RST or Raven Tour?

[Tito]

Hello everyone!
After months of day-dreaming, I will finally place an order for a Thorn in the following days. I am still unsure which model to get, though. I was first thinking about the Raven Tour ot Nomad S&S, but now think that RST may be a better choice. I will mainly use the bike for commuting in the city (New York City), with occassional shorter tours in nature (probably not more than a week-long camping tour twice per year).
The brochure says that RST can handle up to 17kg of stuff. Is this enough for a week-long tour? If not, would it be really disastrous if I add a couple of kilos more? I am not too heavy myself (70kg), so maybe this means that I can cheat on the panniers... (other touring bike producers, like Rivendell, quote maximum weight combining the weight of the cyclist with that of the load...).

Thank you so much for you comments.

[julk]

Welcome to the forum Tito,

What a nice problem to have, choosing the right Thorn!

I go cycle camping and take about 22kgs of gear for a week long tour. I like my comfort so you should easily be able to tour with less than I take, especially if the weather is settled.

I suspect the weight limit for the RST is not the bike strength, but the handling with extra weight hanging off the ends of the bike. The RST will have a shorter wheelbase to give it nippier handling.
If you like riding quickly and spend most of your time with the bike unladen then the RST sounds right.

If you want a bike able to carry heavy loads, can accept slower handling than the RST, then the RT or a Raven Nomad S&S will fit the bill.

You will be able to change the ride characteristics of any of these bikes by fitting lighter or heavier tyres.

Whatever you choose, have a great time riding it and be sure to come back and post some reports.
Julian

[Fred A-M]

Hi Tito

17Kg is enough for a week's cycle touring or even two weeks (assuming you wash clothes at least once a week) even with camping gear, at least in summertime.

I have an RST (see link below for impressions) and so I can thoroughly recommend it, but have ultimately been asking myself the same question ref load carrying maximum and whether it really mattered whether you could go over it by 2 or 3Kg, my own (current) body weight being 88Kg!

I'd also be most interested to hear of any related pearls of wisdom! 

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=775.0

[stutho]

Tito,

Welcome to the forum.

I own a RST (MK1) with about 14000 miles on the clock.  My wife owns a RT.  Luckily for me  we take the same frame size.  I often borrow the RT and probably have about 1000 mile of experience on it.   I keep on meaning to write an in-depth RT vs RST review - just got to find the time! An executive summery follows:
The setup on the bikes is VERY different - I built both bikes with there owners in mind.  The RST uses drops and a head down riding position, on the other hand the (normal) setup on the RT is an almost a sit up and beg position - using heavenly swept handle bars (which I can't stand but my wife loves).  Some of what follows is linked more to these differing set-ups than the frames themselves.

On road   The RT is FAR more relaxed and inspires confidence in turns.  The RST is substantially more agile - but you need more confidence in your ability to access those tight turns. 

Sprinting / up hill RST wins hands down - It is a bike that 'likes' to ridden hard

Weekend touring I like both bike equally - I don't have a problem with the load limit on the RST  - If I was touring by myself it might be more of an issue

Comfort The RST is a very comfy bike but the RT is extremely comfortable - this is probably due more to set up than anything, the RT has fatter tyres and a sprung saddle.

Longer touring I am very happy on the RST day after day but if I were choosing a bike purely for long touring then I would go with the RT

Off road This is the most interesting category it is very hard to decide a winner.  Basically for the fast stuff the RT is better and for more technical stuff the RST is better.  Recently I bought myself a set of Magura Odur forks - which I can fit to the RT (but not to the RST due to the short top tube - required for drops)  with the forks in the clear winner is the RT - but if I had the RST in the long version then... who knows.  nb  the Odur are GREAT!

