Opinion regarding Thorn Rohloff 26" Models

[revelo]

I have long thought Thorn's line of Rohloff hub bicycles is poorly thought out, but I've never communicated this to Thorn or in this forum and I probably should. It is my interest, after all, as a Nomad owner, for the company to thrive so I can get spare parts down the line. (I'm also aware that the Nomad designer has something of a non-invented-here complex and doesn't take too kindly to suggestions from outsiders, but I'm willing to risk his wrath.  )

The Nomad is fine as an expedition touring bicycle. My only complaints are: (a) I don't much care for the way the front brake is behind the fork, though I'll defer to the designer on this one; (b) I would like to see the factory-installed shifter cable housings cut exactly to the same length, so that two spare shifter cables can be pre-cut identical length, rather than different lengths for the two spare cables. (I mentioned this to Dave Whittle, but he said this gave a slightly sloppy look to the cable housing.  I'm more concerned about function than appearance however.) But these are minor complaints and my overall opinion of the Nomad is one of exceptional satisfaction.

The real problem with the Nomad is that it is overbuilt for most people. Not for me, because I routinely load up with 23L water, 10kg food, 12kg gear, for a total load of 45kg, and then I carry this load on rugged roads (similar to the South American ripio). But most people will not be carrying loads like that.

Right now, the Raven is the alternative for those who don't need the load-carrying capacity of the Nomad. Previously Thorn offered the  Tour. The problem with these alternatives is they use the internal gear shifter rather than the EX box, which is a serious disadvantage for those who will be riding in dusty conditions. The Raven apparently also only supports 2" tires while the Nomad supports 2.25" (I believe the old Tour also supported 2.25", or maybe 2.4" for both Nomad and Tour). Finally, the Raven and Tour frame are different geometries from the Nomad, so an apples to apples comparison is not possible. In other words, when someone feels the Nomad is overbuilt, because they will never be carrying more than 35kg, then stepping down to the Raven involves more than just going with a lighter-weight frame. It also involves these other changes, which may not be desired.

At one time, the Nomad designer realized there was a problem and came up with the Nomad-X design as a solution, but then he bungled the marketing of the Nomad-X. Maybe Thorn had a huge supply of Raven/Tour frames in stock and he was dismayed at the financial writedown involved with replacing the Raven/Tour with the Nomad-X. Maybe he didn't like confronting the fact that he should have done something like the Nomad-X to being with instead of the Raven/Tour. Maybe there were other issues at play. The name itself was bad marketing (Nomad-X sounds like a Nomad that has been crossed out as no good) but the real problem was in the Nomad brochure, which was written in such a way as to make the Nomad-X sound like a poor relation of the Nomad and a niche product, when in fact the Nomad is the true niche product and probably the majority of Nomad customers should actually be buying something like the Nomad-X. Because of poor marketing, the Nomad-X sold poorly and was discontinued. The designer blamed poor market research. He should have blamed himself and whoever else was involved marketing the Nomad-X.

When people ask me for recommendations, I am unequivocal about recommending the Nomad for those who need heavy load-carrying capacity. But for those for whom the Nomad would be overbuilt, I have to grit my teeth at recommending the Raven, because I know these people will have problems in dusty environments with that exposed shifter cable. I would really like to be able to recommend something like the discontinued Nomad-X.

There is also a step-through version of the Raven/Tour, but this should be broken out into a completely separate product line, since the frame is so completely different.

The Thorn designer has now combined all the Thorn bicycles into a single brochure and made ordering more of a mess than ever, IMO. There is no reason to combine derailleur and Rohloff bicycles. You make that decision up front, long before you read the product brochures. The Mercury line can also be separated out, since that product is so different from the Nomad/Raven. Then combine the Nomad and Raven lines, resurrecting the Nomad-X but giving it a proper name this time around. For example, the 3 models in this combined 26" model line might be called Nomad-Expedition (current Nomad), Nomad-Standard (Nomad-X) and Nomad-Step-Through (Raven step-through). The Nomad-Standard and Nomad-Step-Through would be offered in marketable colors, and that hideous bright yellow would be confined to the Nomad-Expedition. Normally, a Nomad-Expedition would be ordered with heavy rims and fork, etc while the Nomad-Standard would take lighter rims and maybe a lighter fork option like that on the Raven, though not necessarily. The decision between Nomad-Expedition and Nomad-Standard would thus boil down to maximum load to be carried. If seldom or never carrying more than 35kg, the Nomad-Standard would be the better choice because it will ride more smoothly when lightly loaded. The Nomad-Step-Through would have the same caveats as the current Raven Step-through (only if you absolutely need step-through, since this is an inherently weaker frame design).

