Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: strictnaturist on December 28, 2019, 06:00:53 PM
-
Hi all
I feel I have come across some of this info before, but can't see it again.
Hopefully you can assist.
As a Sherpa owner for ten years, and just about to purchase my commuter/ tourer bike for the next decade - hopefully a Mercury. Can anyone recommend which forks I should go for? I don't want to lose any of the comfort that the Sherpa has. Will the Mercury disc forks , running on 2" 560B really be half as comfy as the V brake forks? I am hoping for another decade of touring so also looking at the Thorn rear, and possibly front racks getting swapped from the Sherpa.
Biker friends think I'm daft having disc at the back and V at the front, but if I manage to keep cycling for the next decade.It will be the comfort which keeps me on the bike.
Any Mercury thoughts out there or disc fork folk with tales of comfort very welcome.
All the best for the next year ( and decade too)
Eddie
-
...
Biker friends think I'm daft having disc at the back and V at the front, but if ...
Two and a half years ago I bought a titanium touring frame. Was not really looking for one at the time, but I had always wanted a titanium bike so when i saw the frame at a fantastic price, I went for it. That frame takes disc only, not rim brakes. If I bought the front fork that went with it, that would have cost another $325 USD. But I had a rim brake fork in storage that had the right dimensions (fork rake and the crown race to axle length) to fit nearly perfectly, so decided to save the $325 and use the fork I already owned. Plus, I did not need to spend the money on a new disc unit for the front, but already had the rim brakes I could use, that saved close to another $100 USD. Thus, total savings was over $400 USD.
Almost nobody even notices that I have V brakes with a travel agent on the front and disc brake in the rear. But I used the same rims on the front and rear, so the disc wheel has the machined rim brake surface so that might help hid the difference in brakes.
And if anyone notices and asks, I just tell them that I saved a lot of money by using a fork that I already had when I bought the frame. And then I tell them that in my opinion, I would do it again as having a disc up front was not worth an extra $400 USD that it would have cost me.
When it is raining, the disc works much better than the rim brake, but when it is dry out the disc and rim brake are close to comparable. It is a touring bike and I have used it with a load of camping gear in four panniers. And touring bikes need good brakes. I am using Koolstop Salmon pads on the front rim brake which provide very good grip. Initially, the disc brake worked poorly compared to the rim brake, but I took the semi-metalic pads off the disc unit and put some cheap resin pads on, those resin pads might not last as long but they have much better grip. I now have great braking both front and rear.
In my case, it is not a Rohloff bike, so mine uses conventional six bolt disc, etc. In your case, putting the disc on the back means a disc brake unit, a Rohloff disc (is that four bolts?), and the Rohloff with the disc mount fitted to it, each of those things push the price up a bit higher.
In my case I am using drop bars with normal drop bar cable pull and I am using V brakes. There is a gizmo called a Travel Agent that can convert the cable pull for mixing standard brake levers with V brakes. I do not know if SJS uses them, but if you go with drop bars you should discuss the brake lever issues. I think that Travel Agents are no longer produced, but copies of them are made in Asia. But if you use upright bars with longer cable pull levers, then no problem.
-
running on 2" 560B really be half as comfy as the V brake forks?
Is that a typo and you mean 650B?
I have three bikes (Well four, but I won't include the folder)
Hewit tourer with canti brakes, 1" headset and Reynolds 531 forks
Thorn Mercury with disc rear and V front and the 853 fork
700c Sonder tourer, disc brakes with a straight blade cro-mo fork
With 28mm tyres the Hewit is good, the Thorn OK and the Sonder unbearable
With 32 mm there's little to tell between the Hewitt and the Thorn, the Sonder becomes just about OK
With 35mm there's nothing to tell between the Hewitt and Thorn and the Sonder if fine
With 38mm tyres there's nothing between any of them
I chose the 853 fork because I already had a good dynamo wheel and despite the forks price it was cheaper than also needing a new wheel. I also like the clean look without fittings I didn't need. it's a good fork, I have no complaints and feel is subjective but my experience is it doesn't warrant some of the claims made for it. Every fork I've had with a 1" steerer has been more comfortable than those with a 1 1/8" including one from Thorn. The Sonder was a later purchase and I've been so impressed with the hydraulic Deore disc brakes, if I was buying again I might chose them for the Mercury (I still might, a new fork won't break the bank)
As I said it's subjective and the only way to know for sure is to have a test ride. But for myself if I was planning on using 2" tyres, I wouldn't be thinking too much about the fork flex and would buy on other criteria.
