divtag

I was looking at the '10 Casseroll, but they sold out early. Then the '11 Casseroll got announced and looked even better. I like the idea of being able to run the wider tires and the front rack is an added bonus. I was at the LBS, they said min-January on the Casseroll at ~$1,200 for the complete.

Then . . . I noticed '10 Rocky Mountain Sherpa on sale for $779. That stoked my interest. $400 cheaper.

I don't know enough about components and geometry to know exactly what I am looking at. The bike will replace my CrossCheck (too much hassle/cost to swap out drivetrain, wheels, and handlebars to get it how I want, so plan is to sell on CL/ebay to help recoup cost of new bike).

The purpose would be 50 mile weekend rides (not group rides, just leisurely Fred riding), short commute, general riding, thinking of trying this century business at some point, and maybe a credit card tour down the West coast.

Either bike I'd put on my Brooks and want to swap the bars for Salsa Woodchippers are something similar. From my limited knowledge, I'd probably like the cassette from the Sherpa (11-32) with the crank of the Casseroll (48/36/20) or one of those 46/30 doubles. The Sherpa crank is kind of weird at 52/42/30. My CrossCheck is 52/39, 11-25 and a big reason why I am bike shopping. I am never in the 52 and 39-25 is not low enough.

One catch, is the smallest Sherpa left is 53cm. I am 5'7. Fit chart on the Salsa site says I would likely ride a 53cm for the Casseroll. My LBS said the same. However, the Sherpa has a different geometry, so not sure if it is one size too big. LBS doesn't carry Rocky Mountain, so they couldn't help much.

As far as components/bikes what are the big differences? $779 seems a good price and saves $400.

https://salsacycles.com/bikes/casseroll/

vs

https://www.bikes.com/main+en+01_102+...ATID=26&Y=2010

njkayaker

I have the Sherpa 30 with 30/42/52 on the front and a 32-11 on the rear. The triple is a standard road triple (it's geared higher than what is considered appropriate for touring). I'm 5'9'' and have a 52 (RM changed the frames in 2009 a bit: it's actually 52.5 and the 53 is a tiny bit bigger). I'm running a bit shorter stem (90mm, I think). The 53 might be a bit large for you.

I mostly use mine for long (and hilly) rides (unloaded). That is, I used it for the kind of riding you plan to do (except I do that riding usually with other people). I don't use the highest two gears but have been using the 52 front more frequently on faster rides.

I'd say the gearing on the Sherpa would be fine. And the Sherpa would be appropriate for the riding you plan to do.

Of course, the Cassaroll is nice too.

NormanF

Go with the Salsa Vaya. Its more capable than the Casseroll.

Bekologist

the 2011 casseroll is a downright sexy bike! so nice, curved fork finally and a mini front rack! the color is appealing too!

NeilGunton

I really like my Rocky Mountain Sherpa 10. It can take 700x50 tires, and it seems to be very solid with a load. Those are really nice bikes. Are you looking at a Sherpa 10 or Sherpa 30?

njkayaker

The price seems to indicate a Sherpa 10. I think it works fine unloaded too.

divtag

I was looking at the Sherpa 10, Jensen has it on sale for $779. I was worried the size is too big. Also, how it rides unloaded (what I'd mostly use it for), but njkayaker says it rides fine for that purpose.

I looked at the Vaya, but that is more than I was looking to spend. Plus, not sure on the disc brakes. I also want to get a dynohub & light, fenders, and a rear rack. I already have Acorn medium bag and Ortilieb Backpacker Plus rear panneirs, but I have a Topeak rack that I'd like to upgrade.

NeilGunton

The way to compare bikes is to look at the frame geometry numbers - in particular, the top tube length (or, for sloping top tubes, the effective top tube length) measurement can let you see if one bike will be similar to another that you can look at "in the flesh". So try to find the geometry chart for the particular Sherpa that is on sale, and then you can find a bike in the local shop perhaps that has a similar top tube measurement. The standover height is also important, obviously, but with sloping top tubes this has become a bit less of an issue these days (but still obviously good to know you'll be able to stand over the frame without hitting your crotch all the time). The top tube length is just as important as the standover, I think, because it determines how stretched out or scrunched up you'll be. This will affect how comfortable you'll be when riding the bike for long days on the road. If the bike is not a good fit then you won't want to ride it. While you can compensate a little by switching stems, this is more for fine tweaking than making up for the wrong size frame - somewhere between 90mm and 120mm is the usual range of stem lengths.

