Another contribution from someone with no experience of the Mercury 40, no obligation to read...
it appears the Mercury 40 is a Mercury Mk3 with a less durable finish, Thorn's own-brand high-spec tubing and a gate in the rear triangle. There is every chance it will be all but indistinguishable from a Mk3 to ride, and so some reflections from people who've owned Mk3s for a few years seemed more than tangentially relevant.
I am somewhat sceptical that a single frame can replace the Mercury, Club Tour and Audax models without there being some compromise. Only by riding would one know if that were correct and where such compromise might have been made.
Here are my thoughts as a Club Tour Mk4 owner .
Cost savings not withstanding, the new Mercury 40 looks to be a light touring frame and seems to have inherited most of it's DNA from its predecessors. I remain to be convinced that it can adequately replace the Audax Mk 3, it's possible that Thorn don't see a future for that model. Audax has moved on, I've got a couple of old style audax bikes, hand built steel frames, rim brakes and 28mm tyres with mudguards, which I very much enjoy riding, but the impression I get is that very few newer audax riders are choosing to ride this type of machine. Yes, you can build it up with disc brakes and fatter tyres, but it would always be a frame designed for light touring.
The Mercury as a replacement for the Club Tour is a much more realistic proposition, it's something that I've considered myself. They are essentially very similar bikes but with different gear train options. That said I wonder how many buyers will choose the dérailleur build option. There's no shortage of competition in the dérailleur geared touring bike market, the problem for Thorn is that they have always been seen as a premium product, but with the Mercury 40 the gap has narrowed.
I suppose the bottom line is, would I buy the new Mercury? The answer is, probably not, but I might well buy a secondhand Mercury Mk 3.