Commute  I am luck, I live and work in a rural area - I see more sheep than humans on my commute.  However if I was mixing it with heavy traffic then I would go with the RST (set up with a straight or riser bar)

To sum up it is pretty much what you might expect - the RST is better at going FAST!  To my mind the RST is more suited to a Drop configuration but given that both frames are available in long and short top tubes wanting one or there other doesn't limit your choice of handlebars.  Final set up is ALL IMPORTANT

Best of luck choosing

Stuart

 

[Tito]

Thanks so much Julian and Stutho - very useful information. I would be interested to read the full RT vs RST review, but the executive summary is already very helpful.
And Fred, thanks for such a rich link! I thought that I had read every thread on this forum - but apparently I missed the most interesting one. It is great knowing that I can't actually make a poor choice...

I briefly spoke to SJSC today to learn about delivery charges, and have promised to send them the specifications tomorrow or the day after. I am not 100% sure yet, but I will probably go for the RST. The speed is actually not a priority, it is rather agility when unladen - and I was a bit put off the RT when I read somewhere that the bike is relatively slow and unresponsive, and only blossoms when loaded with 20kg... But I must say that Stutho's comments that RT is "extremely comfortable" makes me hesitate again. Wish I could try either of these bikes before ordering... Any Thorn-owners in NYC???

I must say that I like the looks of RST better (longer headset tube, simple fork, no stickers with black matt version, maybe less flashy for potential thieves...).

By the way, I will definitely go for straight or comfort bars. If I would decide to have drops, I would definitelly go for a derailleur Sherpa - which seems to be the bicycle that perfectly marries agility and stiffness (up to 35kg of carrying capacity). Wish they made such frame in Rohloff...

[stutho]

Re extremely comfortable

I am sure that if I put a sprung saddle and fatter tyres on the RST then the comfort gap between the two bikes would decrease.  The RST is WAY MORE COMFORTABLE than any other bike I have ever owned  - but the RT still trumps it. (At lease to my non calibrated body!)

I don't agree that the RT is unresponsive - It is a relaxed ride and inspires confidence in the turn.  From the first time I tried it I was amazed how different it feels to the RST.  The RST demands your attention, in the turn you have to work to maintain your line.  By contrast the RT just holds a line beautifully and never lets go.  Ultimately the RST is without doubt more agile (and therefore more suited to heavy traffic) but I love the way the RT handles.         

[freddered]

I have an RT, I think it's wonderful but I think you would be better off with the RST because it does exactly what you want.

The RT has the capability of being a global touring machine (on terrible road surfaces with lots of luggage).  I think that ability is the key differentiator and it's not something you specify.

What you specify is a nimble, no-hassle, commuter with some cycle-camping ability.

That's the RST

The RT is something you point at the horizon and let it carry you there in supreme, relaxed, comfort, trundling over pot-holes and poor surfaces without a care.

The RT can't be described as nimble but it will always get you there.

[brummie]

A possible way of deciding:

What is the fattest tyre you're ever likely to use?
Rear pannier size? ( heel clearance? )

The RST has limitations on the above.

[Fred A-M]

Tito

Glad to be of help.

Just in case you haven't seen this either and were wondering what a matt black RST looks like on tour!

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1737.0

Were you able to get any feedback on the reason for the recommended weight limit of the RST, whether there is any flexibility of a few kg and to what degree this is dependent on rider's body weight?

Stuart, is there any way of comments/thoughts from SJS on this? 


 
 

[Tito]

Well, it seems that I have decided to go for an RST, thanks to your good comments. I also spoke to Dave at SJSC who was quite helpful. He reassured me when he said that the weight limit is more about handling than about frame capacity. RST won't break under heavy load -which is pretty much what I wanted to hear. I really want a comfy and agile commuting bike capable of occassional touring, including on unpaved paths (which with rigida grizzly and good 1.75 tires, it should be able to do, right?). But most of all, I wanted a bike that was durable, and I must say I was a bit worried that RST would be too fragile to last a lifetime. I suppose these worries are now gone.

Fred, that's a beautiful bike, I had seen it before. Mine will be quite similar, I'm afraid - but since we live 6000km apart, it shouldn't be a problem, right?. I notice that you have a SON + E3 setup - any problems, or are you perfectly happy? I am still wondering whether to take SON, or just have a dynamo bottle installed in the future... I am a bit worried about the drag, and quality - although SJSC tells me that SON is Phil Wood quality. If I do opt for SON, I would take the E3 or E6...

