Things to consider before buying

[Matt2matt2002]

I've flown with my Raven 5 times using a used box from my local shop.
Airlines vary in their policies but never had an issue.
Recently used KLM from UK via Amsterdam to Bangkok. Bike was not weighed either direction. Bike arrived safe. An extra £71 each way.

Re the 26' issue; I've been reading the doom and gloom posts for some time.
While in Thailand I took time to ask at local shops if they stocked 26ers.

Yes, no problems Sir, was the answer. Re quality; it varied. Marathon were available, usually.
Just a snap shot view. I'm not waving the 26" flag as best. Plenty of folks appear to be well informed.

I'm not about to buy another bike but I think I'd consider 26's.

Best
Matte

[WorldTourer]

Re the 26' issue; I've been reading the doom and gloom posts for some time.
While in Thailand I took time to ask at local shops if they stocked 26ers.
Yes, no problems Sir, was the answer. Re quality; it varied. Marathon were available, usually.

You might still find Marathons in shops, but once various 26" versions are sold, they aren’t coming back. Schwalbe already discontinued the Marathon Plus Tour for all 26" widths except for 2.00" (so unusable for frame owners who can only fit 1.75" plus mudguards). The 26" version of the Marathon Mondial is on the way out, and the Marathon Almotion was never made available in 26" from the start.

You’ll still find cheap 26" tires and tubes in countries that have a lot of old bikes around. However, those won't be quality tires and tubes. I've read several times blogs about touring sub-Saharan Africa where the rider is forced to install a locally made tire, only for it to completely fail within a month.

[WorldTourer]

But I ask, if the Nomad is a full expedition bike and the Mercury is a Sports Tourer, what's filling the middle ground?  The largest segment of the market. We might also consider that the World of expedition touring has moved on, for a start many of the participants no longer call it touring.  And whatever they do call it, they're far more likely to be on bikes such as the Surly Ogre than anything in the Thorn range.

The Nomad Mk3 is definitely up for an expedition (on the Baja Divide I carried my full load plus 13L of water at times), but yeah, there is less need today to offer a bike that intentionally looks overbuilt when people are doing bold expeditions on Surly frames like the Ogre and Bridge Club. This is aided by the fact that young people today are hauling much less luggage (a single phone has replaced a laptop, camera, GPS, and music player, and there is so much ultralight gear now). Since frames are already strong enough, what really matters now is tire clearance.

I do worry about Thorn’s ability to maintain its reputation in the bespoke-expedition-bike world. From many conversations with my fellow bikepackers on the road, there seems to be an expectation now that any bespoke builder will offer a frame compatible with the Pinion gearbox, and with the choice of a carbon fork and tubeless tires. Tout Terrain paved the way, and VSF Fahrradmanufaktur and Comotion are now offering such. The Nomad Mk3 does fit a belt drive and disc brakes and that’s great, but things are moving quickly and Thorn’s product looks merely average now, comparable to an entry-level bike like Surly’s. Does the company plan to hire a new frame designer to replace the retired Andy Blance, or are they calling it a day?

[Matt2matt2002]

You’ll still find cheap 26" tires and tubes in countries that have a lot of old bikes around. However, those won't be quality tires and tubes. I've read several times blogs about touring sub-Saharan Africa where the rider is forced to install a locally made tire, only for it to completely fail within a month.

Thanks. That's put me off my next sub-Saharan African adventure. I read blogs as well. Very informative usually.
I wonder what countries always stock quality tires that aren't 26"?


Best

Matt

[WorldTourer]

I wonder what countries always stock quality tires that aren't 26"?

Already nearly five years ago, my conversations with the innumerable bike shops on Calle San Diego in Santiago, suggested that the quality tires available in the better Chilean shops had shifted to 700c long before, and quality 26" was now a special-order-only item. I’ve heard scattered claims that this trend has spread through other parts of Latin America.

[mickeg]

...
S&S couplers ..., you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.

I as unaware of this.  WhY?

If* I've understood it correctly, not offering the S&S option meant not having to use tubing in the diameters required.

* The if is there to cover myself if I've misunderstood 

Maybe it is just that Thorn does not offer it from the factory like they did the Mk II.  Or maybe it is an oval tube?

S&S up to 2 inch.
http://www.sandsmachine.com/spec_ssc.htm

[mickeg]

...
Something with 20" wheels (maybe one of the Bike Friday range or an Airnimal ?) would probably be better than the Brompton for touring, but not quite so easy to handle during transport.
...

I was thinking Bike Friday which has 20 inch wheels, but they are in USA as I am.  Shipping, customs, things get complicated and I was thinking better to buy from a manufacturer that is located on the same continent as the buyer.

The gal in the first photo was on a group tour that I was on, her trailer was her travel case for airline travel and it was where her stuff was carried instead of panniers.  She was pretty happy with her Bike Friday.

My folder is a 24 inch wheel Airnimal Joey.  It is a lot of work to fit that into my S&S case.  Second photo.

