Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: navrig on June 06, 2021, 10:33:55 am
-
Hi everyone, this is my first post on this very useful forum.
I am normally a roadie cyclist - weekend 50-80 mile fast(ish) rides carrying as little as possible using a bike which is meant ti be as light as possible. I also do some offroad on my MTB. This also includes week long cycle trips to the alps or Mallorca.
However I am now planning a tour after retirement but none of my bikes are suitable for a long tour. I will be able to prepare for it by doing some shorter (3 or 4 day) trips. Meantime i am route planning and looking at suitable bikes.
Currently I am looking at the Nomad.
Home is Scotland and I am only 50 miles from Shand cycles in Livingstone. I have explored their website a few times but was put off by the cost of their bikes.
I have been comparing the spec of the Nomad with the Shand TAM ROHLOFF. The Shand bikes do seem to be much more expensive than the Thorn, maybe as much as £1,000.
Is there any specific reason for the difference in price as I can only see it being in the frame?
-
Commenting on the price difference - The Shand is UK built, possibly to order, with a choice of colour to order, Reynolds tubing rather than Thorns own, with the possibility of custom geometry (At extra cost) It is possible that these things combined with the lower volume, account for the price difference.
Worth it? Depends how you value them. You may value it being UK built and being able to talk to the builder, it won't in itself make it a better bike.
The bikes - They are a bit different, I wouldn't say one is better than the other, one may be better for you, but it might not be the same one for me! I compared the Shand Stoater with the Thorn Mercury, which have a much closer price, and chose the latter as the geometry suited my better and I preferred the aesthetics. I also know a Stoater owner who's delighted with it.
Other influences - I've not done a detailed comparison, or dealt with Shand, so I can't compare but I don't hesitate from saying I like dealing with Thorn/SJS. Things rarely go wrong, when they do it's dealt with quickly and efficiently. I like the elements of their frames that would only be possible with their volume, the dropouts, EBB, and stainless fittings. I don't know anyone else who offers their trial period when buying a complete bike or their warranty.
Have fun choosing ;)
-
Thanks for your prompt response, it all makes sense and was in line with what I was thinking.
I like the idea of going to the "shop" and having a seat on the bike. Shand is a lot easier for me than Thorn and if I factor the cost of travel to Bridgewater compared to Shand it balances the difference a bit.
I am enjoying the choosing but it gets rather confusing as there is too much choice between mass manufactured stuff like Kona and the smaller specialists like Thorn, Shand & Spa.
The effort Thorn put into helping you choose a bike seems to be a reflection of their customer commitment and knowledge. That is very attractive when it comes to choosing.
-
Reynolds tubing rather than Thorns own,
This made me read the technical specs more closely noting that Thor use Reynolds and their own tubing depending on the bike. I wonder why they do that rather than all Reynolds or all Thorn?
-
The best frame builder select the best tube for the job and it's not unommon for those selections to be made from different manufacturers tubes. It's known as "designer select" and was once very common with UK frame builders.
-
Reynolds tubing rather than Thorns own,
This made me read the technical specs more closely noting that Thor use Reynolds and their own tubing depending on the bike. I wonder why they do that rather than all Reynolds or all Thorn?
Cost!!!!!!
-
Cost "may" be a factor with Thorn and like everyone else I have no way of knowing this without asking them, but for many builders, availability of certain types of tubes meant sourcing from different suppliers. I have been personally told this by both Tony Oliver and Dave Yates, two of the most respected frame builders in the UK.
Tony Oliver has a lengthy section in his book "Touring Bikes" on exactly this subject where he explains in detail how and why he selects various tubes.
-
I have a Nomad Mk II. You mentioned that you are a roadie cyclist that favors light weight riding. Be advised that the Nomad is a heavy bike.
I have three touring bikes:
- I consider the Nomad Mk II to be my expedition bike, can carry very heavy loads. I have carried over two weeks of food with my camping gear on my Nomad Mk II.
- My Thorn Sherpa, capacity is still quite a bit but on a weight basis is likely about half of the Nomad Mk II.
- And my titanium Lynskey Backroad is the lightest of my touring bikes, lighter and faster. This is my choice for trips that are mostly on pavement (tarmac) and where groceries are easily obtainable every few days.
Of the three above, the Nomad Mk II is Rohloff, the other two are 3X8 drivetrains. I built up all three from frame and fork.
You should think about how much your bike is going to weigh both unladen and with your touring load before you finalize your selection.
-
I've been through this exact process of weighing up a Shand Stoater V Whatever and came to much the same conclusion. A Shand is a very expensive bike. I wanted just a frame set and that was way more than everything else that I was looking at. I ended up buying a titanium frame and building it up with my Rohloff - lovely it is too. Yes, the titanium frame was expensive but a fair bit cheaper than the Shand. It seemed to me that my titanium build was decent value for money and I've been very happy with it.
BUT....I've never forgotten the Shand Stoater. Whenever I hear about Shand bikes I have a slight sense of regret, so much so, that if I had my time again I would buy the Shand. The way that they are made and finished oozes quality and quality costs. Plus they press the 'I want one' button which is usually a wallet emptier
If I lived 50 miles from Livingston it would be job done.