Also - though this wasn't your question at all - if your main interest is commuting and touring I'd also look at the new Nomad.
-
I'm with PH. The wider your tyre, the more comfortable you will be, and the less other factors will matter. At 2in and over of tyre width, you can choose just about any competent fork and feel no difference. And if you go to low-pressure balloons, like the Big Apples, even an overly stiff fork could become bearable.
Where I part from PH is in his apparent assumption that any tyre at 37/38mm will be bearable. I think that, once you have some minimum comfortable width, then other factors enter into the result nearly as much as additional width, the two most important after width being that low inflation is a comfort-breeder, and so are flexible sidewalls. Leaving aside incompetent tyres that flatted all the time and wore out with expensive regularity before I learned the hard way not to trust my LBS but to do my own research, of the competent tyres I've had at 37/38mm, I cannot tell you how much I hated the admirably thorn-proof and long-lived Schwalbe Marathon Plus, and the workalike Bontrager Hardcase Elite too, for their unrelieved harshness which put the price of a nice BMW in my physio's pocket -- and that's from a fellow who generally admires Schwalbe and Bontrager, and who in probably fifteen years or more hasn't bought any tyres that weren't made by Schwalbe.
BTW, my bike's entire suspension is in the Big Apple tyres and the Brooks saddle, and I feel no pain in either the small of my back or in my wrists, and haven't since I switched to balloons.
One more thing. One often hears that fat tyres and especially low-inflation balloons must necessarily be slow. That's exactly the opposite of the truth. http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.msg16360#msg16360 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=3798.msg16360#msg16360)
I'm very happy to meet another cyclist who puts comfort first!
-
Where I part from PH is in his apparent assumption that any tyre at 37/38mm will be bearable.
We only differ in clarity, my assumption being that anyone reading would be using good tyres. For the record the experience listed above is with Conti GP4S in 28 & 32, Marathon Supremes in 32,35,38 and Marathon Racer in 35. On the rear I'm a little less fussy, the Sonder is a work bike with an Alfine hub, it has a Marathon Plus for the puncture protection, and the other bikes will from time to time have something else I've experimented with, maybe something I've tried on the front and rejected.
-
Thanks everyone, for what we expect from this excellent forum. Great advise from real life experiences.
Sorry, it was a typo PH , and great to hear that ( good quality) 50mm tyres will compensate for the introduction of disks .
I had briefly looked at the Nomad, but according to the Thorn matrix. The Nomad features quite poorly for general riding and weekend runs unloaded?
I shall definitely give it another good look over though, as the Sherpahas been amazing!
This new bike will be my only bike. Weekend runs ( 30%), commuting ( 40%) and available for Land Rover track touring to bothies and beyond ( 30%). Maybe the Nomad is more suitable?
Happy to take your invaluable advise before I commit
all the best
Eddie
-
Happy to take your invaluable advise before I commit
Happy to share my experience, but if I were to offer any advice it would be to take the time for a test ride to make your own mind up.
There's too many variables, between bikes, riders and components, that my experience and yours might differ. Mine is a 700c Mercury which may not be applicable to one on 650b wheels. Plus although I've seen the new Nomad I haven't ridden one...
I find the Mercury well described as a sports tourer, it's rewarding when you give it some effort, and handles like a steady road bike more than a tourer. I'm not sure it's the bike I'd chose for the Land Rover tracks. I do tour on it, but even with 12kg in two panniers and a bar bag, it sometimes feels like the tail is wagging the dog, if touring was it's main purpose it'd be the wrong bike. I'm 6'3" 100kg and ride the 610 which is the largest size.
Off topic - If you fancy a short holiday to include a day at SJS, I just stayed in Weston Super Mare for four nights on a coach trip for the bargain price of £129, only available in the winter obviously, the same holiday in the summer would be £350
-
...
