Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: ourclarioncall on November 25, 2020, 07:27:29 pm
-
Greetings everyone
First post on this forum. I am drooling over a new thorn bike haha but having analysis paralysis. I like the the nomad coz I think it looks SO COOL, but not convinced it will be the right choice for me after all the research I’ve done . Possibly the Sherpa or club tour might be a better fit. But then there’s the Mercury haha.
Here’s my query , where do all these bikes fit in the whole range /spectrum of bikes. I’m just think as a rough guideline from heaviest or heavy duty to lightest , if you know what I mean.
So far this is the rough outline I have
1. The nomad , the big daddy bombproof
2. Sherpa and Raven , same bike pretty much ? Assistant manager to the nomad
3. Club tour , the wife of the Sherpa, a little more delicate/weaker
4. The Mercury ? Is this just a rohloff version of the club tour or the audux? Or fits into its own category
5. Audux , the lightweight lightning bolt
I would really appreciate help ironing out this list and refining it or refining my thinking
-
What would you like to use the bike for and do you want rohloff. If you can answer these questions we can probably help narrow it down for you. Your list above is pretty accurate which can be refined a bit.
-
Arrgh, just wrote a long reply and lost it :'( >:( ;D
-
It logged out for some reason
Short version- I’m open to to rohloff or derailleur , but the rohloff is more appealing. Would like to try a belt but don’t like the thought of having that split in the frame on the nomad 3 for example. Nomad 2 frame is more appealing especially coz I want a black frame , in fact it has to be black 😁 unreasonable demand based on vanity and asthetics I know.
I would like to do long distance touring , my dream would be to bike to Israel / Egypt
I’d like to stay near towns and villages wherever I go and possibly to a bit of camping or stay in hotels , so I’m not looking to be able to load up a weeks worth of food and water and spend a week in a forest somewhere, so maybe the Sherpa or raven would be better choice than the nomad. Saying that I like the comfort of knowing my bike if it was a nomad is over speced and can handle anything I do with ease.
-
Note that the Sherpa has been discontinued. It was a lighter sibling to the Nomad, but perhaps Thorn, too, agrees that strictly-26" touring bikes are on the way out, and the Nomad is more future-proof.
I would like to do long distance touring , my dream would be to bike to Israel / Egypt
This is only possible coming from the south in Africa. Syria is still off-limits to bike tourers after the war, and it is impossible to cross North Africa on a bike due to the closed Moroccan-Algeria border and the instability in Libya.
-
Are the Sherpa and Raven still available? I was under the impression that they had been dropped from the Thorn range, so for heavy duty touring it is now the Nomad in either Rohloff or derailleur version.
But there might still be some old stock Sherpa and Raven frames. One point is that AFAIK neither Sherpa or Raven can use disc brakes, whereas the current Nomad, Mercury and Club Tour are designed to be able to use these.
For lighter duty touring, AFAIK it is the Mercury if you want a Rohloff or the Club Tour for derailleur.
And for unloaded day rides on tarmac a light build Mercury for Rohloff and either a light build Club Tour or an Audax for derailleur.
This has changed from when I got my touring Thorn eight years ago. At that time the Nomad was recommended for out and out expedition touring or for touring involving a high proportion of off-road use. But for my projected use of cycle-camping in Europe with occasional use of tracks and paths Thorn advised me to get a Raven instead, with heavy duty wheels and tyres.
In the event I went for a clearance Raven Tour, which was slightly cheaper and slightly heavier-duty than the more recent Raven model but lighter and not as stiff as a Nomad. It has been plenty good enough for me.
For your dream use, I suppose the Nomad would be the best current option, especially if you want disc brakes. If you can find one, a clearance Sherpa or Raven with heavy-duty wheels would IMO be a good option and more pleasant to ride unloaded for "normal" use. If you don't mind buying second-hand, a Raven or Raven Tour would be good options, as, contrary to derailleurs, the Rohloff hub generally improves with use.
Whichever (Rohloff) bike you chose, a Chainglider is a possible alternative to belt drive. I was sceptical at first, because I thought a free-floating chaincase would cause friction and noise but I am now a convert. Chainglider is a cheap way of getting the low maintenance and cleanliness advantages of a belt drive while conserving the ease of replacement of a standard chain, which should be easy to find in most countries.
