Which Raven Model? (& Max Load Chart)

[jawj]

Sorry to butt in here Mr Mackay: I think a Ravan is a Raven when the bike is an off-the-peg offering as opposed to the "four" you mention which are all custom built models from the tubes up (eXp range and Mercury).

I'm guessing that Stutho's fine table is intended to be useful for the majority of people i.e. those who won't be buying a custom or tandem bike. (I'm sure the people going custom or doubling-up will be having VERY extensive conversations with SJSC about their requirements)

What terrain will you be riding on? If you will be sticking to sealed roads and want a custom machine, go for the Mercury or the eXp R if you want to carry a load.

To be honest, I reckon most of us would be fine with a regular Raven Tour. Are Thorn to be cursed or blessed for giving such a wide range of shiny bikes and making it difficult for us to choose...?

[stutho]

Jawj,

quote:I'm guessing that Stutho's fine table is intended to be useful for the majority of people i.e. those who won't be buying a custom or tandem bike. (I'm sure the people going custom or doubling-up will be having VERY extensive conversations with SJSC about their requirements)

You hit the nail right on the head!

[philb]

Hi, guys thanks for the interesting reading, I've joined the forum to respond to this topic, as I've been researching these two bikes and your comments have been really helpfull. I should start buy saying that I've just sold my EXP. It was a outstanding touring bike and the design and manufacturing detail was awsome, but I found a bit ponerous in the real world of shopping and commuting and general pleasure riding.

So thats gone to someone who may appreciate it more than me.

Back to the topic.. I'm just wondering what the sport tour is for? The 17 kg load limit seems a small amount for a touring bike. If it's for commuting, I'm wondering if I need the technology of low maintainance (and expence)for basic urban riding.

I hope this is not too subversive for my first post and I have appreciated the owners opinions of their bikes.

I should state that as I'm in Austraila, these are expensive bikes to import, so I want one to do everything.
Thanks for your opinions

[stutho]

Hi philb

Welcome to the list.

RE: What is the RST for?

WARNING I own a RST so expect long gushing pros!

My bike is manly used for my daily commute, 24 Km of rural bliss ever day.  However I also, often, take it on day rides (100Km+).  Sometimes I also take it Off-road. (I have a Mk1 frame that can take a wide tire than the current RST.)   Multi-day (European) touring is also a love of mine, although with 2 children under 3 my opportunities are more limited at present.  The weight limit for me is about right HOWEVER I only carry minimal water and food as I tour from village to village not into the wilderness.  If I was to go on a world tour or cross the outback to Alice Springs then I am sure the weight limit would be an issue.

I find the RST to be a perfect ride for me.  It is fast, versatile and low maintenance.  Best of all its fun to ride.  I recently sold both my road and mountain bike both were excellent bikes but neither brought the same smile to my face as my Raven.   (All very subjective I know)  Anyway with the raised cash I bought a Raven Tour frame for my wife and a Rohloff hub.  I am currently building it up, should finished by this weekend.  

I hope in the next few months to write a comparison between the two bikes, lucky we take the same frame size. We have got a small, 4-day, childfree, tour planned for October, which will be the first real opportunity to compare the 2.

[philb]

Hi Stutho, I'm sure it is a great bike and very suited to the enviroment you describe. Unfortunatly, I live in a high crime area and commuting bikes are the cheaper the better. I was interested to see on the table that the RST was only rated a 3 for dirt roads, which suprised me a lot for a bike of this nature. Is that loaded or unloaded?
I currently have a 700c tourer for long distances and a mtb for off road touring. It would be great to think that one bike does all, but I think its all compromise.
Thanks for your reply.
Phil

[Fred A-M]

From another RST owner equally as enthusiastic as Stuart, I don't think the RST is in any shape or form a compromise, assuming you are clear about what you need it for. As a credit card tourer and daily commuter, the RST is perfectly suited and I personally think Stuart, in an apparent concession to modesty, under-rates the RST on dirt tracks: I've done several loaded deviations onto unpaved roads and tracks, and assuming suitable tyres (eg Schwalbe Marathons as opposed to say Panracers) I think the RST merits a 4, loaded or unloaded.  

Whether 17kg is sufficient take anything other than the lightest of camping loads is however questionable, but assuming warm climes and a preparedness to dispense with cooking utensils, there's no reason why it can't be done.  Pitlock skewers and a decent Abus lock will be your best solution security-wise for any decent bike.

[stutho]

Hi philb,

quote:...RST was only rated a 3 for dirt roads

Don't forget that the table is designed to differentiate between the Ravens. I believe that the RT will be better than the RST on unsealed roads (especially loaded) as it has a longer wheel base and therefor greater stability.  

I have often taken my RST down 'dirt' roads (unloaded). I can assure you it is great it just that I believe the RT would be even better in this environment.

[mmackay]

Stutho,

As I said a few weeks ago, I’m just a beginner at cycling and the Thorn range, but over the last few weeks I’ve had the luxury to be considering Which Thorn Model? to help choose one as an exercise machine in my retirement …… mainly hard road lanes, some muddy woodland tracks used by horses and hopefully leading to a bit of very light family touring on holidays as well.  