I had briefly looked at the Nomad, but according to the Thorn matrix. The Nomad features quite poorly for general riding and weekend runs unloaded?
I shall definitely give it another good look over though, as the Sherpahas been amazing!...
I have a Sherpa, bought the frame and fork used from someone in Canada that loved it but it was not the right size for him so he sold it to me. I bought it in 2010, thus I am not sure which "Mk" version Sherpa it was. I have done some one and two week long tours with it, plus some general riding.
Also have a Nomad Mk II. The new Mk III version is quite different from the Mk II, I have no idea if it is as heavy a frame as the predecessor. But the Mk II Nomad had a weight rating for capacity (not counting the weight of the rider) that was about double that of the Sherpa. Thus, the frame is heavy and stiff. If the Mk III is as robust a bike frame as the Mk II, it would be great for carrying a load, but if you would mostly be riding unladen, this bike might not be the right one for you.
I started a thread a few years ago about a trip I had my Nomad on, if you want to read a short trip log for the type of trip that the Nomad was perfect for, check it out at:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11917.0
If you look at that thread, I suspect you will conclude that the Nomad is much more weight capacity than you are looking for. My Nomad is somewhere near 20 kg unladen which is a much heavier bike than most would want for light weight riding. I am sure that you could build up a Nomad with lighter weight components to reduce the total bike weight, but it still would be a heavy bike.
I do not know much about the Raven, but it sounds to me like that might be a better bike for you than the Nomad if you choose to stick with 26 inch.
I consider my Nomad my heavy duty expedition bike. My Sherpa is my medium duty touring bike. And my titanium bike (non-Thorn) is for lighter weight touring. The Nomad is the only Rohloff bike of the fleet. I also have some other bikes that are not stiff enough for loaded touring.
-
Thank you all for the advise.
Its true, I should ride one ( or two) before deciding. Unfortunately , I live the other side of the country from the Thorn HQ. Angus in Scotland.
Possibly that one bike - commuting/ weekend runs / that big trip etc is actually two bikes :-)
The Club Tour 650B is looking more like that bike than the Mercury just now, although the opportunity of the R hub is a financial option just now with the CTW scheme, which might be removed without much notice.
Its interesting to see in the new 2020 Thorn brochure that non of the bikes have the comfort bars, or the Thorn racks or low loaders? Even the Nomad has the lighter rack.
with best wishes
Eddie
-
The Club Tour 650B is looking more like that bike than the Mercury just now, although the opportunity of the R hub is a financial option just now with the CTW scheme, which might be removed without much notice.
Have you spoken to any of the folks at Thorn yet? One of my questions would be how different the Mercury/Nomad/Club Tour would be with the same build and wheel size.
I note in the 700c Nomad pamphlet that with the 853 V brake fork it would be lighter than a Mercury set up to carry the same weight!
Despite the simplicity of a single bike, it does involve compromises, is there a reason this is to replace the Sherpa rather than compliment it?
-
Thanks for your help. I'm getting there!
I will contact Thorn soon to discuss the best option
-
Hi all
Biker friends think I'm daft having disc at the back and V at the front,
Whatever were Thorn thinking when they came up with that idea!
I optioned the Thorn fork with the braze ons for a front rack and XT V brake for my Mercury.
This brake is more than adequate and I have always done most of my braking front only, only using the rear for emergency stops.
I run Schwalbe Marathon Supremes 36 X 622 at about 65psi which gives quite a comfortable ride.
I love the Rohloff (we started with one on our Thorn tandem) and as others have said you can hurry the Merc along if you want to.
FWIW
Mike
-
The Thorn designer has an aversion to front discs. He seems to think the forks will break with continued use!
Johnh
-
The Thorn designer as an aversion to front discs. He seems to think the forks will break with continued use!
Johnh
That's not really fair John, was it meant as humour?
His opinion of discs is pretty clear in the mega brochure. He certainly does not think the forks Thorn bikes come fitted with will break.
-
I’m certain that at some point previously Andy told me and had written that discs were not safe as the force distribution was affecting the weak part of the fork.
