Rocky Mountain's New Adventure Bike - Sea Otter 2015

Apr 15, 2015 at 23:15
by Mike Levy  
Views: 12,679    Faves: 21    Comments: 0

bigquotesWe designed the Sherpa for riders who want to get out and explore the world. From bushwhacking in Idaho, to traversing military trails in the Dolomites, to racing the Colorado Trail, to travelling long forgotten game trails in the Himalayas - the Sherpa is made for anyone whose adventures regularly require a GPS beacon. - Rocky Mountain Bicycles



Do you like adventures? Looking to cover some big miles? Take pride in being self-supported? Rocky Mountain's new Sherpa could be up your alley if you answered yes to any of those questions, although it's a bike that might also be best suited to those with an open mind. This isn't a cross-country bike in the classic sense, and it most certainly isn't one of the new breed of beefed up short-travel bikes, but it looks to be a machine that you might be able to ride pretty much anywhere that one would ever want to ride a bike. And that's the exact idea behind the $4,499 USD Sherpa: to be able to ride anywhere, but to not be limited in the fun department because you're on some rigid 29er that's scarier to pound through technical sections aboard than waiting for the results of an STD test. The Sherpa is a proper mountain bike for bikepacking, not a 'gravel grinder' with a riser handlebar on it.


Rocky Mountain s Sherpa
  The Sherpa looks a lot like a proper mountain bike with huge tires, which is exactly what it is.

Rocky Mountain s Sherpa


The bike, and especially its mega-wide tires, aren't designed for speed, and Rocky Mountain isn't shy about that. ''For all their advantages, they are slower and heavier than traditional 29er systems on smoother terrain,'' Rocky says of the Sherpa and its tire setup. ''So if you're looking to win an XC World Cup, then 27.5+ probably isn't for you. Also, more volume means their sidewalls are taller than traditional tires, limiting cornering stability. A Landcruiser isn't great at the race track, but hits its stride when things get rough.'' Rocky also wants to stress that the Sherpa and its wide 27.5+ wheels and tires aren't meant to replace more traditional bikes, but rather be another alternative for those who want to get out there and do it on something a bit different.



The 27.5+ wheeled Sherpa, which was first shown in prototype form at last year's Sea Otter, rolls on 2.8'' wide WTB Trailblazer tires that are tall enough in height that their outer diameter roughly equals that of a 29" tire, which makes sense because the bike's front triangle is actually from the 95mm travel, carbon fiber Element. Up front is a Manitou's new 120mm travel Magnum fork that's basically a shrunk down Mattoc (which means it should kick a lot of ass), but things are even more interesting out back.

Rocky has mated the Element front triangle with an extra-wide aluminum rear end that provides clearance for any 27.5+ tire that you'd want to run, and it's interesting to note that they've stuck with the common and easily sourced 12 x 142mm hub width rather than going down the Boost road. A custom tuned Manitou Mcleod shock has been valved to better work with how the high-volume tires react to the terrain, as well to handle a bike loaded with camp stove, tent, and pounds of gummy bears, booze, and whatever other supplies a bikepacker might need for an unsupported trip into the woods.

With a two chain ring, 10spd drivetrain and wide, tubeless tires, the Sherpa's spec (shown at right) is about all-day usability rather than flexing your might against riding buddies up the local hill climb. It's ready for adventure right out of the gate, and all you'd really need is a set of frame-bags if you're planning on escaping the oncoming zombie apocalypse by heading into the bush - Rocky Mountain recommends bags from Porcelain Rocket.



