Mercury or Nomad MK3 700c

[Robin Thorn]

Happy Xmas and New Year to you all.
I have to admit that generally I don't read the forum as i view it as for consumer discussion and unbiased advice from users not to be sullied by the commercial interests of Thorn Cycles.
Our wonderful moderator pointed out this thread so here is my unconsidered brief response, probably ignoring many of the points made, sorry:
All current Thorn frame models are no longer planned to be in production except Thorn Nomad mk3 and Raven Twin tandems.
Do I have an exit plan from the business?
I'm currently 64, my plan is to die working (if you can call what I do now work) the business will eventually be owned by other family members who will run it i trust continuing all our core values.
As to future models, we do have a plan but Covid rather disrupted things and Andy's well earned retirement has caused me to take my eye off this ball, hence the lack of any in depth stock wxcept for Nomad.
The current PLAN is a new model with flexibility of the Nomad mk3, the tubing of the audax mk4 and be very similar in function to the Mercury. This is a plan, there's no model name, price point or time frame. Please don't ask subsequent questions here on the forum of me as I plan not to look again at this thread.
Can I just thank ALL contributors to this forum for the time they spend replying to potential buyers questions.
I am not however avoiding answering questions personally, as always (even when I'm on holiday as I am now till mid January) I'm happy to answer my work phone number during our regular office hours on +44 (0)1278441522 but please note Sarah and Nik on 01278441505 are far more pleasant, measured and attentive than myself despite my mellowing with age.

[PH]

Watching with interest, though barring accidents I have enough bikes to last my lifetime. 

[GaryRT]

That was an excellent (and necessary, i feel) response by Robin, so thanks to him (and Dan!).

I’m lucky enough to have a Raven Tour and a Mercury and I’ve built up a little collection of replacement parts, such as eccentric bottom brackets, due to waking in the early hours with irrational thoughts of S.J.S. suddenly being sold, boarded up and all stock immediately melted down.

I’ve had the Raven almost 16 years and there is no reason why it won’t keep going as long as a few specialist components remain available, so i have no need for another bike.  Having said that, I got the Mercury as a well deserved 50th birthday present to myself, so i’m sure that if another model was available in 8 years time for my 60th, I should be allowed a look. In my opinion.

[geocycle]

An interesting post indeed. It does seem that the all purpose frame is being adopted by a few manufacturers with use across light tourer, gravel and commuting functions.  It must be more efficient to have a few frames that take a lot of different components. Also good for those of us that like to change things as our use and tastes change.  The other growth area is e-bikes of course…

Still loving my raven sport and will keep it as long as I still commute to work providing of course the supply of rims and tyres holds up!

[mickeg]

I am quite sure that the bike building industry has been a tough one to keep up with in the past decade or so.  In a very short period of time:

 - 26 inch wheel bikes mostly disappeared to be replaced by either 650b or wider 700c tire bikes.  A decade ago if someone asked me if they should get a 26 inch touring bike or 700c, my stock answer was that tires narrower than 40mm were uncommon in 26 inch and tires wider than 37mm were rare in 700c, so decide which you want based on that.  But, the rather sudden appearance of a variety of 650b tires, wider 700c tires, and sudden loss of choice in 26 inch was a game changer.

 - Disc brakes largely replaced rim brakes.

 - Disc mounts evolved, now flat mounts are quite common.

 - Through axle hubs took over the non IGH world.

 - Pinion gearing became a competitor to Rohloff hub bikes.  Each has different frame constraints.

 - And in the derailleur world, the huge (expensive) cassettes for 1X gearing with 12 speed options (13 for Campy) with a wide gearing range became common.   And triple cranks and associated shifters almost disappeared.

And I did not even address the shifts in touring, with the Bikepacking type luggage competing with conventional touring gear like panniers and associated changes for frame design for the different luggage.

My point is that I am sure it has been hard to stay caught up in the frame design and manufacturing business over the past decade.  And it probably will not be easier in the future either.

[DIAGMONKEY]

Nichwell Have you seen the bike comparison chart on page 22 of the Thorn touring bike bible?

The chart gives a good idea of how the bikes in different configurations, perform for a variety of different tasks.

I would try and get decent length test rides on them both to see how you feel about them and the Rohloff.

I have tried and failed to get a bike that will do everything well, I also do some Audax type rides, some commuting and some laden touring.

Two out of three is the best I have managed.

I finally settled on one heavier duty flat bar Rohloff machine for year round commuting, utility riding and laden touring. The bike is set up with fat reasonably puncture resistant tyres, discs front and rear, dynamo, mudguards, rack, Chainglider. It's tough enough to stand the daily commute or reasonably heavyweight touring over a variety of different surfaces. I do more miles on this machine than my other and it is very low maintenance. It's probably most similar to a 650B disc Nomad.

It's great,  but it is a bit of a tank and I found it too slow for longer more sporty rides. I find myself very quickly dropped in a group ride! Not ideal for a longer audax on good roads.

My other bike is a drop bar Thorn Club Tour with the 853 fork. 30 speed derailleur gearing. This is much lighter, no rack, lighter, narrower road tyres and mudguards. I use this mostly in the summer months for faster day rides unloaded, or lightweight single night B&B trips with a decent sized saddlebag. Its much more engaging and responsive to ride. Because it's only really used in dryer conditions and for less miles, I can live with the level of maintenance required to keep everything running nicely.

