Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: Moronic on July 28, 2021, 02:28:02 pm
-
Asking for a friend ...
Actually for me. So far I'm completely knocked out by the feel, ride and ease of my new 650b Mercury, and I'm wondering whether it really gets any better.
In other words, whether Andy B's claim that some customers say the Mercury frame is the best they've ever ridden on is about more than the ignorance of those customers.
One of the things that helped me accept it was okay I was spending a big sum on a bike with a steel frame made in Taiwan was this story, by a young US bike builder who writes fabulously well for a bike builder:
https://bikepacking.com/plog/made-in-taiwan/
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-WQgxBmV/0/f4a52d9e/M/i-WQgxBmV-M.jpg)
The story resonated because it made so much sense. Artisan welding, like most high crafts, is achieved only through dedication, and dedication is encouraged by circumstance. Circumstances in Taiwan at present may be more conducive to fostering of this specialist expertise than circumstances elsewhere,
So, given Andy B's well documented touring experience, is it likely that custom frame builders in the UK or other countries such as Australia build superior frames for their touring customers?
My guess is that some might for some customers. My other guess is that Andy's arduous miles and his Taiwanese contractor's skill bring us a product not easily matched at any price.
Am I just naive?
-
I can't really say what the answer is, and that probably comes down to how someone defines the word "better" or "best".
I have never ridden a Mercury, am happy with my Sherpa and Nomad Mk II.
I have an average body shape, thus the average mass produced bike frame is designed for my body size and shape and I have no trouble getting a bike to fit me just fine. If I had an unusually short or long torso for leg length, then I can see where custom would be of value. And I suspect that if someone had some really unique needs for custom locations for brazed on fittings, then either custom or modification of an off the shelf frame would be needed.
My titanium bike frame is an off-the-shelf standard size, but the company that made it will also make custom if you have unique or different geometry or desire different fittings. I assume that the same welders work on both custom and standard sizes, as a welded joint is a welded joint. Thus, I assume there is no difference in quality from that manufacturer. But, the price will clearly be different for custom.
One interesting point on my off-the-shelf titanium frame, it has replaceable rear dropouts so you can have through axle or conventional quick release hubs. And it has a disc brake mount attached with three M6 screws, you can use a post mount or a flat mount disc brake. Presumably you would never switch from one to the other after you buy your frame, so there probably is no extra added value to have those options after the fact, but that is something you would probably never see on a custom frame because the custom would be designed and built for only the options you wanted. My point is that an off-the-shelf design for mass production could be built with additional options for customization.
One other thing to consider, I know a gal that was getting a titanium bike custom built for her to use to ride PBP a couple years ago. The bike did not get finished in time, so she had to borrow a bike instead.
-
That article was an interesting read. I've lived and worked in Taiwan, twice, first time in the late 80's and again in the late 90's, there's a lot I recognise but some important cultural differences are not really covered. I know it's a generalisation, but there is a different attitude to work and taking pride in it, if someone's output was sub standard they'd be ashamed at having it pointed out, plus a different attitude to employment, so they probably wouldn't get paid for it either! In the ten years between my visits, there was a huge shift in the quality and cost of output, it was no accident and required considerable government intervention to keep living costs down and the Taiwanese dollar competitive. It's such a small country (A lot of which isn't suitable for development) they couldn't continue expanding in volume so switched to higher value products and many of their existing industries were sub contracted to mainland China.
By complete coincidence five of my six bikes are made in Taiwan, I've looked for the best bike for my purposes and that's just the way it went. Of those Thorn is the only one where it's clearly stated. Two others from British companies make no mention, one even has a Union Flag sticker!
The best bike is of course the one that suits both you and your use, once you've got that there's not much to be gained other than some frilly bits. On a custom build you do get to chose all the fittings and finish, though the one-off builder will likely use other peoples designs for things like drop-outs and EBB's rather than having them made for their design.
Off the peg (OTP) bikes do obviously have to be built for an average, so a "Mercury" that was designed to never be ridden by anyone over 60kg might be a bit different to one with a max rider weight of 100kg. It could also be made to exactly match your size, rather than a range. How much better these things make it are debatable and most of that debate is about expectations and preference rather than hard science.
End of the day - if you have the perfect bike it doesn't matter if it cost £500 or £5,000.
-
Thanks for the generous responses, and I've learned stuff from each.
Mickeg its interesting you raise the multi-use dropout trend. I'm reminded of a time long ago when I had bought a good hiking pack, which at the time came in three sizes and you bought for the length of your back. A year or so later the same company came out with an adjustable harness. I said to my outdoorsy brother, who had advised me: Might have been nice to have had the adjustable harness. He responded: "No, your harness fits you well enough. The adjustable harness is a cost-cutting exercise. It's heavier, less robust and less securely attatched - but it saves them from making packs in three sizes."
PH, informative comments on the culture in Taiwan. That's where I was headed. In the past I've imagined that the master craftsmen were in the UK or Australia or the US or Europe, and the craftsmen in Taiwan and even Japan could do a workmanlike job but for them it was just a job and they wouldn't understand the finer points or even the need for observing them. The article has made me wonder whether what makes a master craftsman is long exposure to work at high pressure for volume and accuracy, and the artisans of the West no longer have that exposure. There are no bike factories to apprentice in, and the custom builder charging 2000 pounds or more for a frame doesn't get - or need - enough orders to get really sharp.
Mickeg another thought: if you get a Nomad Mk 3 you'll get a splittable rear triangle so that a belt can be fitted. Whether or not you want a belt. Whereas obviously with a custom frame you could usually order somehing that did not use a bolt-up seat stay, if you did not want a belt. For some reason I find it a sad comment on the state of the art that even Thorn prices won't get you a non-split expedition tourer, But then maybe you can't feel the difference.
-
The best bike is of course the one that suits both you and your use, once you've got that there's not much to be gained other than some frilly bits. On a custom build you do get to chose all the fittings and finish, though the one-off builder will likely use other peoples designs for things like drop-outs and EBB's rather than having them made for their design.
Off the peg (OTP) bikes do obviously have to be built for an average, so a "Mercury" that was designed to never be ridden by anyone over 60kg might be a bit different to one with a max rider weight of 100kg. It could also be made to exactly match your size, rather than a range. How much better these things make it are debatable and most of that debate is about expectations and preference rather than hard science.
