Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: johnfmackay on May 01, 2013, 05:07:52 PM
-
What are the basic differences between a Raven Tourer and a Raven Nomad 2?
A work friend has a Raven Tourer (2007) which I think wonderful but to spec a new one would put it out of reach for me, I see Vendor Tom is selling his late father's Raven Nomad 2 which I could stretch to but wonder if it's too specialised for my requirements. I cycle 10-15 miles per day, (supermarket etc) and perhaps 25-40 miles on the weekend with the occasional longer trip a couple of times per year (with luggage) whilst on holiday. Not really concerned about speed but do like to be able to do quite steep climbs.
Many thanks for any feedback.
John
-
Hi and welcome.
I am sure this post will draw a lot of good advice from folk more experienced than myself.
So all I will say is....
I nearly went for a Nomad but decided on the Raven since the majority of my riding will be unloaded. Also, I read a good tour review by someone who did Asia on a Raven and found it fine.
So that clinched it for me.
Plus, I found a real barging through this forum for a good second hand Raven
(Thanks Andy)
Matt
-
Hi John!
Welcome to the Forum.
Your question goes to the root of what many of us have asked ourselves when choosing from Thorn's wide selection of offerings -- "Which one is best for *me*?"
Having owned a Sherpa Mk2 (essentially the same frame as a Raven Tour [RT] but with derailleurs instead of Rohloff) and now a Nomad Mk2 (essentially the same as Vendor Tom's father's on offer) I can make some comparisons.
I found the Sherpa to be a wonderful all-'round touring bike with ability to carry heavier loads -- say, up to about 33kg. I had a 560S (short top tube intended for drop handlebars) with the extra-oversize tubing with conical top and downtubes and found the bike to be very resilient, remarkably shock-absorbing, and pleasant for riding 200-300km/day on everything from pavement to singletrack. I used 26x2.0 Schwalbe Dureme tires on it and found them to nicely match the all-'round character of the bike. Briefly fitting 26x1.5 road slicks transformed the bike with a much sportier feel (reduced rotating weight aided acceleration and a lower profile changed the geometry a bit) and biased it more firmly toward road use.
Riding unladen, Sherpa felt much like my 700C-wheeled conventional touring bikes, but "more" -- I'd call it a heavy-duty tourer that also worked well as a day-rider and for conventional touring and general riding. Again, a terrific all-'rounder.
In contrast, the Nomad is like Sherpa (or an RT) but "more yet" -- a super-duty touring bike, capable of carrying the heaviest loads and biased more toward that purpose. The frame is thicker-walled and larger in diameter and so the frame itself is less resilient when unladen, depending more on wide/fat tires run at low pressures for comfort when riding without a load. My 590M Nomad is heavier at 20kg compared to about 18kg for the similarly equipped Sherpa and 14.5kg for my standard tourers, but an appropriate weight for a super-duty expedition tourer that will haul full gear plus extra food stores and 26.5l of water when needed. It is just exactly what I need and want for my extended desert crossings. The bike is still an all'-rounder, but biased firmly toward the "heavy lifting" end of the spectrum in my opinion -- ideal for expedition touring and a bit less so if most use will be day-riding unladen, as it really comes into its own when hauling a lot of cargo as well as rider. That said, I've enjoyed riding it unladen or with just a handlebar bag or rack pack. It did very nicely on a 200km mixed ride on pavement and logging roads in mountainous terrain, but required much lower tire pressures than Sherpa for comfort 'cos the Nomad's frame is stiffer.
Things have changed a bit with Thorn's redesign of the Sherpa Mk3 and merging of the Raven Sport Tour and Raven Tour into one offering, now called the Thorn Raven. The Sherpa Mk3 and Raven frames are identical except for the drivetrain. Unlike on the older frames, the tubing diameter is now proportional to frame size, and while ultimate cargo capacity is less, the bikes are probably better suited to riding unladen or with lighter loads in terms of comfort. In other words, they're probably even better suited to all-'round use than before. In contrast, the Nomad remains the dedicated expedition touring bike in the line and the one to get if you need to carry 50kg loads as I sometimes do.