[Danneaux]

I was thinking Bike Friday which has 20 inch wheels, but they are in USA as I am.

BF is one of several bicycle makers in my town (manufacturers in scale rather than individual custom makers who also live and work here in greater numbers but with much lower production). I have toured their factory a number of times over the years and sought their help to identify one of their frames I own. It is apparently an early prototype for a New World Tourist or Pocket Llama and is unserialed.

Bike Friday's production facility is domestic to the US and is quite different from other scaled facilities I have seen and toured (Co-Motion is also located here and builds in-house and I saw their operation from the beginning...actually before). BF's consists of a series of production stations and for many years (I don't think it has changed), each new employee was required to build their own frame as a way to gain complete familiarity with every aspect of the production process.

My own Bike Friday frame (it is not yet a "rider", I inherited it in pieces) surely does fold quickly and compactly, much moreso than when I have "Rinko'd" my own fullsize tourers and road bikes, see: https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2022/09/09/can-you-pack-a-bike-the-japanese-way-without-losing-your-mind/ ), but I honestly prefer my own creation, a full-suspension Folder with 20in/406mm BCD wheels I have brazed together from scratch including a unique locking hinge design that is my model for patent submission. This reminds me I really must prioritize the little bit of work needed to complete it, now down to just a front derailleur mount and some cable stops...plus wet paint.  I can say my early test rides do point up the benefits of a bike that folds-down similarly to a Brompton but uses 20in x 1.5 tires with mudguards (which I cast from PVC resin). If you already have a Brompton and would like 20in wheels/tires, then you could do worse than explore the subframe and fork offerings from Eerder Metaal in the NL. Like Kinetics, they supply the parts needed to modify a basic Brompton subframe to meet larger needs. See... https://www.eerdermetaal.nl/brompton_winkelcollectie.html They also make a variety of useful parts for carrying cargo on the bike in some unique ways. I think they'd make a nice parts partnering with SJS Cycles' Brompton sales line. See... https://www.eerdermetaal.nl/brompton_webshop.html

Best, Dan.

[UKTony]

...
S&S couplers ..., you can't for example have them fitted to a Nomad Mk3.

I as unaware of this.  WhY?

If* I've understood it correctly, not offering the S&S option meant not having to use tubing in the diameters required.

* The if is there to cover myself if I've misunderstood 

Maybe it is just that Thorn does not offer it from the factory like they did the Mk II.  Or maybe it is an oval tube?

S&S up to 2 inch.
http://www.sandsmachine.com/spec_ssc.htm

I was wondering about this too so I checked the Thorn brochures. The frame size matrix for the Nomad Mk3 appears to show that the frame tube dimensions are the same 9/6/9 gauge Mega Oversize diameter as used for the Mk2. So it would seem that S&S couplers could be retro-fitted to the Mk3. The cable guides on the chain stay (cable box side) might need altering as well.

[martinf]

My impression is the Nomad could easily be put into service for an expedition, as could the Raven Tour, but that it's primarily aimed at that middle ground. 
My Nomad is my daily ride, in the build I have it, it's around 2kg heavier than the Mercury, it's most challenging expedition is the trip to the farm shop, whether the above impressions are right or wrong, it doesn't feel overbuilt or overweight for the use it gets.

The overall weight limit in the current mega-brochure is 160 kg for Nomad frames, 130 kg for Club Tours frames and 120 kg for Mercury frames.

And according to the current brochure for the Nomad Mk3 26" wheel build, for on-road use the maximum possible luggage load is 60 kg, the recommended max for good handling is 40 kg.

This is significantly more than the corresponding loads for my Raven Tour (40 Kg and 24 kg), which is slightly more suitable for heavy loads than the Raven model that replaced both the Raven Tour and the lighter Raven Sport Tour in the Thorn range around 2010-2011. In current options the Mercury with 650B wheel build is quoted at 38 kg and 28 kg.

The wheels, tyres and racks (and nowadays choice of front fork) used for a build will play a significant part in load capacity. So, considering the current Thorn offerings for Rohloff (Mercury and Nomad), by varying the components used it is possible to build a bike for several different uses from lightweight day rides (light build Mercury) to expedition touring (heavy build Nomad), with a fair bit of overlap between these two extremes where either frame would do.

The Thorn brand racks are very strong, it is possible to use 6 mm rack bolts for the rear rack on the Nomad frame (not on the Raven Tour - I asked), which contributes to the greater maximum load allowed on the Nomad - advantage, possible to carry 30 Kg just on the rear rack without affecting handling, so one can save the weight of front rack and front panniers for "ordinary" cycle-camping. Fitting wide rims and tyres also helps when carrying heavy loads.

For long distance touring I think the maximum I have ever had is about 23 Kg when I left home with a lot of perishable food to use up, perhaps a bit more for a few kms after filling a 10-litre water bag for wild camping.

For utility shopping trips I sometimes go over the 40 Kg max, but only for short distances on good roads. For really heavy utility loads I have a large trailer that will comfortably cope with 80 Kg. So I don't really need the extra capability of the Nomad.