As I see it, anyone buying a Raven or Tour is buying a second-rate product compared to the discontinued Nomad-X, because they are getting an internal rather EX hub. And there is no way to fix this problem down the road. The only advantage of the internal hub is a slight savings in money and weight. In the long run, the money savings will be forgotten ("quality is remember long after price is forgotten"--the Rolls-Royce quote), while the disadvantages of the internal hub will loom larger and larger as the customer encounters situations where the exposed shifter cable poses a problem. The slight weight savings is of no significance for touring bicycles.

When submitting a single Rohloff touring bike for reviews, it would be normal to submit only a Nomad-Standard (=Nomad-X) with medium-weight rims, so as to avoid a review damning Nomads as overbuilt. If the reviewer is willing to accept multiple test bicycles, then submit all three models (Nomad-Expedition, Nomad-Standard, Nomad-Step-Through).

Finally, Thorn should offer a discount on buying a new frame, for customers of either the Nomad-Expedition or Nomad-Standard models who later decide they selected the wrong frame initially and want to switch to the other. Probably very few people would take advantage of this offer, but it would reduce the fear of making the wrong decision initially. If the Nomad-Standard is identical to the Nomad-Expedition, other than slightly narrower tubes (this was the case with the Nomad-X), then the change would be easy to make.

[rualexander]

I disagree with most of this.

The Nomad is the heavy duty expedition model, people know that before they buy it.

The Raven is the less heavy duty model but still more than strong enough for nearly all touring duties.
The fact that it uses the internal gear mech is of little consequence, it is a perfectly good system. If you have problems in some conditions then it is possible to change to the external mech fairly easily, the only issue is cost and cable routing, maybe adding a cable clip to the seatstay (I have a Rohloff on my Sherpa with external mech and the cable routed this way).

The Nomad X was never a competitor to the Raven in my view, it was a different beast altogether.

Thorn already offer extremely generous trial periods on their bikes where buyers have the opportunity to change their minds and return the bike or frame and get a different size or model or a complete refund.

[mickeg]

I think that the Nomad fork should have the brake posts in front of the fork instead of behind for quite a few reasons and I can't think of a single advantage of the current design.  I saw this as a disadvantage before I bought it, but after I bought it I found even more problems with this design. 

I wish my Nomad Mk II was a bit lighter.  I was looking for an expedition bike designed for Rohloff and had S&S couplers.  I already owned a Sherpa, I was a bit surprised how much heavier the Nomad was.  I regularly ride both the Sherpa and Nomad along with a couple other bikes.  Regarding components, cable lengths, etc., I built both of my Thorns up from the frames so the components and how they were installed were my choices. 

The Nomad was my first Rohloff bike and since Rohloff hubs are very rare in USA, it was the first Rohloff I had ever seen.  I think they did a fine job of designing the frame for the Rohloff and I am pleased with the choice of the EX box.  I also like the option of using a rigid fork or 100mm travel suspension fork, I have used both.  Overall I am still pleased that I bought the bike, but I am afraid that I will always find the front fork design to be a real conundrum.  I can think of a few other minor annoyances, but they were pretty minor so I will not go into detail.

[geocycle]

Interesting thoughts. I've not ridden a nomad so can't really comment. Personally I find the raven tour and sports tours excellent. My preference is for the sports tour for my uses  so was disappointed when it was discontinued. Your main objection is about the internal rohloff with its exposed cables. In practice in Europe this has never caused any problem although I could imagine fine desert dust being an issue. Probably best avoided if this is your niche.

[revelo]

I disagree with most of this.
The Nomad is the heavy duty expedition model, people know that before they buy it.
The Raven is the less heavy duty model but still more than strong enough for nearly all touring duties.
The Nomad X was never a competitor to the Raven in my view, it was a different beast altogether.

You're not saying anything to contradict me. Thorn currently offers two 26" Rohloff touring bikes: Nomad and Raven. And obviously they don't compete because one is heavy-duty and the other medium-duty. Ditto for the Nomad and Nomad-X. They also didn't compete because one was heavy-duty and the other medium-duty. The Nomad X was before the Raven's time, but it most certainly DID compete with the Tour and the existence of two bicycles so similar to one another left a lot of customer's scratching their heads, which is another reason the Nomad-X didn't sell well.

