Thorn versus Shand

[navrig]

Thanks so much for all the advice.  I am still working out what I need or should do with electrics and luggage.  Given I will not be camping and am unlikely to be venturing off the highways and byways I don't feel the need for charging points and multiple mounting points for kit etc.  I could have a charging point as part of the build but it would add 10% to the cost of the bike!

As a road cyclist who is used the minimalist look of handlebars and stems I am getting the jitters looking at how much some your bikes are carrying 

I guess I need to transition a bit more.

[JohnR]

Given I will not be camping and am unlikely to be venturing off the highways and byways I don't feel the need for charging points and multiple mounting points for kit etc.  I could have a charging point as part of the build but it would add 10% to the cost of the bike!

As a road cyclist who is used the minimalist look of handlebars and stems I am getting the jitters looking at how much some your bikes are carrying 

In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes I embarked on a project to have something more appropriate for similar tours in the future http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=14396.0 . Whether it's in the mind, or I'm fitter than a year ago, or due to having a slightly lighter bike, but I'm going a bit faster and/or finding it's less effort. We are often told that the weight makes very little difference and wider tyres don't necessarily add more rolling resistance so I wonder if a factor is that wider tyres/mudguards plus a rack add to the wind drag. Finding the right bike for a task is an iterative process but there's nothing to stop me adding a rack and a couple of small panniers onto my new bike should I want to do a B&B tour but for the rest of my travelling saddlepack or saddlebag supplemented by a small frame bag and even a small bar bag should suffice when less carrying capacity is needed. There's some useful discussion in the luggage sub-forum http://thorncyclesforum.co.uk/index.php?board=11.0 .

[PH]

In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes I embarked on a project to have something more appropriate for similar tours in the future

To be fair though, you bought a Mercury in the heaviest possible build, plus the heaviest fork, and then started adding to it! Maybe you shouldn't say "a" Mercury because yours is neither typical or representative. What you've built as a lighter alternative is probably still heavier than my Mercury, which is probably closer to the original intention of a Sports Tourer.  You've built a lighter bike, great, I really do hope it's everything you want, but please don't give the impression it's a lighter bike because of the frame, that's false. You could have built a similar bike on the Mercury frame, IMO Rohloff specific features and the better tubeset would possibly have made it a better bike, though you'd have to ride them both in the same build to know that.

The weight difference between similar steel frames will be a few grams, maybe 200 - 300 at most, the rest is the build. The Mercury, Elan and Stoater all have similarly built frames, they will have a different feel depending on how the builders have designed them (I've only ridden a Mercury of the three) but the weight difference will be negligible.

[PH]

Thanks so much for all the advice.  I am still working out what I need or should do with electrics and luggage. 

The main decision with lights has already been covered, it's whether you choose a shaped beam that doesn't dazzle other road users, or a less shaped one that does.  Of the former sort, I really like the Edelux, it uses the same B&M optics but puts them in a case that's better built and maximises the LED.
For the times I really do like to turn night into day and scare the birds out of the trees,  I supplement it with a decent battery light, which can also double up as a torch, because it isn't the primary light I don't have to be concerned about run times.

[mickeg]

... I am still working out what I need or should do with electrics and luggage.  Given I will not be camping and am unlikely to be venturing off the highways and byways ...
As a road cyclist who is used the minimalist look of handlebars and stems I am getting the jitters looking at how much some your bikes are carrying ...

During my Iceland tour, I met a couple that were biking Iceland for two weeks, they were also from USA.  They were doing the opposite of me, they were packed extremely light and they were staying on pavement (tarmac).

Their bikes were Ritchey Break Away frames, they could split the frames in half to pack in smaller cases for airline travel.  And with light weight bikes, they could pack some of their other luggage in the bike case and still keep it under the airline weight limit.  Thus, they each had one checked bag that did not incur oversize charges and then their carry on luggage.  The Ritchey case is slightly oversize but airlines rarely charge the oversize fee on that case.

No racks, only bikepacking bags.  I was a bit surprised that I did not see small backpacks too, most people that I have met that were using bikepacking bags also carried backpacks to wear while riding.

Traveling that minimalist, I would not enjoy the trip, but everybody has their preferences.  The first two photos are their bikes.

Third photo is mine on that trip.

[JohnR]

In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes I embarked on a project to have something more appropriate for similar tours in the future

To be fair though, you bought a Mercury in the heaviest possible build, plus the heaviest fork, and then started adding to it! Maybe you shouldn't say "a" Mercury because yours is neither typical or representative.