I'd consider a heavy-build Nomad if I ever intended doing an expedition-type tour in remote places where large quantities of food and/or water need to be carried. And perhaps if predominantly using rough tracks with a camping load.

[Moronic]

My tours will be in Europe (I like to watch world tour videos on YouTube, so the dream is there, but I'm not sure if I'll ever realize that dream, and if I'll do I'm pretty sure I'll know way more by then what bike I'll need for that, so "worst case" I'll buy another one and sell whatever I had) and I'd like to be able to get to not too hard core off-roads as well.

What I am not sure is how much it should bother me if I find a Thorn Sherpa or Nomad/Mercury or Club Tour and what are the real differences. If I understand correctly (but I'm here to learn!) then Nomad and Mercury are more or less the same with either derailleur or Rohloff hub. Am I mistaken? But I'm not sure what are the differences between Nomad and Sherpa because Sherpa is not included in the comparisons in the brochure.

You're getting a lot of good info here, and you'd likely get stuff even more helpful if you offered a stronger sense of what you think you'll be doing.

For the difference between a Nomad and a Mercury or Club Tour, you might think about it in terms of how often you'll be able to resupply with food and water.

A Mercury will carry a lightweight tent, sleeping mat, sleeping bag, stove, and sufficient clothes fairly comfortably, and probably without even needing front panniers if you invest in compact gear. And it will handle that on gravel roads and lanes.

If you're planning to ride from town to town in Europe, a Mercury could handle months-long camping tours no problem, and there are reports of people using them for just that.

Same for the Club Tour, which is just about a derailleur gear version of the Mercury.

Point being that you don't need to carry much food or water. Either bike could carry the above plus enough food for a couple of nights between towns, probably enough water as well.

The Nomad can do this too, and if you fit light running gear it won't weigh much more than a Mercury.

However if you're purchasing used, it's more likely you'll find Nomads built for their primary purpose, which is touring where you have to carry with you many days or perhaps weeks worth of food, and over very rough roads or tracks. Such as Mickeg's example posted above.

I'm sure they'd be fine on a Euro trip and loaded like you'd load a Mercury or CT.

It's just that they'd be heavier and stiffer than you'd need. That's only a problem if you make it one.

[mickeg]

...
The Thorn brand racks are very strong, it is possible to use 6 mm rack bolts for the rear rack on the Nomad frame (not on the Raven Tour - I asked), which contributes to the greater maximum load allowed on the Nomad - advantage, possible to carry 30 Kg just on the rear rack without affecting handling, so one can save the weight of front rack and front panniers for "ordinary" cycle-camping. ...

I bought a suspension fork for my Nomad Mk II.  And about a year later was planning a trip that would have been on single track, would have had to carry a lot of food and water, etc.  I bought the rear Carradry panniers, as I wanted more volume capacity than my Ortliebs. 

I do not own a Thorn rack, I use a Tubus Logo EVO, rated at 40kg on my Nomad Mk II for touring.  I loaded up my rear panniers and added a brick of about 5kg (in the paper bag on top of rack) to simulate food weight.  And tried it out.  The handling with all the weight on the back was not very good. 

To make a long story short, that trip never happened, so I can't say how it worked, all I know is that the test ride handling was not that great.  Photos attached.

[mickeg]

On the topic of Bike Friday, I gave a tiny bit of thought to investing in their latest frame and fork, but I have a pretty big fleet already, decided against it in the end.  But I was thinking it would make a great touring machine.
https://bikepacking.com/bikes/bike-friday-all-packa-review/

I was thinking with a rear rack and small panniers on back, for touring in areas where you do not have to carry a lot of water or food, but were still camping, it would work fine for that.  Or for credit card touring.

[PH]

My impression is the Nomad could easily be put into service for an expedition, as could the Raven Tour, but that it's primarily aimed at that middle ground. 
whether the above impressions are right or wrong, it doesn't feel overbuilt or overweight for the use it gets.

The overall weight limit in the current mega-brochure is 160 kg for Nomad frames, 130 kg for Club Tours frames and 120 kg for Mercury frames.

It would seem that my impressions of the various models of Nomad are not supported by the figures.  Not the first time I've been wrong, though in my defense I'm pretty sure the rhetoric in Thorn's MKIII marketing presents it more as a general purpose bike than it did in the MKII.

[steve216c]

So here is a crazy alternative suggestion. If flying with bike is complicated and cost intensive, how about sourcing a bike locally on arrival. For Eur 200-300 you can find a fair range of well but often hardly used bikes on 2nd hand market. If you are flying in/out of same airport perhaps seller would agree to buy bike back for half the price if you return it undamaged at end. Or you send it via Surface mail, fly it back with you, sell it to bike shop before returning or just donate it to a charity shop before flying home.

Of course I love and prefer my own bike, but there comes a point where it makes little financial sense if transport costs are too high.

I often had same thoughts renting cars when travelling. A cheap old car is often cheaper than a weeks rental. But insurance and tax for non resident visitors make that a more complicated option than a bike might be.