SALIVATION WARNING: Class English touring bike commuting in Atlanta

Thorn Nomad Gorilla Commuter!

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/...54.0;topicseen

I seem to remember Sheldon also had a Thorn, probably the more common
RT or RST (Raven Tour or Raven Sport Tour), frequently used as a
multipurpose commuter/loaded touring bike in England and on the
Continent, and of course often seen further afield on world tour or in
the hands of individual importers. I dunno anything about the Nomad (a
heavier duty bike than the RT perhaps?) but once you're on the site
you can sort out the various specialist types derived from the RT, and
Thorn brochures are worth reading for their designer's common sense. I
always check which components they fit before I spec a bike, and the
RST is the only British bike on my permanent shortlist. The Thorn
Raven Tour is probably the cheapest way to get a proven quality
allrounder with a Rohloff box; spec for spec less than half the price
of my Utopia, for instance, and probably well over a grand less than
Lou's Rohloff bike; Thorn don't make you pay for the name.

Andre Jute
The lightness of carbon is the vanity of cyclists

On 30/10/2010 00:29, Andre Jute wrote:

I dunno anything about the Nomad (a heavier duty bike than the RT perhaps?)

ISTR it's one of their earlier 26" tourers. A friend had one which fell
apart underneath him - replaced with an eXp. The current ones appear to
be S+S versions of the normal Ravens.

On 10/29/2010 6:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Thorn Nomad Gorilla Commuter!

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/...54.0;topicseen

I seem to remember Sheldon also had a Thorn, probably the more common
RT or RST (Raven Tour or Raven Sport Tour), frequently used as a
multipurpose commuter/loaded touring bike in England and on the
Continent, and of course often seen further afield on world tour or in
the hands of individual importers. I dunno anything about the Nomad (a
heavier duty bike than the RT perhaps?) but once you're on the site
you can sort out the various specialist types derived from the RT, and
Thorn brochures are worth reading for their designer's common sense. I
always check which components they fit before I spec a bike, and the
RST is the only British bike on my permanent shortlist. The Thorn
Raven Tour is probably the cheapest way to get a proven quality
allrounder with a Rohloff box; spec for spec less than half the price
of my Utopia, for instance, and probably well over a grand less than
Lou's Rohloff bike; Thorn don't make you pay for the name.

Andre Jute
The lightness of carbon is the vanity of cyclists

I'm not seeing any pictures at the link.
If they are hosted on the forum's server, you may need to be a forum
member to see them.
~

On Oct 30, 5:25*pm, DougC wrote:
On 10/29/2010 6:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:





Thorn Nomad Gorilla Commuter!

http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/...54.0;topicseen

I seem to remember Sheldon also had a Thorn, probably the more common
RT or RST (Raven Tour or Raven Sport Tour), frequently used as a
multipurpose commuter/loaded touring bike in England and on the
Continent, and of course often seen further afield on world tour or in
the hands of individual importers. I dunno anything about the Nomad (a
heavier duty bike than the RT perhaps?) but once you're on the site
you can sort out the various specialist types derived from the RT, and
Thorn brochures are worth reading for their designer's common sense. I
always check which components they fit before I spec a bike, and the
RST is the only British bike on my permanent shortlist. The Thorn
Raven Tour is probably the cheapest way to get a proven quality
allrounder with a Rohloff box; spec for spec less than half the price
of my Utopia, for instance, and probably well over a grand less than
Lou's Rohloff bike; Thorn don't make you pay for the name.

Andre Jute
* The lightness of carbon is the vanity of cyclists

I'm not seeing any pictures at the link.
If they are hosted on the forum's server, you may need to be a forum
member to see them.
~

Both pics are way too high-res for the net, 1024x768 and about 320kb.
They appear to be hosted at the forum, and I've never heard of guests
having any problem (I'm a member -- if you're a Rohloff owner, or into
touring bikes, Thorn is a good forum to belong to, lots of really
knowledgeable and helpful guys). BUT -- the size makes them slow to
load. I see the poster, or the moderator, have now subbed thumbnails
so you can at least take a quick look at what you get. But you may
have to wait a long time for them to load. I've just tested it by
clearing my cache, so that the piccies have to load from scratch, and
they were fast, but the first time I tried a few days ago, it took
about 15 minutes before they were fully loaded... Perhaps it depends
on how much traffic there is. Sorry I can't be more help. -- Andre Jute

On 10/30/2010 12:40 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:25 pm, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 6:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

...