-
Navrig,
I live at Dalkeith, maybe near enough for you to come and try a Rohloff Thorn.
I can let you have a go on mine fully laden as for expedition touring.
You will get an idea when pedalling this as it weighs at least 35 kgs fully laden for self sufficient camping, it will take more...
It is completely different from riding a light road bike…
The bike has Thorn comfort bars (straightish) and I am a little under 6 ft tall with 31 inch inside leg.
Julian.
pm me if you are interested and I will give you directions.
-
Despite the current marketing by Thorn, IMO the Nomad is still basically a very rugged expedition bike. The Shand Tam Rohloff looks as if it would be a tad lighter.
Thorn have a bike comparison matrix in their Mega Brochure, giving ratings of their 4 basic frames in various tyre sizes and with various forks for a variety of different loads and surfaces.
For example, the Mercury with a steel disc fork and 650B x 50mm tyres is rated as excellent for touring with less than 20Kg of luggage on dirt roads and is rated better than a Nomad for lighter loads or better surfaces. Personally, I'd go with one of the lighter bikes if generally carrying less than 20Kg of luggage, and put up with less than optimal handling if occasionally carrying more.
If you plan on crossing deserts (carrying lots of water, so extra weight), or long stretches of rough off-road with luggage, or carrying more than 20Kg of luggage for long periods, I reckon the Nomad would be more suitable.
-
Agreed with the above -- the Nomad (mine is a Mk2) is a "lot" of bike but in all the ways that are welcome if you are carrying a heavy load especially on poor surfaces, less so if you are riding unladen mostly on good pavement.
My Nomad dry weighs 20kg as I have it configured (Brooks saddle, suspension seatpost, mudguards, front and rear racks, dynamo lighting/charging plus water containers). My desert expeditions in hot weather involve carrying 26.5l of water which weighs 26.5kg plus containers. That's a three-day supply at 8-8.5l/day, mostly for drinking and a little for cooking. Add in the food needed for a solo self-supported trip of a couple weeks away from resupply plus all the regular touring stuff (clothing, sleep system, cooking and tools/spares) and it is not unusual for my fully loaded Nomad to top out at more than 57kg plus my own weight of 78kg, all carried without complaint by the bike over goat tracks, desert playa, and cross-country. The Nomad is "good" for my day rides up to about 200km or so, but if speed or greater distance is desired, I switch to one of my lighter weight (~14.5kg) randonneur bikes. The Nomad unladen is so rugged it always tempts me to try poorly surfaced tracks and logging roads off pavement, something the much lighter-duty rando bikes don't do so well.
In the end, it is very much "horses for courses".
One final note: I have an Enduro-Allroad bike I built up around a frame more akin to a Sherpa but heavier duty that approaches the Nomad for capability but is a couple kgs lighter and is derailleur equipped. It works well but the deciding factor for taking the Nomad is the long-lived trouble-free drivetrain, especially when riding cross-country through sagebrush and such. It is so nice to to worry about damage to a derailleur as the Nomad has no vulnerable parts (derailleur cage) hanging down.
Best,
Dan.
-
Wow, what a a lot of replies very quickly. Thank you all very much.
And my titanium Lynskey Backroad is the lightest of my touring bikes, lighter and faster. This is my choice for trips that are mostly on pavement (tarmac) and where groceries are easily obtainable every few days.
You should think about how much your bike is going to weigh both unladen and with your touring load before you finalize your selection.
My current summer bike is a Lynskey Titanium and I love riding it. Currently it is languishing in the garage at home whilst I am riding a Decathlon Triban in Vietnam.
I am still working out what sort of touring I am going to do. My back generally doesn't take too well to camping so it is likely I'll be looking for hostels, BnB or (very) cheap hotels. So no camping gear. On that basis I am thinking rear panniers and a handlebar bag with perhaps a bag over the top of the rear panniers (not sure what that is called).
I want something which will cope with some unsurfaced off road stuff. Perhaps slightly rougher than a canal towpath.
Navrig,
I live at Dalkeith, maybe near enough for you to come and try a Rohloff Thorn.
I can let you have a go on mine fully laden as for expedition touring.
You will get an idea when pedalling this as it weighs at least 35 kgs fully laden for self sufficient camping, it will take more...
It is completely different from riding a light road bike…
The bike has Thorn comfort bars (straightish) and I am a little under 6 ft tall with 31 inch inside leg.
Julian.
pm me if you are interested and I will give you directions.
I would love to take you up on that offer - perhaps early next year. I am in Vietnam and not due to leave until end of 2021 (Covid allowing). We are in Dunbar so very close. Thanks.
For example, the Mercury with a steel disc fork and 650B x 50mm tyres is rated as excellent for touring with less than 20Kg of luggage on dirt roads and is rated better than a Nomad for lighter loads or better surfaces. Personally, I'd go with one of the lighter bikes if generally carrying less than 20Kg of luggage, and put up with less than optimal handling if occasionally carrying more.
If you plan on crossing deserts (carrying lots of water, so extra weight), or long stretches of rough off-road with luggage, or carrying more than 20Kg of luggage for long periods, I reckon the Nomad would be more suitable.
