Sherpa Mk3

[Danneaux]

 

<pop> Headslap. 

Well...duh! 

Can I please blame it on our recent switch-back to Daylight Savings Time? Nah, didn't think so... 

Thanks for straightening me out, Rual; I got a good chuckle out of it!

All the best,

Dan.

[jlg]

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?

[rualexander]

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.

[jlg]

sorry for being vague, try this:

http://www.sjscycles.co.uk/thorn-c2-1-1-8-inch-ahead-fork-black-prod27988/

[rualexander]

Thanks, interesting stuff, shame there's no photo yet.

[NZPeterG]

I'm just waiting to see photo's before working out which frame to Order.

 

[Danneaux]

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.

[macspud]

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.

[Danneaux]

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.

[macspud]

-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.

[macspud]

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.

[Danneaux]

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.

[macspud]

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?

[Danneaux]

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.

[macspud]

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.