Hi Iain!
Welcome back; sorry to hear you've had computer woes. They
never go down at a good time, do they?
To answer your question directly, I am going with the 590M. To see the reasons, read on...
Sizing was one of the things I was not sure about, because the Nomad Mk2 has different geometry from the Sherpa Mk2, so I asked Andy, who kindly weighed in with suggestions and guidance.
Really, it was a matter of first going for a size that fit best given my selection of handlebars, then looking at which frame would give me the greatest cargo capacity
and the most stability. As the brochure says, most people could ride two sizes of Nomad, and the choice depends on handlebars and whether one would use a sus fork or not. That gave me four possibilities:
565M = greatest weight capacity, a bit small, usable with drops
565L = lower weight capacity, better stability due to longer front-center, no drops
590M = 2nd highest weight capacity of the 4 choices, longest virtual TT I can use with drops, requires shorter stem
590L = greatest stability due to longest front-center, but lowest max weight rating, no possibility for drops
It is extremely unlikely I will ever run a suspension fork, so there is no need to allow for that. For the kinds of riding I do and where I go the softer ride would be nice, but I cannot accommodate the greater maintenance schedule of a sus fork, and it would also limit my pannier options (perhaps to only a Tubus Swing font rack; otherwise, HB bag and rear panniers only). If I need more suspension, then a change in tire pressure or section width/profile would be a better choice for me. A rigid fork also provides fixed geometry, and will eliminate a host of handling variables that would be present in a sus fork because of its range of travel and as a result of wear.
I agonized (truly!) over handlebar choice. I've always used drops, and now pretty much have to, thanks to a series of past injuries, including the long-ago car accident that started me cycling "with intent" while in high school. The capper was falling out of a hot-air balloon that was in pullout and catching myself on the way out (Didn't let go! Not for nothin'!!!
). I find I need to ride in a position where my palms face each other or nearly so. I really thought I might be able to adapt to straght 'bars by using bar-ends to achieve an on-hoods position and gave it serious consideration.
To make sure, I needed to try some 5° 'bars and 'ends in my likely size, so I asked my same-size neighbor if I could try holding the ones on his MTB, and...it just didn't work for me. I discovered the bar-ends put my hands far wider than my usual 44cm drops' brake hoods, and I had no braking available while on the 'ends. When I moved in to get the brakes, my ex-hyperextended/hyperflexed wrists bent sideways, my tendonitis-y elbows went akimbo, and the old rotator cuff/shoulder separations yelled at me. I could manage briefly, but not for sustained riding. I remembered Tektro once offered an adapter that clamped onto the ends of brake levers to offer access from bar-ends, but a call to Tektro showed it was discontinued some time ago and is not even available through eBay (they came OEM on some pedalecs). Even if I could put my brake levers very close together with a narrow straight-bar option, I would have been too-wide on the 'ends where I would spend most of my time. So, drops it is. They just don't hurt. I really do use the drops when plowing into headwinds; otherwise yes, most of my time is spent atop the brake hoods. On the Folder I am building, I am going with a short-reach variation on bullhorn/pursuit 'bars that duplicate the tops and brake hoods position of my present drops sans hooks (makes a smaller fold, same 44cm width with reversed interrupter v-brake levers where the hoods would be). That is a possibility to consider in future for the Nomad, but the drops are a do-all solution for me with many more hand positions to alleviate fatigue.
So, no sus-fork meant I
could go "bigger" and the drops meant I
had to go "shorter", so a 590M it is. It is a compromise in the fewest ways, an advantage in most, and looks like
the spot-on fit for me with drops if the stem reach is shortened. The rated maximum weight capacity is the second-highest (missing first by a small margin) and much higher than the 590L. The 590M Nomad's front-center measurement (using the virtual top tube as a proxy) is 35mm greater than my Sherpa Mk2, and the chainstays are longer, which should result in weight further within the bicycle's wheelbase, also for greater stability.
To make up for the longer top tube, I will need to drop some stem length, but the 80mm stem is the same as I use successfully on my tandem and three other touring bikes with similar-length top tubes. I am hoping a happy side benefit of the shorter stem will be less of my weight over the front hub, which is bound to help stability as well. It is generally accepted a handlebar bag should be lightly loaded because it carries weight high and forward. Well, what about the rider, who is heavier? It can only help having more of my hand-contact weight further within the bicycle's wheelbase.
If I get old someday, the shorter top tube allows for some adjustment to a more upright position using arc, H, or comfort 'bars to get my palms more parallel. I've asked the steerer remain uncut so I can best determine where to place the 'bars vertically (and can determine how best to package the Tout Terrain The Plug 2 and Power Amplification Technology booster cable). I have found long ago the "right" position for me is to have the tops of my drop handlebars at the same height as my saddle-top. My preferred position on the bike is with a 45° back and 45° arms when on the brake hoods (see pics). Doing so puts about equal weight on my hands and seat and puts my head/neck in a good position and has worked well on 300-400km day rides. This comes closest to the model picture labeled "Fairly Relaxed" in Thorn's
very helpful new sizing guide, available here:
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/SetUpHiRes.pdfMid-tube standover on the Nomad with 2.0" tires is the same as on my 560S Sherpa Mk2 with 1.75" tires, so I will have adequate standover even on damp desert playa and on goat-tracks. In fact, I could even go up one tire size on the Nomad and still equal the Sherpa's standover.
I have decided to pass on getting the newer Berthoud shifter in favor of mounting the standard Rohloff shifter on a 50mm T-bar under the stem on the right side. For a brief change of position and some trail/single-track use, I want to be able to mount and use my 'cross-top interrupter levers, and the Berthoud took up too much room for that (I could have gone with a single interrupter lever on the left side only). The T-bar placement is simple and about the same reach from the brake hoods as I currently have to a bar-end shifter. It also allows me to change handlebars at a later date and leave the Rohloff shifter and cabling undisturbed. I have downtube shifters on some of my other bikes, and the reach to the T-bar isn't as far, so hopefully it will be fine. If my choice proves disastrous, I could someday purchase a Berthoud and put it right.
The net result of choosing the 590M with a shorter stem and drop 'bars is my position should be very close or identical to what it was on the 560S Mark2 Sherpa, with the added benefit of greater cargo capacity and a longer front-center for stability.
Robin and Andy's response since getting involved has been outstanding, and they have worked as a team with me to define and refine and address my needs. They have both been in contact by email every single business day without fail, and all parties are copied so we are all on the same page. Their reponse has been phenomenal and is reassuring to us all. They have taken this problem very seriously indeed, and have worked very hard to address it. My sincere thanks to them.
Thanks for your kind words, Iain; I'm also looking forward to the Adventure ahead!
All the best,
Dan.