Yes that's the other side of it. I'm 83kg so likely close to optimum for a big-frame Mercury, assuming its optimal rider weight is more about design than luck. Can a custom builder really create something that rides just like you want it to ride, and taking your weight into account? Obviously they can get the size right, and avoid the need for a stack of spacers under the handlebar stem.
Anyway as you say, "amazing" is hard to beat, whether it cost a lot or a little.
-
Can a custom builder really create something that rides just like you want it to ride, and taking your weight into account?
IMO there's two classes of custom builder -
The first might be better described as a la carte, they have a range of models and they're built to order in your size and finish.
The other will start with a blank sheet and build an individual design.
There are builders in the second category who will mix tubes from different sets and manufacturers to get exactly the desired levels of strength and stiffness. Whether they get it right is of course another matter, they're basing it on their interpretation of what they think, you think, you want! Of course there's a downside, no prototypes, no evolution, no test ride! and a limited re-sale market. It's a classic case of the output depending on the input, so the more they know the better chance of getting it right. I could go to a builder and say, I really like X bike but the handling is twitchy and the back end flexes too much out of the saddle, and they could probably build something the same but with those issues corrected.
Stiffness is largely determined by tube diameter, it's been understood for generations, the formulas are published all over the place and the results are predictable. Much more recent on steel bike frames is the manipulation of tubes, shaping them to have stiffness in one direction while having more flex in another. I don't know if this is as predictable. maybe computer modelling has made it more so. It would certainly be a leap in the dark to have a one off heavily manipulated frame!
The Mercury hardly has any straightforward tubes! And of course has evolved into the MkIII. Thorn also had Reynolds supply some tubes to a unique specification, another thing not viable for a custom builder.
How much any of it matters, I don't know, I don't need to know, it's partly interesting but mostly irrelevant.
-
This conversation reminds me a bit of one I recall from music magazines I used to read in the 80s and early 90s as a wannabe rockstar 8)
Identical looking Fender guitars could be had on London's Tin Pan Alley (Denmark Street) with discounts of up to 50% if you took the 'Made in Japan' one versus the same looking 'Made in USA' one. And while some of the music magazine I read were convinced the USA ones were built with more passion and heritage that they were clearly the one worth buying, I recall a blind test comparison in one magazine that couldn't find much difference either way except on price.
And they went on to suggest that the Japanese tended to be such perfectionists, that each one would be the same as the last, where the US made ones were more likely to suffer quality inconsistency.
As a business studies student at the same time, we visited a Toshiba factory in Wales. We were looking into the newfangled 'just in time' methods being introduced into the UK from Japan. Our Toshiba host told us an anecdote about component requirements from 3rd party suppliers that required a quality control pass rate of 99.5%. One of his far east suppliers apparently started shipping components with an extra box equating to 0.5% defective parts sorted with each order which all appeared to have been manipulated to be defective. On approaching the component supplier they apologized for the manipulations but insisted their defect rate was less than 0.1% and they were only trying to honor their contractual agreement as stipulated :o
I think there is an arrogance to assume that 'Made in country X' can be used to define if something is better or worse than 'made in country Y'. I am sure Fender were concerned about their own reputation when looking for an alternate location to build guitars. And I have no doubt Thorn and other manufactures are selective in who their partner companies are when they have a reputation they wish to keep. Our economies are global and almost nothing manufactured is ever 100% from a single country, but a united nations effort of bits thrown together to fulfill a need.
So if your frame is built in Taiwan, your brakes from Japan, your hub from Germany, headset from Italy and saddle from Brooks of England- and the price and quality are pitched right, does any of this even matter if the bike fits you and your needs?
-
I certainly agree with Steve on the guitar front. I have a clone of a 1959 Gibson Les Paul that was once owned by Peter Green and Gary Moore (the original not mine!). This was made in Vietnam by a company called Vintage. The tone of the guitar is exquisite, and between that and the real guitar, you would be unable to tell the difference. This was at the time that Gibson were in trouble with the EPA regarding timber from "Undocumented" sources., they had the option of paying a huge fine, or destroying the timber ... Much of the timber, including partially made bodies and necks ended up in Vientnam, where they were incorporated into Vintage guitars. Vintage were also given the original blueprints of the original humbucker pickups, and when someone (ex of Gibson) heard what Tom Wilkinson was doing, offered him an original Gibson coil winder, to assist in producing those pickups.
Vintage also make a clone of a 1961 Strat, and my guitar tutor went along to a demo where the owner (Thomas Blug) of the real 61 strat played the clone ( £250 ), his original (£2500), and a vintage tweaked ultra special edition ( £5000 ) ... You know what? No one in the audience could tell which was being played, even Blug had a hard time, and didn't nail it down either
My tutor, and somewhat luthier, has said that for sometime now, he has never had a Gibson or Fender guitar that has come direct from the factory that has not required some major sort of fettling before being playable, and yet Vintage guitars made in Vietnam for a fraction of the cost (£250 vs £2500) sound great straight out of the box.
"Made in Japan" used to be derogatory back in the 1960's, now, it's a marker for quality. Someone once asked me about what car to buy, my reply was "If it's someone else's money, like a company car, buy whatever you like. If it's your own money, buy Japanese!"
Before buying our Raven Twin I was looking at having a frame custom built by Bob Jackson, for Rohloff, with similar lugs that are fitted to Thorns ... Would I have been any happier with a custom built £5000+ frame compared to the £1800 Thorn Raven Twin?? I doubt it very much, indeed I had been looking at various options since 2015, including Thorn and Orbit, I bought the Raven last year purely on impulse given the price it was being offered at. I think I would be much more "Precious" about using the custom built, than I ever will be with the Thorn.
-
I assume in both the west and in asia that craftsmanship will be comparable when it comes to things like brazing and welding. Maybe there is something about the culture in a country or region to change that, but I do not have any pre-determined opinions that someone from one of those areas would be better or worse. I am in USA.
I do not think a splitable chainstay would be weaker unless there was something about the design that specifically made it weaker.
Given a choice for a Rohloff bike, I would prefer chain over belt. I use different gearing by changing chainring size and number of chain links, around home with a bike that is usually close to unladen I use a 44T chainring. But touring with a heavy load or on mountain bike trails, the 36T gives me lower gearing. Belt would complicate changing the range of gearing.