-
Thanks guys , great info
I don’t know how but I found my original post that disappeared! This was it
“
Hi, thanks for the reply
I think my problem is I want to buy one bike for every purpose , but I know I can’t haha. My first choice was the nomad and I admit I just really like the aesthetic of it especially in the largest frame size. I would also love to do long bike touring. I’m not sure I would want to be going through the worst of terrain but I do like the idea of having a bike that is overspecced for what I’m doing which would be doing things like roads paths old railway lines gravel farmers fields mud etc. So I’d like to be able to blast over most things.
But I wonder if I might find the nomad a bit too sluggish when I go for unloaded or lightly loaded rides and even more slow sluggish when really heavy loaded.
My background is using mountain bikes and hybrid bikes and I do about average of 10mph which seems a bit sluggish to me. But could be coz I’m a little overweight , well I’m about 6 foot tall and close to 16 stone. I see the skinny lads flying past me and wonder if the sluggishness is coming from my bodyweight
So I hear the Sherpa or maybe raven are a bit nippier/faster than the nomad, which I don’t quite understand as I hear the frames are about the same weight? Is the Sherpa a bit faster feeling because of the different frame geometry ? It seems like the Sherpa has more of a straighter top bar or puts your weight a little more in a forward position ? Or is that nomads are specced with heavier forks /wheels etc ? I do like the look of the Sherpa and raven and the thought of them being a bit faster is appealing , also I can’t see me as the type of guy that would load up with massive heavy loads of food and water to go camp in the woods for a week , I would more like to travel close to towns and villages , maybe a mix of camping or hotel/b and b.
I would love to ride from U.K. to Israel /Egypt and explore all that territory so what could you see me riding outside the pyramids ? 🙂
I hear that some of the bikes may only be faster in acceleration but that their average speeds might be quite similar ?
I think the audux would be too wimpy for me , I don’t want something like a rode bike , it would definitely have to be more on the heavier side.
I did have a look at the club tour and wondered if that might be a good compromise and then I could guage whether I want something heavier or lighter, but maybe the Sherpa or raven would be a better risk to take .
There is a guy I just spoke to on YouTube that has both the Sherpa and the raven and he is about 80 miles from me and said I could come have a look so maybe that would be worth a shot“
-
Ah, i never knew it was game over for the sherpa. I see the sell Sherpa frames and Nomad 2 frames on sjs. There is a Couple of sherpas too, maybe they are getting rid of the last of their stock
Very interesting about Syria and Morocco etc. Would it be possible to go round Syria or get a boat from turkey across to Israel /Egypt area? Or the other way , if you got a boat from south of Spain to tangier morocco then took a longer way round avoiding Libya? I guess with all this covid stuff just now it’s even more of a dream but still interesting to think about. I spent about 6 weeks in Morocco many moons ago , would be fun to go back
-
I like the look of the chainglider a lot and have been looking at it and reading up.
The only thing that I was concerned about is people have said that it has damaged their rohloff, which has ? Or may have led to the case cracking open ? I may be getting my stories mixed up there, but have seen photos of rohloff with a line worn into them which could probably only have come from the chain glider . Perhaps the chainglider has been refined over time to avoid the kind of things if they are real issue ? Ido like the look of them tho and have heard good report about their effectiveness
-
I like the look of the chainglider a lot and have been looking at it and reading up.
The only thing that I was concerned about is people have said that it has damaged their rohloff, which has ? Or may have led to the case cracking open ? I may be getting my stories mixed up there, but have seen photos of rohloff with a line worn into them which could probably only have come from the chain glider . Perhaps the chainglider has been refined over time to avoid the kind of things if they are real issue ? Ido like the look of them tho and have heard good report about their effectiveness
That has been sorted with the Rohloff-specific option for the rear part of a Chainglider.
Two things to consider if you want a Chainglider are:
- limited gearing options. For Rohloff, currently only 15, 16 and 17 for the rear sprocket and (I think) 38, 42, 44 and 48 for the chainring.
- it works best with a thin chainring. I use a Surly stainless-steel chainring, which has the advantage of being reversible when worn. The very good Thorn reversible alloy chainrings are probably too thick to use with a Chainglider.
-
Martinf
Ah ok, good to know the chainglider is a serious option then and won’t cause any damage
Are there any other alternatives to the chainglider out there or are they the main player?
What would maintenance look like with a rohloff and chainglider ? I hear you just change rohloff oil every so many miles
What about the chain under the chainglider does that have be regularly looked at ? Do you still get a small amount of dirt/dust etc getting in through small gaps ? It looks a good 95% enclosed from what I’ve seen
-
Ah ok, good to know the chainglider is a serious option then and won’t cause any damage
Are there any other alternatives to the chainglider out there or are they the main player?