I'll have a closer look at the Mercury. No plans for deserts or tundra at the moment. The roughest surfaces are likely to be official cycle routes (unsurfaced) or tow paths. Thanks.
Agreed with the above -- the Nomad (mine is a Mk2) is a "lot" of bike but in all the ways that are welcome if you are carrying a heavy load especially on poor surfaces, less so if you are riding unladen mostly on good pavement.
Judging by your comments Dan and others it looks like the Nomad may be too heavy duty for my aspirations.
Really helpful guys. Thanks, Andy (aka Navrig)
-
Perhaps I'm a little too far from your Scottish base but you're welcome to try my Raven Tour up here in Inverurie, Aberdeenshire.
Lighter than a Nomad but capable of quite heavy loads.
My trip last weekend was from Inverness to Lochcarron via Achnasheen. Camping x2 nights.
Tent and front panniers on the rear.
Keep me in mind when you return from Vietnam.
Best
Matt
-
We do like to obsess about weight, despite frame builders telling us again and again that it isn’t high on their list of criteria. I have three very different steel touring bikes, the Mercury being the lightest and a Surly Ogre the heaviest. The difference in frame weights will be less than half a kg, though the difference in bike weights is likely to be around 4kg. If a bike is designed well for it’s intended purpose it’ll weigh whatever it weighs, that’s not to say they’re all the same, just that it isn’t necessarily reflected in the weight. You can add a lot of strength and stiffness, and consequently ride feel, without a proportional weight increase. Take the brochure for the 700c Nomad, it says that frame with a 853 fork is the same weight as a Mercury frame with a ST fork.
Only Thorn will know why they choose the steel they do for their different models, and they’re unlikely to tell us! Cost, availability, specification, may all play a part, as will marketing. I do know that heat treated Cro-Mo is available from several suppliers, and is exactly (Or close enough to be indistinguishable) the same as Reynolds 725. Maybe there is no readily available equivalent to Reynolds 853, or maybe Thorn decided those spending that sort of money will want the badge… we don’t know.
Back to the question! If I was sure I wouldn’t be carrying camping weights, I wouldn’t consider a Nomad, or the Shand Tam. It would be the Mercury from Thorn and refine it with build and wheel size, or I’m not sure what from Shand (Maybe the Stoater, but the range seems to have changed since I was comparing)
I like my Mercury, 700c and 853 fork, mine is the largest size and I’m no lightweight, I’ll take my lightest camping gear if I’m going somewhere than needs it, but I wouldn’t choose to use it for a camping trip.
In the end most bikes will do most things, but to get the ideal one requires a good idea of it’s use. If you’re not sure, maybe do some touring on whatever you can before making a big investment.
-
Wow, what a a lot of replies very quickly. Thank you all very much.
... ... ...
Judging by your comments Dan and others it looks like the Nomad may be too heavy duty for my aspirations.
Really helpful guys. Thanks, Andy (aka Navrig)
Yeah, the Nomad is a great bike, but if you do not need the capacity, as a roadie you might have buyers remorse very quickly due to the extra weight that comes with the weight capacity it offers.
Here is where the Nomad is really great, my trip to Iceland:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11917.0
Again, mine is a Mk II, not the very new Mk III, but I assume that the capacity and therefore the weight is similar between the two models.
It is very easy to put a dry bag on top of the rear rack between the panniers, does not need to be a cycling specific one. But I prefer one that side loads instead of loading on the end.
-
Wow, what a a lot of replies very quickly. Thank you all very much.
... ... ...
Judging by your comments Dan and others it looks like the Nomad may be too heavy duty for my aspirations.
Really helpful guys. Thanks, Andy (aka Navrig)
Yeah, the Nomad is a great bike, but if you do not need the capacity, as a roadie you might have buyers remorse very quickly due to the extra weight that comes with the weight capacity it offers.
Here is where the Nomad is really great, my trip to Iceland:
http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=11917.0
Again, mine is a Mk II, not the very new Mk III, but I assume that the capacity and therefore the weight is similar between the two models.
It is very easy to put a dry bag on top of the rear rack between the panniers, does not need to be a cycling specific one. But I prefer one that side loads instead of loading on the end.
Thanks for the link. The photos are great as they allow me to see up close the frame joints etc.
I'll set aside a beer for a read at the weekend.
-
Perhaps I'm a little too far from your Scottish base but you're welcome to try my Raven Tour up here in Inverurie, Aberdeenshire.
Lighter than a Nomad but capable of quite heavy loads.
My trip last weekend was from Inverness to Lochcarron via Achnasheen. Camping x2 nights.
Tent and front panniers on the rear.
Keep me in mind when you return from Vietnam.
Best
Matt
Thanks Matt. We are regular visitors Aberdeen so I may take you up on that offer. We lived there around 1990 then we moved to Moray then Inverness. I know the highlands very well having toured it a few times by motorbike. We still holiday on the west coast regularly from Arran up to Gairloch and Ullapool.
-
If you’re not sure, maybe do some touring on whatever you can before making a big investment.
That's the plan. If I can get the Trian I have here in Vietnam home I can use that. It's fairly solid and has bosses for a rear and front rack. I may have to look a different cassette if the routes are hilly. I have time on my side. I am here until end of this year at least and having been overseas for the last few years I can't pop home and then head in to Europe for a 3 month tour, assuming the current $hit show allows.