I loveThorn bikes and as is known I have more than one. But they are certainly over built to be able to have such a good warranty. If a manufacturer builds strong and tough then a long term warranty can be given.
I certainly do not like or want disc brakes. A personal point of view unaffected by anything.
Was the comment in humour? Maybe
Happy New Year
John
PS:- I don’t post very often because I seem to cause conflict. I do however post truthfully.
-
The Thorn designer as an aversion to front discs. He seems to think the forks will break with continued use!
Johnh
That's not really fair John, was it meant as humour?
His opinion of discs is pretty clear in the mega brochure. He certainly does not think the forks Thorn bikes come fitted with will break.
seems a fair comment to me
from a thread a few years back the quote was from a previous mega brochure
"We do not (and will not) fit disc brakes to resilient steel forks. The leverage of the caliper on the rotor can pry the wheel from its dropout. A through axle dropout (and hub) would prevent this but, to fit one, we would have to use very large diameter blades; these would then be horribly uncomfortable to ride, there is enough rubbish on the market without us adding to it!"
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12571.0
also jags mentioned gates drive that idea was poo pooed at the time, now theres the Nomad mk3
-
The Thorn designer as an aversion to front discs. He seems to think the forks will break with continued use!
Johnh
That's not really fair John, was it meant as humour?
His opinion of discs is pretty clear in the mega brochure. He certainly does not think the forks Thorn bikes come fitted with will break.
seems a fair comment to me
from a thread a few years back the quote was from a previous mega brochure
"We do not (and will not) fit disc brakes to resilient steel forks. The leverage of the caliper on the rotor can pry the wheel from its dropout. A through axle dropout (and hub) would prevent this but, to fit one, we would have to use very large diameter blades; these would then be horribly uncomfortable to ride, there is enough rubbish on the market without us adding to it!"
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=12571.0
also jags mentioned gates drive that idea was poo pooed at the time, now theres the Nomad mk3
But things do change. For example at the time that was written Reynolds were not offering fork blades they deemed compatible with disc brakes, they do now.
John's comment was in the present tense and whatever may have been true in the past isn't necessarily so now.
Another change of opinion has been the EBB design, they were dismissive of the clamp option, then introduced it as a four bolt design on the Mercury and it's now a two bolt design on the Nomad.
-
So very true that things change, and Thorn has slowly changed along with new technologies.
What I feel needs to be noted is how rare it is for a company to cary on with a conservative traditional approach. One of the banes of the cycling world is the silly fads that mask as progress for a year or three, and then fade into a dead-end, fork. Planned obsolescence is the same annoyance, so obvious, but aside from a very few companies such as Thorn, the constant churning out of new parts and systems is seen as the way to make money.
Thorn instead is small island where quality, reliability and a real world cycling experience are offered in an ocean of racing oriented cycling. To me honest, if it were not for Thorn, I'd be done with cycling, most likely. That tall steerer and Mount Olympus sized stack of rings, so often derided in "some" other forums, is my ticket to cycling in my more advanced years.
So, sure, we can point back at Andy's suspicion of unproven technologies and the slow rate of change, but in my book, that's something to be highly valued.
- Pavel
-
Some interesting observations in this thread. Peoples' perceptions of Thorn have interested me over the years, sometimes seen as making excellent reliable products, sometimes as 'stick in the mud' and behind the times. In around 2009, I sold my Raven Tour - never used in the way it was built for - and bought a Cube hardtail from one of the leading bike shops in my home town. Nice bike, liked it. When choosing it, I commented to the main sales guy that I had had a Thorn - he then waffled on about how resistant they were to new ideas, fancy being against discs etc etc . . . He only shut up when I replaced the Cube in the rack and made to leave.
(I went off that bike shope in a big way when they promised a 'detailed check' after a few weeks use. I took the bike back for that, the mechanic accidentally left the workshop door open; he picked up the bike, shook it vigourously, and dumped it against the bench - then made a cup of tea. 15 mins later, he came back and said he had checked it thoroughly etc etc. I have not been back since. The bike shop I now use, when I need to, speak highly of Thorn and seem experienced with their products).