What would maintenance look like with a rohloff and chainglider ? I hear you just change rohloff oil every so many miles
What about the chain under the chainglider does that have be regularly looked at ? Do you still get a small amount of dirt/dust etc getting in through small gaps ? It looks a good 95% enclosed from what I’ve seen
Not seen any viable alternatives to the Chainglider. Andre has tried a few and found them wanting.
Even without a chain case, maintenance, especially the chain, is already much easier with a (reliable) hub gear than on a derailleur bike (only one sprocket, one chainring, not so close to the ground so picks up less muck).
In south Brittany winter riding conditions (wet, sand, mud), water gets into a chain glider, but not much dirt. In a dry dusty environment maybe fine dust would be a problem.
I reckon the Chainglider at least doubles the maintenance intervals compared to a bare chain. With my "new" utility bike I ran a new chain inside a Chainglider for 2,600 kms on the original manufacturer's lube without any cleaning or additional lubrication. I did occasionally partly dismantle the Chainglider to check the chain was still OK. The first chain was still fairly clean when I swapped it out, so I could have left it for longer, but I like to swap chains periodically to save on sprocket/chainring wear. After removal I cleaned and relubed the first chain ready to put it back on when I take the second chain off, probably after about 2,500 kms.
-
That sounds like a great trip! I absolutely love my rohloff hub and would not be without it. I got it in 2006 as part of a Raven Tour and it is now in a Raven Sport Tour frame with 40,000+ miles on the clock. These models are now discontinued.
For your intended use I'd now be looking at either a Raven or a Nomad, either would do the job very well. I am sure the Mercury is a tough bike relative to most other makers but is not specified to have as high a load bearing as the Raven or Nomad (it is also more than £3k). Until recently I would have plumped for the Raven as it is cheaper and would still easily do the job. 26 inch wheels are strong and might have some advantages outside Europe. However, the MK3 Nomad frame gives the option of different wheel sizes and disc brakes which will help future proof it as others have said. If looking for another go everywhere bike with expedition use it would be the Nomad (with a nice Ti audax bike in the shed!).
-
In case you haven't read the Thorn bible, it's at http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf (http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf) and reflects the current range which includes guidance on load carrying capacity. Also read Andy Blance's "Living with a Rohloff" http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornLivingWithARohloff.pdf (http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornLivingWithARohloff.pdf).
Last year I bought a non-Thorn bike with a Rohloff hub and the Gates CDX belt drive thinking that the latter was maintenance-free. However, during the winter I spent a lot of time trying to identify the source of creaking noises and tightening every bolt and screw I could find. One day I scrubbed the belt and then the noise went away. Since then I've bought my Mercury http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13958.0 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13958.0). One other disadvantage of the belt drive is that it can be seriously expensive to change the gearing as it will involve not only a new chainring or sprocket but most likely also a new belt. So far, my Mercury hasn't been asked to carry more than a rack bag.
I've very recently gone down the ChainGlider route and it seems to be running OK with the main challenge being finding a suitable steel chainring http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13973.0 (http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=13973.0). I checked a few days ago and the Chainglider is definitely not rubbing on the shell of Mr Rohloff's hub gears.
-
Apologies for the late reply
Thanks for the replies and the details. I’m very analytical so love love long length detailed posts 🙂
There is so much to read on this forum I’m getting lost 😊
-
Apologies for the late reply
Thanks for the replies and the details. I’m very analytical so love love long length detailed posts 🙂
There is so much to read on this forum I’m getting lost 😊
You will soon get fed up with the long generally boring ones! Same old same old (writers) generally... :'( :'(
-
Are there any other alternatives to the chainglider out there or are they the main player?
What would maintenance look like with a rohloff and chainglider ? I hear you just change rohloff oil every so many miles
What about the chain under the chainglider does that have be regularly looked at ? Do you still get a small amount of dirt/dust etc getting in through small gaps ? It looks a good 95% enclosed from what I’ve seen
There are no alternatives to the Chainglider. The big Dutch chain cases in either metal or plastic are to exposed to damage too be suitable for tourers, the segmented plastic thingies that move with the chain don't work. The only other contender, Utopia-Velo's Country chain case, while under limiting circumstances a theoretically superior option to the Chainglider, is three to four times the price, needs a frame mounting brazed on, is too fragile to go off the road even momentarily, and gains its superb design-silence from rubber parts that must be replaced once year, which the makers assume factory-trained mechanics will do, in short, it is for rich commuters, not tourers. I was lucky mine on my decidedly uncoddled Utopia Kranich lasted a couple of years rather than months.