So I am targeting trial tours next year and the big one April - July 2023.
-
Agree with all the wise comments above.... :D.....I have the Nomad Mk2 for heavy touring but treated myself to a Shand Daunder Rohloff last year for local runs and light touring. I have kitted it out bike packing style so can escape for 2-3 days no problem without using conventional luggage. The Shand is a beautiful bike and I was going to stick with another Thorn but the opportunity came up for a free trip north and in the end heart beat wallet.
I have to say though....the Nomad is like a comfortable arm chair when I take it out. Probably weighs the same as one though.
-
Having owned a Nomad before I went electric (Riese and Muller Supercharger) and having visited the Shand factory as I stay in Livingston my first choice would be a Shand. They are well worth the money. The frame is better finished, the various options are better and like Thorn they are great to deal with. For the record I've had 3 Thorns and have no complaints about any of them.
Bob
-
Having owned a Nomad before I went electric (Riese and Muller Supercharger) and having visited the Shand factory as I stay in Livingston my first choice would be a Shand. They are well worth the money. The frame is better finished, the various options are better and like Thorn they are great to deal with. For the record I've had 3 Thorns and have no complaints about any of them.
Bob
Thanks Bobs. We are heading back to the UK sooner than expected. I may take a trip to Livingston at some point.
-
Hello Navrig, what a nice dilemma to have! We (my wife and I) bought our Thorn Raven Sport Tours in August 2010 after a long and enjoyable chat with Andy Blance who sized and specced the bikes for us. We are as delighted with them today as we were when they arrived in two huge boxes - we here in Aberdeen.
It is good to have a local dealer, especially where Rohloff hubs are concerned I think. Not that they need much attention for sure. I recently had to do some overhaul to sprockets, chains and chainrings and worried too about the internal cables - untouched in over 10 years. I am not at all mechanical and kinda wished I could take them to a local dealer. Finally I decided I would need to tackle them myself, and I am bound to say that the prompt, patient and exhaustive help I got from Thorn by email could not be faulted or bettered.
So, if after-care comes into your consideration, rest assured that in my experience, Thorn cannot be faulted on that front, nor in my opinion, bettered. I should say, I have no experience of Shand and their offerings do look super.
If Aberdeen does appear on your stops on the way to decision do give me a shout. I'll be pleased to show off our Black/Red and Blue/Silver beauties. All the best. :-)
-
Hello Navrig, what a nice dilemma to have! We (my wife and I) bought our Thorn Raven Sport Tours in August 2010 after a long and enjoyable chat with Andy Blance who sized and specced the bikes for us. We are as delighted with them today as we were when they arrived in two huge boxes - we here in Aberdeen.
It is good to have a local dealer, especially where Rohloff hubs are concerned I think. Not that they need much attention for sure. I recently had to do some overhaul to sprockets, chains and chainrings and worried too about the internal cables - untouched in over 10 years. I am not at all mechanical and kinda wished I could take them to a local dealer. Finally I decided I would need to tackle them myself, and I am bound to say that the prompt, patient and exhaustive help I got from Thorn by email could not be faulted or bettered.
So, if after-care comes into your consideration, rest assured that in my experience, Thorn cannot be faulted on that front, nor in my opinion, bettered. I should say, I have no experience of Shand and their offerings do look super.
If Aberdeen does appear on your stops on the way to decision do give me a shout. I'll be pleased to show off our Black/Red and Blue/Silver beauties. All the best. :-)
I'm Aberdeenshire - so if passing please drop in to view and ride my Raven Tour.
-
After some deliberation, a wee seat on a friend's new Shand Stoater and a visit to the Shand factory I have ordered a Stoater.
I could not justify the Rohloff model on a needs and cost basis however I am very happy with all my Shimano derailleur kit over the years so I am sure it will serve me well on the Stoater.
I'll get it in 8 weeks or so.
Now for the luggage and lights research.
Thanks for all the advice.
-
All best wishes for a long and happy relationship and many wonderful Adventures together! :)
Best,
Dan.
-
...
Now for the luggage and lights research.
....
If the lights might require a dynohub, building up a wheel with a dynohub does not cost very much as the only price difference is the cost of the dynohub minus the cost of the other hub that you don't buy.
But if you already own a front wheel, the cost of a dynohub is much more. Even if you re-use the old rim and rim tape, there are the costs of the dynohub, spokes, nipples and probably a wheel build charge.
So, if there is any chance of wanting a dynohub later, decide now on the hub before a front wheel gets built for the new bike.
You can run the hub with no lights attached if you buy the bike with a dynohub now and the lights later.
-
I have ordered a hub dynamo as part of the build so have that covered.
I'm just confused by the light options.
It's an SP hub.
-
I have ordered a hub dynamo as part of the build so have that covered.
I'm just confused by the light options.
It's an SP hub.
There are lots of lights out there, depends in part on how much you want to spend. I am in USA so I do not know what the prices are like where you are. But they are getting better every year.