The fact that it uses the internal gear mech is of little consequence, it is a perfectly good system. If you have problems in some conditions then it is possible to change to the external mech fairly easily, the only issue is cost and cable routing, maybe adding a cable clip to the seatstay (I have a Rohloff on my Sherpa with external mech and the cable routed this way).

No, the internal gear mech is inferior, which is why Andy Blance uses the external gear on both the Nomad and Mercury. Running the shifter cables for the EX box along the top tube is a bad idea, for the reasons Andy Blance discusses in the current brochure (he has been discussing this issue in all brochures since I bought my Nomad).

The real reason for going with the internal gear mech is to save money and that is a bad idea in the long run, IMO. Thorn is already aiming at the luxury market and in that market it is best to aim for perfection, at least where perfection doesn't cost more than an extra £80 or so, which is about what the EX costs versus the internal gear mech. "Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten." Just look at the cost of the Mercury. No expense spared to make this the very best bike of its kind. Then again, I'm not in the bicycling selling business, so maybe that £80 is more significant than I think.


Anyway. Assuming Thorn does ever merge the Nomad and Raven lines, as I'm suggesting, they might also want to consider redesigning the rear disk brake mount and also offering disk compatible rigid forks like for the Mercury. Perhaps call this the Nomad MK3 line, with 3 models: Nomad-Expedition, Nomad-Standard, Nomad-StepThrough.

In some of the earlier brochures, Andy Blance wrote about disk-compatible rigid forks as if they were Satan's spawn. But he evidently has since realized that bicycle design is full of trade-offs. It rains a lot in the British Isles. If you stick to paved roads, no problem. But when going onto dirt roads in the rain or after the rain, you'll likely encounter mud, and that is when disk brakes come into their own. The harsh ride of a disk-brake compatible fork is a lot better than not being able to move the bike at all, which is what happens when you use rim brakes in the mud and they get clogged.

I've never seen the Avid BB7 in real life, much less used one myself, but if that is truly the best mechanical disk brake, and it can be expected to be available for many years to come, then it makes sense to design the frame to accommodate that brake at the rear while still using racks, as was done for the Mercury. I'd be interested in field experience with the Avid BB7 rear brake on Mercuries. In looking at my Nomad, using a Thorn rack loaded with Ortlieb back-roller plus panniers, I don't see a lot of room back there. But like I said, I've never see an Avid BB7 in real life.

[revelo]

I think that the Nomad fork should have the brake posts in front of the fork instead of behind for quite a few reasons and I can't think of a single advantage of the current design.  I saw this as a disadvantage before I bought it, but after I bought it I found even more problems with this design. 

I remember reading somewhere that Andy Blance used this design to reduce squealing with the CSS rims. I've only experienced that squealing for a total of like 1 minute of braking right after I installed new brake pads. I haven't experienced any problems with this design. What problems have you experienced?

I wish my Nomad Mk II was a bit lighter.  I was looking for an expedition bike designed for Rohloff and had S&S couplers.  I already owned a Sherpa, I was a bit surprised how much heavier the Nomad was.  I regularly ride both the Sherpa and Nomad along with a couple other bikes.  Regarding components, cable lengths, etc., I built both of my Thorns up from the frames so the components and how they were installed were my choices. 

The Nomad was my first Rohloff bike and since Rohloff hubs are very rare in USA, it was the first Rohloff I had ever seen.  I think they did a fine job of designing the frame for the Rohloff and I am pleased with the choice of the EX box.  I also like the option of using a rigid fork or 100mm travel suspension fork, I have used both.  Overall I am still pleased that I bought the bike, but I am afraid that I will always find the front fork design to be a real conundrum.  I can think of a few other minor annoyances, but they were pretty minor so I will not go into detail.

The Nomad-X frame would have been about 200g lighter than the Nomad frame, if I'm not mistaken. Not a huge difference. The weight of the Nomad frame is not what makes the Nomad heavy. Rather, it is all the extras everyone adds: heavy rims and tires, Rohloff hub, racks, heavy pedals and saddle, etc.

The real problem with the Nomad for most people, and you may be one of them, is that the frame is excessively rigid if you have less than about 30kg loaded onto it. Most people don't need huge load-carrying capacity, but they end up being pushed into the Nomad for the EX box or S+S coupling or ability to use a suspension forks, which was exactly the point of my original post. These people would be better served by the old Nomad-X (which offered all these features while not being so heavy-duty as the Nomad).

