Hi Ian!
Rather than just saying "me too", I'll put it more elegantly --
I agree with everything you said, and wish I'd written it myself!
Very nicely stated, all you wrote; a very neat piece of work!
I think you raised an excellent point about the relatively harsh ride of the unladen Sherpa compared to lighter-duty touring bikes. When asked to describe my own Sherpa, I have often responded it felt like a "heavy-duty" touring bike. The Nomad is that, and "more" -- setup with my preferred drop handlebars, I would describe it as a "super-duty" touring bike. While perfect for my needs and intended use, I can see it easily being "too much bike" for many who use it for its intended purpose only rarely.
It is a bit like how pickup trucks are rated for loads here in the US. A truck intended for general use will have a 3/4-ton rating and a lighter, compliant suspension. A heavier-duty model intended for really hauling things will be rated for 1 ton payload capacity, and have harsher, uprated springs and suspension components. A "Super-Duty" pickup (Ford actually markets some with this label) will have 1.5-ton capacities, and will ride like, well, a truck...unless heavily laden. They're not going to be as much fun for trips to the grocery or dentist's office but will be ideal for hauling a load of hay to scatter in the cows' winter pasture *and* haul a trailer of gravel to the construction site. Sure, all the trucks can still be used for unladen day trips, but some are more suited to that purpose and others are more suited to carrying a lot.
I really should expand on the differences between my touring/rando bike, the Sherpa, and the Nomad in a separate post, but I think I can make a quick, graphic comparison here (hoping the formatting holds; depends on resolution):
Comfort/usability range by load (light to heavy):
LIGHT------------------------------------------------------->HEAVY
||||||||Rando bike |-----------------------------|
||||||||Sherpa Mk2 |-----------------------------|
||||||||Nomad Mk2 |-----------------------------|
||||||||The bikes all overlap in load capacity, function, and general comfort/usability within the common range illustrated by the red vertical hashes. It is just that each bike has better load capability beyond (to the right) of the load range. Their relative "comfort bands" when riding unladen are to the left of the red-hashed overlaps. I think the overlap might also be a good way to assess the "all-'roundedness" of the bikes, depending on intended use.
What I hope the scale indicates is, while each of the three bikes comprise nice all-'rounders, some are more comfortable unladen and will accommodate smaller loads and others are more comfortable loaded and will also accommodate larger loads.
Hmm. I think it is too much and perhaps a bit misleading to compare all three bikes at once where overlap in function, purpose, and comfort is concerned. Here is how I would compare my rando bike to the Sherpa Mk2:
Rando bike |-----------------------------|
||||||||||||||||||||Sherpa Mk2 |-----------------------------|
...and the Sherpa Mk2 to the Nomad Mk2:
Sherpa Mk2 |-----------------------------|
|||||||||||||||||||Nomad Mk2 |-----------------------------|
And now, for maximum contrast, my rando bike compared to the Nomad Mk2:
Rando bike |-----------------------------|
||||||||Nomad Mk2 |-----------------------------|
For example...
= My rando bike (very akin to a club Tour) is a great all-'rounder that excels at unladen riding and does fine with a modest load (fine with about 40lb/18kg).
= My Sherpa was also a good all-rounder, but at a higher weight rating. It rode a bit less comfortably unladen than my rando bike, but had a greater load capacity, being ideal with, say, 65-80lb/29-36kg (before it developed problems for me).
= The Nomad is also usable as an all-'rounder (I had no problem doing 111 miles on it unladen the other day, about a third of it on logging roads and really rough tracks), but it is more comfortable and really excels hauling loads as an expedition touring bike, say around and over 100lb/45kg.
Because the Nomad has a more robust frame that is less resiliant and shock absorbing when ridden unladen, it is more dependent on tire pressure for ride comfort, just as Andy Blance has taken care to note in the brochures. I made the mistake of leaving the tires at Andy's loaded maximums (45/51psi or 3.1-3.5bar) for that unladen trip, and the ride was really rough. Dropping 5-10psi or .3-.7bar does wonders to make the frame feel more comfortable when ridden without a load. No complaints, I just got distracted on departure and forgot to check and adjust after the previous day's test rides with a full load.
I would hazard a guess that strong and therefore rigid heavy touring components eliminate resilience and "give" found in lighter parts.
'Couldn't agree more!
All the best,
Dan.
