Thorn Cycles Forum
Community => Thorn General => Topic started by: jlg on February 19, 2012, 05:40:29 pm
-
I was favouring an LHT over a Sherpa when I came across a Sherpa MK3 frame in the on-line shop, which sounds very exciting, available in June 2012. There are no details other than colours and sizes. I suspect the frame will be based on the Raven - Anyone know anything concrete?
-
You're right; it does appear something is coming. There's a placeholder at SJS Cycles here:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-sherpa-mk3-frame-red-prod27981/
...and...
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-sherpa-frames-dept664/
Google's spiderbot site indexer managed to find this reference...Thorn Thorn Sherpa MK3 Step Through Frame - Black. Thorn Sherpa MK3 Step Through Frame - Black; £499.00. Thorn Thorn Sherpa MK3 Step Through Frame
...making me wonder if the MK3 might be (or include) a Mixte or step-through version. At this point, it appears they'll be available in black and in red, regardless of other particulars.
Oh, the game's afoot! Exciting stuff, and sharp eyes, jlg!
Best,
Dan.
-
Given we have nothing in the way of details, this opens the door for rampant speculation. What might a Mark 3 Sherpa look like? The very thought of a new model gets the brain juices flowing, and it is a long time till June.
Would it be a refinement of the present model? The present geometry is well-proven, and adding sizes (what's missing?) would not seem enough to deserve an entirely new designation. I can't see a change in component spec being enough to warrant the new designation.
More of the same, but...more? Perhaps a "severe duty" option with the Nomad's double-plate fork and a suspension-optional frame geometry? headtube-downtube gussets? Disc brake mounts? All while keeping a derailleur orientation?
We might see a design using something akin to the new Schmidt SL aluminum fork for a wire-free dynohub installation (insulated, conductive plates on the inner dropout faces mate with the Schmidt SL or SL Disc hub; internal wiring and a connector exiting the base of the steerer connect to the lights. Versions of the SL system are currently available to framebuilders for inclusion on their own forks, which can be made of steel. Even existing forks can be modified. Alignment is critical as both conductors are in the right dropout. See: http://www.peterwhitecycles.com/schmidt-sl.asp ).
What would differentiate it enough from the present iteration to make it worthy of a "Mark 3" designation? Heavier tubing, with the Mk3 being akin to the Nomad while the existing Sherpa soldiers on as a lighter model more like the Raven Tour, but with derailleurs instead of Rohloff? A Mixte or step-through frame as I wondered above? Complete abandonment of derailleurs by making the Sherpa Mk3 Rohloff-specific? Do Thorn still make enough derailleur-bike sales to justify keeping them, or are Thorn becoming the company known for Rohloff bikes?
However it might change, it must still have enough ties to the original to keep the Sherpa name, so the change might be more a range expansion or refinement -- evolutionary rather than revolutionary, as with other generational changes across the line. Maybe a "complete solution", pre-equipped with every possible option as a "halo model" in the line, with Schmidt dynohub and lighting already attached with a dyno charger and only-topline options as standard? Perhaps a commemorative edition?
Going from domestic fillet brazing to overseas TiG welding occasioned some past changes in model designation, and even retirement of some models and introduction of others. Does anyone else remember the Brevet that was offered alongside the Audax in 2001? (I wanted a Thorn for awhile before I got Sherpa last August ;)).
Thorn have taken care to differentiate its models despite a proliferation in overall numbers. Each model has its own specific frame sizes and tubing specs and geometry. Tubing diameter even differs by frame size range (in the case of Sherpas, at least). This has worked out well for Thorn the company and Thorn customers, as it is responsive and allows the greatest opportunity to find the "perfect" bike for a given need and size.
Still, I have always wondered at the absence of a "universal" touring Thorn model that sits astride the derailleur/Rohloff divide by being either or both.
Dutch brand Avaghon have managed it by fitting the sliding Rohloff frame ends with a choice of dropouts and cable stops/guides. My friend selected their "Series 26" model set-up for derailleurs and it arrived with derailleur-specific rear dropouts and hanger, while the Rohloff-specific bosses all remained. To handle the derailleur cabling, bespoke plastic stops were bolted to threaded bosses. It sounds horrible, but the end result looks really outstanding, and allows for maximum flexibility. At any point in the future, he can convert to a Rohloff bike by fitting a new rear wheel, appropriate cabling, and shifter. By the same token, a Rohloff-configured frame could take a full set of derailleurs and a cassette rear wheel in the extremely unlikely event of a complete Rohloff failure. It would even be possible to convert the same frame back and forth as desired, though it would be time-consuming, unwieldy, and expensive. Besides, more people seem to go derailleur --> Rohloff than the other way 'round.
Still, it would be possible to make a Sherpa or other Thorn bike in this same basic way, provided the appropriate bosses were available and it would also require a new (bespoke) right-rear dropout with integral derailleur hanger. The current (vertical) left-rear dropout would work for either iteration, as would the eccentric bottom bracket. This is a path I would consider when selecting a frame, and as a Rohloff specialist, Thorn might well pick up the equivalent in value from standalone aftermarket sales of complete Rohloff conversion kits (Thorn discounts parts heavily when they are included as standard or as a listed option for a specific model as complete builds).
Any other prognosticators out there?
Best,
Dan.
-
Looking at the frame sizes on the page linked to above gives a clue that the new model will have at least a more sloping top tube. The largest size is going to be 600 compared to the current 610, so presumably this is due to more slope.
-
a clue that the new model will have at least a more sloping top tube
Good call. Here's how the sizes compare:
Sherpas
Current Mk3
460S
460XL
...........................475M
485L
...........................500S
...........................500L
510S
510XL
...........................530S
...........................530L
535L
560S
560XL
...........................565S
...........................565L
585L
...........................600S
...........................600L
610S
610XL
Available sizes appear to drop from 11 to 9, with all but the smallest in "Short" and "Long" top tube versions, further indicating a redesign across the line, rather than a rationalization of old sizes as was the case with the current model (where effectively S = Short, L=Medium and XL=Long).
