Thorn versus Shand

[navrig]

Hi everyone, this is my first post on this very useful forum.

I am normally a roadie cyclist - weekend 50-80 mile fast(ish) rides carrying as little as possible using a bike which is meant ti be as light as possible.  I also do some offroad on my MTB.  This also includes week long cycle trips to the alps or Mallorca.

However I am now planning a tour after retirement but none of my bikes are suitable for a long tour.  I will be able to prepare for it by doing some shorter (3 or 4 day) trips.  Meantime i am route planning and looking at suitable bikes.

Currently I am looking at the Nomad.

Home is Scotland and I am only 50 miles from Shand cycles in Livingstone.  I have explored their website a few times but was put off by the cost of their bikes.

I have been comparing the spec of the Nomad with the Shand TAM ROHLOFF.  The Shand bikes do seem to be much more expensive than the Thorn, maybe as much as £1,000.

Is there any specific reason for the difference in price as I can only see it being in the frame?

[PH]

Commenting on the price difference - The Shand is UK built, possibly to order, with a choice of colour to order, Reynolds tubing rather than Thorns own, with the possibility of custom geometry (At extra cost)  It is possible that these things combined with the lower volume, account for the price difference. 
Worth it? Depends how you value them. You may value it being UK built and being able to talk to the builder, it won't in itself make it a better bike.
The bikes - They are a bit different, I wouldn't say one is better than the other, one may be better for you, but it might not be the same one for me! I compared the Shand Stoater with the Thorn Mercury, which have a much closer price, and chose the latter as the geometry suited my better and I preferred the aesthetics. I also know a Stoater owner who's delighted with it.
Other influences - I've not done a detailed comparison, or dealt with Shand, so I can't compare but I don't hesitate from saying I like dealing with Thorn/SJS.  Things rarely go wrong, when they do it's dealt with quickly and efficiently.  I like the elements of their frames that would only be possible with their volume, the dropouts, EBB, and stainless fittings.  I don't know anyone else who offers their trial period when buying a complete bike or their warranty.
Have fun choosing 

[navrig]

Thanks for your prompt response, it all makes sense and was in line with what I was thinking.

I like the idea of going to the "shop" and having a seat on the bike.  Shand is a lot easier for me than Thorn and if I factor the cost of travel to Bridgewater compared to Shand it balances the difference a bit.

I am enjoying the choosing but it gets rather confusing as there is too much choice between mass manufactured stuff like Kona and the smaller specialists like Thorn, Shand & Spa.

The effort Thorn put into helping you choose a bike seems to be a reflection of their customer commitment and knowledge.  That is very attractive when it comes to choosing.

[navrig]

 Reynolds tubing rather than Thorns own,

This made me read the technical specs more closely noting that Thor use Reynolds and their own tubing depending on the bike.  I wonder why they do that rather than all Reynolds or all Thorn?

[PhilD28]

The best frame builder select the best tube for the job and it's not unommon for those selections to be made from different manufacturers tubes. It's known as "designer select" and was once very common with UK frame builders.

[leftpoole]

 Reynolds tubing rather than Thorns own,

This made me read the technical specs more closely noting that Thor use Reynolds and their own tubing depending on the bike.  I wonder why they do that rather than all Reynolds or all Thorn?

Cost!!!!!!

[PhilD28]

Cost "may" be a factor with Thorn and like everyone else I have no way of knowing this without asking them, but for many builders, availability of certain types of tubes meant sourcing from different suppliers. I have been personally told this by both Tony Oliver and Dave Yates, two of the most respected frame builders in the UK.
Tony Oliver has a lengthy section in his book "Touring Bikes" on exactly this subject where he explains in detail how and why he selects various tubes.

[mickeg]

I have a Nomad Mk II.  You mentioned that you are a roadie cyclist that favors light weight riding.  Be advised that the Nomad is a heavy bike.

I have three touring bikes:

• I consider the Nomad Mk II to be my expedition bike, can carry very heavy loads.  I have carried over two weeks of food with my camping gear on my Nomad Mk II.
  
  
• My Thorn Sherpa, capacity is still quite a bit but on a weight basis is likely about half of the Nomad Mk II.
  
  
• And my titanium Lynskey Backroad is the lightest of my touring bikes, lighter and faster.  This is my choice for trips that are mostly on pavement (tarmac) and where groceries are easily obtainable every few days.
  

Of the three above, the Nomad Mk II is Rohloff, the other two are 3X8 drivetrains.  I built up all three from frame and fork.

