Are bikes custom built in the west better than Thorn bikes?

[Moronic]

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.

[Moronic]

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.

[mickeg]

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.

[Moronic]

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.

[mickeg]

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.

[PH]

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.