I did have the Club tour  setup with a Rohloff and a chain tensioner for a while. Whilst it  worked OK, I found the gear change with drop bars and the rohloff more awkward than with STI shifters. I also found that as you can't change gear under heavy load with the rohloff I ended uo being a bit slower overall, if the route had a lot of climbing.

In short I find the Rohloff great for heavier touring and doing the day to day utility type riding. The low maintenance is a big plus. But for faster rides I still prefer the drop bar derailleur bike.

As both bikes were bought second hand, I made a significant saving on buying new. The total cost for both, was a lot less than a single new Nomad or  Mercury.

[Mike Ayling]

""
I also found that as you can't change gear under heavy load with the rohloff

Not that easy with a derailleur bike as well!

[mickeg]

""
I also found that as you can't change gear under heavy load with the rohloff

Not that easy with a derailleur bike as well!

I find it easy to shift a Rohloff under load, I just have to either slow my cadence for a split second while I shift to take the pressure off the gears, or time it to when one pedal is at the top of the stroke so the torque on the crank is minimized.

I use the hubbub adapter on drop bars to put the shifter on the bar end.  That way I can have both hands (one of which is on the shifter) far enough from the steering axis (steerer tube) that I have adequate leverage for steering if on difficult terrain. 

I find derailleurs worse for that sort of thing.  If pedaling hard, you have to let up on your pedaling to be able to shift, and you really should not start pedaling hard until your rear wheel has made half a revolution so that the chain could complete the shift onto a new cog.   

And pedaling hard while shifting the front is a way to get chain suck and damage a front derailleur.

[DIAGMONKEY]

Just to be clear, I like the Rohloff bike, I have no issue with the shifting. It just works better for me with a straight bar.  It's a much better system for me for commuting and heavier touring.
Being able to drop to the right gear at a stand still is useful. The low maintenance is a big plus.

 It's just like everything else bike related, disc's vs rim brakes, saddle's, wheel and tyre sizes, steel, carbon, titanium or aluminum frames, chain vs belt, there is no one size fits all solution. All you can do is try the different options and see what you enjoy using the most.

Just because the Rohloff does not work quite as well for me, on a drop bar bike, does not mean it won't suit somebody else. :-)

[Nichwell]

Thanks very much indeed. This advice has been very helpful and, following that and the comparison chart, I think I am going to go with the Nomad 700ab which should cover the touring and commuting side of things. Then keep an eye ebay or Facebook for something like the Spa Elan. Ideally I would like to see if it is possible to get the weight of the Nomad down a little; possibly by trying carbo/aluminium forks as the Thorn disc forks look like they can carry much more weight than I could. But I would like discs so I can then dither about 650b or 700 wheelset.

[PH]

Thanks very much indeed. This advice has been very helpful and, following that and the comparison chart, I think I am going to go with the Nomad 700ab which should cover the touring and commuting side of things. Then keep an eye ebay or Facebook for something like the Spa Elan.

I think with your usage requirements I'd also be going the two bike route, though my choices might lead to considerably different bikes.  With one Rohloff, I would definitely want it in the most used bike. 
Only thing I'd advise, and it's a lesson expensively learnt, is to minimise the overlap.  Starting with a blank sheet, I'd be planning the two bikes together, rather than having the second one influenced by the choices of the first.  I have over the last few years, reduced my bike collection from five to three (Not counting those used exclusively for work).  Sold three, bought one, slightly re-configured another, it hasn't compromised any of my cycling, it's just lessened the overlap.

[Nichwell]

Of course realised the Nomad 700ab build means 700c wheels. Idiocy strikes! I blame Christmas.

[PH]

I did have the Club tour  setup with a Rohloff and a chain tensioner for a while. Whilst it  worked OK, I found the gear change with drop bars and the rohloff more awkward than with STI shifters.

Pity that didn't work out, I remember the thread, though these things are always worth trying.

[PH]

Of course realised the Nomad 700ab build means 700c wheels. Idiocy strikes! I blame Christmas.

I did notice the discrepancy, though I changed my Nomad from 700c to 650B so such things are not impossible.

[Andyb1]

An interesting thread!

My personal thoughts:
- it is too easy to have a second bike which is the same as your first bike!  Much better to have bikes set up for different uses.   Like Diagmonkey I have a Rohloff geared steel bike with chainglider, discs and lights for the wet dark winter and for carrying, while my derailleur geared Sherpa with rim brakes will be more tuned for summer use on dry roads with light loads.  That maybe leaves a gap for a MTB…….  Thankfully unused cycles can be stored much easier than unused cars or motorbikes!
- As a 26 inch wheeled Rohloff geared flat bar heavy duty tourer the Nomad Mk III is a very specialised product.  My experience with a Mk III frame was that derailleurs would fit but were not ideal (the chain hit the chainstay in the highest gear and the EBB was not required)….. and 700c wheels would make the bike very tall…..
- Maybe SJS / Thorn do not need to make new bikes?   Selling just spares and parts may be a better business.