You should think about how much your bike is going to weigh both unladen and with your touring load before you finalize your selection.

[Tiberius]

I've been through this exact process of weighing up a Shand Stoater V Whatever and came to much the same conclusion. A Shand is a very expensive bike. I wanted just a frame set and that was way more than everything else that I was looking at. I ended up buying a titanium frame and building it up with my Rohloff - lovely it is too. Yes, the titanium frame was expensive but a fair bit cheaper than the Shand. It seemed to me that my titanium build was decent value for money and I've been very happy with it.

BUT....I've never forgotten the Shand Stoater. Whenever I hear about Shand bikes I have a slight sense of regret, so much so, that if I had my time again I would buy the Shand. The way that they are made and finished oozes quality and quality costs. Plus they press the 'I want one' button which is usually a wallet emptier

If I lived 50 miles from Livingston it would be job done.

[julk]

Navrig,
I live at Dalkeith, maybe near enough for you to come and try a Rohloff Thorn.

I can let you have a go on  mine fully laden as for expedition touring.
You will get an idea when pedalling this as it weighs at least 35 kgs fully laden for self sufficient camping, it will take more...

It is completely different from riding a light road bike…

The bike has Thorn comfort bars (straightish) and I am a little under 6 ft tall with 31 inch inside leg.
Julian.

pm me if you are interested and I will give you directions.

[martinf]

Despite the current marketing by Thorn, IMO the Nomad is still basically a very rugged expedition bike. The Shand Tam Rohloff looks as if it would be a tad lighter.

Thorn have a bike comparison matrix in their Mega Brochure, giving ratings of their 4 basic frames in various tyre sizes and with various forks for a variety of different loads and surfaces.

For example, the Mercury with a steel disc fork and 650B x 50mm tyres is rated as excellent for touring with less than 20Kg of luggage on dirt roads and is rated better than a Nomad for lighter loads or better surfaces. Personally, I'd go with one of the lighter bikes if generally carrying less than 20Kg of luggage, and put up with less than optimal handling if occasionally carrying more.

If you plan on crossing deserts (carrying lots of water, so extra weight), or long stretches of rough off-road with luggage, or carrying more than 20Kg of luggage for long periods, I reckon the Nomad would be more suitable.

[Danneaux]

Agreed with the above -- the Nomad (mine is a Mk2) is a "lot" of bike but in all the ways that are welcome if you are carrying a heavy load especially on poor surfaces, less so if you are riding unladen mostly on good pavement.

My Nomad dry weighs 20kg as I have it configured (Brooks saddle, suspension seatpost, mudguards, front and rear racks, dynamo lighting/charging plus water containers). My desert expeditions in hot weather involve carrying 26.5l of water which weighs 26.5kg plus containers. That's a three-day supply at 8-8.5l/day, mostly for drinking and a little for cooking. Add in the food needed for a solo self-supported trip of a couple weeks away from resupply plus all the regular touring stuff (clothing, sleep system, cooking and tools/spares) and it is not unusual for my fully loaded Nomad to top out at more than 57kg plus my own weight of 78kg, all carried without complaint by the bike over goat tracks, desert playa, and cross-country. The Nomad is "good" for my day rides up to about 200km or so, but if speed or greater distance is desired, I switch to one of my lighter weight (~14.5kg) randonneur bikes. The Nomad unladen is so rugged it always tempts me to try poorly surfaced tracks and logging roads off pavement, something the much lighter-duty rando bikes don't do so well.

In the end, it is very much "horses for courses".

One final note: I have an Enduro-Allroad bike I built up around a frame more akin to a Sherpa but heavier duty that approaches the Nomad for capability but is a couple kgs lighter and is derailleur equipped. It works well but the deciding factor for taking the Nomad is the long-lived trouble-free drivetrain, especially when riding cross-country through sagebrush and such. It is so nice to to worry about damage to a derailleur as the Nomad has no vulnerable parts (derailleur cage) hanging down.

Best,

Dan.

[navrig]

Wow, what a a lot of replies very quickly.  Thank you all very much.

And my titanium Lynskey Backroad is the lightest of my touring bikes, lighter and faster.  This is my choice for trips that are mostly on pavement (tarmac) and where groceries are easily obtainable every few days.


You should think about how much your bike is going to weigh both unladen and with your touring load before you finalize your selection.