Sherpa Parts Spec

Frame: Smoothwall Carbon, custom hydroformed rear end
Shock: Manitou McLeod custom valved, 95mm travel
Fork: Manitou Magnum 27.5+, 120mm. TPC Absolute+ damper
Headset: Cane Creek Fifteen Series
Brake Levers: Shimano M506, I-Spec
Brakes: Shimano M506, 180mm rotors
Cassette: Shimano HG50 11-36T 10spd
Chain: KMC X10 10spd EcoProtect Anti-Rust
Cranks: Race Face Turbine Cinch, 170-175mm, 38/24T
Bottom Bracket: Race Face Cinch 30mm BB92 PressFit
Shifters: Shimano SLX Rapid Fire I-Spec 2x10spd
Front Derailleur: Shimano Deore E Mount 2x10spd
Rear Derailleur: Shimano XT Shadow Plus Direct Mount, 10spd
Front Hub: SUNringlé SRC Plus / Fat Fork Specific, 15x110mm
Rear Hub: DT Swiss 350, 12 x 142mm axle / Star Ratchet freehub
Spokes: DT Swiss Competition
Rims: WTB Scraper i45 27.5+ TCS Tubeless Ready
Tires: WTB Trailblazer 27.5+ TCS 27.5" x 2.8" Tubeless Ready
Handlebar: Race Face Evolve 3/4 Riser x 725mm x 9° Sweep
Stem: Race Face 6° x 70-100mm
Grips: Rocky Mountain LockOn Mushroom
Saddle: WTB Volt Race
Seatpost: Rocky Mountain XC 30.9mm x 400mm



Rocky Mountain s Sherpa
Rocky spec'd a 120mm travel Manitou Magnum up front.
Rocky Mountain s Sherpa
The Sherpa's carbon front triangle is actually from an Element, but the back end uses much wider spaced stays to clear huge tires.

Discovering The Black Canyon Trail
  Bikepacking doesn't have to mean mindless droning along gravel roads, as Wade Simmons shows us.


Rocky Mountain s Sherpa
  See, bikepackers have friends, too. They're not all lonely weirdos.


Rocky Mountain s Sherpa
  Weekend goals.


www.bikes.com

Author Info:
mikelevy avatar

Member since Oct 18, 2005
2,032 articles

166 Comments
  • 119 3
 love the graphics :-)
  • 50 1
 We need to see more bikes like this.
  • 22 2
 I am usually more of a keep it simple guy, but I like the graphics on this frame.
  • 4 1
 cant wait to get this in the shop! Rocky Mountains are by far my favorite bike
  • 4 0
 I almost think it's the colour more than the graphics. Kudos to RM for another sweet bike.
  • 11 7
 The graphics are cool, but you can go bikepacking with almost any kind of mountainbike... This is true marketing bullshit. Get a handlebar bag and a seatbag and you're ready to go. Also the 142mm hub being easily replaced in case of failure is bullshit. 135mm is what you can find all around...
  • 2 1
 Oh, if we're going to call them on replacement parts, I think the tires are where the real problem lies.

That said, I got a pair of trailblazers Monday (Universal cycles got them in stock today, for those interested) & they look rad, can't wait to get the wheelset built. Big Grin
  • 2 9
flag Reignonme (Apr 16, 2015 at 13:02) (Below Threshold)
 Graphics are killer.. Funny, isn't RM a Canadien company? You think they'd know better than to name a bike after an ethnic group. I mean, we'd probably do that here in the US, but in Canada? Seems like that's a pretty big faux pas. Would they name a bike that was really good in sand "The Arab"?
  • 10 0
 @RobbyBriers bikepacking is rad no matter what bike you're on! The biggest advantage of 27.5+ wheels for bikepacking other than their obvious traction, float, and stability over chunder are that they allow you to run lower pressures even loaded down. Adding 40lbs of gear, food, and water to a bike with 29x2.2 tires means running super high PSIs to not rim out over tech stuff, and nobody wants harsh, sketchy feeling overinflated tires.

When it comes to the dropouts, 135 wasn't an option—in order to make the back end of the bike stiff and strong enough to handle the extra weight and torque of a loaded down bike we would have had to build it way too heavy. So we had a choice between 142 and 148, and for the Sherpa it was pretty clear that the availability of 142 was an advantage for its intended use. Fair point to @groghunter that the tires are the hardest-to-replace part on tour. Definitely a limiting factor at the moment.

Cheers!
  • 41 4
 i can see how tent, a pan, tarp etc etc gear could be light enough for a trip like this but what i dont get is food and water. how could you ever load 3 4 5 6 days worth of food and water onto a bike and expect it to be fun to ride? wonder if theres anywhere out there you could go on a trip like this and rely on fishing to feed yourself and clean spring water? would be unreal
  • 39 0
 dehydrated food packets are pretty light
  • 59 0
 Water and purifier pump along with dried food.
  • 10 0
 hmmm. anyone know how much 3000 calories worth of dried food weighs?
  • 9 2
 Just looked at the ones I had. About 500 calories of dehydrated food is around 4 ounces dry weight; BUT... You don't really eat just dehydrated packs. Sometimes pack nuts, energy bars, energy shake mix, etc. And filter pump for water is best option.
  • 9 1
 @noahcharles "How could you ever load 3 4 5 6 days worth of food and water onto a bike and expect it to be fun to ride?"