[rualexander]

No, the internal gear mech is inferior, which is why Andy Blance uses the external gear on both the Nomad and Mercury. Running the shifter cables for the EX box along the top tube is a bad idea, for the reasons Andy Blance discusses in the current brochure (he has been discussing this issue in all brochures since I bought my Nomad)

It's not really inferior though, it's a perfectly good reliable system for most people who would be using the Raven for the intended purposes.
My cycletouring buddy has had a Raven Tour for ten years, covering around 1500 miles per year on average. I
look after the maintenance on this bike as well as my external mech equipped Sherpa.
The Raven Tour gear change has worked flawlessly for those ten years, shifter cables changed once, internal mech cable still the original.
My Sherpa has worked flawlessly for the four years that the Rohloff has been on it, part of the external mech box broke last winter (the knurled screw that holds the box in place no longer is retained when undone, not a big deal but still a broken part).

[revelo]

Reasons the EX box is better and thus the internal gearing is inferior (assuming the bike is designed with the proper cable routing for the EX box):

a) disk brake option
b) no exposed cable
c) if cable breaks on tour, can easily shift gears using a wrench

The Raven is intended for touring. There above 3 features are desirable on a touring bike, regardless of the weight being carried, which is why Andy Blance designed the Mercury to use the EX box. They are not required features, but they are desirable, and a redesigned Raven, using the EX box, would thus be superior to the current Raven in everything except cost (extra £80 or so).

Unlike you, I'm actually presenting a logical argument for my position, not just making assertions and then backing them up with personal anecdotes about two bikes that haven't seen much usage. Please explain why Andy Blance used the EX box for the Mercury in your next post. Why not save £80 if the internal gearing is just as good as the EX box? The argument that the EX box is for heavy-duty bikes like the Nomad but not medium-duty bikes like the Raven won't fly, because the Mercury is clearly intended for even lighter duty than the Raven.

[rualexander]

Disc brakes better for touring? Matter of opinion.
No exposed cable? No big deal.
Shifting gears with a wrench when a cable breaks? Not exactly convenient, easy enough to replace a broken cable (internal cable easy change kit pretty straightforward.
I never said the ex box is for heavy duty bikes but not for medium duty bikes.
I presume the reason Andy used the ex box on the Mercury was to allow the use of disc brakes as you have already said.
I guess we have to agree to disagree.

[mickeg]

Reasons I do not like the brake posts on Nomad Mk II fork in back instead of front.

 - I prefer cantilever over V brakes.  No place to put a cantilever cable hanger.

 - If you want to use a small rack that mounts on the brake posts, you can't.  I have such a rack on my Sherpa.

 - I have an S&S bike, packing up the fork for transport would be easier if the cantilever posts were on the same side as the fork rake.  By having the fork rake stick out in one direction and the posts stick out in the other, that makes the shape of the fork when packed for transport larger and more cumbersome.

 - The point I discovered after I bought it is that it is much harder to setup the brakes this way.  The brakes rotate on an axis that is the brake post, ideally the brake pad will move mostly in and out from the rim as you apply and release the brake, and it will also move slightly up and down because of the geometry as the brake rotates around the axis.  But the way that the brake is designed, the back (towards the rear) of the brake pad moves more up and down, less in and out, as you apply the brake.  The rear of the brake pad also has more leverage against the braking surface of the rim for this reason too, but I am not sure if that is a good thing or bad.

These are what comes to mind, but I have not been keeping a list.  I have Tektro CR720 cantilever brakes on the back of the Nomad, they work fine and I would have liked to have them on the front too.  The Nomad frame has no brake cable hanger in back for cantilever, but I managed to fashion one that hangs from the rack mounts on the seat stays, so the rear brake installation was not very troublesome.

Overall I like most things about the Nomad, but there are some eccentricities that make me wonder at times.

The photo is of my Sherpa, note the small rack that is attached to the cantilever posts in front that I have strapped my orange color vest on.  I would have liked to have the same rack on my Nomad.

[Slammin Sammy]

Interesting conversation. I can't say that I agree with all of the OP's assertions, but I understand the comments.

I have a Nomad Mk2, 2013, non-S&S. Definitely overkill for me, but I love it anyway. One day I will take that outback trip I have been dreaming about, and then the bike will come into its own. It is definitely a "truck" when compared to other bikes. Many other "expedition-grade" bikes I have seen are lighter, but are really just sturdy all-round touring bikes like the Raven, and could not hope to compete with the Nomad for ultimate load capacity with reliability.

