Thorn Raven/Nomad to compare at Patria terra

[jul]

Hi !

I finalize my choice and i hesitate between the Raven or the Nomad .. (the disadvantage for me about the patria is the seat tube height 540 mm, so too long for me even if the calculator frame advocate me this size) i would like enought stand over clearance, also about the output of the saddle if i need to install later a system like "canecreek"..

Is it possible to write a list of advantage and disadvantage according to you, between the Raven and Nomad bike ? someway a comparison, a summary (in parallel i study the big brochure^^)

[Donerol]

The pros and cons of each bike have been covered pretty well in some of the earlier posts in this thread. Really it depends on what kind of riding you want to do.

My first choice is the Nomad, because i like his geometry frame, but i'm afraid about his weight, and how is feeling on the smooth roads for long distance... Even if it's a super cargo and it can accept a lot of weight, i think for a long travel it will be rarely to exploit his capacity on the long distance so i think maybe it's not necessary to have the best of super cargo bike if it's for use 100% of his capacity  only a little of the time.

From what you say above I think the Raven in the smaller size would be the most suitable but that is only my opinion. Ideally you should go to Thorn in Bridgewater and test ride both bikes, in different sizes. What do you weigh yourself? That might also affect your decision. If you are light yourself then the Nomad might be too stiff and uncomfortable without heavy luggage.

[Danneaux]

Is it possible possible to write a list of advantage and disadvantage according to you, between the Raven and Nomad bike ?

Hi Julio!

I own a size 590M Nomad Mk2, which I like very much as my expedition bicycle.

For four months in the summer of 2014, I rode a size 587S Raven Tour ~9,000km kindly loaned to me by Forum member AndyBG. It was the predecessor to the current Raven, with a somewhat higher cargo rating due to larger diameter frame tubing.

Both bikes used drop handlebars -- my preference -- and fit me the same within 5mm by using a 60mm stem extension. I liked the effect, as if I were riding "inside" the bike instead of atop it. I had no problems with steering or handling on either bike.

For me, the major difference between the two bikes was, the Nomad has a much higher cargo capacity and rides more harshly when unladen (I fixed this shortcoming completely by fitting a Thudbuster LT suspension seatpost. The Raven did not need it and was comfortable to ride unladen with its rigid seatpost).

The Nomad has an external shiftbox for the Rohloff shifter and different cable routing to accommodate it. The RavenTour used an internal shifter for the Rohloff hub. In practice -- use, as well as adjustment and removal/installation of the rear wheel -- they were different but equal in function and convenience. I prefer the EX shiftbox's use of a 1.1mm derailleur cable throughout for convenience in replacing a broken shift cable, but with prior planning it is a non-issue to carry a spare for the internal shifter.

The Nomad's v-brake bosses mount to the rear of the fork blades, which I find provides a "brake booster" effect under heavy braking with a full load compared to the RavenTour, but the difference is minimal in nearly all normal use.

The top tube on the Nomad has a greater slope for more standover clearance in rough terrain.

The Nomad weighs more, but is designed for heavier-duty use and uses larger diameter tubing to accomplish this. The seatstays are much larger in diameter and the chainstays are longer. The rack mounting bosses on the Nomad are sized for 6mm bolts, the ones on the RavenTour and Raven are sized for 5mm bolts.

The Nomad has a rear disc-brake mount and corner bracing between the seatstays and chainstays so you have the option to fit a disc on the rear if you wish. However, it was designed for use with a Hope hydraulic caliper for rack clearance. Looking carefully at other disc calipers on the market, I *think* a Tektro/TRP Spyre mechanical disc caliper might offer rack clearance similar to the Hope, with dual pad adjustment and is available in models to work with drop handlebar levers.

The Nomad has stainless-steel bosses and cable guides/stops; I don't think the bosses on the RavenTour are stainless. I'm not sure about the Raven.

The Nomad is fully justified if it is used by a heavy rider or by an average rider carrying heavy loads -- especially over rugged terrain. I can't think of a more ideal mount for the extended, self-supported expedition tours I sometimes take over rough terrain with as much as 26l/kg of water aboard. I think it is likely overbuilt and over-heavy and "too much bike" for many riders in general use unladen and for casual day rides, compared to the RavenTour or Raven, which are each lighter and more lively. That said, I often use mine on paved-road rides of about 200km with no problem. For longer 200-400km unladen day rides on pavement, I prefer my lighter, livelier randonneur bike.

Of final note: If you prefer to use drop handlebars, you are more likely to find a good fit in the Raven because it comes in sizes with short top tubes. The Nomad is only available in medium and long top tubes, which will either require a short stem/Medium top tubes or won't work at all with drop handlebars and Long top tubes. I have found a perfect fit on my 590M Nomad Mk2 with compact drop handlebars and a short stem, but not everyone might be so lucky. The equivalent-size in the RavenTour proved to be the 587S. Previously, I rode a 560S Sherpa and fit all the hard-points the same, but used a longer-reach stem.

Just my experiences with two like-sized Rohloff Thorn bikes -- one a Nomad, the other a RavenTour, a marginally heavier-duty predecessor to the current Raven and most similar to it. I hope this helps summarize some of the major differences between them.

Best,

Dan.

[martinf]

I'd summarise the difference between Nomad and current Raven as :

Nomad - for exceptionally heavy loads on road or extensive off-road riding with heavy loads. A bike specialised for expedition type touring, like it says in the brochure.