After I wrote my previous post where I was suggesting that since I can easily fit most off the shelf bikes, thus no need for custom, I did think of one other possible reason for custom.
It has been my observation that most manufacturers will make a bike frame design, and every size of that frame will have the same tubes. Same diameter, same wall thickness. Thus a 50 kg rider will get a frame with the same tubes as a 100 kg rider. And that 100 kg rider might have much longer tubes too. For that reason I could see an unusually large or unusually small person benefiting from a custom bike to get lighter or heavier tubing. If I recall correctly, Thorn used a couple different sizes of tubing for the Nomad Mk II for smallest frames and biggest frames. But other manufacturers, I have not seen that.
Also, why is it that most manufactures will have the same chainstay lengths on every bike size for a particular model. If I recall correctly Thorn varied chainstay lengths for size, but a lot of bike manufacturers do not. This made me curious, so I looked at the sales brochure for my Nomad Mk II, there were five different chainstay lengths.
So, in summary I think if you are close to the average size, then custom is unlikely to be a benefit. But if you are unusually large or small, your bike might have been designed for a different size person, but lengthened or shrunk for you, which might not give you the best product. I would not be surprised if the really big frame sizes from some manufacturers handle like a wet noodle when loaded with touring equipment and supplies.
-
Also, why is it that most manufactures will have the same chainstay lengths on every bike size for a particular model. If I recall correctly Thorn varied chainstay lengths for size, but a lot of bike manufacturers do not. This made me curious, so I looked at the sales brochure for my Nomad Mk II, there were five different chainstay lengths.
The chainstay length doesn't have any effect on rider fit, it's a consequence of other factors - Wheel and maximum tyre size, mudguard clearance, pannier clearance (This may be relevant as a rider with longer cranks and bigger feet would want the panniers further back).
It's one of those things where you have to join the dots - what is useful for different size riders is a change in BB drop and a lower BB results in a longer chainstay to put the wheel in the same place. Do the Nomad's differing chainstays have a correspondingly different BB height?
-
Also, why is it that most manufactures will have the same chainstay lengths on every bike size for a particular model. If I recall correctly Thorn varied chainstay lengths for size, but a lot of bike manufacturers do not. This made me curious, so I looked at the sales brochure for my Nomad Mk II, there were five different chainstay lengths.
The chainstay length doesn't have any effect on rider fit, it's a consequence of other factors - Wheel and maximum tyre size, mudguard clearance, pannier clearance (This may be relevant as a rider with longer cranks and bigger feet would want the panniers further back).
It's one of those things where you have to join the dots - what is useful for different size riders is a change in BB drop and a lower BB results in a longer chainstay to put the wheel in the same place. Do the Nomad's differing chainstays have a correspondingly different BB height?
So, you are suggesting that it makes sense for a small frame size to reduce the scale only on the front part of the bike but not on the back. And same with the larger size frame, to only change the scale on the front? That makes no sense to me.
Bottom bracket height? That is a ground clearance issue. Yeah, a 165mm crank on a smaller frame is shorter than a 175mm crank arm on a larger frame, but I do not think that was your issue.
-
Here's a nicely crafted case of building to size:
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/08/bikes-of-the-bunch-llewellyn-custom-bicycles-lugged-colossus/
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Hq7QxqT/0/1778ff35/L/i-Hq7QxqT-L.jpg)
A renowned Australian builder makes a bike for a big bloke that uses huge main tube diameters and lugged construction, with the lugs fillet brazed rather than cast and the tubes silver-brazed into them at low temperature.
Comments from the purchaser in the ride experience sound luke-warm to my ear, but that doesn't mean it's not fabulous.
Looked at the other way: a huge amount of work has gone into ensuring that the joining process heats the tubing as little as possible. How subtle is the felt experience of all this care?
-
So, you are suggesting that it makes sense for a small frame size to reduce the scale only on the front part of the bike but not on the back. And same with the larger size frame, to only change the scale on the front? That makes no sense to me.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Why would you change it? It's behind the rider, it has no effect on the way they fit the bike, what difference do you think it makes? Every time you adjust your EBB you change the chainstay length (It's measured from the centre of the bottom bracket to the centre of the rear wheel axle) do you notice? it's the length it is because that's the length it needs to be, for the reasons given earlier.
A shorter chainstay will slightly quicken a bikes handling, but that's neither dependant on size or desirable on an touring bike.
-
It's an interesting subject. I see two levels of customisation. Thorn frames and forks are custom made in batches and a range of sizes to Thorn specifications and then assembled to suit the customer sizes and needs. Individual custom made would be for someone with either unusual body geometry, frame geometry requirements or weight or wanting non-standard drive-train components (eg how many frames are specifically designed for a Rohloff hub gear). In my own case I doubt if the all-up weight (bike + rider + baggage) of my Mercury will ever exceed 100kg (so far never over 90kg) so a lighter frame might be more comfortable. However, I suspect any difference would be less than that due to, for example, tyre choice. A key factor in me getting a Mercury was that it was made for the Rohloff gears.
-
So, you are suggesting that it makes sense for a small frame size to reduce the scale only on the front part of the bike but not on the back. And same with the larger size frame, to only change the scale on the front? That makes no sense to me.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Why would you change it? It's behind the rider, it has no effect on the way they fit the bike, what difference do you think it makes? Every time you adjust your EBB you change the chainstay length (It's measured from the centre of the bottom bracket to the centre of the rear wheel axle) do you notice? it's the length it is because that's the length it needs to be, for the reasons given earlier.
A shorter chainstay will slightly quicken a bikes handling, but that's neither dependant on size or desirable on an touring bike.
Please do not conclude that my non-response is concurrence with your opinions, we obviously disagree on the importance of bicycle geometry and whether or not one-size-fits-all design is appropriate.
-
So far (at 65 years old) I have had one "bespoke" bike frame, at age 20.
Not truly a custom build, I went to the builder's shop, they measured my inside leg and suggested their "Giro" frame would be suitable. So apart from the choice of seat tube height, the frame dimensions and tube set were standard for their Giro range. The only non-standard braze-ons were the cantilever bosses.
Otherwise, I chose the parts to be mounted on the frame, taking the builder's advice for some and insisting on some things that went contrary to his advice, for example the 28/45 double chainset. I came back to the shop to collect the completed bike after the delay of several weeks required to build the frame, get it painted, source the parts, then assemble the bike.
