Turning a Nomad into a Carbon Race Bike

[Pavel]

Just to add a bit of my experience to this thread; I had a similar set of circumstances.  I have the Nomad, a bike which I very much like and which is exceptional in it's proper role, and which I don't want to get rid of because the moment I do, that elusive trip through Nepal will all of a sudden come up.  So, I'm keeping the Nomad. As my health gets better I would like to ride a bit faster and perhaps try Audaxing.  I considered a Thorn Audax for a while, but I really, really, really don't want to give up the luxury of the Rohloff and 28cm tyres seemed a bit limiting. So I solved my problems with a blood red Raven Sports Tour.  They are on closeout now, a shame I think, and the price was fantastic compared  to any other Rohloff frame at any "lesser" company. So far, after three weeks?  Very happy!

The RST rides completely differently to the Nomad, much more than I would have imagined.  It is much more of what I'm looking for at this point and the Nomad is going to be reconfigured which 700cc wheels (yes they fit fine with 32 tyres!) and put on a indoor Fluid trainer.  Later I will likely convert it back to outdoor use, as I find money (if), but that will be a while and I am going back and forth about whether I should spend my daughters college fund (it's a humble one ) and buy a second Rohloff with lighter rims, or if a Sturmey-Archer 8 speed would do. I've even thinking of putting the Rohloff back into the Nomad in time and running the the RST as a fixie.  Ahh, so many choices now!

Curently I am running the RST with the gear shifter disconnected as a single speed. That buys me time to experiment with different bars and stem combinations while I fine tune the bike to my old body.  Not being in shape I don't want to comit to any setup before I get back some fitness.  Let me tell you all, I really appreciate how long the Thorn fork steerers are. I have the steerer uncut and a short 70mm stem on it and it is just about right for me at this level of fitness/comfort.  I believe that other brands, believe in looks over comfort and maybe save a few pennies on short steerers, and would keep me out of cycling as a result.  The RST is comfortable! To heck with racer boy style.

The RST also runs a internal gear box, whereas the Nomad has an external setup. External is far better and I'm trying to decide if to convert the mech to fit it as intended or change the angle of the external mech so that it points up and run the cables as they are meant to be.  I could also run the cables underneath with ties, but I don't really like that idea ... not at all elegant. If I run it as external, facing upwards it looks like I will not be able to mount a rear rack, but that again is why I have the Nomad around, so using only a Carradice Audax bag seems to be in the spirit of this lighter faster RST.  Any ideas on the wisdom of keeping an external mech rather than converting the hub to internal?

For me, so far, it looks that going to the RST was an idea I should have come to earlier.  It has rejuvenated my appetite for cycling and the slow tinkering and optimizing adds to the fun.  Oh ... and Red for sure makes the bike faster! 

[Danneaux]

The RST also runs a internal gear box, whereas the Nomad has an external setup. External is far better and I'm trying to decide if to convert the mech to fit it as intended or change the angle of the external mech so that it points up and run the cables as they are meant to be.  I could also run the cables underneath with ties, but I don't really like that idea ... not at all elegant.

Hi Pavel!

I have been fortunate to try both the external and internal shifting schemes and cable routings on Rohloff-equipped Thorns and found them to be essentially equal in function and convenience. My Nomad Mk2 uses the external shiftbox and downtube cable routing; the Raven Sports Tour kindly loaned me by AndyBG for my double crossing of Europe last summer used the internal shifter and routing along the underside of the top tube with a cable stop on the left-rear brake boss.

With the external box, the rear wheel is detached by undoing a thumbscrew. With the internal hub, a couple quick-release bayonet connector fittings are undone. I found the difference in time and convenience between the two negligible. Some have found the internal shifter a bit smoother and to require less effort because it lacks the gearing of the EX transfer box, but with my fully lubed EX box, I would judge them essentially the same at the shifter.

The only real difference that might matter to me is the cabling used. The External shift-box uses universally available standard 1.1mm derailleur cabling, while the internal shifter requires 0.8mm cabling for the hub portion (the rest can be standard derailleur cabling). Cable replacements are a bit faster with the external shifter compared to the doing it from scratch with the internal shifter. The balance shifts in favor of the internal box if you have a pre-wound Rohloff Hub Cable Easy Set - 8573: http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/rohloff-hub-cable-easy-set-8573-prod16460/?geoc=us This lets you defer manual recabling until a more convenient time and makes roadside replacement a snap.

The speed and availability of replacement cables seems to be the reason why Rohloff recommend the External box for global touring.

There is a second reason to choose an External shift box: It is the only type that will work with a disc brake. However, if your frame has no mounting bosses for a caliper, this advantage is academic unless you will be swapping the rear wheel between bikes with both kinds of brakes.

If I run it as external, facing upwards it looks like I will not be able to mount a rear rack, but that again is why I have the Nomad around, so using only a Carradice Audax bag seems to be in the spirit of this lighter faster RST.

A rotated mount can achieve the orientation you seek, I believe, but a bigger issue might be water intrusion caused by drips following the housing into the EX 'box. I think the problem could be minimized by filling the box with waterproof grease as I have, but it is still a possibility. I know Andy Blance has stressed the Thorn fitment has the external box aimed slightly downward to prevent water entry.

Any ideas on the wisdom of keeping an external mech rather than converting the hub to internal?

Pavel, I would be inclined to keep the hub as it came, internal or external. The frames are made to facilitate cable routing to each type and given they function essentially the same, there seems no compelling reason to change. I think I'd save the money spent on conversion and use it for something else.

Hope this helps.

All the best,

Dan.