I love the idea of disc brakes …. even although Andy, with much practical experience, has done his best to steer me away from them ….. and on a visit to Bridgewater, I  fell in love with the Enduro.  

The only thing putting me off the Enduro is the “2” road rating in your otherwise very helpful table ….. and the thought that most of my use is likely to be on roads.  I know its just a ranking exercise within the Raven family based on incomplete technical information …. and ought not to be read as an absolute rating for comparison to other bikes.  

So, my love affair with Enduro would wish it to be road ranked much higher and I think I’ve found a chink in your logic to help me.  

Much of your ranking logic is based on frame geometry differences, obviously, as most of the rest is somewhat tuneable with componentry choice.   I’ve found that the City Slicker, with a 5 road score in your table, has the same frame material and geometry as the Enduro …. only the Slicker’s solid front forks are different  ….. so, with a lockable fork, could I use this logic to promote the  Enduro up the road rating scale?  If so, and you can award Enduro a 5, similar to Slicker, my decision is easy.

Isn’t it strange how the mind works when it’s trying to justify choice?  ….. please don’t demote the Slicker to 2 or I’ll have to think of something else!


Mel Mackay

[stutho]

Hi Mel,

quote:I've found that the City Slicker, with a 5 road score in your table

I agree it looks like an inconsistency in the table. When I was ranking the City Slicker I was thing more in terms of stop start city traffic, which both the RCS and the Enduro will be Excel with.  With all the other bikes (including the Enduro) I rated them more in terms of road touring (i.e. open roads with load) I will edit the OP to reflect your comments. (I should also mention that I have very little knowledge of the City Slicker � if any owners want to fill in my blanks please respond.

Final set-up on all these bikes can make a VERY big difference.  All the Ravens are very adaptable.  Without hesitation I ride my RST down local forest tracks and some bridelways With a change of tyres I am also up for off road conditions. Yet It only scores 3 in the unsealed road section and the off road section � It a tough field!

Maybe I should add an City Traffic column to the OP.  If I did the bikes would probably rate as RCS 5+, Enduro (no sup) 5, Catalyst 4, RST 3, Tour 3, Nomad 2.  

[stutho]

Hi all,

I am thinking of an overhaul to the table - partly to include the Sterling.  I am thinking of increasing the columns to 5:

On road (unloaded) - important attributes are comfort, speed, responsiveness, and mudguards.
On road (loaded)- important attributes are comfort, stability, load allowed (strength), and mudguards.
Unsealed roads - important attributes are stability, � tyre clearance, � mudguards and � suspension.
Off road - important attributes are agility, strength, suspension, Tyre clearance and disc brakes.
Urban commute - important attributes are acceleration, agility and mudguards.

I am also thinking of doing two rows per a bike one with suspension the other without

Is this worth the time? Or am I over egging the pudding? The Sterling is going to be very difficult to score.  It says in the OP that final set-up is all-important this is twice as true with the Sterling.  

All comments gratefully received  

[jawj]

I am thinking of an overhaul to the table -

All comments gratefully received 

Stu's very useful table has been dormant for far too long!

I personally found your table, Stu, to be most helpful when deciding on which model to go for. If you have the time and inclination and if people with different models could pop their comments and thoughts in, the mighty table could ride again, especially now that the range has changed a fair bit. (Your last post with details of each attribute is VERY helpful.)

I'll start the ball rolling with my scores for the Raven Nomad S&S:

On-road unloaded- four out of five (or should we go to a more accurate score out of ten...? In that case: 7/10)
On road loaded- four out of five. (8/10)
Unsealed roads- four out of five. (8/10)
Off road- three out of five. (7/10)
Urban commute- three out of five. (6/10)

(Ah, what's a little bias here and there...?)

[stutho]

Thanks for the interest jawj.

I am working on a new table with new rules to stop bias. (We can all fall into that trap.)

Rules for grading
1. The Raven Tour is the base line
2. If you add up the points for each bike it must comes to 15
3. Remember that the table is designed to show the differences between the Ravens (not to rate the Ravens to other bikes)
4. Table is a work in progress all comments gratefully received
5. I will add in other data (such as max load after Christmas)



grades
7   Bike is a dedicated specialised for this environment                
6   Highly suited to this environment               
5   Very good suitability               
4   Good suitability               
3   suitable               
2   Usable               
1   Not a good idea               

[Lukanga]

This thread and your table have helped me a lot! Thanks for your efforts! I have just posted this question in the Tour versus Nomad thread, but it might be more appropriate here: How heavy are the different bikes? As all the extras do tend to bias the stats, I'd propose to integrate frame and fork weights in the table (which I could not find in the specs supplied).

Cheerio,
Lukanga

[freddered]

I'd have thought the Tour would have got a 6 (or even a 5, or maybe a 7) for On Road loaded.

What bike would get a 7 if a RT only gets a 4?

[stutho]

Hi freddered,

Yes I agree (kind of),  I am trying, to use the Tour as the base line as a good allrounder therefore bikes get marked against its standard.  Incidentally I don't think that 7 in any column is necessarily a good thing - it means that the bike is a specialist and ipso facto not a good all-rounder.
I think I am going to change the rules of the table so each bike get one more point - giving the tour  5 in on loaded.
watch this space