So pretty much the same as when ordering a Thorn: a fairly standard frame chosen in a range of different models, then customised to fit with stem, bars, seapost/saddle and crankset/pedals.
I still have that bike (only the frame and forks are original), but don't use it very often nowadays as it is set up for derailleur gears. With the advent of reasonably reliable 8-speed hub gears and the Rohloff I now use hub gears most of the time. That wasn't an option in 1977 for a bike used for touring in hilly areas, at that time hub gears were limited to the standard Sturmey-Archer 3 speed, or, with searching, maybe try and find an FW 4 speed or one of the early Sturmey-Archer 5-speeds.
Then as now I don't think I would have got something better from a truly custom frame, as I didn't (and still don't) know enough about the various factors involved. To me it makes more sense to ask the supplier which model of frame would work best for my intended use, and then get measured so that the supplier/builder could choose the right size. Thorn in 2011 were more thorough with this "fitting" step than my "bespoke" builder in 1977.
-
Please do not conclude that my non-response is concurrence with your opinions, we obviously disagree on the importance of bicycle geometry and whether or not one-size-fits-all design is appropriate.
I'm sorry that you seem to have taken offence, but I'm certainly not dismissing the importance of frame geometry, rather trying to explain it's limitations and where it's relevant. The idea of a scalable design fails when all sizes have to accommodate the same diameter of wheel. So for example if you relax the seat tube angle, as is often the case on a larger size frame, you have to lengthen the chainstay to maintain the clearance between wheel and frame, the designer hasn't necessarily decided that a longer CS is better in itself, they've had no choice. Exactly the same when the BB is lowered, it's one edge of a triangle, the chainstay has to be longer for the wheel to remain in the same place... and so on. Take the Mercury as an example, it's the one I know best and have the brochure for - there's roughly a 13% increase in TT length between the smallest and largest frame, yet only a 2% increase in CS length, by the time you take into account the 2 degree slacker ST, it puts the hub almost exactly as far behind the saddle on both. That isn't a matter of my opinion, that's what the designer of Thorns bikes has done!
I've seen the CS referred to elsewhere as the rear fork, that might be a useful comparison, though it's over simplistic. It's length doesn't vary much for the same reasons that the length of a front fork doesn't, it's constrained by other factors.
There's an absolutely fascinating book about this, Touring Bikes: A Practical Guide: Tony Oliver. It's thirty years old so some of the ideas are a little dated, but the principals remain the same and I'd recommend anyone interested to see if they can find a copy.
-
There is some interesting comment here in this long interview with Daryl McCulloch, who built the oversized lugged bike in red that I posted earlier.
https://veloaficionado.com/blog/darrell-mcculloch-from-llewellyn-custom-bicycles-spills-the-beans-on-how-he-got-started-building-custom-bikes
Takes a long time to get to it but he does outline some of the thinking behind the low-temperature brazing. It's under a subhead that asks: "What's the advantages of using silver instead of brass when brazing?"
Its worth a read for anyone interested who doesn't already have an answer. In summary, he says that using the lower temps sufficient for silver minimises distortion of the tubes, which means the frame is more likely to remain accurately aligned after it's welded. That in turn means there is less need to bend the tubes into alignment after they cool.
The implied bit is that the tube work-hardens when you bend it cold, or cold-set it in the jagon of the trade. The builder says that when some tubes have been cold-set and others haven't, they flex at different rates under stress and this affects handling.
I find that plausible. It's interesting too that this custom builder seems transparent about his processes. There is probably no way we'll ever learn about how much cold-setting happens when Thorn frames are built in Taiwan - unless Andy B jumps onto the forum from retirement, and even he might not know.
Then again, cold setting is an extra step, so you'd think a top-tier Taiwanese builder would have his own ways of keeping that to a minimum. Plus, Thorn is using tubing that's developed to handle TIG welding.
I know there are various threads around the internet where builders debate these things. However I doubt Taiwanese builders post on them, and in English.
The other side of this, as some of you have observed, is that the Mercury frame is a single product developed over many years. And the attention to detail is high. McCulloch makes a lot of his using stainless steel for the frame ends and many of the braze-ons, and the Mercury frames are encrusted with stainless fittings. At the very least we can say you get a lot for your money.
Time to go for a ride! :D
-
In summary, he says that using the lower temps sufficient for silver minimises distortion of the tubes, which means the frame is more likely to remain accurately aligned after it's welded. That in turn means there is less need to bend the tubes into alignment after they cool.
Agreed; there is no doubt the lower temperatures used for silver brazing result in less heat put into the tubes and undesirable results, but there are many other factors that also affect post-braze alignment.
Some of these include brazing sequence, fixturing, technique/experience and tubing and filler composition, even flux (brand, type and water content for mixed powder types or whether the builder uses a gas-fluxer). All affect the amount of time heat is applied to a joint and any undesirable resultant consequences.
I can share some firsthand thoughts on the subject because I've been a hobbyist framebuilder over the last 27 years or so. "Hobbyist" means I build solely for myself and not others, partly because here in litigious America one really needs to be well insured against liability if you build a frame to sell -- even give -- to others. I remember reading about one case here where someone built a frame for a friend who eventually sold it on. The buyer got distracted and rode it into a parked car, incurring injuries. He had no desire to sue anyone but his insurer went back through the line of succession and sued the builder in an attempt to recover their payout for medical bills and were successful in it. The original builder was unable to prove a negative and refute the insurer's claim that faulty workmanship -- though unproven -- might have been contributory and had to sell his home to pay the court-ordered judgement. When my frames are no longer useful to me, they are scrapped so they cannot be used by others, limiting my liability and responsibility to only myself.
I currently own 15 bikes. I am of average dimensions for my age cohort in the US, so all the ones I have purchased have been used or new production frames that fit me well (and identically) with only minor adjustments in stem reach and seatpost adjustment. The frames I have built were not available commercially and have included full-suspension, small-wheeled Folders and recumbents. Unusual angles mean they are comprised mostly or wholly of fillet-brazed joints that use/require higher-temperature bronze/brass as a filler because lower-temperature silver does not build the large fillets necessary for lugless construction.