I agree, wouldn't it be more fun just an overnight trip? During the video where the group rides through Arizona, there is footage of them stopping in little towns/store/outpost. I think you would have to plan the trip carefully and try to get a few trails that link together and a few stores or places to resupply. Also it would be good to have a plan in place in case of injury or destroyed bike , etc
  • 6 0
 right. but theres a certain allure of getting increasingly farther from civilization isnt there? and being on a bike being able to travel so much faster makes it all the more intense versus on foot. that ever looming risk of bike failure
  • 5 1
 Latest issue of Bicycle Times magazine...article on fatpacking Bolivia, includes gear suggestions.
  • 24 0
 Chew cactus ans grill scorpions!
  • 1 0
 Bringing water purification tablets is a light and safe option?
  • 7 0
 Survival straws. Weigh literally a few grams each and you can drink horse piss through them if you had to.
  • 9 0
 Back up vehicle hauls in the beers and red meat I bet :-)
  • 3 1
 Not sure if this would work on a ride, but for easy water in the desert dig a small hole put a cup in it, cover the hole with plastic wrap and put a rock or pebble above the cup on top of the plastic wrap. I know this works in the desert, not sure about any place not quite as hot. Might not give you quite enough water though if you are exercising
  • 2 0
 I've had friends do a month hiking the pacific crest trail with just their packs... Yeah you have plenty of stops to re supply but at least with this beast you could cover more ground.
  • 8 0
 @noahcharles

Red meat, bread, and beer on the first night - shortest travel day while you adjust.
Eggs, tortillas, cheese, hot sauce for breakfast fuel day 2 - and lots of it. This is the longest travel day.
Dried foods, nut-butter, gels, coffee, filtered water for the in between average days. Up to three is relatively easy.
Last day plans to end around 3 - so when you're off schedule you still hit the bar/restaurant that you have strategically ended at before it closes
To extend, the last day above becomes a reprovision, sleep in relative civilization night version of day 1. Get a shower, clean your undies, and repeat.

Just like hiking. Have fun out there and tell people your planned route and check-ins.
  • 2 0
 I worked wilderness therapy. Carried a week's worth if dried food every week. Easy peasy. But if you don't like that route just pick trails that take you through town every couple days.
  • 2 0
 Also, if it is a group you spread it all out. If you're sharing a tent with one other person, only one person has to carry the tent on the bike, freeing up other guy to carry food.
  • 1 0
 they're also stopping in small towns / bars along the way . im sure they're not solely relying on whats in their pack . (plus a film crew / pickupjeep thing im in love with . that runs next to the trail in their case )
  • 2 0
 For 3-5 day trips, you can whittle your gear down to 25 lbs, which isnt that hard to pedal with
  • 2 0
 @noahcharles

Just give bikepacking a shot and you'll know how amazing and fun it is. Last year I did three multi day trips though rugged BC terrain and they were a blast, even while carrying 40lbs of gear. Can't wait for my next trip!
  • 2 0
 Or you can lug all your gear out to base camp on day 1 and shred with just a daypack on for days 2 thru whenever. I think it would be dope.
  • 2 0
 Hiking in the desert I generally carried around 45lbs of gear with a homemade back pack (willow branches lashed together with animal sinew and a tarp lashed to that with cordage). Keeping some of that weight on the bike and using a much lighter tent than my tarp it would be easy to have a lot of fun traversing the wilds on two wheels for days at a time. I would personally like large and very durable tires. The weight is worth it when you don't have to worry about flats so much. I would like a gearbox too for reliability reasons. A belt drive, gearbox, and a simple hub is going to be far less troublesome over a long haul. Maybe when I retire I will take a back country ride across the more rugged places of North America.
  • 1 0
 Most water in the Rockies and Pac Northwest have trout, just check the local laws on what your allowed to catch, how much, and when. Carry a nice and light 8' 3wt. fly rod, a small assortment of attractor flies and you should be good to go (assuming that you can fish) for a short trip.
  • 2 0
 A base pack weight of 15 pounds is quite reasonable for a desert trip. Factor in about 2 pounds of food per day and you can keep the pack weight to 30 pounds, plus water for a 1 week trip. It just requires a reassessment of what you really need, which isn't much.
  • 3 0
 I could see this bike making big strides in the rental market in areas with access to fishing for people looking to get off the beaten path. A bike shop could have the bike totally spec'd out for travel and you bring your rod, clothes, sleeping bag. Lot more fun than hiking to a spot to camp/fish over a weekend
  • 1 1
 Re:desert water.... depending on the "desert" you can often find water sources. If there's green vegetation that isn't simply cactii... then there's water in the ground. You'll likely be packing a small shovel anyway to dig a latrine hole so... might as well dig a shallow well to provide some water for filtering. Also a wind trap is easy to make with lightweight materials (like mylar) and can drip feed a small water bottle overnight in some areas of the world that bike packers go to.