My wife rides a Raven step-through, also 2013. I don't agree the frame is weaker or in any way inferior, although it might weigh a few grams more than a similarly-sized diamond frame. It is a peach of a bike and she's also thrilled with it.

Both bikes are fitted with the EX mech, which were by my choice on the RST. I do agree that is the preferable Rohloff setup (although I have never used the internal mech).

I also have had issues with the brake studs on the Nomad forks. I also built up my bike, and opted for Magura HS33 brakes, which were difficult to set up until I realised that I could not use the included "booster" bracket, which is meant to provide extra rigidity to the brakes. I could not get the brake pads properly lined up with the rims on the front with it installed, and so left them off both, with apparently no ill effects. My brakes are superb, easily moderated and very strong. They do not squeal, ever, but emit a gentle hiss when applied.

I take the comments regarding the marketing of the bikes as opinions. I don't share them, but the OP is entitled to express them. I have never seen Andy or anyone from Thorn try to shout down opinion on this forum, at least in my time on it.

[Mike Ayling]

I've never seen the Avid BB7 in real life, much less used one myself, but if that is truly the best mechanical disk brake, and it can be expected to be available for many years to come, then it makes sense to design the frame to accommodate that brake at the rear while still using racks, as was done for the Mercury. I'd be interested in field experience with the Avid BB7 rear brake on Mercuries. In looking at my Nomad, using a Thorn rack loaded with Ortlieb back-roller plus panniers, I don't see a lot of room back there. But like I said, I've never see an Avid BB7 in real life.

Avid BB7 on my Thorn Mercury.
On a Sunday ride recently I was going uphill at the end of the day when my bar bag fell off and I rode straight over it.
It is an Ortlieb bag but I use the Klikfix mounting system and when I put the bag on the bike that morning I heard that the "Click" was not as loud as usual but took no further notice.
This caused me to divert to the left of the road (we ride on the left here in Oz) and I ended up against a grassy bank at the side of the road still in the saddle.
I congratulated myself and continued riding up hill towards home after replacing the bag with a loud "Click".
I thought that I was going a bit slower than usual but put it down to being a little distressed after the mishap. I have a short downhill just before home and noticed that the bike was not freewheeling as well as usual so I touched the rear disc rotor and found it to be quite hot concluding that when I put the left side of the bike against the grassy bank the brake must have been knocked out of alignment.
According to U Tube all I had to do was to loosen the brake mounting bolts and twist slightly until the rotor rotated freely between the pads, then re tighten the mounting bolts.
After about twenty minutes of loosen adjust and tighten I was no better off so on Monday afternoon I went to the LBS. Pete the owner was out on a bike ride and the older bloke who was minding the shop replicated what I had done without success and asked me to return the next day.
Obviouly Pete's magic tough on the tools did the trick and I now have a free running wheel again.

Mike

[il padrone]

So, if I choose to buy a Thorn Raven frame for my wife, who already has a Rohloff with EX-box and long torque arm fitted to her Giant Sedona frame, is there anything stopping me from setting it up? Or do I have to get a Nomad?

Ideally I would like to get a frame with EBB and even the Rohloff OEM drop-outs to do away with the long torque arm. Does the Raven have OEM drop-outs? Why is it built with an internal shifter hub? Can the EX shifter hub be used?

I can easily re-route the gear cables to suit, but if there is something stopping me using the EX box this would be a killer.

[Dave Whittle Thorn Workshop]

So, if I choose to buy a Thorn Raven frame for my wife, who already has a Rohloff with EX-box and long torque arm fitted to her Giant Sedona frame, is there anything stopping me from setting it up? Or do I have to get a Nomad?

Nothing stopping you.

Ideally I would like to get a frame with EBB and even the Rohloff OEM drop-outs to do away with the long torque arm. Does the Raven have OEM drop-outs?

Yes it does

Why is it built with an internal shifter hub?

2 reasons, 1. Its cheaper, 2. The frame doesn't take discs so you would never NEED an EX hub, the shifting is smoother and lighter on the internal setup.

Can the EX shifter hub be used?

Yes but you need this http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/rohloff-cable-guide-13-deg-type-to-fit-v-brake-boss-8259-8259-prod11742/ to guide the outer in the right direction once the cabling gets to the rear brake, i'd drill the threads out and file smooth to prevent cable damage (I might even heat shrink the outer at this point).

Hope this helps, Dave