It is hard to beat the economies of scale and overall accuracy of mass-production frames that are backed by generous warranties. These come out overwhelmingly well-aligned and can generally be counted on to hang together for the covered warranty period. There have been some notable quality exceptions I will avoid mentioning here by name, but it is in the interest of large-scale makers, their insurers, and their dealer networks to have their frames be well-aligned, hold together, and be safe for the buyer/end user. Historically, the vast majority of brazed large-scale steel production frames have been joined with lugs and brass filler. Over the last 35 years, this method has been largely superceded by TiG welding which requires little/less/virtually no post-join cleanup of the joints, making it a more efficient form of mass production. To better withstand the greater localized heat (welding actually melts the steel tubing at the joins, where brazing melts the filler), tube butts are adjusted in length and thickness and tubing alloys are optimized for the methodso they are more heat-tolerant.
All my own frames were accurate to within a measured 0.1mm (my standard for what I considered "spot-on") in all dimensions upon cooling and required no post-braze cold-setting or alignment. This was due to careful mitering and layup, my heat-compensating fixturing and my brazing sequence that ensured the tubes did not pull/distort to one side or another. Despite long, hard use, none cracked or broke. All of my practice joints held up to destructive testing -- the tubes failed before the joints when clamped in a vise and beat on with a hammer or levered on -- and the same for the completed frames.
Quality tubesets are not cheap. Back when I began, a really nice tubeset started at USD$300 and the "fiddly-bits" -- bottom bracket shells, brazed-ons and droputs could easily add as much to the cost if they were limited-production investment cast items. One of my Folders used a vintage Phil Wood-produced unbutted elliptical tandem keel tube as the main frame spar, a very rare tube even then and I paid dearly for it. It gave me fits because it was not symmetrical in cross-section, causing a lot of headaches in mitering and fixturing but ended up perfect for the application.
Because my framebuilding was a hobby and tubesets were expensive, I tapped a friend who owned a used-bike shop for crash-damaged frames so I could harvest the good sections of high-quality tubing from production bikes. What a surprise to find some well regarded, high-quality framesets were made very poorly at the lugged joins. Because I built my unusual frames with lugless construction I didn't need lugs, so I used my electric bandsaw to cut the tubes in the still-butted end sections just outside the lugs to I could see if the builders achieved full braze penetration at the lugs. Some bikes did not use mitered/fish-mouthed tubes! Instead, the tubes were either cross-cut square at the ends or the tubes were mechanically bent/dented into rough "v"s to better approach the mating tube inside the lug, leaving the lug walls as the sole bridge between tubes(!). One frame had what looked like a paint flaw at the edge of the lower head lug' it turned out to be the end of the downtube, barely inserted before brazing. For those who haven't built frames, it is desirable to have joints that are mitered so carefully to be nearly light-tight before brazing so capillary action can draw the heated filler into the join. Despite these flaws, the original owners regarded these as some of the best riding bikes they'd owned.
At the other end, not every custom builder gets it right. A chiropractor friend of mine contracted for three custom randonneur frames from three different builders, some of which had placed well at shows. All had glaring flaws for which the buiders were loathe to take responsibility. She asked me check them with my laser alignment rig and in my fixtures. One had a fork badly out of alignment with one leg longer than the other at the crown. When she complained the builder grabbed a fork off a show bike, repainted it poorly and shipped it to her badly packaged with resultant shipping damage. Another failed to leave the proper clearance/didn't dimple the ends of the seat- and chainstays so she was unable to shift into her top cassette cog. Yet another made expensive custom racks that when mounted conflicted with the tops of the tires. She finally found a builder who not only accommodated her need for a transporter/bakfiets, he did a stellar job and was accommodating and pleasant with no need for redress.
In general, you can buy a production bike off the floor in the moment but must be prepared to wait for a long time -- months to sometimes several years -- for a true custom from a top builder in high demand. Some premier US builders have effectively closed their books to new orders as they have enough business to keep them going until retirement.
I live in Eugene, Oregon USA where some high-quality framebuilders have located as well as two factories, formerly three: Co-Motion, Bike Friday, and (in the past) Burley, who made my tandem. I've toured each of their facilities a number of times and always gained from my interaction as they generously shared their design, build philosophy and even methods. Rob English succeeds Les Lunas as the premier individual/contract painter in the area. Gary Hale for many years built exquisite fillet-brazed touring frames and then recumbents in his human-powered factory. Bruce Gordon built out of his home not far from me in the late 1970s/early 1980s and generously and graciously spoke to the touring classes and groups I led professionally for awhile. Before relocating to the midwest, Eric Estlund was a well regarded custom builder here under the Winter Cycles name. Just two hours north of me, Portland boasts a huge number of custom framebuilders and production parts suppliers including Chris King (of headset and hub fame).
With all these high-quality framebuilding resources available to me locally (and no customs duties or international shipping required), I chose Thorns because they most nearly met my needs and were well built. I'm happy with my choices and the company and would someday like to add an Audax to my stable. Yes, I could "build" a similar frame but for the price and finish, Thorns suit me well for a ready-made product and even with machines, framebuilding really eats up the builder's hands over time. My longterm de Quervain's tenosynovitis means I pay a painful price for any finish work and it has become less and less worth it compared to a readymade solution as time passes.
There's a lot to fitting a bike to the rider's needs and form even when oneself is the builder and end customer. I have learned a lot over the years from owning and riding a variety of bikes, but never more than when I designed and built my own and could see and experience the results of even small changes in geometry and dimensions. There is so much to consider beyond fitting the rider to the "contact points" that can change the feel of a completed frame and the ride is also affected by component choice, tire section width and pressure and weight distribution both unladen and fully loaded (if a tourer). Cycling style is important too; some are high-effort pedal mashers while others are low-effort/high-rev spinners.Each makes different demands in a frame and loads it differently, needs best addressed with different tubing diameters, even frame sizes within a fitting range. Proper rider fit is paramount. Cycling is a repetitive-motion activity so getting it wrong results in a painful, unpeasant experience or injury with extended use. I don't like pain and over time learned how to adjust my bikes to address the things that hurt me so I can ride 300-400kms/day without suffering undue misery or incurring an injury. Over time, I've come to believe one of the most important dimensions affecting handling and bike feel is trail -- a dimension affected geometrically (head tube angle combined with fork rake) and by tire section size/width/sidewall height. For more on the topic, see: http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=4245.msg19567#msg19567 Overall wheelbase, front center and stay length are important too, especially for toe and heel clearance with tires, mudguards and panniers.