The Cube was a nice bike, hydraulic discs etc., but was stolen 6 months after I bought it. When hunting around for a replacement, and thinking about a Cube hybrid, I noticed that Thorn were selling a 'spare time build' Ripio in my size . . . .bought it, loved it, only sold it on 6 yrs later when my riding became much more road focused.
The only 'problem' I have ever had with Thorn bikes in 13 years is with the ceramic rims on my original Raven Tour - coating deteriorated and came off the rims. Andy offered to replace, no arguement, with new CSS rims, which served me very well and the new owner rode them to Vietnam. My dtr-in-law's gravel bike has caused her more problems in 2 yrs that my Thorns ever have - disc brakes, gears, etc etc.
So I think Thorn's are absolutely right to be cautious, and outline their reservations clearly - but once proven, and as products improve with development, they are offered.
For me, I'm happy with rim brakes (just spent part of afternoon fitting Salmon pads to cope better with wet weather city riding) and I really hope that the 'basic' choices (e.g. Sherpa, Raven) remain available - for my riding, they suit me fine.
And as far as the oringinal query re forks is concerned, I have had both standard and the 853 . . . . to be honest, I noticed little difference - probably because the larger tyres on the Sherpa absorb more vibration anyway - on the Audax, yes, I'm sure they help with comfort. I specced the 853 forks on the Sherpa because I was keen to reduce weight as much as possible, and I have no complaints.
Lewis
-
So I think Thorn's are absolutely right to be cautious, and outline their reservations clearly - but once proven, and as products improve with development, they are offered.
In my view, a nicely stated summary of Thorn's philosophy, Lewis.
Apart from the latest edition of the Thorn Mega Brochure ( http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf ), now referred to as the "Thorn Touring Bike Bible", there are some other resources that also detail Thorn's evolving design philosophy wrt to recent developments.
In the latest (Autumn 2019) edition of _Living With A Rohloff_...
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornLivingWithARohloff.pdf
...Thorn designer Andy Blance explains a bit more his feelings on the latest developments and how they have entered the current models -- and his reservations. For highlights, see pages...
28 -- 2019 Changes including some in-depth comments re: Nomad Mk 3...and loss of the S&S coupler option.
32-35 -- Updates on Rohloff issues and a further explanation of changes in Rohloff's warranty coverage and need for hub registration.
36-37 -- Gates belt drive vs. Chains
38 -- Rear disc brakes, spoke counts and a derailleur fallback option for the Nomad Mk3.
39 -- More on Thorn's Rohloff warranty overlay and explicit cautions wrt oil changes, need to avoid pressure washing or submerging the hubs.
40 -- A move toward greater endorsement of the EX (external) shift-box.
43 -- More details on the new double-clamping eccentric BB shell (evolution of the one first seen on the older Mercury's mini-eccentric). The Mercury Mk3, Nomad Mk3 and RavenTwin Mk3 tandem all use this new shell design.
...with a number of new personal trip summaries and information.
Similarly, even if you aren't particularly interested in a Thorn Rohloff-equipped tandem, the RavenTwin brochure (Spring 2019 edition)...
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornRavenTwinBroHiRes.pdf
...is well worth a read because it further explains Andy's evolving stance on some key developments on pages...
5 -- Spoke count with Rohloff hubs/wheels.
5-6 -- Disc forks, preference for 26in wheel size for tandem/heavy applications
7 -- New ED coated/treated fork steerer to better combat corrosion. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrophoretic_deposition.
8 -- Increasing support for straight handlebars, less so for drops.
12-13 -- Deeper thoughts on discs vs. v-brakes.
There's more in both these revised publications that will answer many questions about Thorn's recent changes and how they evolved from the previous designs.
Best,
Dan.
-
I have a lot of opinions on bikes and bike components, but not many about Thorn as a company. I have never been to the UK, thus have never seen their store, etc. I built up my two Thorns from parts, thus SJS recommendations for components, etc. are not anything I have much of an opinion on because I was choosing my components based on what was available to me in USA.