I notice SJS Cycles show some sizes of the current model Sherpa as out-of-stock, including the 460S and 560S. This may reflect normal periodic lowering of stock (popular sizes) subject to reorder and restocking of inventory, as it would be a long wait for them if the only replacements are Mk3s with a due date of June. Neither the 535L or the 610XL currently appear in the drop-down menu for the current model.
Best,
Dan.
-
OK, here goes with some speculation/imagination ... largely inspired by Dan's thoughts above ...
I imagine a really nice Mk3 Sherpa being a 'universal tourer' having front suspension and disc brake capability a la the Nomad Mk2, and derailleur to Rohloff capability as well, or even to Alfine 11 speed (thinking Surly Troll here).
Such a bike would be an obvious replacement for the Sterling which has disappeared as a complete bike option, and also the Ripio (three showroom/demonstrator models being sold off on SJSC) - rationalisation which would make sense in the current economic climate.
-
I agree that in this climate, that new Sherpa would probably rationalise a few models, and be something of a Raven Tour with a derailleur and accommodate wider tyres. Twin plate fork with suspension option and rear disc mount would seem inevitable.
I'd like to see a longer head tube (less spacers), more adventurous colours (Tonka yellow/orange!), much better graphics than the Audax Mk3, and a lightweight version like the Nomad X (is that being too hopeful!)
-
Interesting ... very much what I'm hoping for. I'd like to see a Sherpa that is dedicated still to derailleur gearing, but with the following features:
1. Suspension corrected geometry (not essential, but would be nice).
2. ISO rear disc mount
3. Available in either 'heavy duty' or X-frame tubing (// current Nomad).
In other words, a derailleur version of the current Nomad that, according as to one's intentions, could be built up either as a quickish commuting/on/off-road/light touring bike, or as a full-on on/off road/expedition touring bike.
-
One thing that I would expect would be the brazed on fittings such as rack mounts etc. to be in stainless steel as they are on the Audax mk3 and other models (are they stainless on the Raven Tour now?) as this is an issue on the current Sherpa where rust can get a hold. Also I expect they will change to 6mm rack mounts.
As for some of the other points mentioned above, I personally would not like to see the Sherpa 'beefed up' beyond it's current already sturdy nature.
-
Rualexander,
I'm not sure of it being the case of a 600 meaning a more sloping top tube as the sizes are usually virtual sizes as in the 610 being actually 545mm seat tube C to C the 610 being the virtual length C to C as if there was a horizontal top tube.
It would seem to me that they are taking the smallest and biggest sizes out of the range. That probably makes sense to them as will be the less commonly ordered sizes.
It would be a shame though if this is the case, from talking to them in the past it was suggested that the only thorn that would truly fit me is the Nomad II (620L) because of my size (too tall and heavy). But I think I can get away with models that go to 610.
-
Rualexander,
I'm not sure of it being the case of a 600 meaning a more sloping top tube as the sizes are usually virtual sizes as in the 610 being actually 545mm seat tube C to C the 610 being the virtual length C to C as if there was a horizontal top tube.
Ah, yes you are right, my mistake.
So what can be deduced from the reduction in frame size from 610 to 600? Lower front end and standover height? Not something I would like to see.
-
Ah, yes you are right, my mistake.
So what can be deduced from the reduction in frame size from 610 to 600? Lower front end and standover height? Not something I would like to see.
Ah you might be right, but as the small end is getting bigger I'd say it's more likely doing away with the biggest and smallest sizes as they are less commonly ordered. If I am correct I think it is a mistake.
-
Reducing the size of the largest frame would be bad news indeed, I have a 610S and I am 6'2", I would not have bought anything smaller and would be looking away from Thorn towards a Surly LHT or custom frame if I was in the market again.
-
A quick check of the SJS Cycles site this morning shows all model Sherpa Mk3 frames are "Out of stock. More due on 09/06/12". Unless temporary, this pushes back the date of introduction from June to September. Same message for the step-through frame version as well.
A number of sizes of the present design are also out-of-stock, with no due-date announced. I wonder if they'll remain so, pending replacement with the new Mk3?
I suppose Thorn may have reserved a number of the retail frames to complete orders for built-up bikes...
Best,
Dan.
-
Dan,
09/06/12 is the 9th of June, we do dates differently from you guys!
-
???
<pop> Headslap. :o
Well...duh! :-[
Can I please blame it on our recent switch-back to Daylight Savings Time? Nah, didn't think so... ;D
Thanks for straightening me out, Rual; I got a good chuckle out of it!
All the best,
Dan.
-
Although the Sherpa Mk3 frames have disappeared from the shop, the forks have appeared with a description - there's a lightweight 853 one (C2) and a heavy weight one in 531St (ST1).
Does that suggest a lightish frame, since you wouldn't run an 853 fork on the current Sherpa - something like the old XTC?
-
Although the Sherpa Mk3 frames have disappeared from the shop, the forks have appeared with a description - there's a lightweight 853 one (C2) and a heavy weight one in 531St (ST1).
Does that suggest a lightish frame, since you wouldn't run an 853 fork on the current Sherpa - something like the old XTC?
Any chance of a link? I can't see what you are referring to.
-
sorry for being vague, try this:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-c2-1-1-8-inch-ahead-fork-black-prod27988/
-
Thanks, interesting stuff, shame there's no photo yet.
-
I'm just waiting to see photo's before working out which frame to Order.
:o
-
Hi All!
All (or nearly so) is revealed in the Issue 20 Late Spring 2012 Sherpa brochure at: http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornSherpaBroHiRes.pdf
Thorn's designer, Andy Blance, explains on page 16...
Start quote:
"Important notes on Sherpa Mk3 frames.
"We are, at the time of writing, waiting for delivery of the new Mk3 Sherpa frames. These are due to be with us in late July 2012. There are very few changes between the Mk2 and the Mk3 frames, even the colours options remain the same...matt black and blood red.
"The biggest change, is that I havetaken this opportunity to rationalise the sizing.