The B&M website has sample light beam patterns for their different lights. Most of their lights, if you click on the light you can see a sample beam in a small photo. If you right click on that sample beam and then select open in a new tab or window you can see a much larger example of that light beam.
https://www.bumm.de/en/products/dynamo-scheinwerfer.html
B&M also makes some lights for e-bikes, make sure you do not accidently order a light for one of those.
And choice depends somewhat on what you want the light for. If for road riding, you want a light with a good wide flat beam that does not waste much light by shining it above the horizon. But if you are mostly riding on gravel or up and down trails, a light with a flashlight circular beam might work better.
Supernova headlamps I believe have to be used with the same brand taillights, but I could be wrong on that.
Other brands, you can mix one headline brand with a different taillight.
Dyno powered taillights are always on, do not flash. I often use flashing taillights in daytime, so I consider my battery powered taillight to be my primary taillight, and the dyno powered taillight to be secondary. I think I went for about four years with a dyno powered headiamp before I even bought my first dyno powered taillight.
SP hub is not grounded to the fork, so you do not have to worry about making sure that you have the right wires connected to the right wires. Shimano hubs are grounded to the fork, and if your headlamp is also grounded to the fork then you have to make sure your wires are connected correctly for it to work.
You wire the headlamp to the dynohub. And you wire the taillight to the headlight, that way the headlight switch controls both front and back lights. The taillights usually are not protected for overvoltage, they rely on the headlamp for that so you can damage your taillight if you wire it to the hub, that is another reason to wire it to the headlamp.
On a different forum I documented how I wired up my randonneuring bike lighting, that link is at:
https://www.bikeforums.net/electronics-lighting-gadgets/1228845-wiring-up-dyno-powered-lighting-system-usb-charger.html
Good luck figuring this stuff out.
-
I have ordered a hub dynamo as part of the build so have that covered.
I'm just confused by the light options.
It's an SP hub.
Good choice on going for a hub dynamo. Like many of us converts, fit the hub and simply leave the lights in the on position day and night. You hardly notice the drag but increase your visibility and reduce the chance of being overlooked and struck by a car driver as a no brainer plus.
LED lamps in general are brighter than the traditional bulb predecessors, and pretty solid. I've had to resolder an LED rear connection after several years of abuse (always on and ridden daily in bumpy forest paths) and needed the occasional cabling repair- but those LEDs just continue to burn brightly and reliably despite thousands of hours use.
I cannot yet comment on SP hubs. I just build a new wheel around an SP hub, but have not yet mounted it on a bike. My other household dynamo hub bikes are mostly Shimano with one SRAM and one no-name Chinese hub. I've only worn out one single hub bearings on the very first Shimano hub I purchased. But had approx 25,000 km of use out of it on my main bike of the day. Unfortunately the bearings on the hubs I have are not easily serviceable. But for many users, such a hub would last them a lifetime!
Good luck with the new bike.
-
Thanks so much for all the advice. I am still working out what I need or should do with electrics and luggage. Given I will not be camping and am unlikely to be venturing off the highways and byways I don't feel the need for charging points and multiple mounting points for kit etc. I could have a charging point as part of the build but it would add 10% to the cost of the bike!
As a road cyclist who is used the minimalist look of handlebars and stems I am getting the jitters looking at how much some your bikes are carrying ;D
I guess I need to transition a bit more.
-
Given I will not be camping and am unlikely to be venturing off the highways and byways I don't feel the need for charging points and multiple mounting points for kit etc. I could have a charging point as part of the build but it would add 10% to the cost of the bike!
As a road cyclist who is used the minimalist look of handlebars and stems I am getting the jitters looking at how much some your bikes are carrying ;D
In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes I embarked on a project to have something more appropriate for similar tours in the future http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14396.0 . Whether it's in the mind, or I'm fitter than a year ago, or due to having a slightly lighter bike, but I'm going a bit faster and/or finding it's less effort. We are often told that the weight makes very little difference and wider tyres don't necessarily add more rolling resistance so I wonder if a factor is that wider tyres/mudguards plus a rack add to the wind drag. Finding the right bike for a task is an iterative process but there's nothing to stop me adding a rack and a couple of small panniers onto my new bike should I want to do a B&B tour but for the rest of my travelling saddlepack or saddlebag supplemented by a small frame bag and even a small bar bag should suffice when less carrying capacity is needed. There's some useful discussion in the luggage sub-forum http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?board=11.0 .
-
In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes I embarked on a project to have something more appropriate for similar tours in the future
To be fair though, you bought a Mercury in the heaviest possible build, plus the heaviest fork, and then started adding to it! Maybe you shouldn't say "a" Mercury because yours is neither typical or representative. What you've built as a lighter alternative is probably still heavier than my Mercury, which is probably closer to the original intention of a Sports Tourer. You've built a lighter bike, great, I really do hope it's everything you want, but please don't give the impression it's a lighter bike because of the frame, that's false. You could have built a similar bike on the Mercury frame, IMO Rohloff specific features and the better tubeset would possibly have made it a better bike, though you'd have to ride them both in the same build to know that.
The weight difference between similar steel frames will be a few grams, maybe 200 - 300 at most, the rest is the build. The Mercury, Elan and Stoater all have similarly built frames, they will have a different feel depending on how the builders have designed them (I've only ridden a Mercury of the three) but the weight difference will be negligible.