Raven - for heavy loads on road, less extensive off-road riding with moderately heavy loads, very careful off-road riding with heavy loads. More general purpose than the Nomad, but still a heavy tourer in my opinion.

In my opinion, choice between the two bikes depends on :

1 how much you weigh.
2 how much luggage you intend to carry most of the time (in my opinion occasional overloading probably doesn't matter much).
3 how often you intend to use rough tracks.
4 how carefully you ride.

I'd suggest you think carefully about 2 and 3, then write to Thorn for their advice on which bike to choose.

Before advice from Thorn I had persuaded myself that I wanted a Nomad as it was "the best" for heavy loads and off-road. But I don't do real expedition touring, so the Nomad would have been overkill most of the time.

After advice from Thorn I decided to buy a Raven instead of a Nomad and :

- to be more ruthless in keeping luggage to a minimum.
- to take extra care on rough roads with a full load.

As it happens, Thorn had an old model Raven Tour frame available, this will carry slightly more weight than the current Raven, so I bought that. But the difference between Raven Tour and current Raven is not all that signicant.

So far, my Raven Tour has worked well, and is much better for loaded touring than any of the other bikes I have used  in the past.

[jul]

Thanks for your precious informations..

1)My weight is 67 kg
2Usually i like traveling by foot with a compact backpack , i like to use the minimum .. i think by bike it's will be the same thing.
3)I intend to ride on the rough roads  regularly depending on the country, places, but most of the time will be tarmac.
4)I use carefully my vehicle usually. 

Is there a average of luggage weight to determine the best comfort ?

[Danneaux]

Hi Julio!

I am reassured by your own 67kg weight, and think that would leave plenty of room for a reasonable touring load on a Raven and still meet your needs on rough roads.

For reference...

• I can go very lightweight, carrying my 0°C down sleeping bag, self-inflating pad, Esbit alcohol cookset and extra fuel, a minimal tool kit, a change of clothing (shorts, jersey, socks), a wind jacket, , 3/4 tights, and full tights with food for a couple days inside my two small front panniers. My rain gear (jacket and good, pants, shoe covers, gloves, and helmet cover) and wool longsleeve jersey or medium-weight fleece pullover ride in stuff sacks under the pannier cap-tops. My 1-person tent and footprint atop my rear rack for a total of 9-10kg + water. My phone and snacks ride in my rear jersey pockets. The underseat bag contains a spare tube, glued and glueless patch kits, a comprehensive multi-tool, brake and derailleur cables, and a bottle of oil.

• For an "average touring" load, I prefer a maximum of about 18kg in weight, distributed among 4 panniers and a handlebar bag, not counting water. Here in America in the 1980s, 18kg was considered an "average touring load" by most bicycle magazines. At that time, water was carried in as many as 3 bottles, each holding ~0.5l to 0.75l (1l = 1kg, so you can calculate the weight of water easily).

If I can count on refilling my water at regular intervals, then I prefer to carry no more than 4.5l to allow for drinking during the day and making dinner and breakfast in a dry camp. Most people seem to get by with less water, but I always try to stay well hydrated. How much I require depends on the season/temperature.

• 25g is the "hard maximum" weight limit on my rando-touring bike, and it allows me to carry clothing to meet variable conditions, as well as a reasonable amount of food and water for some time away from resupply. It seems to be considered a pretty universal "reasonable maximum" when counting total cargo weight, so I think you would be safe considering it an average workable upper limit.

• When researching expedition bikes, I found nearly all that stated a hard cargo maximum used 33kg; Thorn's Nomad is an exception and allows for occasionally carrying more when the need arises, with the caution that handling will of course suffer with more weight. However, it is worth noting the total payload capacity of any bike must include rider weight. A few German brands note total payload capacity (rider + cargo), but this is rare.
- - - - -
Given your own 67kg body weight and intended use (I also use my bicycles with care), I think you would be okay with a Raven, but like others in this thread, I would strongly suggest contacting Thorn with your questions and information to see what they say. They're very willing to answer questions, and have a large sales and experience database to draw upon for their suggestions.

There is one other point I forgot to mention earlier, that might be important to you: The Nomad Mk2 can use a suspension fork, while the Raven cannot. This might be important if you rode often on rough roads, but a suspension fork will limit your luggage options (front panniers generally cannot be used).

Best of luck, Julio; I realize this is a major purchase, and many of us have faced the same agony trying to choose the "best" model for our needs. The choice is made more grave when a person lives a long way from Thorn or outside the EU, where the trial return period does not apply. Here is Thorn's return policy according to their FAQ ( http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/faqs ):

"What if I don't like my bike?"

Rohloff equipped bikes

If you have bought a Thorn Rohloff equipped bike and you are not totally delighted we offer a 100 day money back guarantee. This means that, if you ride your bike for 100 days and decide you don’t like it, you can return it to us either in person or safely packaged in a Thorn bike box and we will refund you the purchase price of the bike including any or all of the items from our bike build menu.

This offer does not include pedals or accessories. This offer applies to complete bike builds and to EU customers ONLY.

Thorn derailleur-equipped bicycles have a 14-day return period with the same limitations.

Best,

Dan.

[il padrone]

Has a kickstand, Thorn is somewhat resistant to that concept.

This is a good thing IMHO. Thorn's 'legal-liability minimisation' position is pretty foolish.