"Additionally, the smallest frames now use standard size tubing, which is 1" Top tube and 11?8" down tube. The small to medium size frames use oversize tubes 11?8" top tube and 11?4" down tube. The larger frames use extra oversize tubes 11?4" top tubes and 13?8" down tubes. I believe that this makes good sense. Small frames are inevitably stronger than large frames and riders of small frames are usually lighter than
riders of large frames. We still have stock of some of the sizes of Mk2 frames. They are highlighted in pale yellow on the matrix above.
"The Short S frames are intended primarily for use with drop bars, or (heaven forbid) with butterfly bars.
"The Long L frames are intended primarily for use with straight or comfort bars.
"Another significant change is that the Mk3 Sherpa frames now have the choice of 2 different steel forks.We have Reynolds Super Tourist Cro- Mo forks, which we call ST1, these forks have cast crowns, safety drop outs and provision for Lo-Loader carriers, as well as our trademark provision for directly mounting the mudguards. The ST1 forks will carry up to 6Kg on each side!
"We also have forks made from Competition weight Reynolds 853, which we call C2. These forks have safety dropouts and stainless bosses for the direct fitting of mudguards but they don’t have provision for Lo-Loader carriers.
"The bike prices given on page 17 assume the ST1 fork.
"The C2 fork, which is a +£100 option, is exceptionally comfortable and will suit riders who wish to use a Sherpa for commuting, or for lighter touring. Fitted with the C2 forks, the Sherpa is a formidable “Balloon Bike”.
"Both the ST1 and C2 forks will take a 2.15” tyre if required.
"I have also introduced a step-through Sherpa frame, which is strong enough for serious touring".
End quote.
I have attached copies of the 2012 Sherpa Size Matrix and the 2012 Default Dimensions Chart for readers' convenience.
Best,
Dan.
-
Ah, yes you are right, my mistake.
So what can be deduced from the reduction in frame size from 610 to 600? Lower front end and standover height? Not something I would like to see.
So it would seem that I was correct about the smallest and largest
being taken from the range.
The 610 XL MK2 is no longer, replaced by 600 L MK3 losing 15mm from the top tube and 10mm from the head tube length/height
Both the 460 S and the 460 XL are no longer, replaced by 475 M with 5mm shorter actual seat tube, 15mm taller/longer head tube. The top tube is 10mm shorter than the XL and 60mm longer than the S.
There has been some rejigging of sizes in the middle of the range with some sizes being kept and some sizes being dropped replaced by an increased choice of slightly different sizes
The sizes that have been kept are 485 L, 510 XL, 560 XL,585 L, and 610 S.
The 510 S is replaced by the 500 S and 500 L.
The 535 XL and 560 S have been replaced by 530 S and 530 L.
The 565 S and 565 L and 600 S have all been added.
All in all it will suit more people.
Unfortunately I think that the shortest and tallest may lose out from the changes (That is the way of the world I guess, shame but true).
Regards,
Iain.
-
There has been some rejigging of sizes in the middle of the range with some sizes being kept and some sizes being dropped replaced by an increased choice of slightly different sizes...
Hi Ian,
The Sherpa line has been altered a bit more than it seems. My 2011 560S is about in the middle of the size range, so I compared it to the new 2012 565S to see just how the replacement differs. Quite a lot, as it happens (see my attached charts below, derived from the Issue 20 Late Spring 2012 Sherpa brochure at: http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornSherpaBroHiRes.pdf ).
Compared to my 2011 (Mark 2) model, the 2012 (Mark 3) has...
-Smaller-diameter frame tubing, reduced from "extra-oversize" to "oversize".
-A more sloping top tube (45 vs 60 degrees), though I can't quite work out how.
-A 2cm taller seat tube c-c (520 vs 500).
-A 1cm longer top tube (560 vs 550).
-An unknown quantity for the BB drop.
-A half-degree less seat angle (73 vs 73.5 degrees).
-7mm shorter chainstays (438 vs 445).
-A 1.5cm higher mid-tube standover (815 vs 800).
-5mm more height at the top tube-head tube junction (835 vs 830).
-And, of course, a default fork that will accept a front tire that is wider by 3.81mm wider or about 5/32" and is rated at a higher capacity.
I'm kind of relieved things worked out to get my 2011 model, as it was absolutely spot-on for my particular needs and the new model is very much less so, but might well work better for the larger pool of buyers. I would particularly miss the extra-oversized tubing and the longer chainstays. I suppose the ultimate upgrade for my heavy-duty use would be the 2012 fork in the same 52mm offset mated to my 2011 frame, though I have not found the current fork deficient, and I would expect the Super Tourist forks to be marginally less comfortable. I think it is pretty fair to assume a new fork crown was required to achieve the necessary clearance and accommodate the ST fork blades.
Still, as a mid-range buyer in terms of fit, I feel lucky the Sherpa line continues. It is a real pity the sizes at the large and small ends of the range have been trimmed. Though demand might have been less compared to the more common sizes, there aren't very many alternatives in those sizes and my heart really goes out to those whose hearts were set on them.
For those pining for a Mark 2 Sherpa, stocks remain available at this writing in the following sizes:
485L (medium top tube, oversize tubing))
510XL (long top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
560XL (long top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
585L (medium top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
610S (extra-oversize tubing)
Best,
Dan.
-
-A more sloping top tube (45 vs 60 degrees), though I can't quite work out how.
Dan the slope is the difference between actual seat tube length and virtual seat tube length so it is 45mm vs 60mm and not 45 degree vs 60 degree angle of the top tube as you are thinking.
The top tube will actually have less of a slope (nearer to horizontal)
Best,
Iain.
-
For those pining for a Mark 2 Sherpa, stocks remain available at this writing in the following sizes:
485L (medium top tube, oversize tubing))
510XL (long top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
560XL (long top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
585L (medium top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
610S (extra-oversize tubing)
By the looks of it all these are staying:
485L (medium top tube, oversize tubing))
510XL (long top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
560XL (long top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
585L (medium top tube, extra-oversize tubing)
610S (extra-oversize tubing)
as they are still in that sizing chart (or are there more changes to come?)