-
Thanks so much for all the advice. I am still working out what I need or should do with electrics and luggage.
The main decision with lights has already been covered, it's whether you choose a shaped beam that doesn't dazzle other road users, or a less shaped one that does. Of the former sort, I really like the Edelux, it uses the same B&M optics but puts them in a case that's better built and maximises the LED.
For the times I really do like to turn night into day and scare the birds out of the trees, I supplement it with a decent battery light, which can also double up as a torch, because it isn't the primary light I don't have to be concerned about run times.
-
... I am still working out what I need or should do with electrics and luggage. Given I will not be camping and am unlikely to be venturing off the highways and byways ...
As a road cyclist who is used the minimalist look of handlebars and stems I am getting the jitters looking at how much some your bikes are carrying ...
During my Iceland tour, I met a couple that were biking Iceland for two weeks, they were also from USA. They were doing the opposite of me, they were packed extremely light and they were staying on pavement (tarmac).
Their bikes were Ritchey Break Away frames, they could split the frames in half to pack in smaller cases for airline travel. And with light weight bikes, they could pack some of their other luggage in the bike case and still keep it under the airline weight limit. Thus, they each had one checked bag that did not incur oversize charges and then their carry on luggage. The Ritchey case is slightly oversize but airlines rarely charge the oversize fee on that case.
No racks, only bikepacking bags. I was a bit surprised that I did not see small backpacks too, most people that I have met that were using bikepacking bags also carried backpacks to wear while riding.
Traveling that minimalist, I would not enjoy the trip, but everybody has their preferences. The first two photos are their bikes.
Third photo is mine on that trip.
-
In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes I embarked on a project to have something more appropriate for similar tours in the future
To be fair though, you bought a Mercury in the heaviest possible build, plus the heaviest fork, and then started adding to it! Maybe you shouldn't say "a" Mercury because yours is neither typical or representative.
The point I was trying to make is that I bought the Mercury (the red one on page 2 of the Thorn Megabrochure) thinking it was exactly what I wanted (steel frame, 50mm tyres for comfort, disc brakes all round and the Rohloff hub) but after 16 months and over 7k miles, concluded that it wasn't ideal for my needs. I then decided that instead of trying to make significant changes to the Mercury (which is likely to be looking for a new home) I would build another bike using some available good parts to build a new bike.
The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.
-
...
The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.
I would not be happy with only one bike to be the everything bike, thus I do not even try.
But now that I have three touring bikes, a randonneuring bike, road bike and an errand bike (actually two errand bikes), I do find that my vintage Italian racing bike from the early 60s is somewhat redundant. I lack a suspended mountain bike but I can fit a 100mm suspension fork to my Nomad Mk II, so that serves that purpose well enough.
If I tried to have one single bike for all purposes, I would never be happy.
-
The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.
I've found real truth in this statement over the years with some caveats.
First, while any of my bikes can be (and have been!) ridden anywhere, they vary in the demands placed on the rider. I'm actually grateful some of my earlier bikes were not ideal for some tasks, as they improved my skillset and made me a better, more accomplished rider.
Second, my bikes have evolved over the years. It is amazing how an older bicycle can be transformed with a different wheelset, tire width, gearing, handlebars and saddle...even racks. A suspension seatpost can be transformative on rough surfaces. Even lighting can make a real difference in how and how much I use a given bike. Swapping parts over the years has really given new life to some of my old rides, making them essentially new again for an intended purpose and bringing the joy of rediscovery in a new light. Having a number of bikes creates a "food chain" where parts are handed down the line whenever some new part is installed at the upper range.
Third, my bikes are like "children" to me, ridden long and hard on Grand Adventures over many years. Because of this, I find it hard to part from them. I've only sold several since I reached adult size. At the same time, they have to be ridable/riden and earn their keep and place in strorage, so that brings me back to Point no. 2 above. I recently rehabbed my first "good" road bike and took it out to find it still has all the original qualities I valued, but updated with a raid of parts from my bins. It is good to go once again and I'm really glad I didn't sell it on.
It really does help to have the bike you really want and makes each ride a little bit more enjoyable.
Best,
Dan.
-
The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.
Yes, it’s part of the fun and games, in many ways it’s a hobby a little separate from cycling. It’s not every cyclist's hobby, some just buy a bike and ride it. I’ve not been satisfied with every bike I’ve chosen, my first Rohloff bike for example, a Thorn Raven, wasn’t a favourite. The more I ride the easier the choices get, though it took me three bikes over five years to get my camping bike right, a role the Mercury’s predecessor fulfilled in a way my Merc doesn’t.
If anyone were to criticise my decisions, I’d tell them where to stuff it, it’s no one’s business but my own. Likewise your choices, I’d have done that transformation differently and ended up with what on paper is a bike equally suitable for the purpose and better suited to the hub, but that’s comment no criticism.
I’m not commenting to what you’ve done, but the way you’re presenting it.