In the end, experience and preference determine what one seeks in a bicycle and how happy you'll be. Cost is a factor as well and we're fortunate most people can get a good, comfortable fit with careful selection of frame size/dimension and adjustments made through handlebars, stems, seatpost positioning, crank length and Q-factor/tread. Fitting mass-produced accessories like aftermarket racks and bottle cages is often "good enough" to tailor the bicycle to individual need. Beyond that and fitness for intended purpose and workmanship, we have Art. It is a quality to consider but one can pay dearly to fulfill a vision that is quite apart from function. My beloved Fixie cost me $20 for the now 51 year old handmade frame and nothing for components I drew from my parts bin and a set of used wheels gifted by a friend. My Enduro-Allroad bike frame was sourced as a slightly dented and badly scratched complete bike from a reputable pawn shop and is also equipped with spares from my bin and a choice of two Thorn Sherpa Mk2 forks (depending on whether I desire low-trail or neutral-trail geometry). Another bike's original randonneur frame was custom built to my dimensions by a builder in Japan. It is gorgeous with semi-transparent five-stage paint applied over full chrome and finished with hand-applied coachlining...and the vertical rear dropouts are misaligned by 1mm, an error I corrected by machining and bonding in a custom titanium shim so the wheel will track correclty between the brazed-on centerpull brakes. My tandem was bought used, sound but battered. I made, brazed and TiG-welded the pieces I felt it needed and painted it fully to look like new. Before long I'll modify it further to take a Rohloff in place of the current 3x6 derailleur drivetrain. While I might notice and would surely appreciate the aesthetics and craftsmanship of a top-level custom version of each bike whether made by me or someone else, I doubt I could achieve better function in any of them and for that reason, I'm happy to keep what I have. In contrast, some of my friends have achieved their goals by "commissioning" some truly lovely frames that have seen a fraction of my use and mostly end up decorating the walls of their lounges. It's all good and I'm thankful bikes can be as individual as their owners.
Best,
Dan.
-
Decades ago when only the cheapest utility bikes were welded, the medium to better quality bikes were all lugged frames, the term silver soldering was used when using silver on the best frames, not brazing. The medium quality frames were brazed, I do not recall if with bronze or brass, but it was copper based and not silver.
I have an early 1960s Italian frame with Columbus tubing that was silver soldered, or at least I assume it was silver as when I stripped the paint off for re-spraying there was no bronze or brass color anywhere on the lugs.
-
Thanks for the very informative post Dan. Those who like very flexible / noodley frames, are probably better off going to a custom builder, as most off-the-shelf frames are fairly stiff.
-
Fantastic post, Dan, and yes, hugely informative.
Given your options, experience and capability, that you have interest in adding a Thorn Audax to your stable goes a long way towards answering the question posed in the thread title.
And yes, good point you make about the art. And about where it commonly gets displayed.
I will be interested to see what happens to the Thorn catalogue now that Andy has retired. When I was ordering my Mercury about March this year, Thorn was unable to supply a 650b compatible 853 fork with the appropriate offset in gunmetal, and could not supply a 61s frame in green. I was told they had reordered only Nomad frames.
Will a new designer take over from Andy? Big shoes to fill. But that's somewhat OT.
-
Will a new designer take over from Andy? Big shoes to fill. But that's somewhat OT.
It's not, you know. A Thorn bike is a distillation of Andy Blance's touring experience and knowledge expressed in those special tubes he ordered to be able to fit everyone and at the same time make a touring bike that was pleasing as well as functional to ride for almost everyone. In a sense it is also his wu, the (spiritual!) good luck that comes with deep immersion in a craft.
That's not to say that Robin Thorn shouldn't get part of the credit for the conducive general milieu he has created at SJS, for discovering Mr Blance and giving him space to grow, perhaps even to make an expensive mistake or two in the beginning*, but in my opinion, wearing my hat as a manager and developer of creative people rather than an artist and a decent person, Mr Thorn should have offered Mr Blance enough money and flattery to keep working until he dropped. Not very nice, perhaps, but then all great managers are at least part-psychopath.
Bicycle designers of genius are not penny a dozen, are not interchangeable, and are unlikely to arise often because it just isn't a glamorous or well-rewarded or even gratifying (there are too many historical restrictions built in) profession. It is why the truly radical bikes, like Marc Newson's S-shaped foamed aluminium Biomega bike, are almost always designed by outsiders. It is also why designers of actually good traditional bikes (rather than ones that merely look right, which in my opinion are the majority) usually don't come out of design school but are generated organically from the open road and the shop floor, as Andy Blance was.
Your average Thorn customer is just lucky that he doesn't have to consider these esoterics -- I mean, wu? -- because he has lucked, usually by word of mouth, into a good bike, but there surely is a place for such intangibles in a discussion at the level of this thread.
* I once ripped off a copywriter from someone else's shop and when the copywriter took me to lunch on his brand new unlimited expense account, he shoved the plate with his Platinum card and the bill across the table to me and said, "Would you mind signing for me." I'd hired, for a dollar more than the US president was paid, a copywriter who was dyslexic. It may not have cost me my job, because in the perspective of the business I generated it was a cheap error, but I would have been a laughingstock up and down Madison Ave.
-
Okay Andre, from that reply I'll take an answer of sorts to the question that closed my original post on this topic.
I may be naive, but if I am then i've got company.
A Thorn bike is a distillation of Andy Blance's touring experience and knowledge expressed in those special tubes he ordered to be able to fit everyone and at the same time make a touring bike that was pleasing as well as functional to ride for almost everyone. In a sense it is also his wu, the (spiritual!) good luck that comes with deep immersion in a craft.
Yes its that mixture of deep and contemporary touring experience, desire to contribute, and design know-how that seems so unusual.
Thorn could likely go on building Nomads and Mercuries and selling them for a while yet. Nevertheless it was another of Andy's attributes that he kept up with the latest tech, even if he chose to adopt only some of it. A 650b Merc with an ST fork may well be the most sophisticated light tourer on the planet but that's because he adapted the frame and fork to fit 54mm tyres in Mk 3 form.
Who will oversee the next step, if there is one? Will there be a 29-plus Mercury that fits 2.3 inch tyres in 700c, or will that require a ground-up rethink and a new model name, or is it a fad and current Mercury clearances will prove to be plenty?