I'm not sure but would the 600 S fit you Dan? it has the extra oversize tubing and the virtual top tube is 575mm as opposed to your 550mm and the mid top tube stand over height is also 850mm vs your 800mm
The chain stays are the same 445mm.
The seat angle is less at 72.5 vs 73.5 degrees.
From what I can work out looking at the 560 S and the 565 S, I think the BB drop is the same or very near. It is a shame the the bottom bracket drop is not included in all the sizing charts/matrix some models have some don't.
It would also be nice if the front centres were included in the sizing charts.
I think you're right that you got lucky buying in 2011 and getting a tougher spec that fits you than you would now.
Best,
Iain.
-
the slope is the difference between actual seat tube length and virtual seat tube length
Ah! Got it; yes, of course! Thanks, Iain! Nice work.
It took me a moment to realize the significance of the "52" in the 565S-52 designation on the 2012 size chart...the forks now come only in 2 offsets (46mm and 52mm) to cover all frame sizes in the entire line, not the 4 offsets (43mm, 46,, 52mm and 59mm) used to cover the 2011 line. A natural consequence of dropping the smallest and largest frame offerings in the line.
Oh! Judging by the <bing!> of my email alert, it looks like you posted while I was writing the above, so I'll append to catch your latest...
would the 600 S fit you Dan?
Another good thought, Iain! Hmm. Yes...it looks closer on frame geometry in some ways but is further off in others, and uses the fork with less offset (46 vs 52), so trail will differ if the head angle remains the same. Just a sec, and I'll run the numbers...
Let's see...we don't have the head tube angle, so I am going to specify it the same as my 560S at 70.5 degrees.
With the same 26x2.0 tires I'm running, that gives us...
69.29mm trail with the 46mm offset fork @70.5 degree head angle for the 600S.
...vs...
62.93mm trail with the 52mm offset fork @70.5 degree head angle for my 560S.
The effect (*if* the head angle remains the same) is higher trail and more wheel flop at rest and faster-feeling low-speed handling and greater stability at high speeds ( http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4245.msg19567#msg19567 ). Because head tube angles aren't listed for any of the new frames, we really cant accurately calculate trail, so the above assumptions are probably incorrect, as I don't see Andy going with that much trail. Probably the head angle has been steepened by a degree from 70.5 to 71.5 to recover a 63mm (63.08) trail. That's what I would do, anyway. ;)
Still, I'd kinda hate to add another 25mm/1in in the top tube (taking it away in stem reach [8.5cm vs 11cm] would kill my stem-top mounting point for the GPS) and the standover height is really too high for my needs at 50mm/2in higher, especially for more technical singletrack where I may dismount to the offside of a slope. I do like the familiar extra-oversize tubing and similarly long stays, but the rest is just "off" for me. I think you right that you got lucky buying in 2011 and getting a tougher spec that fits you than you would now.
<nods, vigorously> Agreed, it feels more like "blessed" by the moment. To think I almost waited till this year instead of taking the plunge last August.
I'm really praying nothing (theft, damage) happens to my 2011 560S, as there really is no direct replacement for my needs. Sigh. Well, hopefully nothing will happen to mine for a very long time.
By the looks of it the 610 S is staying as it is still in that sizing chart.
Yep, and still intact in all measurements.
Thanks, Iain, it's fun talking about this stuff with others. Nice work.
All the best,
Dan.
-
I am not sure why, but the 2012 Sherpa catalogue says right at the top of page 1 that the Sherpa is available in two colours and ten sizes, where as according to the 2012 Sherpa sizing matrix there are actually fifteen sizes, five MK2 and ten MK3. Is this a proof reading mistake or are the five remaining MK2 Sherpas to be phased out?
-
Is this a proof reading mistake or are the five remaining MK2 Sherpas to be phase out?
Hi Iain,
I could be wrong, of course, but I believe it is the latter; on reflection, I think the five remaining sizes of Mk 2 Sherpas will be phased out and are only shown now because they represent remaining stock and are all that is available until the new models arrive in about two more months. They are marked in yellow, and the note about the Mk 3 sizing says, "We still have stock of some of the sizes of Mk2 frames. They are highlighted in pale yellow on the matrix above". If they are indeed to be discontinued, then that means it would also be the end of the 610S.
In other words, I think after the old Mk 2s are sold out, there will only be Mark 3s remaining, making for the ten sizes you noted at the start of the catalog. I guess if a person looks at it from Thorn's view, this is an interim catalog where all current models are shown...remaining stock and anticipated stock. I'm guessing the Summer or Fall catalog will show only the Mk 3s, unless large inventories of a particular size remain. If that is the case, I'm guessing SJS Cycles will offer them at a special price as they have with remaining stocks of discontinued models.
Thinking about it, the customer in need of a Mk 2 560S or a Mk 3 565S or 600S would be in for a wait...the new models aren't anticipated till the end of July. Must be frustrating for all parties, Thorn included.
Andy mentioned...The biggest change, is that I have taken this opportunity to rationalise the sizing.
This might have been done with a change in serials (not restamping existing frames but fresh stamping, perhaps with [numerical size], [S, M, or L], followed by a [Mk3] designator), and a relabeling of the documentation, sizing charts, and catalogs. However, in rationalizing the sizing, Andy also redesigned the geometry and focus of the line. It is interesting to look at the final Mk 3 lineup if the Mk 2s do indeed disappear:
(420 Step-through)
475M
500S
500L
530S
530L
564S
565L
600S
600L
To those unused to Thorn's earlier (present) sizing, it does indeed look to be a more rational progression of sizes from small to large, and (except for the two smallest sizes) there's just 4 short top tubes for drop/butterfly 'bars and 4 long top tubes for straight 'bars.
Previously, there were eleven sizes, all designated S, L, or XL and were a sort of revalued substitute for Short, Medium, and Long. Andy explained the reasons for the old sizing on page 16 of Catalog Issue 16, Summer 2011... [After speaking about the different tube sizes used in the various frame sizes, Andy added]...You will also notice that some frames are marked as “S” this stands for short and means that the frame size is (almost) exclusively suitable for drops and “conventional” butterfly bars, which must use a long stem, such as the Modolo Yuma bars (see page4).