Bottom line, when I build up a touring bike I want it to be robust, easily repairable, parts that are easily replaceable (and obtainable), and the utmost in reliability. My opinions do not always match Thorns opinions, but overall I think our opinions are quite similar.
I thought Thorn's recommendation against drop bars on the Nomad Mk II a bit odd, but they had an 590M size frame that had the size and geometry that I wanted for a drop bar bike. So, I did not let their recommendation against my build plans bother me. I still am not sure why they recommend against drop bars, I can't imagine trying to ride a fully loaded touring bike into 30 or 40 km/hr headwinds with upright bars. But I am happy with the way I built up that drop bar bike so I really do not need to know why they suggest upright bars.
There is one exception to my lack of opinions on Thorn and their recommendations for parts and components. I ordered Andra 30 rims and 2.25 inch width tires when I ordered my Nomad frame. I blindly accepted Thorn's recommendation for the Andra 30 for heavy duty touring. That was my mistake, I did not research the rim further on my own, instead I just accepted the Thorn recommendation. if I had researched it further, I never would have ordered a rim that had an inner width of only 19mm for a bike that I planned to use 57mm wide tires on.
I eventually decided to buy a set of CSS Andra 40 rims and put those on my Nomad instead of the Andra 30 CSS rims that I have. But in the process of trying to order such rims, I could not find any mention of CSS on the Ryde website That was when we learned that CSS rims are no longer being made. I do not want to lose the CSS rims, thus I reluctantly decided to keep the Andra 30 rims on my Nomad when I learned that I could not order any Andra 40 CSS rims to replace them.
This whole discussion started because of Thorn's opinions on disc brakes on forks, but that is a topic I really have no opinion on. My only disc brake bike has a disc on the rear and a rim brake on the front, and that is not even a Thorn bike. I built it with a rim brake fork as a cost saving measure.
-
Thanks for selecting the highlights of an important document, Dan.
Not many designers will give one as much insight into their minds as Andy Blance does; it should be said in their defence that in many cases their masters will consider what's in the designer's head as proprietary information. I had an example of this when I wanted to use as an illustration in a book some calculations for the chassis of a large and very successful -- over a hundred sold at Rolls-Royce prices --nostalgicar I designed for a famed British builder: when my publisher advised him as a courtesy that I would be doing this, he sent a lawyer's letter... A few weeks later he called to ask whether I was interested in designing the chassis for a small sports car, and I asked him about the kerfuffle with the lawyer. He replied, "I'm not paying you to help my bloody competitors!" I said, "You should rather see it as a gauntlet thrown down, a challenge to compete with a standard they cannot possibly meet." He wasn't impressed: "Copycats have no shame." A master-builder of sports-racing cars, Major Mallock, gladly provided me with some insights into his thinking, which I published as a two-page box-out; I later heard it did him some commercial good.
Messrs Thorn and Blance are to be commended on understanding that they too are throwing down the gauntlet, and that it is good business, attracting customers: Mr Blance tells us so again and again. Here's one on p39:
Unique to Thorn - another
astonishing promise!
10 year warranty on the hub’s internal gear mechanism
We’re convinced that your Rohloff hub is so unlikely to
ever let you down that, as from 1 Jan 2018 we make this promise:-
Our promise - if you have an insurmountable problem with the internal
mechanism of your Rohloff hub, which prevents completion of your tour, contact us and we’ll act promptly.
If you’re in a remote area, we’ll send you a new wheel, we’ll send this entirely at our expense, to the closest settlement served by an international courier (DHL, UPS etc). If you’re closer to home, we’ll collect your wheel from you - at our expense, we’ll repair (or replace it) and return it to you, free of charge, generally within 7 working days for UK customers and within 14 working days for overseas customers.
Or this consistent policy -- complete with taunting commentary:
Please also note; we allow you a
“100 day, money back if, not delighted” trial
period, with our Rohloff bike - who else has
such confidence in their product?
-
I thought Thorn's recommendation against drop bars on the Nomad Mk II a bit odd, but they had an 590M size frame that had the size and geometry that I wanted for a drop bar bike. So, I did not let their recommendation against my build plans bother me. I still am not sure why they recommend against drop bars, I can't imagine trying to ride a fully loaded touring bike into 30 or 40 km/hr headwinds with upright bars. But I am happy with the way I built up that drop bar bike so I really do not need to know why they suggest upright bars.