The point I was trying to make is that I bought the Mercury (the red one on page 2 of the Thorn Megabrochure) thinking it was exactly what I wanted (steel frame, 50mm tyres for comfort, disc brakes all round and the Rohloff hub) but after 16 months and over 7k miles, concluded that it wasn't ideal for my needs. I then decided that instead of trying to make significant changes to the Mercury (which is likely to be looking for a new home) I would build another bike using some available good parts to build a new bike.

The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.

[mickeg]

...
The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.

I would not be happy with only one bike to be the everything bike, thus I do not even try.

But now that I have three touring bikes, a randonneuring bike, road bike and an errand bike (actually two errand bikes), I do find that my vintage Italian racing bike from the early 60s is somewhat redundant.  I lack a suspended mountain bike but I can fit a 100mm suspension fork to my Nomad Mk II, so that serves that purpose well enough.

If I tried to have one single bike for all purposes, I would never be happy.

[Danneaux]

The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.

I've found real truth in this statement over the years with some caveats.

First, while any of my bikes can be (and have been!) ridden anywhere, they vary in the demands placed on the rider. I'm actually grateful some of my earlier bikes were not ideal for some tasks, as they improved my skillset and made me a better, more accomplished rider.

Second, my bikes have evolved over the years. It is amazing how an older bicycle can be transformed with a different wheelset, tire width, gearing, handlebars and saddle...even racks. A suspension seatpost can be transformative on rough surfaces. Even lighting can make a real difference in how and how much I use a given bike. Swapping parts over the years has really given new life to some of my old rides, making them essentially new again for an intended purpose and bringing the joy of rediscovery in a new light. Having a number of bikes creates a "food chain" where parts are handed down the line whenever some new part is installed at the upper range.

Third, my bikes are like "children" to me, ridden long and hard on Grand Adventures over many years. Because of this, I find it hard to part from them. I've only sold several since I reached adult size. At the same time, they have to be ridable/riden and earn their keep and place in strorage, so that brings me back to Point no. 2 above. I recently rehabbed my first "good" road bike and took it out to find it still has all the original qualities I valued, but updated with a raid of parts from my bins. It is good to go once again and I'm really glad I didn't sell it on.

It really does help to have the bike you really want and makes each ride a little bit more enjoyable.

Best,

Dan.

[PH]

The bottom line is that can take a lot of bikes and miles to figure out what's best for a particular person and task.

Yes, it’s part of the fun and games, in many ways it’s a hobby a little separate from cycling.  It’s not every cyclist's hobby, some just buy a bike and ride it.  I’ve not been satisfied with every bike I’ve chosen, my first Rohloff bike for example, a Thorn Raven, wasn’t a favourite.  The more I ride the easier the choices get, though it took me three bikes over five years to get my camping bike right, a role the Mercury’s predecessor fulfilled in a way my Merc doesn’t.
If anyone were to criticise my decisions, I’d tell them where to stuff it, it’s no one’s business but my own.  Likewise your choices, I’d have done that transformation differently and ended up with what on paper is a bike equally suitable for the purpose and better suited to the hub, but that’s comment no criticism.
I’m not commenting to what you’ve done, but the way you’re presenting it. 

In 2020 I bought a Mercury thinking it would be ideal for my needs but after doing two supported tours last year where the Mercury appeared overbuilt and overloaded compared to the other bikes

Anytime you write something like that I’m going to point out, as I have above, that your Mercury was overbuilt compared to most other Mercurys.  Otherwise any casual observer will likely read into it something that isn’t true.  You’ve come round to the idea that a heavy bike with big tyres and all the trimmings doesn’t suit you for fast and light touring, I doubt anyone is going to disagree with you.  What you haven’t done is discover if a Mercury could be suitable for your use, only that your build wasn’t, that would likely have been the case with any steel Sports Touring frame, including the one you’ve replaced it with.  It wasn’t just me pointing that out at beginning of this process, you rejected the idea on the basis that the aim was two bike for different purposes, what changed your mind?

[JohnR]

What you haven’t done is discover if a Mercury could be suitable for your use, only that your build wasn’t, that would likely have been the case with any steel Sports Touring frame, including the one you’ve replaced it with.  It wasn’t just me pointing that out at beginning of this process, you rejected the idea on the basis that the aim was two bike for different purposes, what changed your mind?

My two options were (i) modify my Mercury to reduce the weight and (ii) take parts from another bike (Rohloff hub but small aluminium frame) that was gathering dust in the garage and fit into a new frame. The latter option won because I felt that the parts were worth more than the complete bike and the Mercury should be easier to rehome with someone whose needs suited the bike's build. One of my frame options was the Thorn audax but was crossed off because of the tyre size limit. Once the weather has improved and I'm inclined to get the Mercury outside for a good clean and checkup then it will be looking for a new home.

