Sherpa Tubing Specs

[vik]

Anyone know what the tubing specs are for the Sherpa?  The brochure says double butted 4130 steel, but doesn't give the thicknesses of the tubes or any other info.

[john28july]

Anyone know what the tubing specs are for the Sherpa?  The brochure says double butted 4130 steel, but doesn't give the thicknesses of the tubes or any other info.

Hello,
My Sherpa is Reynolds 525. The latest tube is a very similar Chro moly.
John.

[jags]

my sherpa says 969 double butted heat treated cro mo, the folk is 531
oh and it rides great..

[vik]

my sherpa says 969 double butted heat treated cro mo, the folk is 531
oh and it rides great..

969 is Thorn's 4130 Cro-mo tube name.  Does anyone know what the tube thicknesses are?

[PH]

969 is Thorn's 4130 Cro-mo tube name.  Does anyone know what the tube thicknesses are?

Yes, 969.  Or to be precise 0.9-0.6-0.9
Now what are you going to do with that information?

[vik]

Yes, 969.  Or to be precise 0.9-0.6-0.9
Now what are you going to do with that information?

Thanks...I'm going to compare it to the 4130 tubing used in my other touring bike.

[PH]

Thanks...I'm going to compare it to the 4130 tubing used in my other touring bike.

To do that you'd also need to know the diameter and the profile, I don’t know what those are.
I'm as big a bike geek as anyone, I find this stuff interesting.  But when it comes to buying a bike I think you've either got to trust that the designer has chosen the best material for the job, or go somewhere else.  What they do with the material is far more important than it's technical detail and with a Thorn you get the chance to test this for yourself and send it back if you don't like it.

[vik]

To do that you'd also need to know the diameter and the profile, I don’t know what those are.
I'm as big a bike geek as anyone, I find this stuff interesting.  But when it comes to buying a bike I think you've either got to trust that the designer has chosen the best material for the job, or go somewhere else.  What they do with the material is far more important than it's technical detail and with a Thorn you get the chance to test this for yourself and send it back if you don't like it.

In general I agree with your sentiment.  But, living in Canada for all intents and purposes any Thorn purchase I make is a one way transaction.  I can sell it used on EBay, but the cost and hassle to ship bikes back and forth across the pond is a pretty large obstacle to their test ride policy.  Also if I just buy the frame - which is what I did to keep shipping costs down - there is no trial period at all.

I wanted the info out of curiosity and to compare for interests sake.  The EXP brochure has quite a lot of tubing info and I wanted to see how my Sherpa was built.  I'm not worried that it is suddenly going to explode or anything, but I don't see anything wrong with providing that sort of information to your customers either.

I have a lot of faith in Thorn bicycles simply because so many have been proven on tours all over the world.

[peter jenkins]

I think Vik makes a valid point. I bought a Club Tour on line from Australia prior to a trip to the UK and was considerably surprised by its weight when I collected it from SJS. The brochure is silent on weight and I had rather naively assumed that being constructed of 725 tubing it would be comparable to (or lighter than) my existing 531 steed. Now I know that not all 725 tubing is equal. Had the tubing specs been available, a potential purchaser (more savvy than I) would be able to make an informed decision. On the other hand it might be simpler to show the weight on the brochure as SJS has done with the Audax Mk.3.

I have come to appreciate the virtues of my Thorn, but still have fun watching other people pick it up expecting something about 2KG lighter.

[PH]

I think Vik makes a valid point.

To a point.  As I said earlier, you'd need more than the tube thickneses to make that comparison.  You'd be better off reading the reviews which all give the frame and fork weights.  The Sherpa review has the medium size frame 2.49kg and the forks 1.17kg.   It's easy then to find reviews of similar bikes to make a genuine comparison.

I have come to appreciate the virtues of my Thorn, but still have fun watching other people pick it up expecting something about 2KG lighter.

I'm puzzeled as to why anyone would expect your Tour to be much lighter.  With a frame and fork weight of 3.1kg it can't be that and the rest of the components seem to be similar to those of comparable bikes.

Now I know that not all 725 tubing is equal.

Indeed, here's the full list;
http://www.reynoldscycles.co.uk/downloads/PARTLIST.pdf
The difference between the heaviest and lightest would be around 300g on a medium frame.

It's all bike geek stuff

[peter jenkins]

Hi PH,

Thanks for your response and the link to the list of tubing specs.

To be honest, I hunted (and Googled) high and low for a review of the Club Tour prior to purchase in 2005 but without success. The only review I have been able to run to earth is in Cycling + 189 (November 2006) and is now reproduced on the Thorn site. I am sure I still would have bought the bike had I read the review.

In answer to your puzzlement, the reason other people are surprised at the weight is purely because tourers are not popular in this part of the world (Brisbane in Australia) and nearly everyone rides lightweight road bikes (or MTB’s.) They just don’t expect a road bike to weigh more than 10kg.

Cheers,
pj

[vik]

Given the amount of prose in most of the Thorn brochures I can' see why there isn't room for all the tubing specs in them and a short bit of explanation why this tubing was selected.  I'm all for reading reviews, but getting information about the bike straight from the manufacturer shouldn't be a big deal.

[PH]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I hope you find the information you're looking for and are happy with the bike you choose.