The “XL” frames are extra long, compared to drop bar frames (but actually only about the same length as our Raven Tour L frames for a given size). These frames are designed almost exclusively for straight bars or comfort bars.
Some frames (485L, 535L and 585L) are marked as being “L” this is long relative to a drop bar frame, but shorter than a straight bar frame.
These sizes may be suitable for some people (mostly men with drop bars or mostly women with straight bars) who are not perfectly served by the S or the XL frames.
The reason for this confusion is that the original sizes of Sherpa frames were designed for drop bars and were available as short or long...the popularity
of the Sherpa and the popularity of straight bars for touring, has led to the introduction of 4 new sizes, made for straight bars. We didn’t want to re-classify the L frames as medium, as they are stamped “L”; so the new frames had to be called XL.
Andy's plan becomes a bit more clear once the Mk 3 sizing matrix is compared to the old Mk 2 offerings.
Lots to ponder here, but this is a real change in the Sherpa lineup, all across the board.
Best,
Dan.
-
Yes Dan, I think you are correct. I think it is a shame that the range should go from 11 to 9 sizes which to all intents and purposes it has, with the 420S-T being a step through, a different animal really. Though having said that I'm sure there will be thankful takers.
It's a sign of the times and what I had originally thought would happen, so when I saw the sizing matrix with the five MK2s present as well I was pleasantly surprised that though the smallest and largest were dropped it was still a more comprehensive range, Alas I now think not.
About the 420S-T I'm not sure where the 420 comes from as the actual seat tube is 450mm usually the number is the virtual seat tube dimension, actual plus slope giving virtual. In this case it's state that slope is "Not Applicable".
I'm not sure why in that case it's not called a 450S-T.
I guess we'll find out in the fullness of time.
Regards,
Iain.
-
There has been some rejigging of sizes in the middle of the range with some sizes being kept and some sizes being dropped replaced by an increased choice of slightly different sizes
The sizes that have been kept are 485 L, 510 XL, 560 XL,585 L, and 610 S.
The 510 S is replaced by the 500 S and 500 L.
The 535 XL and 560 S have been replaced by 530 S and 530 L.
The 565 S and 565 L and 600 S have all been added.
All in all it will suit more people.
Unfortunately I think that the shortest and tallest may lose out from the changes (That is the way of the world I guess, shame but true).
Regards,
Iain.
Hi Iain
I think you have summed it up very well.
It would suit me if I was wanting a Sherpa, in the old range the 510XL with flat bars would fit me but not ideal, and with nothing between 510S and 560S there wasn't a drop bar option that would suit me. The new 530L and 530S are spot on for me, and perhaps I could be tempted to migrate my MTB parts to a Sherpa Mk3 frame to try out as a balloon bike sometime in the future, although they could perhaps have gone for clearance up to 2.35" Big Apples - something to ponder anyway.
-
I'm really praying nothing (theft, damage) happens to my 2011 560S, as there really is no direct replacement for my needs. Sigh. Well, hopefully nothing will happen to mine for a very long time.
If the unthinkable did happen, fingers crossed it doesn't, you may be forced to move to a Rohloff frame in the guise of a Nomad II. I know that drop bars are your preference but after looking into the Sherpa MK3 I had a look at the 2012 Nomad II brochure And came across this:
http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=4272.msg19726;topicseen#msg19726
http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornRavenNomadBroHiRes.pdf
Looks like at very well engineered way round the problem of the Rohloff shifter and drop bars.
Sorry if I putting temptation your way but are there any Nomads that would a good fit for you?
Best,
Iain.
-
The new 530L and 530S are spot on for me, and perhaps I could be tempted to migrate my MTB parts to a Sherpa Mk3 frame to try out as a balloon bike sometime in the future, although they could perhaps have gone for clearance up to 2.35" Big Apples - something to ponder anyway.
Hello Relayer,
Glad that the changes are good for you, not so good for some better for others, those who don't gain by the changes with the MK3 better get in quick before the remaining MK2s are sold out.
As for the 2.35" Big Apples that sure would be nice, I think that the Sherpa will take up to 2.25" Marathon XRs so it may be able to handle the slightly larger Big Apples though you'd have to make quite sure. It would certainly make for a comfy ride. Something to tempt you anyway. I guess you will be getting better acquainted with that brochure as you ponder.
Cheers,
Iain.
-
"Both the ST1 and C2 forks will take a 2.15” tyre if required.
Having reread Dan's post I realised that I may have been mistaken about the Sherpa taking up to 2.25" Marathon XRs.
-
If it is any help wrt to choosing larger tires, I just measured Sherpa, and there is 8.5mm of clearance each side between the sidewalls of my 2.0 Duremes and the inside lug-face of the fork crown.
Of that, some room must be left for tire wobble and an out-of-true wheel as well as road debris (mud, dirt). The real limiting factor would also be vertical clearance. A wider tire would preclude use of a fender, because there would be inadequate clearance between the center of the tread and the bolt that holds the fender into a threaded plate on the underside of the steerer (it isn't just the bolt head; the fender thickness itself eats up some additional clearance).
For what it's worth, on my road bikes I have set 5mm as the absolute minimum clearance between tire and fender, and much prefer 8mm minimum to avoid debris fouling the tire-fender. Sherpa's clearance is 12mm minimum at the front of the front fender and wider elsewhere. I replaced the original SKS cut stays set internally on their brackets and prefer external ones made by Planet Bike so I can increase tire-fender clearance when touring on desert playa, which can cake if damp.
All the best,
Dan.
-
Thanks for the update's about the MK3, i'm I right on reading in full about the new Sherpa MK3 that the Ripio this a higher loading? for touring?
If this is right then i'll look at a Ripio or (go back to running with a Rohloff) Nomad MK2.
I'm thinking that a Ripio/Nomad would be a better tourer for me as I live in New Zealand and we have a load of offroad cycle touring/MTB track's being build around NZ at this time, plus old roads, dirt roads etc.
Plus i'm looking to go back to Africa and cycle all the way to Cape Town, on dirt roads!
If any one can help with which way to go it would be good.