When you think about the commitment required to make good design calls as the tech evolves, with the lead times required to get your small order in the queue with an elite offshore manufacturer, and across a range of models, its hardly surprising the designer concluded it was time for a rest. And as you're likely well aware from experience, money and flattery go only so far. Yes you can hold someone, but if they've moved on in spirit then that might not reward you or anyone else.
-
Perhaps Andy B reckoned that he would no longer be able to take any new designs on one of his big tours in order to verify that the bike fulfilled his expectations. The other aspect is that if there is now a family of good designs then there's not much scope for further refinement.
-
I thought that was a sophisticated question you asked, Moronic.
But I was a merely making a small point about the distinction between the off-topic and what is perhaps already implicit in such a conversation because it is generally agreed.
-
I wish Andy a long and enjoyable retirement, he's earnt it. I like my Mercury, as I may have said once or twice before ;)
But let’s not get carried away, its bike design, not nuclear physics, no one has reinvented the wheel. The principals of bike geometry have been known for generations. What we’ve seen is an evolution of the frames, and of course the designer’s experience has influenced that. The right choices IMO, but all within a limited set of parameters and we shouldn’t underestimate how much the market dictates. They may still believe that 26” wheels are the best choice for anything other than a road bike, but it would have been a poor business decision to stick with it! I'd expect the next generation of Thorn bikes to be a bit different, no doubt some will say better and others will think not as good. Like most things there’s no single right way.
There are those who think the epitome of Thorn's design was the 853 Audax. I’ve never ridden one but I suspect the experience, other than the gearing, isn’t hugely different to the Merc. I frequently ride with someone who has a pre Rohloff Nomad, they’ve no intention of changing it, they’ve lost out on those improvements since, but I doubt they feel they’re missing much.
The Raven wasn't the bike for me, but when it was released, it was the only OTP Rohloff option in the UK, at a price that made the continental options look vastly overpriced, with a unique 90 day trial offer. I didn’t dislike it, I know how much others like theirs so there’s no criticism, it just didn't suit me, though it taught me a lot about what I did like and influenced my bike choices since. It wouldn’t have gained popularity if it hadn’t been well designed, but what if it had been a slightly different design? I’d have still bought it.
The Mercury is the bike for me, it ideally suits the riding I use it for, more so than any other bike I've owned. That's also the sort of riding I enjoy the most, long days in the saddle, sometimes with enough luggage for a couple of days away. So, I’m happy to say it’s my favourite bike. However, that's also quite a narrow range, more so than most of the bikes I've owned. IMO that's the compromise, it could have been designed as more of an all rounder, or to a lesser extent built up as one, but more would have been lost than gained.
Be interesting to see where Thorn goes over then next few years, but I have no doubt they’ll continue to evolve. Good luck to them.
-
There are those who think the epitome of Thorn's design was the 853 Audax. I’ve never ridden one but I suspect the experience, other than the gearing, isn’t hugely different to the Merc.
My reasoning when I got my clearance Raven Sport Tour frame was that it wasnt hugely different to the Mercury (the latter was at the time limited to 700C tyres). The most obvious difference on the Raven Sport Tour frame being the 26" wheels. Both frames were designed for long day rides and lightly-loaded touring. I did a "light" build on my Raven Sport Tour frame to favour day rides as I also have a Raven Tour for lightly- to quite heavily-loaded multiple day touring.
The "epitome" of Thorn's design depends on the type of cycling one does, plus a lot of other things. An Audax wouldn't really be suitable for my sort of riding, not enough clearance for 32 mm tyres (or bigger) and mudguards.
I'm not sure if the current simplification of the Rohloff range into 2 basic frames (Mercury and Nomad) is a good thing, ten years ago there were 3 basic choices (Mercury, Raven and Nomad). Maybe the expanded options now available for forks, wheel diameter and tyre width give enough fine tuning to cover the "Raven" gap in the current range.
-
The "epitome" of Thorn's design depends on the type of cycling one does, plus a lot of other things. An Audax wouldn't really be suitable for my sort of riding, not enough clearance for 32 mm tyres (or bigger) and mudguards.
I'd agree with that entirely and you're right to put it in " "
For some it will be the Cyclosportif and others the EXP, for me it's the Mercury.
However, I do notice quite a few Mercuries come up for sale second hand, maybe proportionally more so than the other Thorn models and often described as little used. I sometimes wonder if the buyers have misunderstood the bike they were getting.
-
Last word from me on the subject (If you're lucky ;))
Reynolds have long had a reputation for dealing with frame makers and offering custom tubing, I don't know the scale when that becomes viable, somewhere between the one off builders and the mass producers, but that's a wide range.
Just seen this posted elsewhere, another manufacturer's sales buff, though you may find it interesting, if nothing else for the photo glimpse inside the Reynolds factory.
https://fairlightcycles.com/inside-fairlight/reynolds/?v=79cba1185463
-
Great link, PH, thanks!
Funny, reading it returned me to the theme from my original post - except this time the dedicated small concern maintaining high standards under volume pressure was in the UK.
Fair point about Thorn responding to market pressure but these pressures are real. Each of us is only human and our endeavours are largely directed towards pleasing other humans, one way or another. Yes you can please yourself but the scope for that within a well lived life is more limited than is commonly imagined. I can shoot my neighbour if he annoys me, but the price for me may be high. I can build what I like but if I want to sell it I need to balance what I believe will satisfy purchasers against what I believe will lead them to part with their money, where these beliefs aren't congruent.
The science of bike building may be well established; what's less clear is how the science is applied most effectively to produce a satisfying outcome for a pool of potential customers who are mostly ignorant. That's where I think AB has done more than merely excel. However, you're better informed than I about what others have done.
Sales of little used Mercuries may offer relevant cases. And I'm wondering whether its virtues are expressed most clearly in the fat-tyre version: no one would puchase one thinking they're getting a racer.
-
A relevant comment from Thorn's tandem brochure.
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornRavenTwinBroHiRes.pdf
P5, column 1.
"These tubes are crafted into frames, by only the finest of the builders, from probably the cycle trade's most respected factory."