By the manual, you need to service two parts of your Rohloff, the EXT click box (if you have one -- the bare-wire alternative is called "Internal" and apparently is not serviced except with new cables every now and then) which supposedly needs a shot of grease every 500km, and the gearbox oil which needs changing every year or 3000m/5000km, whichever comes earliest. By going to very high quality Phil's grease in the EXT klickbox I've regularized the klickbox service to the same once a year as the main oil change, without ill effect. Keep to the regulated oil service, especially when your Rohloff is new: your warranty depends on it, and the Rohloff isn't fine machinery, like a watch, it's hefty German agricultural machinery and in the beginning it will knock off tiny bits of metal, which the oil service will remove. You can dip a magnet in the dirty oil to judge the amount of metal ground off.
The cleanest service for a chain in a Chainglider is to let it run on the factory lube for its entire life without any additional oil. My first test ran to 4506km, when I did the gearbox and klickbox services and threw a 50 percent worn chain off because i do only one service a year and I can't be bothered to save a few Euro on a chain at the expense of wearing my expensive sprocket and chainring faster; my bike doesn't even get washed in between but the tiny lanes I ride on are all tarmac and usually clean even in the farmlands so my bike hardly gets dusty except in the harvest season. These days I don't even bother opening the Chainglider to inspect the chain between putting it on and removing it a year later; this year with the COVID restrictions severely cutting cycling, I won't open the Chainglider at all because the chain will go another year for sure. If this worries you, the next cleanest oil is Oil of Rohloff, a chain oil which comes in a small bottle for about a fiver and lasts forever. You put on only a few drops at extended intervals if you run the chain in a Chainglider. Read up on Sheldon Brown about oiling only one edge of the chain so the oil can run in where most needed, which is not on the outside of the chain. Note that I use only KMC 8sp chains, generally derailleur 8sp chains like the X8, because those are the best value for money (there's experience by others of the more expensive KMC "hub gear chains" on the forum here, generally not enthusiastic enough to change my mind about the X8). There's something about the KMC factory lube...
If you search on the forum for "CYA" or EXT you'll come to my experiments on the EXT box. My experiments on running the chain for its entire service life on the factory lube are found by searching for "Chainglider". There are also descriptions by me of experience with all the available chain cases but what you really need to know is that after all that I can recommend only the Chainglider, and a lot of experienced cyclists here have had good luck with it under conditions of varying severity and written on the forum about it. It is probably the one component that would gather the most consensus here; I can think only of Schwalbe tyres and maybe, just maybe, Brooks saddles, which might challenge that status.
Good luck with your bike.
-
For SURE get a disc Rohloff14, mine has just 17,000 miles, half on 2 tours. And get the external shift box. I really like my super strong long torque arm and bolt on axle version, the QR ones seem to leak a lot more, not good. It now has a cable TRP Spyre brake with SA long pull levers, stops instantly. The front hub is a SA XL-FDD dyno drum brake with 27,000 flawless miles, one bearing change. ZERO worries and near zero maintenance. Lights always on.
I have a track dropout custom HEAVY frame with a bunch of DIY parts and CF addons, including an unbreakable CF chaincase. My shifter is DIY on the TT, where it belongs, IMO. Can use with either hand, with NO interference with other bar functions. I still manage to do a bunch of century all day rides, both with the Rohloff wheel and a SA XL-RD5w wheel. The bike is so imposing and complicated, nobody can figure it out. LOL
I am near 67 now. My tours were Vietnam/ China in winter 2014/15 and NW America in 2018. Me + the bike is up to 295 lbs, without camping stuff. LOL. I only wear regular golf clothes and steel toe shoes.
Get a proper full size frame and then shorten the stem if necessary. With your height and aspirations, I wouldn't fiddle with a light bike. My tyres are 36 mm, but you obviously need at least 47 mm. I positively hate gravel.
Ride at least 2,000 miles and an oil change before you set off.
The new Nomad has a less sloped TT, much better, over 2" is idiotic.
-
Andre
Thanks for the detailed info , appreciate it 👍
-
Leftpoole
I’m a bit long winded myself haha, so don’t mind long detailed posts 😁
I like the bottom line but every picture needs a frame
-
Cheers Gambler
So what’s the scoop with the top tube and angle ?