I'm not seeing any pictures at the link.
If they are hosted on the forum's server, you may need to be a forum
member to see them.
~

Both pics are way too high-res for the net, 1024x768 and about 320kb.
They appear to be hosted at the forum, and I've never heard of guests
having any problem (I'm a member -- if you're a Rohloff owner, or into
touring bikes, Thorn is a good forum to belong to, lots of really
knowledgeable and helpful guys). BUT -- the size makes them slow to
load. I see the poster, or the moderator, have now subbed thumbnails
so you can at least take a quick look at what you get. But you may
have to wait a long time for them to load. I've just tested it by
clearing my cache, so that the piccies have to load from scratch, and
they were fast, but the first time I tried a few days ago, it took
about 15 minutes before they were fully loaded... Perhaps it depends
on how much traffic there is. Sorry I can't be more help. -- Andre Jute

I'm still not getting anything, in Firefox or IE. On 1.2 Mb/sec cable
internet.

Not only are there no photos, there's not even any /room/ for photos,,,
which suggests to me that the forum blocks viewing them for non-members.

If your ISP provides personal web space, you can reduce and post them
there and they will show up for everyone for sure. Free photo-hosting
sites like Photobucket usually aren't reliable unless you pay them.

~

On Oct 30, 10:24*pm, DougC wrote:
On 10/30/2010 12:40 PM, Andre Jute wrote:





On Oct 30, 5:25 pm, *wrote:
On 10/29/2010 6:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

...

I'm not seeing any pictures at the link.
If they are hosted on the forum's server, you may need to be a forum
member to see them.
~

Both pics are way too high-res for the net, 1024x768 and about 320kb.
They appear to be hosted at the forum, and I've never heard of guests
having any problem (I'm a member -- if you're a Rohloff owner, or into
touring bikes, Thorn is a good forum to belong to, lots of really
knowledgeable and helpful guys). BUT -- the size makes them slow to
load. I see the poster, or the moderator, have now subbed thumbnails
so you can at least take a quick look at what you get. But you may
have to wait a long time for them to load. I've just tested it by
clearing my cache, so that the piccies have to load from scratch, and
they were fast, but the first time I tried a few days ago, it took
about 15 minutes before they were fully loaded... Perhaps it depends
on how much traffic there is. Sorry I can't be more help. -- Andre Jute

I'm still not getting anything, in Firefox or IE. On 1.2 Mb/sec cable
internet.

Not only are there no photos, there's not even any /room/ for photos,,,
which suggests to me that the forum blocks viewing them for non-members.

If your ISP provides personal web space, you can reduce and post them
there and they will show up for everyone for sure. Free photo-hosting
sites like Photobucket usually aren't reliable unless you pay them.

~

I'm sorry you can't see those photographs, Doug. They're not my
photographs, so I can't reduce them and post them to my site, as you
suggest. If you're so keen, sign in at the forum. They've never sent
me a single piece of spam. -- AJ

On Oct 31, 4:09*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:24*pm, DougC wrote:



On 10/30/2010 12:40 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

On Oct 30, 5:25 pm, *wrote:
On 10/29/2010 6:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

...

I'm not seeing any pictures at the link.
If they are hosted on the forum's server, you may need to be a forum
member to see them.
~

Both pics are way too high-res for the net, 1024x768 and about 320kb.
They appear to be hosted at the forum, and I've never heard of guests
having any problem (I'm a member -- if you're a Rohloff owner, or into
touring bikes, Thorn is a good forum to belong to, lots of really
knowledgeable and helpful guys). BUT -- the size makes them slow to
load. I see the poster, or the moderator, have now subbed thumbnails
so you can at least take a quick look at what you get. But you may
have to wait a long time for them to load. I've just tested it by
clearing my cache, so that the piccies have to load from scratch, and
they were fast, but the first time I tried a few days ago, it took
about 15 minutes before they were fully loaded... Perhaps it depends
on how much traffic there is. Sorry I can't be more help. -- Andre Jute

I'm still not getting anything, in Firefox or IE. On 1.2 Mb/sec cable
internet.