In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes
Anytime you write something like that I’m going to point out, as I have above, that your Mercury was overbuilt compared to most other Mercurys. Otherwise any casual observer will likely read into it something that isn’t true. You’ve come round to the idea that a heavy bike with big tyres and all the trimmings doesn’t suit you for fast and light touring, I doubt anyone is going to disagree with you. What you haven’t done is discover if a Mercury could be suitable for your use, only that your build wasn’t, that would likely have been the case with any steel Sports Touring frame, including the one you’ve replaced it with. It wasn’t just me pointing that out at beginning of this process, you rejected the idea on the basis that the aim was two bike for different purposes, what changed your mind?
-
What you haven’t done is discover if a Mercury could be suitable for your use, only that your build wasn’t, that would likely have been the case with any steel Sports Touring frame, including the one you’ve replaced it with. It wasn’t just me pointing that out at beginning of this process, you rejected the idea on the basis that the aim was two bike for different purposes, what changed your mind?
My two options were (i) modify my Mercury to reduce the weight and (ii) take parts from another bike (Rohloff hub but small aluminium frame) that was gathering dust in the garage and fit into a new frame. The latter option won because I felt that the parts were worth more than the complete bike and the Mercury should be easier to rehome with someone whose needs suited the bike's build. One of my frame options was the Thorn audax but was crossed off because of the tyre size limit. Once the weather has improved and I'm inclined to get the Mercury outside for a good clean and checkup then it will be looking for a new home.
-
... my bikes are like "children" to me...
That's funny because my children are like bikes to me. Take them on a grand adventure and you might see them skip and jump, creak and groan or even slip and slide while carrying all sorts of stuff they probably won't even need. Out with just one and you'll often end up thinking your day would have been easier had you taken one of the others instead... none perfect, all with their faults but loved for their individual qualities. :P
-
I think at the bottom of all this is John's solid commitment to wanting a disc front brake and Thorn's half-hearted commitment to supplying a front disc solution. Given those two realities, I find it easy to understand John's decision to pursue an alternative.
With the disc fork, which from memory adds 500-700g to the Thorn rim brake options, the Mercury frame is a heavy steel frame, given that 500g is a big proportion of overall frame weight. My guess is its stiffness also diminishes the attractiveness of the Mercury ride, which is therefore an easier experience to forgo.
If Thorn were serious about their front disc option they'd have developed a carbon fork with a steerer that could handle reliably the length and spacer stack they supply to people wanting a fairly or moreso relaxed touring posture, given that they want a single frame shape to support postures from sporty to very relaxed. Another guess is that designer Andy B investigated this as a possibility and decided it would cost more than likely sales would justify.
Thorn has offered carbon forks on the Merc in the past, I think with rim brakes only though. So it also seems more than possible that Andy wasn't greatly interested in following fashion to front discs - instead producing the Mk3 range of rim brake forks, which have reversible bolt-on brake hangers that can accommodate 700c or 650b rim brake wheels. Albeit a much more invasive wheel swap than you get with discs at both ends.
When I was speccing my Mercury, sales frontliner Sarah told me they had no stock of 853 forks in my colour at the appropriate offset, and so I went with the low-rider compatible ST fork, an easy decision as I had been tossing up between the two anyway.
At one point Sarah observed that I could have a disc fork, and I could hear some excitement enter her tone as she proffered this option. So here is another guess: the disc fork option for the Mercury is not much in demand.
-
There's the old saying "horses for courses" and the same applies to bicycles. After many years of worries about stopping using rim brakes I relish the reliable stopping ability of discs. My first car was an Austin A35 with 5?" drums and now power assistance. I recall acceleration from 0 to 60 took about 1/2 minute and braking was similarly unresponsive with several scary moments when going downhill and discovering a bend at the bottom and rim-braked bikes have provided similar worries, particularly in wet conditions.
A factor in my frame deliberations was that the Spa Elan 725 has a longer than average head tube https://spacycles.co.uk/m11b0s143p4590/SPA-CYCLES-Elan-725-Frame-and-Forks which opened up the option of having a full carbon forks + steerer without the bars being uncomfortably low due to the advised limit of 40mm between stem and headset bearing. SJS stocks this carbon disc forks https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/forks/evo-carbon-iso-disc-audax-fork-700c-1-18-ahead-a613d/?sessionid=5b82cb9849de635e47beee911b1da552a0d1afd2 which is a near miss but wouldn't take the 38mm tyres + mudguards that I'm now using.
While we've drifted away from the original thread topic I feel this dicussion could be helpful for those reading it in the future and wondering about the build specification.
-
Yes indeed, and it's not way off topic in a Thorn v Shand thread.
The tyre size is another relevant factor, as you suggest John. Thorn would have had to have manufactured a carbon fork that could accommodate a 54mm 650b tyre and a big stretch to the stem, if it were to match the spec they could supply with their steel forks. Especially several years ago when the Mk3 Merc was in planning, it is easy to think this would have been a Thorn special order and only available at high unit cost, if at all. Not hard to see why they passed on that one.
-
I think at the bottom of all this is John's solid commitment to wanting a disc front brake and Thorn's half-hearted commitment to supplying a front disc solution. Given those two realities,
None of the small volume framebuilders use their own fork, the fork on John's Elan (Which isn't Spa's own though it may be branded such) would fit straight into John's size of Mercury.