It’s something I was noticing when looking at the various size frames on the nomad 2 and also comparing them to the Sherpa
A guy I was talking to on YouTube has both a Sherpa and a nomad 2, both the same frame size but it appears the geometry is a bit different - straighter top tube on the Sherpa
I read both bikes are a lot different to ride and that the Sherpa feels a bit faster
Which is interesting as I think both frames are not that significantly different in weight ?
Does the frame geometry effect the speed/acceleration of the bike ? Or is it just that nomads are typically built up with heavier parts and are heavier and slower as a result ?
-
The problem with steep sloped TTs is the small USELESS triangle. It cramps the water bottles and or the frame bag. The long seat post is laughable. Plus I think it makes the rear rack attachment very lame.
Fitting is also very problematic.
-
What would maintenance look like with a rohloff and chainglider ? I hear you just change rohloff oil every so many miles
What about the chain under the chainglider does that have be regularly looked at ? Do you still get a small amount of dirt/dust etc getting in through small gaps ? It looks a good 95% enclosed from what I’ve seen
I fitted a chainglider a month ago, and today passed 1000km without a problem. I have been experimenting with candlewax baths on chain for a few months vice oil, and this has generally kept chain cleaner for longer than regular lubrication. Of course the main problem of traditional lubrication is not the oil or the grease but the dirt and grit that gets attached to the chain and causes it to wear prematurely. Inside the chainglider you effectively cut out the dirt/grit/grime through the barrier of the casing- so traditional oil/grease ought to last longer between lubing as it is neither getting washed/diluted by the elements nor dirtied by grit/grime.
The chainglider is exposed in a couple of places- but my daily commute takes me through forest paths and the muck that collects on the glider does not appear to collect near those 'openings'.
At 1000km+, my waxed chain is still working smoothly and quietly inside the chainglider- untouched since fitting it in October. That has exceeded my previous record of approx 900km between waxing with traditional chain guard where bottom of chain was exposed to the elements.
Andre suggests you can run a new chain on its factory lube for it's entire life which was one of the online testimonials that convinced me to buy one. I've not been disappointed so far- and am 'looking forward' to when I need to replace my 6000km chain (5000of them without a chainglider)and try the 'Andre Jute facory lube challenge' with my next brand new chain. But I am hoping I can 'stretch' this chain to at least 10,000km before I do that.
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=6813.msg81747#msg81747
Ultimately- the cost of the Chainglider is a real investment that actually saves you money and time.
a) chain life ought to be extended- so better value there
b) less (or no) lubing during chain life (save oil & environment)
c) no caterpillar tattoos/ oily chain-imprints ruining your trousers, socks or legs (saves on cleaning/buying clothes and keeps the wifey off your case)
d) less time needed to maintain your bike- either DIY or in a bike shop from premature wear (saving time/money or both!)
I'm converted. I just wish I had converted a year ago when the current chain was brand new and saved myself some otherwise avoidable DIY chain maintenance.
-
If you want a do it all bike, the Mercury probably isn't it. It's a fantastic bike for what it does but IME it's a fairly narrow band. Maybe if you are a particularly lightweight rider you might extend that a bit, but at 6'3" and 95kg on the largest size mine is reserved for faster rides on good surfaces with minimal luggage.
The consider the Audax to be even less an all rounder than the Mercury. I ride quite a few Audax and the traditional Audax bike is no longer the default bike of choice.
The Raven and Sherpa are discontinued, so unless looking secondhand or there's some NOS, you can probably disregard them, if they meet your needs you might also consider if you want to tie yourself to 26" wheels.
That leaves the Club Tour and the Nomad. Both of these would be fine as all-rounders, depending on the build. I'd say the 700c Nomad, with V brake fork and Rohloff would be smack bang in the middle of the range. Sporty enough with the right tyres to be fun on fast days, tough enough with a change of tyres to carry a full camping load. It'd be a bit of a compromise at both ends of the spectrum, but I could live with that. If you didn't need the flexibility of the Nomad and wanted derailleur gears, the Club Tour would probably do just as well. I have a trad steel tourer (Non Thorn, but not very different to the Club) built up with light wheels and tyres, no racks or dynamo, drop bars. it's my fastest bike, it replaced an Audax and doesn't loose much to it, speeds are comparable, handling isn't so sharp.
-
Thanks for the info PH
you’ve helped refine my thinking there . So the heavy duty ness of a bike is not just about the frame alone.