By the way, fit charts can be a little misleading, since they assume you are of average body dimensions. When I was looking at the Surly Long Haul Trucker, I thought I'd be on a 58 or 60cm frame, based on the charts, but when I went to actually do some test rides, it turned out that the top tube was way too long for me. I seem to have relatively longer legs and shorter torso/arm reach for my height. So I ended up with a 56cm, and even then I had to have the shortest possible stem (about 80 or 90mm as I recall - this was back in 2007). So take these charts with a pinch of salt; the best thing to do is to find a local bike shop that can fit you to a bike so you can go away with some numbers like what effective top tube you need, and what standover. Then you can look at any geometry chart and tell at a glance if that bike will work for you or not. If the bike shop wants to charge too much for a fit, then you can simply find a bike that seems to fit you (this requires some test rides, since it can be hard to tell by simply getting on and standing there), and measure the frame geometry yourself with a tape measure (remember to take into account the stem length as well). Armed with this knowledge will remove a lot of the guesswork from this process.

Neil

forresterace

As a matter of interest, it appears that for 2011, Rocky Mountain has dropped the Sherpa 10. The only touring bike listed on their 2011 website is the Sherpa 30.

NeilGunton

Also, the Sherpa 30 only seems to be listed on the Canadian version of the site - I can't see it listed at all under "Road" on the US version. It's not clear if they are keeping the Sherpa line or slowly phasing it out - I'll write to them and ask what's going on there. They've done this website shenanigans before, and when I called them they assured me that the Sherpa line is safe. But now you can't even get through on the phone - it goes straight to an answerphone when you select customer service. Kinda crappy, but they told me when I talked last time that having someone to answer the phones was costing them too much money. Seems like a rather basic part of doing business if you ask me... oh well, they do make great bikes!

Neil

njkayaker

Cassaroll:

https://salsacycles.com/bikes/casseroll/

Size 51cm, seat-tube 480mm, HTT 510 mm
Size 53cm, seat-tube 500mm, HTT 530 mm
Size 54cm, seat tube 555mm, HTT 545mm

Sherpa:

https://www.bikes.com/main+en+01_102+...ATID=26&Y=2010

Size 50cm, seat tube 500mm, HTT 535mm
Size 53cm, seat tube 530mm, HTT 550mm

The Sherpa has a more sloping top-tube. The 53 Sherpa matches the 55 cm Cassaroll (about).

I see both for 2010. RMB doesn't show next year's models (eg, 2011) until later (they did the same thing last year).

https://www.bikes.com/main+en+01_101+...ATID=26&Y=2010

Top tube length is more important than standover (as long as you have some clearance...).

Keep in mind that people prefer different things. Keep in mind, too, that there aren't radical differences in feel and handling between bikes (that aren't too dissimilar). The Sherpa is a touring bike, which means it tracks more than your typical road "racing" bike. It's also a bit heavier (but people routinely over estimate the performance value of lighter weight). You don't need the "twitchier" handling of a racing bike (though, you might prefer it). The Sherpa frame is fine for unloaded riding: it's a good compromise for a bike that can do loaded and unloaded touring (in my opinion).

The Cassaroll components match the level of components of the Sherpa 30. I'd say the components on the 10 are solid but the components are a bit nicer on the other two (Cassaroll and Sherpa 30). The Sora shifters on the 10 have thumb levers, which some people don't like. (I like the Tiagra levers). (Note that the Tektro pads are not good in wet.)

divtag

Thanks, guys.

My CrossCheck is 50cm I believe. I bought it off of CL a year and a half ago and that is what the owner said. I don't see it labeled on the frame anywhere. It is about the right size, maybe a size too small, but close enough. Looking at the XCheck geometry it looks about the same as the Casseroll 53cm. Both of which are smaller than the 53cm Sherpa 10. The standover height is often an issue because I have short legs, 26-27 inches (pant size). Both the Sherpa and Casseroll have a sloping tube, so that should be fine.

As far as shifters, I like the barcon shifters on my XCheck and would probably look to do a swap. Though I have never actually used brifters before.

The Sherpa sure is a good price, but it just might be too big. Price doesn't matter if it doesn't fit. I was hoping to get a deal like a did on the El Mariachi (almost 1/2 off this time last year), but most bike manufacturers had smaller productions runs this year and no leftover inventory.

seat_boy

I have a Crosscheck now and have had a Casseroll in the past. They ride very similarly. If your only issue on the CC is the gearing, that's relatively easy to change. Swap in a new rear cassette, add a third chainring to the crank (I think the stock CC crank allows this), maybe you need to change the bottom bracket, and you're off. If you're looking at a new front wheel for a dynohub, new bars, etc... it may not make a lot of sense to buy a new, complete bike.

divtag

Not so easy. My CC was not a complete, it was built from the frame by the previous owner. It has a DuraAce double, can't add/change rings. I'd have to change crank, FD, RD, cassette, BB and I want stronger wheels that will accept fatter tires and swap out the handlebars for something like the Woodchippers.

Add all of that up, plus the labor and it doesn't make sense. I am probably even better off selling it and buying a CC complete that is built the way I want since LBS gives credit when swapping out components on new bikes.

njkayaker

My inseam is about 30 and I'm 5'9''. My pubis bone is about 32.5. I'm OK on the 52.5 cm Sherpa. You really need to try it.

I like my Tiagra brifters: they are very convenient on fast group rides.

I think it might be too big. You might not have any standover height.