So, I would suggest evaluating your needs (as you've nicely done) and use that list of requirements to select the bike best suited to the majority of your riding. All Thorn's bikes have a versatility of range and purpose far beyond that of their rivals and even their lighter bikes have some luggage-carrying capacity. Certainly, the Raven Tour (like the Sherpa Mk2) has successfully completed any number of 'round-the-world tours with no problem at all, so you wouldn't be limiting yourself compared to a Nomad Mk2 unless you have extreme carriage needs.
As much as I love my Nomad Mk2, in looking at your needs and requirements I would suggest the Raven Tour is better suited for your intended purpose. You surely wouldn't go wrong with the Nomad and many happily use it as their sole daily ride, but I think it is likely more bike than would be ideal, and its super-duty capacity might be a bit specialized for your general needs use, costing you a bit in comfort when unladen or lightly loaded.
That said, the Nomad and Raven Tour differ in their Rohloff shifter routing. The Nomad has an external shiftbox that attaches to the left side of the hub and conveniently removes for wheel changes. The Raven uses an internal cabling with two quick-release attachments. In actual use, they are equivalent for all practical purposes and I wouldn't let either be a determining factor in making my choice.
On either bike, a shorter top tube is better suited for use with the longer forward reach of drop handlebars, while the longer frames are usually paired with straight or comfort handlebars used with or without bar-ends.
As for the ability to easily manage steep climbs, that depends more on gearing selection than the overall bike. Since both the bikes you are considering have Rohloff drivetrains, fitting something like Rohloff's newly approved 36x17t gearing combo will get you up nearly anything regardless of load; many people are very happy with a 38x16t. Such changes require only a new chainring and/or cog and a shortened chain. Cost is minimal; I went from a 40x17 to a 36x17 for only USD$22 out of pocket for a new 'ring.
I hope this helps. If you have any questions moving forward, feel free to give a shout and I'm sure we'll all do our best to help. We'll each have our opinions and preferences, and taking the collective pulse will help answer the larger questions in making your selection.
Best,
Dan.
-
Excellent post Dan. Just want thing does not quite add up, I think...
The frame is thicker-walled and larger in diameter.
I think the Sherpa, Raven, Nomad and Nomad X have the same wall thickness as they are all made from Thorn's 969 tubeset (0.9 mm - 0.6 mm - 0.9 mm).
There are a few more differences between these bikes. Nomad and Nomad X are available with S&S couplings, can take suspension forks, have the disc-brake option and external shifting mech on the Rohloff. And as Dan said, the Nomad can carry heaviest loads of all, while Nomad X is for light touring, on or off road. The Raven can be used with different steel forks (including a lightweight one) but no suspension, no disc brakes, internal shifting mech (different cable routing, marginally lighter and cheaper).
If you're on a budget John, then new Ravens are slightly cheaper than Nomads, and same goes for second hand... I think that Nomad listed here is £1950 second-hand. It is a great spec, but if you don't need S&S couplings and dynamo hub etc. then here you have some new Ravens below that price, and with warranty for the frame (lifetime) and Rohloff (two years but in practice I understand Thorn cover all new bikes with lifetime guarantee as well should anything go wrong due to Rohloff failure, if maintained properly): http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-new-ex-display-used-cycles-and-framesets-dept671_pg1/
So herein lies the dilemma... I hope I helped rather than confused you. As Dan said, there is no simple answer to your question and it all depends on your needs, really. Good like getting your dream bike!
-
I do wonder... surely my Nomad is vast overkill for the way I use it. Or maybe... sometimes with grocery shopping I can put a serious enough load on my bike. Maybe 60 pounds total or so, and then there is me at 180 pounds or so. I like being able to ride home and hit rough pavement going downhill and not worrying. Probably that is still within the Raven Tour's capability too, but more at the upper end while for the Nomad it is easy. The Nomad is like an Ox, big and strong.