My current summer bike is a Lynskey Titanium and I love riding it.  Currently it is languishing in the garage at home whilst I am riding a Decathlon Triban in Vietnam.

I am still working out what sort of touring I am going to do.  My back generally doesn't take too well to camping so it is likely I'll be looking for hostels, BnB or (very) cheap hotels.  So no camping gear.  On that basis I am thinking rear panniers and a handlebar bag with perhaps a bag over the top of the rear panniers (not sure what that is called).

I want something which will cope with some unsurfaced off road stuff.  Perhaps slightly rougher than a canal towpath.

Navrig,
I live at Dalkeith, maybe near enough for you to come and try a Rohloff Thorn.

I can let you have a go on  mine fully laden as for expedition touring.
You will get an idea when pedalling this as it weighs at least 35 kgs fully laden for self sufficient camping, it will take more...

It is completely different from riding a light road bike…

The bike has Thorn comfort bars (straightish) and I am a little under 6 ft tall with 31 inch inside leg.
Julian.

pm me if you are interested and I will give you directions.

I would love to take you up on that offer - perhaps early next year.  I am in Vietnam and not due to leave until end of 2021 (Covid allowing).  We are in Dunbar so very close.  Thanks.

For example, the Mercury with a steel disc fork and 650B x 50mm tyres is rated as excellent for touring with less than 20Kg of luggage on dirt roads and is rated better than a Nomad for lighter loads or better surfaces. Personally, I'd go with one of the lighter bikes if generally carrying less than 20Kg of luggage, and put up with less than optimal handling if occasionally carrying more.

If you plan on crossing deserts (carrying lots of water, so extra weight), or long stretches of rough off-road with luggage, or carrying more than 20Kg of luggage for long periods, I reckon the Nomad would be more suitable.

I'll have a closer look at the Mercury.  No plans for deserts or tundra at the moment.  The roughest surfaces are likely to be official cycle routes (unsurfaced) or tow paths.  Thanks.

Agreed with the above -- the Nomad (mine is a Mk2) is a "lot" of bike but in all the ways that are welcome if you are carrying a heavy load especially on poor surfaces, less so if you are riding unladen mostly on good pavement.

Judging by your comments Dan and others it looks like the Nomad may be too heavy duty for my aspirations.

Really helpful guys.  Thanks,  Andy (aka Navrig)

[Matt2matt2002]

Perhaps I'm a little too far from your Scottish base but you're welcome to try my Raven Tour up here in Inverurie, Aberdeenshire.
Lighter than a Nomad but capable of quite heavy loads.
My trip last weekend was from Inverness to Lochcarron via Achnasheen. Camping x2 nights.
Tent and front panniers on the rear.
Keep me in mind when you return from Vietnam.

Best

Matt

[PH]

We do like to obsess about weight, despite frame builders telling us again and again that it isn’t high on their list of criteria.  I have three very different steel touring bikes, the Mercury being the lightest and a Surly Ogre the heaviest.  The difference in frame weights will be less than half a kg, though the difference in bike weights is likely to be around 4kg.  If a bike is designed well for it’s intended purpose it’ll weigh whatever it weighs, that’s not to say they’re all the same, just that it isn’t necessarily reflected in the weight.  You can add a lot of strength and stiffness, and consequently ride feel, without a proportional weight increase.  Take the brochure for the 700c Nomad, it says that frame with a 853 fork is the same weight as a Mercury frame with a ST fork.
Only Thorn will know why they choose the steel they do for their different models, and they’re unlikely to tell us!  Cost, availability, specification, may all play a part, as will marketing.   I do know that heat treated Cro-Mo is available from several suppliers, and is exactly (Or close enough to be indistinguishable) the same as Reynolds 725.  Maybe there is no readily available equivalent to Reynolds 853, or maybe Thorn decided those spending that sort of money will want the badge… we don’t know.
Back to the question!  If I was sure I wouldn’t be carrying camping weights, I wouldn’t consider a Nomad, or the Shand Tam. It would be the Mercury from Thorn and refine it with build and wheel size, or I’m not sure what from Shand (Maybe the Stoater, but the range seems to have changed since I was comparing)
I like my Mercury, 700c and 853 fork, mine is the largest size and I’m no lightweight, I’ll take my lightest camping gear if I’m going somewhere than needs it, but I wouldn’t choose to use it for a camping trip.
In the end most bikes will do most things, but to get the ideal one requires a good idea of it’s use. If you’re not sure, maybe do some touring on whatever you can before making a big investment.