Newbie advice...

[Andybg]

I have run both and the Alfine is quieter both in operation and in freewheel. The Alfine looses out in most other areas though. The quality of gear change, the gear range and the expected life service. If you are going down the hub gear avenue and you are looking at a bike that is going to get serious use (and abuse) there is no comparison - it would have to be the Rohloff. If you are looking at a low maintenance all weather commuter the alfine (in either guise) would be more than up to the job.


Andy

[Danneaux]

Hi All!

Nomad Mk2 "969" tubing (top and down tubes) does indeed have a wall thickness of 0.9mm/0.6mm/0.9mm; mystery solved!

Excellent post Dan. Just want thing does not quite add up, I think...

Quote from: Danneaux on May 01, 2013, 10:28:15 AM
The frame is thicker-walled and larger in diameter.

I think the Sherpa, Raven, Nomad and Nomad X have the same wall thickness as they are all made from Thorn's 969 tubeset (0.9 mm - 0.6 mm - 0.9 mm). (EDIT: Actually, following a message exchange with Dan, I'm no longer sure about it. The tubeset is indeed called 969 and on the Raven it's 0.9/0.6/0.9 mm. The Nomad's wall thickness does not seem to be stated anywhere in the current brochures but may actually be 1.0/0.7/1.0 mm - can anyone shed some light?).

I stand happily and cheerfully corrected, thanks to a bit of digging after Kuba expressed some doubts. I asked Dave Whittle and he replied...

Hi, All 969 as far as i'm aware is 0.9/0.6/0.9 though Andy isn't here until Wednesday to double check this with, the main difference on the Nomad is the larger tubing on the rear end and the clearance increase, there are geometry differences too.

He checked with Andy Blance, and this morning confirmed...

Andy has confirmed they are all 0.9/0.6/0.9, thanks.

Yeah! Now we know for sure, this may help others when trying to decide between a Nomad Mk2 and a Raven for purchase.

I kept thinking I'd read somewhere the Nomad had 1.0/0.7/1.0 tube walls. To see why, here's a bit of my correspondence to Kuba on the subject...

This is a fun mystery!...I enjoyed going through the old Thorn brochures in the Internet Wayback Machine earlier today, and found some text hinting at thicker tube walls...but nothing specific. For example...
Quote
Some people say the bikes are heavy but I have had no complaints from any customer who was looking for a true expedition touring bike. Crashing down rocky trails with huge loads or being thrown around by baggage handlers, is a sure way to test robustness and durability to their limits. There is no substitute for tube wall thickness in these circumstances. What would be the point of havig an expedition frame built with tubes that would lose all their structural rigidity , once they had a big dent in them? -- Spring 2011
...and...
Quote
The Nomad Mk2 frames weigh around 3kg but, considering their great strength, they are, indeed, exceptionally light in weight!

Back in 2003, it seems the original Nomad (the ones that were handbuilt) may have had 1.0/0.7/1.0 tubing... http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=30.msg211#msg211 ...and... http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=1208.msg6200#msg6200 ...and of course, the old eXp ( http://coursesoflife.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/thorn-raven-nomad.pdf ); in the brochure Andy Blance said about the eXp...
Quote
...I decided to have the frame tubes made from heavy gauge (1.0/0.7/1.0) tubing. Which is 140% stiffer than ultralight gauge tubing...these tubes are significantly more resistant to denting and to cracking than ultra lightweight tubing. [pg 15, January 2010]

When I was researching Sherpa prior to purchase, I assumed 969 referred to wall thickness just as it did on my Centurion touring bicycles' Tange Champion No. 2 tubing, where tube walls are indeed .9/.6/.9mm in wall thickness. I think Sherpa was...but now I'm beginning to think 969 now generally refers to Thorn's flavor/brand of chro-moly tubing (see sidebar specs in this CTC comparo between the Nomad Mk2 and Santos' TravelMaster: http://www.ctc.org.uk/file/member/201007054.pdf ). More references to Thorn's "969" tubing here: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/touring/product/review-thorn-cycles-sherpa-09-33983 ("Thorn's own brand 969") and http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/bikes/road/product/review-thorn-cycles-raven-tour-10257 ("Thorn 969 cold drawn, butted, heat treated tubing & exclusive heavy-duty Thorn 969 stays"). Things get a bit murkier here: http://billyromp.com/the-tech-page/ ...and... http://thelazyrando.wordpress.com/tag/thorn-nomad/ ...and... http://www.en.tout-terrain.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/englisch/presseberichte/silkroad/Silkroad_CyclingPlus_1_09_lowres.pdf

And...this!: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=18.msg325#msg325
And from Robin Thorn himself onthe introduction of "969": http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=18.msg679#msg679

Can't wait to get the Official Word on the Mk2 Nomads' tube-wall thickness from Dave. Will let you know when I hear.

...And now we have: "969" is Thorn's name for their tubeset *and* a description of tube-wall thickness.

All the best,

Dan. (...who loves a good cycling mystery and his Thorn Nomad Mk2)

[Danneaux]

Hi All!

Andy Blance has added a very complete FAQ answer specifically detailing Thorn's tubing designations and describing the content and treatment of Thorn frame tubing here: http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/FAQ/tubing.pdf

Best,

Dan.