I don't know about geometry, but one thing I do like about my Nomad is that it is really stable, so I can easily ride no-handed even over bumps. That's nice, maybe to take off my gloves and put them in my pocket when it gets warm, or just to stretch my arms a bit. The Nomad is not a fast bike but it is very comfortable.
I have never seen another Thorn bike, much less ridden one. So I cannot provide any comparisons from my experience.
-
Thank you all for the welcome and the comprehensive advice...especially Dan. It's not often you get access to such unbiased expertise. I'm pretty sure now that the Raven is the way to go, I wouldn't be doing the Nomad justice. At the end of the day I want something that is very comfortable laden and unladen but also stable.
I'll speak to SJS about the ex display models (thank you Kuba) and keep scanning the forum for a used Raven.
Many thanks once again.
Best.
John
-
Hi - I think the Raven's that SJS are selling off "cheap" are not ex display but just the last few frames of the old model built up with current components so they are a great deal
Andy
-
Thanks Andy.
-
Hi John,
Just to let you know, I bought one of the Raven Tours, SJS got a deal on a load of Shimano nexus hubs so they can put together a nice Raven Tour/Sport for a good price.
I paid £1250 which included a dynahub and rear thorn carrier.
You can email Dave Whittle or phone him ( contact details on this site) and he will help you choose.
The Raven Tour I got was the last in my size so you might want to make up your mind sooner rather than later.
The bike is great, very solid and handles like a dream.
You wont regret it, good luck ;)
Ian
-
Hi Ian,
Interesting, is the Nexus the 8 or 11 speed? I have the 8 on a Trek. In your opinion how does the Nexus compare to the Rohloff?
Thanks for the heads up.
Kindest Regards
John
-
Hi John,
Just to let you know, I bought one of the Raven Tours, SJS got a deal on a load of Shimano nexus hubs so they can put together a nice Raven Tour/Sport for a good price.
I paid £1250 which included a dynahub and rear thorn carrier.
You can email Dave Whittle or phone him ( contact details on this site) and he will help you choose.
The Raven Tour I got was the last in my size so you might want to make up your mind sooner rather than later.
The bike is great, very solid and handles like a dream.
You wont regret it, good luck ;)
Ian
Any snaps? I have an "old Raven"
-
It is the nexus 8 John, im afraid I cant offer any comparisons as I have never used a hub before. All I can say is it sure beats a derailleur setup :)
You have already seen the pics Matt....
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=6033.0
-
Hi Ian
I thought it was the Alfine 8 you had - not the Nexus?
Andy
-
Oops, you are of course right, that will teach me to respond on my ipad after Wine......
It is an Alfine 8 ::)
-
Does anyone have experience of both...the Alfine and Rohloff? I've been told the Alfine might be smoother and quieter but may not last as long...but then it is less than half the price. Would the Alfine have a similar spread of ratios (Alfine 11?) to the Rohloff?
Best.
John
-
I have run both and the Alfine is quieter both in operation and in freewheel. The Alfine looses out in most other areas though. The quality of gear change, the gear range and the expected life service. If you are going down the hub gear avenue and you are looking at a bike that is going to get serious use (and abuse) there is no comparison - it would have to be the Rohloff. If you are looking at a low maintenance all weather commuter the alfine (in either guise) would be more than up to the job.
Andy
-
Hi All!
Nomad Mk2 "969" tubing (top and down tubes) does indeed have a wall thickness of 0.9mm/0.6mm/0.9mm; mystery solved!
Excellent post Dan. Just want thing does not quite add up, I think...
Quote from: Danneaux on May 01, 2013, 10:28:15 AM
The frame is thicker-walled and larger in diameter.
I think the Sherpa, Raven, Nomad and Nomad X have the same wall thickness as they are all made from Thorn's 969 tubeset (0.9 mm - 0.6 mm - 0.9 mm). (EDIT: Actually, following a message exchange with Dan, I'm no longer sure about it. The tubeset is indeed called 969 and on the Raven it's 0.9/0.6/0.9 mm. The Nomad's wall thickness does not seem to be stated anywhere in the current brochures but may actually be 1.0/0.7/1.0 mm - can anyone shed some light?).