If I recall correctly, Thorn's position on drop bars changed when they started making the Raven bikes with Rohloff hubs. Pretty sure that they were strongly in favour of drops prior to this. I suspect it is Rohloff only offer a twist grip changer and they did not feel that there was a way to use Rohloff with drops that was both elegant and efficient. Of course it could just be that they changed their minds ;). Personally, I like drops and far prefer them to straight bars. My solution to combining drops with Rohloff was to use a Minoura accessory bar; it's not elegant, but it did allow me to place the shifter in what I consider to be the optimum position. Probably possible to get the same position, or very close to it, with one of Thorn's own accessory bars, which would certainly be neater!
-
I've never been a fan of the mega brochure, too much hype and running down of others for my liking. That it's now called a Bible I find offensive, Thorn make nice bikes, they're not Gods.
Some of it is nonsense, they berate other wheel builders for not following Rohloff's instructions, when Thorn frequently disregarded them and go their own way. Just look at the bikes in the brochures, the wheel builds differ. Mine is built in a way that the reinforcing rings, that Rohloff recommend, can't be fitted and 1X rather than the Rohloff recommended 2X - I'm not questioning their expertise, but they can't then dismiss others for doing something they do themselves.
Their redeeming feature IMO is that they stand behind their products, the latest examples being the way their warranties go beyond the manufacturers. I don't really care how my wheel is built, I do care that it'll get sorted if there's a problem.
As for the idea that Thorn are conservative, there might be some truth in that in some things, but the way they promoted the Rohloff above all else was pretty bold. At a time when hardly anyone in the UK had even heard of it and other manufacturers were either dismissive or reluctant. I don't know if Thorn would have survived if that had been a failure, it certainly would have been a huge knock and they wouldn't be the company they are today.
-
If I recall correctly, Thorn's position on drop bars changed when they started making the Raven bikes with Rohloff hubs
I'm not sure that's right. I nearly bought an original Nomad a couple of years before the Raven was launched, straight bars were pretty standard then.
-
I thought Thorn's recommendation against drop bars on the Nomad Mk II a bit odd, but they had an 590M size frame that had the size and geometry that I wanted for a drop bar bike. So, I did not let their recommendation against my build plans bother me. I still am not sure why they recommend against drop bars, I can't imagine trying to ride a fully loaded touring bike into 30 or 40 km/hr headwinds with upright bars. But I am happy with the way I built up that drop bar bike so I really do not need to know why they suggest upright bars.
If I recall correctly, Thorn's position on drop bars changed when they started making the Raven bikes with Rohloff hubs. Pretty sure that they were strongly in favour of drops prior to this. I suspect it is Rohloff only offer a twist grip changer and they did not feel that there was a way to use Rohloff with drops that was both elegant and efficient. Of course it could just be that they changed their minds ;). Personally, I like drops and far prefer them to straight bars. My solution to combining drops with Rohloff was to use a Minoura accessory bar; it's not elegant, but it did allow me to place the shifter in what I consider to be the optimum position. Probably possible to get the same position, or very close to it, with one of Thorn's own accessory bars, which would certainly be neater!
I tried a couple different places for the Rohloff twist grip shifter that placed the shifter pretty close to the steerer tube. But on my Iceland tour there were several times when I was pedaling up a steep hill on gravel and cobbles and I found the desire to keep both hands on the handlebars for steering to be more important than my desire to downshift to a lower gear. And it was on one of those hills that I decided when I got home I would get the Hubbub Adapter and put my twist grip shifter on the end of the handlebar on the right side. That way on difficult terrain when I want to have both hands on the handlebars for steering control, I can also have one hand on the shifter.
I first started using bar end shifters on a derailleur bike in the 1980s. At this time I have bar end shifters on three different derailleur bikes. Thus, I find that having a Rohloff shifter on the end of the handlebar is a very logical place to put it, as on other bikes I am used to reaching to that location. And have had the shifter there now for three years, have no desire to change it. A photo below.