[Fred A-M]

Hi Tito

That's music to my ears ref the load carrying capacity and thanks for your complement also!   

I would go with the Son - the resistance is minimal when the light is switched off, negligible when switched on.  Someone posted a link somewhere on here about 6-9 months to an independent scientific trial on hubs to correct my own misinformed perceptions ref resistance.  I think the Son fared best (1kmh resistance when switched on, a small fraction of that when off) and it is pure quality without a shadow of a doubt.  I'm more than happy!

Look forward to hearing your reports/seeing the photos!

PS.  I'd also go for Marathons 1.5 which have served me off-road reasonably well, simply because a chunky 1.75 will negate to some degree the RST speed benefit (though the same could be said of dyno-hub, though to a lesser degree when switched off, I'm guessing!)

[brummie]

I've just had my first ever puncture on my Schwalbe Marathon Racer 26 x 1.5" folding tyres after a little over 3 YEARS !!!! & 1000's of miles commuting/ riding. HIGHLY recommended.

[ians]

Hi Tito

two years ago this month, I ordered my RST.  I too had that dilemma - RT or RST?  I went down to SJS intending to buy the RST having somehow gained the impression that the RT was 'heavy'.  They didn't have an RST in my size to try so I rode an RT around Bridgewater for 20' or so.  I was amazed how quick and nimble it was.   So now I was really confused - and having just driven 160 miles to try the bikes I didn't want to turn around and start again.  In the end I opted for the RST on the basis that I was very unlikely to need its weight carrying capabilities. 

It arrived with Panracer hi-road 1.5 tyres fitted.  My first spin was a revelation - it was so quick.  And comfortable.  After a month or so I changed the tyres for Schwalbe Marathon 1.5s.  I needed the extra puncture protection of the marathons for my commute and the panracers were not comfortable once I was off tarmac.  I've commuted for nearly 2 years now in all weathers and it has been just great. 

I'm just about to fit Marathon Supremes now the 1.6 size is available in the UK.  I have a 5 day tour coming up in the summer which should be a lot of fun.

From my (somewhat limited) experience of both bikes all I can say is that the RT is more versatile.  They are both great bikes.  And if you enjoy your RST as much as I enjoy mine you'll be one happy guy.

ians




 

[Joatamon]

For a few moments there I wondered how a twenty feet test ride could be enough ...

This RT/RST choice seems to have been an enduring dilemma for many.  I went for the RST not long after taking up cycling after a long absence, and only then, just pottering about.  Well, I didn't imagine I would be doing anything other than day rides.

But the bug bites and now I'm just as likely to hop on the ferry to the Continent.  I worried a bit about the maximum loading of the RST, so the remark about it being more about handling than frame strength is a big relief - though I wonder if the lighter rim of the RST has a bearing on the spec?

I kitted myself out with lightweight camping stuff and cycle camped for three weeks in Eastern Europe with everything in 4 panniers plus bar bag.  Overall load for "bagged" stuff was a shade over 15kg, then there's the racks, gps, water, etc. which I think took the load over 17kg but probably not as much as 20 even when I'd just stocked up on route.  I'm under 80 kg.

Upon my return the rear rim, Mavic, had developed hairline splits around the spoke holes.  After talking to SJS I had the hub built into a Rigida rim, so I suppose I've got a halfway house between RST and RT.

With 4 panniers the handling is just fine, absolutely no problem at all.  With just the rears it can be a bit light headed on an incline and on steeper bits may lift the front.  But the bike is superb.  Wrong side of 50 yrs of age, first ever cycling tour, day 1: 90 miles.  Day 2: ran out of daylight at 115 miles.  Day 3: 100 miles.  Perfect comfort, no aches anywhere. I like to pedal and enjoy the scenery!

[ians]

For a few moments there I wondered how a twenty feet test ride could be enough ...

sometimes that's all it takes ...

ians