Not only are there no photos, there's not even any /room/ for photos,,,
which suggests to me that the forum blocks viewing them for non-members..

If your ISP provides personal web space, you can reduce and post them
there and they will show up for everyone for sure. Free photo-hosting
sites like Photobucket usually aren't reliable unless you pay them.

~

I'm sorry you can't see those photographs, Doug. They're not my
photographs, so I can't reduce them and post them to my site, as you
suggest. If you're so keen, sign in at the forum. They've never sent
me a single piece of spam. -- AJ

I looked at some pictures of the Thorn Audax Mk3 on their website PDF.

Why is it that so many bikes are of the compact geometry architecture,
so much so that they look ridiculous?

The seat post has to be unusually long, and the handlebars are often
raised to the gunwales, perilously high above the top head fitting.

I'd rather a more traditional design, so that the seat post can be
shorter and lighter, and the head stem can rest almost on top of the
headset.

With the seat post shorter and lighter, the top tube is about the same
length, and only the seat tube and seat stays need be longer to
compensate. Is there any weight difference? Probably negligible. Is
the frame stiffer in a compact design? Probably barely, use oversize
steel tubes if you want it stiffer. A few extra grams for oversize
tubes can really make a difference.

JS.

James wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:09 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:24 pm, DougC wrote:



On 10/30/2010 12:40 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Oct 30, 5:25 pm, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 6:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
...
I'm not seeing any pictures at the link.
If they are hosted on the forum's server, you may need to be a forum
member to see them.
~
Both pics are way too high-res for the net, 1024x768 and about 320kb.
They appear to be hosted at the forum, and I've never heard of guests
having any problem (I'm a member -- if you're a Rohloff owner, or into
touring bikes, Thorn is a good forum to belong to, lots of really
knowledgeable and helpful guys). BUT -- the size makes them slow to
load. I see the poster, or the moderator, have now subbed thumbnails
so you can at least take a quick look at what you get. But you may
have to wait a long time for them to load. I've just tested it by
clearing my cache, so that the piccies have to load from scratch, and
they were fast, but the first time I tried a few days ago, it took
about 15 minutes before they were fully loaded... Perhaps it depends
on how much traffic there is. Sorry I can't be more help. -- Andre Jute
I'm still not getting anything, in Firefox or IE. On 1.2 Mb/sec cable
internet.
Not only are there no photos, there's not even any /room/ for photos,,,
which suggests to me that the forum blocks viewing them for non-members.
If your ISP provides personal web space, you can reduce and post them
there and they will show up for everyone for sure. Free photo-hosting
sites like Photobucket usually aren't reliable unless you pay them.
~
I'm sorry you can't see those photographs, Doug. They're not my
photographs, so I can't reduce them and post them to my site, as you
suggest. If you're so keen, sign in at the forum. They've never sent
me a single piece of spam. -- AJ

I looked at some pictures of the Thorn Audax Mk3 on their website PDF.

Why is it that so many bikes are of the compact geometry architecture,
so much so that they look ridiculous?

The seat post has to be unusually long, and the handlebars are often
raised to the gunwales, perilously high above the top head fitting.

I'd rather a more traditional design, so that the seat post can be
shorter and lighter, and the head stem can rest almost on top of the
headset.

With the seat post shorter and lighter, the top tube is about the same
length, and only the seat tube and seat stays need be longer to
compensate. Is there any weight difference? Probably negligible. Is
the frame stiffer in a compact design? Probably barely, use oversize
steel tubes if you want it stiffer. A few extra grams for oversize
tubes can really make a difference.


Both designs work and riders' opinions vary. Some large
proportion of custom frames specify "level top tube" so you
are not alone in your opinion.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971