to that brother but even better would be the correct length head tube for the notional frame size! My Cyclosportif is supposed to be a 545M (meaning 545mm on the theoretical seat tube measured centre to centre) but the head tube is just 12cm long! It's not right!
But, as I've said before, the Cyclosportif is a great frame (or bike if you buy it built up). Look at Windyrob's bike, it's a beauty and the fillet-brazing on mine is perfect.