Interesting that the factory isn't named. Perhaps part of the business model for that factory, if they build steel fames to spec for a big range of Western brands. Nevertheless, if they were to engage in a branding exercise, one day people might be advertising proudly that their frame had been built by xxx in Taiwan.
-
A relevant comment from Thorn's tandem brochure.
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornRavenTwinBroHiRes.pdf
P5, column 1.
"These tubes are crafted into frames, by only the finest of the builders, from probably the cycle trade's most respected factory."
Interesting that the factory isn't named. ...
Thorn at times feels that their information is of great secrecy and must be maintained that way to prevent others from stealing their market share.
Several years ago I was trying to diagnose some really bad handling issues on one of my non-Thorn bikes. All my non-Thorn bikes, the geometry details like fork rake and headtube angle were published as part of the marketing literature. But Thorn did not. So, I asked for this data on my size 610S Sherpa and my 590 Nomad Mk II so I could compare with some of my other bikes. The response I got was what I would have expected if I had asked for their banking pass codes. I found it rather absurd that they would not share this, and I stated that. They said I could use a protractor on the headtube since I owned the bikes. Maybe if you are a frame builder you have the equipment to measure that sort of thing with precision, but I am an engineer by training and I know that for some measurements a small error can mess up any analysis ... I am starting to rant.
They do not want to share some info, I choose not to ask them any more questions, even if those questions are often answered before asked with other manufacturers.
-
Yes Andy B says in the Mega Brochure for solos that he wants to keep the steering geometry of his bikes to himself. Nevertheless, that brochure must be by some margin the most detailed information ever supplied about a range of bikes.
The US brand Surly is sometimes compared with Thorn in so far as they build in steel and emphasise ruggedness. Nevertheless they don't tell you much about the tubing they use on each model: it's Surley Natch, which they identify as SCM430, "an Asian equivalent to 4130", and some of it is butted. There is no attempt to detail tubing diameters and wall thicknesses, for example, as Thorn does.
My reference to the factory not being named wasn't intended to imply that Thorn was concealing information. It was meant more in the context of this thread: here we have, in Andy's words, probably the world's most respected cycle factory, and yet its name would garner little recognition (or alternatively, does so many cheap bikes that it's not a byword for premium steel - that might be the case if, for example, Thorn frames were produced by the best builders at Giant).
Its a comment on where things are in Taiwan. The world's most respected bicycle factory does not appear to be a household name like Campagnolo or Shimano, or even a name widely recognised by niche consumers such as Rohloff. Instead, it appears it flies under the radar and lets the brand recognition accrue to its customers. One day that may change.
-
Yes Andy B says in the Mega Brochure for solos that he wants to keep the steering geometry of his bikes to himself. Nevertheless, that brochure must be by some margin the most detailed information ever supplied about a range of bikes.
The US brand Surly is sometimes compared with Thorn in so far as they build in steel and emphasise ruggedness. ...
In my opinion there is no comparison with Surly and Thorn.
My first and last Surly was a first year of production (2004) Long Haul Trucker. Surly refused to warranty the frame, said it was normal for a bike shop to have to clean out the bottom bracket threads. I explained that the shell was warped, Surly mailed me a pair of socks. The mechanic at the bike shop had to take a break half way through re-threading the bottom bracket threads because cutting that much metal takes a lot of muscle. He commented that he had never seen that much metal cut from a bottom bracket shell. I had to pay the bill since Surly said this was normal.
I tried it on a long bike tour, had a bad shimmy that I could not get rid of, when I got home I stripped the parts of the frame and put the frame in the metal recycling bin. Later when on a bike tour (I had my Nomad Mk II on that tour) I met a frame builder at a campground we were both staying at. I described my bottom bracket warped shell to her, she then explained in great detail how the welder had badly messed up their heat settings to get the shell that warped, and she said that it would have weakened that part of the frame and could have caused my shimmy problems.
Yeah, a lot of people swear by Surly, but I have not seen any desire by them to stand behind a product once it was paid for. I can only think of one exception to that, one color Long Haul Trucker had so much red paint (or powder coat) falling off their frames that they reluctantly warranted those frames.
My Thorn Sherpa, I bought the frame and fork used from someone in Canada (I am in USA), he said he really liked it but it was the wrong size. That was over a decade ago, I have done several tours on that bike, it handles rock solid.
My Thorn Nomad Mk II, I bought the frame and fork new in 2013. They listed one on the website as having a dent and was discounted. I bought that discounted frame. When I received it, it took me several minutes to find the dent it was so minor. And that frame is rock solid too, have done several tours on it.
To summarize, Surly sent me a pair of socks for my troubles on a frame that I eventually put in the trash, Thorn gave me a discount for a cosmetic blemish that I had trouble finding.
Thorn is not perfect, some of the clear coat on my Nomad Mk II has come off and the light mount on the fork is aimed off to one side instead of straight ahead. I did not pursue any warranty claim on the light mount or clear coat. From what I have seen they stand behind their product after it leaves the door.
I was disappointed in a pair of rims that SJS sold me, but that is a different story and that was not a Thorn product.
-
Yes Andy B says in the Mega Brochure for solos that he wants to keep the steering geometry of his bikes to himself. Nevertheless, that brochure must be by some margin the most detailed information ever supplied about a range of bikes.
Publishing geometry is to some extent a mugs game, those who understand it and all the implications (Of which I do not count myself) are frustrated by it not being complete, but so are all those, a much higher number, who think they do but don't. For example I see again and again, people comparing top tube lengths without taking account of head and seat tube angles, it's a completely worthless measurement without the others.
Steering geometry is the result of trail, two bikes with the same trail will steer the same, I don't know if there is some extreme where that ceases to be the case, but within normal cycle design it makes no difference if the same trail is achieved with different HT angles and fork rake. Measuring trail is easy, here's a wikki link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_and_motorcycle_geometry
As to who makes Thorns frames, there's several very competent frame building companies in Taiwan, I know of two by name and know there's at least two others. They will build what they're commissioned to, so to an extent naming them becomes another case of incomplete information. It's a Thorn frame because it's built by Workshop X as Thorn have specified. It becomes an issue when someone thinks one Workshop X frame is the same as another Workshop X frame and that's very much not the case.
It's no different when Thorn had frames built in the UK, you read on here sometimes that someone has a Lee Cooper built frame or a Kevin Sayles. I know both are highly regarded framebuilders, but it's the name on the downtube that matters.