[steve216c]

... my bikes are like "children" to me...

That's funny because my children are like bikes to me.  Take them on a grand adventure and you might see them skip and jump, creak and groan or even slip and slide while carrying all sorts of stuff they probably won't even need. Out with just one and you'll often end up thinking your day would have been easier had you taken one of the others instead... none perfect, all with their faults but loved for their individual qualities. 

[Moronic]

I think at the bottom of all this is John's solid commitment to wanting a disc front brake and Thorn's half-hearted commitment to supplying a front disc solution. Given those two realities, I find it easy to understand John's decision to pursue an alternative.

With the disc fork, which from memory adds 500-700g to the Thorn rim brake options, the Mercury frame is a heavy steel frame, given that 500g is a big proportion of overall frame weight. My guess is its stiffness also diminishes the attractiveness of the Mercury ride, which is therefore an easier experience to forgo.

If Thorn were serious about their front disc option they'd have developed a carbon fork with a steerer that could handle reliably the length and spacer stack they supply to people wanting a fairly or moreso relaxed touring posture, given that they want a single frame shape to support postures from sporty to very relaxed. Another guess is that designer Andy B investigated this as a possibility and decided it would cost more than likely sales would justify.

Thorn has offered carbon forks on the Merc in the past, I think with rim brakes only though. So it also seems more than possible that Andy wasn't greatly interested in following fashion to front discs -  instead producing the Mk3 range of rim brake forks, which have reversible bolt-on brake hangers that can accommodate 700c or 650b rim brake wheels. Albeit a much more invasive wheel swap than you get with discs at both ends.

When I was speccing my Mercury, sales frontliner Sarah told me they had no stock of 853 forks in my colour at the appropriate offset, and so I went with the low-rider compatible ST fork, an easy decision as I had been tossing up between the two anyway.

At one point Sarah observed that I could have a disc fork, and I could hear some excitement enter her tone as she proffered this option. So here is another guess: the disc fork option for the Mercury is not much in demand.

[JohnR]

There's the old saying "horses for courses" and the same applies to bicycles. After many years of worries about stopping using rim brakes I relish the reliable stopping ability of discs. My first car was an Austin A35 with 5?" drums and now power assistance. I recall acceleration from 0 to 60 took about 1/2 minute and braking was similarly unresponsive with several scary moments when going downhill and discovering a bend at the bottom and rim-braked bikes have provided similar worries, particularly in wet conditions. 

A factor in my frame deliberations was that the Spa Elan 725 has a longer than average head tube https://spacycles.co.uk/m11b0s143p4590/SPA-CYCLES-Elan-725-Frame-and-Forks which opened up the option of having a full carbon forks + steerer without the bars being uncomfortably low due to the advised limit of 40mm between stem and headset bearing. SJS stocks this carbon disc forks https://www.sjscycles.co.uk/forks/evo-carbon-iso-disc-audax-fork-700c-1-18-ahead-a613d/?sessionid=5b82cb9849de635e47beee911b1da552a0d1afd2 which is a near miss but wouldn't take the 38mm tyres + mudguards that I'm now using.

While we've drifted away from the original thread topic I feel this dicussion could be helpful for those reading it in the future and wondering about the build specification.

[Moronic]

Yes indeed, and it's not way off topic in a Thorn v Shand thread.

The tyre size is another relevant factor, as you suggest John. Thorn would have had to have manufactured a carbon fork that could accommodate a 54mm 650b tyre and a big stretch to the stem, if it were to match the spec they could supply with their steel forks. Especially several years ago when the Mk3 Merc was in planning, it is easy to think this would have been a Thorn special order and only available at high unit cost, if at all. Not hard to see why they passed on that one.

[PH]

I think at the bottom of all this is John's solid commitment to wanting a disc front brake and Thorn's half-hearted commitment to supplying a front disc solution. Given those two realities,

None of the small volume framebuilders use their own fork, the fork on John's Elan (Which isn't Spa's own though it may be branded such) would fit straight into John's size of Mercury.
Apart from material choice, using a carbon fork also restricts cycle design, you have to build the frame around 395mm A/C (+/- 5mm) and 45mm offset (+/- 3mm) For many sizes that would be the choice anyway, but those looking for smaller frames either can't have a carbon fork, or the frame has been designed round it, which involves other compromises.

I find it easy to understand John's decision to pursue an alternative.

John can do whatever he wants of course, but at the start of the process the objective was an additional bike not an alternative, or maybe it wasn't, I can only go by what he told the forum.