Thorn versus Shand

[Moronic]

PH even if the fork would fit straight in, there is still the steerer length limitation. Thorn is world infamous for its long steerers.

[Andre Jute]

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.

[John Saxby]

+1 on Andre's take on the matter.

[Danneaux]

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.

[mickeg]

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?

[Moronic]

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.

[Moronic]

There's a Surly Ogre. Short steerer extension, with its top pretty near seat level.



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.

[PH]

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.