Apart from material choice, using a carbon fork also restricts cycle design, you have to build the frame around 395mm A/C (+/- 5mm) and 45mm offset (+/- 3mm) For many sizes that would be the choice anyway, but those looking for smaller frames either can't have a carbon fork, or the frame has been designed round it, which involves other compromises.
I find it easy to understand John's decision to pursue an alternative.
John can do whatever he wants of course, but at the start of the process the objective was an additional bike not an alternative, or maybe it wasn't, I can only go by what he told the forum.
-
PH even if the fork would fit straight in, there is still the steerer length limitation. Thorn is world infamous for its long steerers.
-
Thorn is world infamous for its long steerers.
I don't want to become a target in a family squabble, but I really can't let this witticism stand without putting my five cents' worth on the scale.
One of the good reasons Thorn was on my shortlist for a good twenty years while I was working my way up to my ideal bike, was precisely because Thorn give the customer the full length of the steerer, rather than pre-cut it to some sporting image of their brand. (I have a bike that I had to re-engineer extensively because the designer, assigned to make something for a new market for the brand, superimposed the brand's normal sporting image on an entirely contrary concept. The bike failed in the marketplace, even though with a few changes it was a really good bike for the intended market.)
I'd instead say Thorn is famous for letting the customer decide where to cut the steerer tube, and cite it as proof that they know their market very well indeed.
-
+1 on Andre's take on the matter.
-
I'd instead say Thorn is famous for letting the customer decide where to cut the steerer tube...
I'd say this was one of the primary reasons I selected Thorn as a maker, along with their august reputation as touring specialists. Too often, I have seen steerers either severely cut-down by dealers who thought they "knew best" or provided by the maker too short for my needs and long-term comfort in the saddle. No such problem with the offerings from Bridgwater. :)
Best,
Dan.
-
When I was trying to buy a low budget suspension fork for my Nomad Mk II, steerer length was a big problem. Just about all the used forks I saw on Ebay had very short steerer lengths.
I did not want to spend a lot because I wanted to set up my bike for mountain biking for four days for a specific trip. I had no idea if I would ever use it again. Thus, did not to buy an expensive one. But I did not want a really cheap one that came off of a low budget hybrid bike either.
Eventually got lucky, someone put a new-old-stock 100mm RockShox suspension fork on Ebay, it was their lowest budget coil spring model that would meet my needs just fine. I was the only bidder, that made it even better. And it worked with rim brakes so my rim brake wheel would work.
I have only used that fork for about 10 days, but maybe in the future?
-
Of course it's brilliant that Thorn allows relaxed ride postures. It's just that they don't have to do it by having a long and unsupported extension of the steerer tube above the upper bearing.
This was JohnR's point in explaining his choice of frame: the one he went for had a long head tube extending high enough that he could get his preferred handlebar height with just a short protrusion above it. And hence could use the carbon fork that was available.
Thorn's use of the long extensions works fine for steel and is a perfectly practical solution. I say infamous only because when researching my bike I saw plenty of people criticising online the look that resulted. It's an aesthetic thing, not a bad idea as such.
Doing it differently requires different frame shapes for different postures. Most makers seem to do this by offering a range of models divided by the sportiness of their intended application, and on more relaxed model styles placing the upper steerer locator higher in relation to the seat. (As we know, some just don't give a relaxed option.)
That prioritises some people's sense of aesthetics over versatility wihin particular models. Thorn has gone the other way. Thorn have their reasons, and obviously for many of us those are good reasons. They just didn't work for John, and the problem wasn't the aesthetic.
-
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-mk3cfsM/0/428dfa3b/M/i-mk3cfsM-M.jpg)
There's a Surly Ogre. Short steerer extension, with its top pretty near seat level.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-B2SDbZ6/0/5365b159/L/i-B2SDbZ6-L.jpg)
My Mercury for comparison. No more seatpost extension, and twice as much steerer extension to get the top up near seat level.
I'm sure I'm not teaching you guys anything. Feel free to school me on how the difference arises. My hopothesis is that using the lower head tube allows Thorn to offer Mercury buyers a much sportier posture from a given seatpost extension than someone could get from an Ogre.
And that unlike Thorn with the Mercury, Surly isn't offering the Ogre to someone who wants very sporty.
-
OK, I'm going to make this my last post on the subject ;) I think Moronic hit the nail on the head at the start of John's first thread
Wow sounds like you have a serious case of newbikeitis.
Nothing wrong with that and to repeat myself, I don't expect anyone to have to justify their choices to anyone, I don't for mine. What I have objected to is the impression given that reaching his desired result required a different frame, that's demonstrably not true. There's no need to come up with reasons not to go down that line, it's no one else's bike, but these are not the reasons presented at the start of the process, the thread is there for anyone to see. No mention of resale value, or exploring forks, or anything else, he's chosen not to convert it, end of.
There's a Surly Ogre. Short steerer extension, with its top pretty near seat level.
There's a danger in comparing bikes that it's like for like. You can't compare head tubes alone, I won't bore anyone with a full comparison, but having both a Mercury and an Ogre I can tell you the 60mm less HT on the Ogre requires 10mm more spacers to put the stem in the same place in relation to the saddle.