Pete...
-
Hi Pete!
Yes, if one looks at the Thorn FAQ for "Which model suits my needs" ( http://www.thorncycles.co.uk/FAQ/compmod.pdf ), the Sherpa's listed luggage carrying capacity (according to type of terrain being ridden) is indeed lower in some categories than the Nomad Mk2 and the Ripio.
In every category, the Nomad Mk2 has the highest rating compared to the Sherpa and Ripio.
The Sherpa Mk3 is rated higher than the Ripio in Road/Commuting, LEJOG/B&B touring, and Camping (35kg vs 30kg).
The Sherpa Mk3 is rated lower than the Ripio in Mountain Touring, Desert Touring, and USA Spine/End to End (25kg vs 30kg).
The Sherpa Mk3 is rated equal to the Ripio in Tow Path/Forest (30kg).
The thing to keep in mind is the Ripio, *if equipped with a suspension fork* cannot carry front panniers unless it is equipped with a sus-compatable front rack like the Tubus Swing. *Or* if equipped with the Mt. Tura Fork ( http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornMtTuraForkHiRes.pdf ) and front pannier racks like the Thorn Low-Loader MkV. Putting the maximum rated weight only on the rear rack of the Ripio would not result in pleasant handling. Frame bags are always a possibility, as is a handlebar bag.
In every Thorn-rated category, the Nomad Mk2 is the load-carrying champ, at 35+ kg, the highest of the bikes Thorn offer.
In the same chart referenced above, Thorn do not recommend the Nomad Mk2, Sherpa Mk2, or Ripio for Audax/CTC rides.
I hope this helps. Please keep us posted as your Africa touring plans develop!
Best,
Dan.
-
Sorry if I putting temptation your way but are there any Nomads that would a good fit for you?
Hi Iain,
Good thought about considering the Nomad Mk2 as a possible replacement should disaster befall my Mk2 Sherpa.
I just had an in-depth look at the Nomad Mk2 sizing chart, and the problem seems to be the frame are a bit "oversquare" for me with my preferred drop handlebars -- the top tubes are really longer than I'd like. This isn't surprising, as the Nomad Mk2's frame seems really to be engineered for use primarily with straight handlebars, as many now prefer. I realize I am in the minority in preferring to tour on drops, but I like the additional hand positions and my wrists and after so many years on them, my wrists and shoulders are really more comfortable with my palms roughly facing each other on the 'bars.
My Sherpa Mk2 has a 550mm virtual top tube. Discounting the "X-series" Nomad Mk2s (I need the extra capacity of the standard, heavier model), the closest I can get is a 570mm top tube on the 510L, described as having a "small frame, long top tube". However, that comes with a seat tube (c-t) of only 370mm compared to my Sherpa Mk2's 500. As a result, I'd have 13cm/130mm more seatpost exposed (I have ~18cm exposed now on my 560S, so that would be 31cm; more than I'd like), and would have to run a stem with 2cm/20mm less reach (90mm vs 110mm) to make it all fit like Sherpa does now.
A 590M gets me much closer in many ways (445mm c-t seat tube mid-tube standover, nice long chainstays) but a 35mm longer top tube, doable with a 75mm stem instead of my present 110 on drop 'bars. Yes, the Nomad Mk2 in a 590M probably gets me closest to my present Sherpa Mk2 560S, and would be the best choice for me among the broad scope of Thorn's present (newest) lineup. Not as ideal as what I have, but workable with some effort. It would also include the additional expense and unknown of the Rohloff drivetrain for me, and derailleurs have always worked well for my needs.
No, it looks like there is no direct replacement for my Mark2 Sherpa in the Nomad Mk2 product line, but one model comes close(r). Good suggestion, Iain, and a worthwhile investigation. It never hurts to gain familiarity with options, and this helps to keep in mind.
Best,
Dan.
-
H-bars..... for multi-positions and wrists in-line.
(http://www.google.com.au/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://gallery.mtbr.com/data/mtbr/500/MkIII-H-Bar.jpg&sa=X&ei=GKHET62-FeeziQfl1oS3Cg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEbOrHq7te8_aQH4i_Ln_6ynUpqdQ)
Yes, the Nomad Mk2 in a 590M probably gets me closest to my present Sherpa Mk2 560S, and would be the best choice for me among the broad scope of Thorn's present (newest) lineup. Not as ideal as what I have, but workable with some effort. It would also include [the additional expense and unknown of the Rohloff drivetrain for me, and derailleurs have always worked well for my needs.
You know you'll love it, Danneaux ;)
-
H-bars....You know you'll love it, Danneaux.
...says Pete, CBI (Certified Bad Influence). Welcome to the CBI Club, 'cos the H-'bars are beginning to grow on me! :D Noooooooooo! ;D
And I can see the value of a Rohloff. :D Noooooooooo! ;D
Where's the little emoticon for "angel on one shoulder, devil on the other"? They'll kick me out of the Drop'bar-Derailleur Roadie Club, Man! Maybe if I go with a dual-'ring-and-tensioner half-step Rohloff...? To which Pete says, :D Noooooooooo! ;D
Best and chuckling,
Dan, CBI Emeritus.
(Lovely machine those 'bars are mounted to, Pete! Your rides are all exquisitely prepared...)
-
...perhaps I could be tempted to migrate my MTB parts to a Sherpa Mk3 frame to try out as a balloon bike sometime in the future, although they could perhaps have gone for clearance up to 2.35" Big Apples - something to ponder anyway.
It's a feeling I've always had about Thorn bikes. I have a good deal of experience with a bike designed around the biggest available balloons (Big Apple 622x60) -- and all of it is favourable.
However, from a purely commercial viewpoint, I think you would find sales resistance among tourers to the really big balloons -- many, though they may have heard from creditable sources that balloons have less rolling resistance than narrow tyres, still haven't internalized this crucial message. It might even cost a few sales, as tourers will argue that the extra width means extra weight for zero benefit if they will fit narrower tyres anyway.