I keep reading about heavy wheels, light wheels, heavy tires, light tires, different amounts of spokes
I don’t understand any of this really, but I hear people saying just a change of tire can make a big difference in average mph for example
-
Thanks for the info PH
you’ve helped refine my thinking there . So the heavy duty ness of a bike is not just about the frame alone.
I keep reading about heavy wheels, light wheels, heavy tires, light tires, different amounts of spokes
I don’t understand any of this really, but I hear people saying just a change of tire can make a big difference in average mph for example
Not just the frame. Even on a fairly heavy frame with heavy-duty wheels, lightweight tyres can make a big difference to the ride. But they don't have to be narrow.
My Raven Tour is a "heavy" build, with Andra 30 rims. But I have mainly used light Marathon Supreme tyres in the 50 mm width as I do most of my mileage on tarmac and the Supremes roll better than more robust tyres. If planning a trip with lots of use on tracks and paths I would fit Marathon Duremes, or (perhaps but not certainly) proper expedition tyres.
Not sure that having more spokes than usual is really necessary for me. The 32 spoke wheels on my Raven Tour have coped with all-up weights up to about 120 Kg, with moderate use on rideable tracks and paths, but not outright mountain biking as I don't do that. I do pay attention to ride gently when off tarmac with a touring load.
One thing that does make a difference when carrying a significant amount of luggage is a good quality tubular steel rack. When I changed from my ancient Karrimor rear rack to a Thorn rear rack I really noticed the difference in stability with heavy loads. Tubus is pretty good as well.
-
OK, there's two elements, physics and phycology!
The physics is pretty simple - there's only three things to overcome to move a bike forward:
Wind resistance, by far the biggest, it'll vary with circumstance, but if you think of it as 80% of your effort. you wouldn't be far wrong
Friction, this is mainly tyre rolling resistance, but also the drivetrain and any bearings
Inertia, simply the effort of moving a mass.
OK, hopefully still with it?
So, if I were to take all the lightweight components off my Mercury and put them on a Nomad frame, two of the three above remain unchanged and the minor weight difference will have a tiny effect on the third. If I put the same effort in, the outcome will be almost the identical. Most people agree on this, though there might be the odd one who knows better than the basic laws of physics.
If I put the same effort in. That's the rub, that's the phycology.
A lighter bike with sportier geometry feels different, the handling might make you brake later and cut the corner tighter, it might encourage you to get out of the saddle and sprint up the hill. It feels more rewarding to put the effort in, so we do.
If I take my heaviest or lightest bikes out for an hour there might be 2-3 mph difference between them. If I put a heart rate monitor on and do it at the same level of effort, there will only be a tiny difference. If I'm out all day, there's a limit to the effort I can put in, so the gap narrows. If I'm more comfortable on one over the other, I'm more likely to sustain the effort.
The phycology is of course subjective, if someone says their heavyweight touring bike feels sporty, then it does. Or their lightweight carbon road bike feels like a donkey they'd also be right. If someone says one bike with similar components and weight is loads faster than another, they're wrong. It's not me saying so, it's physics.
-
..add hills ;-) then the physics changes
-
..add hills ;-) then the physics changes
Except, in theory, pedalling an extra 2kg of bike up a hill when the combined weight of bike + rider + baggage could be 100kg isn't very significant compared to a bit of headwind.
I would, however, note that a heavier frame is likely to be less compliant and more likely to transfer road shocks. See, for example, https://fitwerx.com/stiffness-compliance/ (https://fitwerx.com/stiffness-compliance/). Maybe I'm getting old but the roads seem to be getting rougher and less comfortable to cycle on which is why I'm now riding a Mercury with ~50mm tyres (but I'm not planning to load the bike up to Thorn's recommended limit - see page 23 of http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf (http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/thorn_mega_brochure.pdf)).
-
..add hills ;-) then the physics changes
I don't understand that? What part of the physics changes?
-
I would, however, note that a heavier frame is likely to be less compliant and more likely to transfer road shocks. See,
This is true, but as you note it's less relevant the lower the tyre pressure. I have a 29'er with a real girder of a fork and 50mm tyres, I've done several back to back 100 milers with it between the lockdowns, very comfortable. If I'd put the 30mm tyres the Mercury sometimes wears on it, I expect it would have rattled my filling out. If you go for a front disc brake, it has to be pretty stiff however lightweight the bike. It's no coincidence that disc brakes and bigger tyres have grown in popularity at the same time!