I stand happily and cheerfully corrected, thanks to a bit of digging after Kuba expressed some doubts. I asked Dave Whittle and he replied...Hi, All 969 as far as i'm aware is 0.9/0.6/0.9 though Andy isn't here until Wednesday to double check this with, the main difference on the Nomad is the larger tubing on the rear end and the clearance increase, there are geometry differences too.
He checked with Andy Blance, and this morning confirmed...Andy has confirmed they are all 0.9/0.6/0.9, thanks.
Yeah! Now we know for sure, this may help others when trying to decide between a Nomad Mk2 and a Raven for purchase.
I kept thinking I'd read somewhere the Nomad had 1.0/0.7/1.0 tube walls. To see why, here's a bit of my correspondence to Kuba on the subject...This is a fun mystery!...I enjoyed going through the old Thorn brochures in the Internet Wayback Machine earlier today, and found some text hinting at thicker tube walls...but nothing specific. For example...
Quote
Some people say the bikes are heavy but I have had no complaints from any customer who was looking for a true expedition touring bike. Crashing down rocky trails with huge loads or being thrown around by baggage handlers, is a sure way to test robustness and durability to their limits. There is no substitute for tube wall thickness in these circumstances. What would be the point of havig an expedition frame built with tubes that would lose all their structural rigidity , once they had a big dent in them? -- Spring 2011
...and...
Quote
The Nomad Mk2 frames weigh around 3kg but, considering their great strength, they are, indeed, exceptionally light in weight!
Back in 2003, it seems the original Nomad (the ones that were handbuilt) may have had 1.0/0.7/1.0 tubing... http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=30.msg211#msg211 ...and... http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1208.msg6200#msg6200 ...and of course, the old eXp ( http://coursesoflife.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/thorn-raven-nomad.pdf ); in the brochure Andy Blance said about the eXp...
Quote
...I decided to have the frame tubes made from heavy gauge (1.0/0.7/1.0) tubing. Which is 140% stiffer than ultralight gauge tubing...these tubes are significantly more resistant to denting and to cracking than ultra lightweight tubing. [pg 15, January 2010]
When I was researching Sherpa prior to purchase, I assumed 969 referred to wall thickness just as it did on my Centurion touring bicycles' Tange Champion No. 2 tubing, where tube walls are indeed .9/.6/.9mm in wall thickness. I think Sherpa was...but now I'm beginning to think 969 now generally refers to Thorn's flavor/brand of chro-moly tubing (see sidebar specs in this CTC comparo between the Nomad Mk2 and Santos' TravelMaster: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/member/201007054.pdf ). More references to Thorn's "969" tubing here: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/touring/product/review-thorn-cycles-sherpa-09-33983 ("Thorn's own brand 969") and http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/road/product/review-thorn-cycles-raven-tour-10257 ("Thorn 969 cold drawn, butted, heat treated tubing & exclusive heavy-duty Thorn 969 stays"). Things get a bit murkier here: http://billyromp.com/the-tech-page/ ...and... http://thelazyrando.wordpress.com/tag/thorn-nomad/ ...and... http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/englisch/presseberichte/silkroad/Silkroad_CyclingPlus_1_09_lowres.pdf
And...this!: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=18.msg325#msg325
And from Robin Thorn himself onthe introduction of "969": http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=18.msg679#msg679
Can't wait to get the Official Word on the Mk2 Nomads' tube-wall thickness from Dave. Will let you know when I hear.
...And now we have: "969" is Thorn's name for their tubeset *and* a description of tube-wall thickness.
All the best,
Dan. (...who loves a good cycling mystery and his Thorn Nomad Mk2)
-
Hi All!
Andy Blance has added a very complete FAQ answer specifically detailing Thorn's tubing designations and describing the content and treatment of Thorn frame tubing here: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/FAQ/tubing.pdf
Best,
Dan.