I'll tell you something else. I have a Kenda 47mm Kevlar banded tyre that I got free with my electric wheel and which I'm trying, and at 50 or 55psi, except for the noise of the nobbles, you're hard put to distinguish the difference -- until the moment you ride over a square-edged ridge only about an inch high at speed, as I did this afternoon to escape a badly driven SUV by riding onto the pavement (sidewalk to you!) at a driveway, when the Kenda hit the rim hard enough for me to fear snakebites, and the 60mm Big Apple didn't even notice that I was doing something that could disturb its maker. Not necessarily suggesting the Kenda for touring (to much of an offroader for smooth roads, probably not enough of an offroader for really rough going), but it does okay surviving my rougher lanes through the potholes at speeds that would wreck a road tyre and rim. I'm impressed enough not to have swapped it out for several months now.
So I suspect that the 47mm (real width) tyres, that somebody said the the other day would fit, especially if inflated at the low end of the permissible band, and even more especially if not intended to be highly pressured in the first instance, could be a pretty good approximation to balloons, and closer still the smoother the tread. (It would depend on the sidewalls too, and the stiffness of the necessary anti-puncture protection; a scaled-up Marathon Plus won't do this business! It's rubber protection is just too stiff to take advantage of even the slackest sidewalls.)
Andre Jute
-
Hi Andre,
I am always very intrigued by your balloon tire threads and want to jump right in with a reply, but don't want to unduly dilute the Sherpa Mks 2/3 thread. Hmm. I think I've found a way to work it in......47mm (real width) tyres, that somebody said the the other day would fit, especially if inflated at the low end of the permissible band, and even more especially if not intended to be highly pressured in the first instance, could be a pretty good approximation to balloons, and closer still the smoother the tread.
Ah! The Schwalbe 26x2.0 Duremes I run on my Sherpa Mk2 (and will also nicely fit on a Sherpa Mk3), measure out to an actual 47mm in sectional width and profile (1:1). And...they have indeed been a revelation. When I rode them on the 200km ride up Mt. June and back, I had 65psi/4.5bar in them, and they pounded the snot out of my hands. They weren't bad on glass-smooth roads, but the 17mi/27km of singletrack followed by a goodly distance on benign and malignant gravel is where I felt the excess pressure. I came home, dropped the pressures to 45psi/3.1bar and it utterly transformed the ride without having much apparent effect on rolling resistance. I'm continuing my coast-down studies (cross-referenced with wind data, GPS readings, and bike computer, all as a function of time and distance), and will be interested to see what effect various pressures really have on resistance for these tires at the various weights I carry.
Now (swinging the prow of this post-ship once more toward the land of thread relevance), if one had a Sherpa Mk3 (or the fork from one fitted to a Mk2), then it would be possible to run a wider tire on the front, a la Sheldon Brown's expressed preference ( http://sheldonbrown.com/tires.html under "Mixing/Matching Tires"; subhead "Wider Front, Narrower Rear). Through sad experience, I am wary of too widely mix-matching tire section widths, but a marginally wider front tire, as allowed by the wider Sherpa Mk3 fork, might not be a bad thing, and would add to the "balloon-like" effect, especially if the sidewalls are as compliant as those on my Duremes (or their nearly slick cousins, the Surpemes). However, any comfort gains afforded by the wider-section, lower-pressure tires might be offset by the heavier gauge of the new Reynolds Super Tourist fork blades.
Whew.
From what I can gather, rear spacing of the chainstays and seatstays remains the same on the Mk3, so maximum tire width would be the same at the rear as on the Mk2. Really, we're talking about room for only marginally wider tires at the front (3.81mm, about 5/32" wider section width, 1.9mm/about 5/64in) per side, so given the available sizes, is it best to consider it just that much additional mud clearance?
Best,
Dan.
-
Hello,
The sizing of Sherpa MK3 seems quite different to MK2. My small MK2 has a 490mm top tube which is good for having drop handlebars. The shortest top tube now is 540mm, which is quite a difference as even the next size up was 510mm in the short length. This makes it no better than the Dawes Horizon I was replacing. Perhaps this means SJSC does not approve of drop handlebars. The thing is though; if the sizing is just for the mass market then one may as well shop elsewhere..
Traa
Jane
-
Hi Jane,
I readily agree, it appears life will be harder for those Thorn enthusiasts who also prefer drop handlebars. There's going to be a run on shorter-reach stems, methinks. Still, I'm reserving final judgement till the new brochures arrive showing photos of the new MK3s.
There is another issue that we haven't considered but might well influence Thorn's new geometry.
Going ahead, it is now very much more difficult to mix Shimano's road and MTB components thanks to a change in cable-pull ratios for their 10-sp MTB rear mechs compared to the road derailleurs and shifters. The cable pull in Shimano's 10-sp MTB RDs is different from everything else in their line, and will only work with matching 10-sp MTB shifters. The pulleys don't seem to be a problem, it is the geometry of the parallelogram and the resulting change in cable pull that is at issue.
It is still possible to use 10-sp road shifters (i.e. bar-end shifters) with a 10-sp cassette and a 9-sp rear derailleur.
Another alternative is to go with SRAM drivetrain components, as their 10-sp road and MTB components are compatible with each other.
Yet another alternative for future is the Jtek Engineering Shiftmate: http://jtekengineering.com/shiftmate.htm It is a bit like a v-brake Travel Agent adapted to rear derailleur use. Appears very nicely made. In muddy conditions? Dunno. Could be problematic, though it has a sealed bearing on the reduction pulley.
If Thorn wish to stay with Shimano or they see the handwriting on the wall wrt the future availability of 9-sp MTB derailleurs, perhaps they have decided to standardize on frame geometry that favors straight 'bars and compatible MTB shifters.
[EDIT: Immediately after I wrote this, Shimano announced 11-sp Dura-Ace drivetrains for introduction Fall, 2012. The mechanical Dura-Ace 9000 will be available in September and Dura-Ace Di2 9070 in November.].
Pondering...
Best,
Dan.
-
I agree a 540mm top tube is pretty long for drop bars if you're a female...I had to fit a short stem to my second hand XTC (550 top tube) to make it work.
I read about this Shimano gear change in the CTC (UK cycling charity) letters section. Unless there is a clear performance reason, it could just be to sell more kit, as Shimano has done in the past with non exchangeable parts, or parts that need special tools to service.
#sigh.
Their kit IS very good though, that's the problem...SRAM/Campagnolo (especially) are more expensive for the same performance :-[
Well we're all going to Hub Gears with straight bars then? ;D
-
Pictures of new Sherpa Mk3 frames and forks are in the shop:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-sherpa-frames-dept664_pg1/
I like the long head tubes.
-
Oh, nicely found, jlg!
Yes, the extended headtube will address critics of the number of spacers used in the past, as well as provide a longer axis between headset cups.
There's also a "real" seat collar (like the Nomad) instead of some brazed-on bosses.
It certainly looks nice; that glossy finish on the red is unreal!
Best,
Dan.
-
To quickly add to my previous comments...
Have you noticed there is a new logo?
That step-through design is particularly nicely done, with a trapezoid, a parallelogram, and triangulation.
It would also get the handlebars up nicely using few spacers. Really intriguing bottle-boss placement. I'm thinking the rear v-brake cable housing will likely approach from the front or below.
I've always been intrigued by mixte and other accessible frame designs, and this one looks a corker.
Best,
Dan. (who has already set to work with drawing tools to see where the virtual top tube "would" be...I have friends who will find this model appealing)
-
Looks good, extended head tube is definitely an improvement.
Think I like the old Thorn logo better though.
New Raven frames are also on the website :
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-raven-frame-black-prod27984/
And the forks to go with both the Sherpa and the Raven :
Heavy duty fork http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-st1-1-1-8-inch-ahead-fork-black-prod27986/
Light duty fork http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-c2-1-1-8-inch-ahead-fork-black-prod27988/
-
Hi All. What the tubing on the new Sherpa model as I noticed on of the forks was 853?
-
Hi Phil!
The new Sherpa Mk3 uses the same Thorn 969 chro-moly tubing as before, but in different diameters and with revised sizes and geometry.
As the brochure indicates (Issue 20, late Spring 2012, pg 16, here: http://www.sjscycles.com/thornpdf/ThornSherpaBroHiRes.pdf )...
The smallest frames now use standard-size tubing (1" top tube, 1-1/8" down tube).
The small- to medium-size frames use oversize tubing (1-1/8" top, 1-1/4" down tube).
The large frames use extra-oversize tubes (1-1/4" top tube, 1-3/8" down tube).
The frame sizes have changed, and these tubing diameters are distributed differently among the frame sizes than they were for the Mk2 Sherpa. With the Mk3 Sherpas, Andy has taken the opportunity to more directly match tubing sizes to frame size and expected rider weight (for example...smaller riders are also lighter and get smaller frames and lighter, smaller-diameter tubing. The smaller-diameter tubing is still proportionally stiff because shorter lengths are used). The cargo capacites differ from the earlier range.
The standard fork is made from Reynolds SuperTourist cro-mo, and are designated ST-1 in the brochure. This is a heavier-duty fork than before and has an uprated cargo capacty according to the load charts in the brochure. It has bosses to mount Low-Loader pannier racks.
The lightweight fork is made from competition-weight Reynolds 853. This lighter fork lacks low-rider (Low-Loader) pannier rack bosses. This fork is intended for commuting and light touring. The brochure says this light fork can make the Sherpa a "formidable balloon bike".
Andy notes that both forks will take a 2.15" tire if desired, and both forks have mounting bosses for mudguards.
Best,
Dan.
-
So, as a mk2 Sherpa owner ( build in progress) I personally went for a Sherpa as a rugged load carrier, I intend to cycle camp solo frequently on mine. My current stead, a 531st Claud buttler bought from sjs by my father before thorn appeared as their in house brand seems about up to my current needs; but when under load it feels like the headset and seat tube are connected by bungie cord. This disconcerting feeling made me look for an alternative, the Sherpa representing an entire rethink off touring bikes (as a posed to the club tour which seems to me a refinement of a classic design ) attracted my eye.
So, back on topic. The sherpa for me is all about carrying capacity, so how do I feel as a recent purchaser of mk ii when the mk iii has just arrived? Well on the plus side: my mk ii has a higher load carrying capacity for its size than the mk iii equivalent due to the move to over vs super over size tubing in the middle sizes. However the new standard fork seems to be stronger \ more robust. A win lose situation therefore
I have no plans to do so but do we expect the mk iii fork to fit the mk ii frame, if not how long do we expect sjs to stock spare mkii forks? Should we be investing spares in spares?
-
Hi Mark!
The new Mk3 fork will fit the Mk2 frame, so you would always have that option.
In practical terms, forks don't really fail apart from the frame. Forks mostly fail from accidentally running at speed into curbs and such or being hit by cars, and if that happens...well, the frame usually buckles just behind the head- and downtubes, so you'd be out a frame anyway in that case (and awfully lucky to avoid getting Badly Hurt).
So, I wouldn't worry too much about laying-in spare forks. The Mk3 fork would do fine as a replacement if needed (and is cosmetically identical except for the tubing logo on the side and the tiny wheel-retention tabs ["lawyer's lips"]). The only possible difference might be a slightly stiffer ride from the heavier-gauge fork blades, but it would be a minimal difference at best. Most of the suspension comes from the compliance of the front tire and is dependent on the section width, profile, and pressure used.
I think you'll be pleased with your Sherpa for its intended purpose. Many have been used successfully worldwide in just that way, and -- if anything -- you'll enjoy the greater load capacity of the Mk2 frame as you mentioned. If you ever wish to increase the rated front carrying capacity, you could go with a replacement fork, which is surprisingly reasonable at ~£100 with complete braze-ons and powdercoated to match in original colors:
http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-sherpa-1-1-8-inch-ahead-531st-fork-matted-black-prod15597/
Congratulations on your soon-to-arrive Sherpa. Pictures! Eagerly awaiting any photos you may wish to post in the gallery, Mark. Looking forward to the Day of Arrival for you! A couple questions -- what size and color did you get, and have you chosen a name?
Best,
Dan.