Also as to using these (and fat bikes) for rentals in fishing/hunting allowed areas like many state/provincial park land.Jim Felt (owner of Felt Bicycles) is a hunter and specifically had one of his fat bikes done in a camo finish because he uses it to hunt with. With racks for his rifle or bow and an electric motor he can ride into his campsite, setup, bag a "whatever is in season", gut the animal, pack up the meat on the bike, and use the motor to ride out to his vehicle.
  • 1 0
 @noahcharles we had it pretty easy on this trip and definitely overpacked. Lots of water available (the Sawyer Squeeze Mini is awesome, you can even run it inline on your hydration pack if you commit to having a dirty water hydration bladder), and we did jump out for a big feed and insanely good pie at Black Canyon City.

@driftmonster the film crew was Brian Vernor, who lugged all his own gear plus camping stuff for the trip. The truck is an AEV Brute that our friends at Overland Journal were kind enough to help out with for the trip. We definitely got picked up in style!
  • 2 0
 Sawyer squeeze (or Sawyer mini) is the shit. There's absolutely nothing that comes close in terms of capability vs cost.
  • 2 0
 Just set myself up with a sawyer mini + ketchup pump for a backpacking/trail work trip this weekend.
  • 2 0
 Come to New Zealand and you can pretty much drink from most streams and catch a fish or two in quite a few of them Smile
  • 1 0
 When we do these trips we ride till we see a gnarly line we wanna hit and we drop our gear for a bit. Its well worth it IMO but its not for everyone, just remember to have fun yourself and let others do the same.
  • 20 1
 So basicly the bike industry is trying to sell us the boost standard for 27.5+ bike, and the first 27.5+ bike reviewed here uses traditional axles...
  • 17 8
 No... Boost was developed by Trek in partnership with SRAM for 29ers first and foremost. Rocky's sherpa was developed in partnership with WTB (who produced the tires and rims) and was first seen at Sea Otter LAST year. Often "standards" get developed exclusively in partnerships between bicycle manufacturers and component brands, and later (a model year or two) get adopted by other brands also. Giant for example was the first company with zero stack headset frames and tapered headset frames. Manitou forks were responsible for 1.5 steerer tubes. Shimano/Fox for QR15 axles. Rockshox for 20mm axles. At the time of the Sherpa's development starting, there was no "boost" hub standard yet because SRAM/Trek hadn't yet announced it. SRAM already had the front hubs (as they're a feature of the RS-1 29er fork) but the rear's hadn't been revealed yet.
  • 63 1
 @deeeight we actually considered 148 for this bike, but decided that 142 would offer more availability if you're off on a tour and blow up a hub.
  • 6 2
 So why having 15x110 up front ? And when you're in the middle of nowhere (let's say Himalaya) I doubt 142 is more available than a Boost hub.
  • 1 0
 Even if I know that I won't be in Himalaya every week Wink
  • 38 0
 @brutalpedz because no other fork exists that has the right offset, can take up to a 3.25 tire, runs a low pressure system (for loaded bikepacking), and is supple off the top (the fork needs to move in conjunction with tire deflection, otherwise there's no point).

As for the hub spacing, hubs are one of the most vulnerable parts of a bikepacking bike. All that added weight and wide gear range results in some serious torque. It just made sense to stick with 142 on this bike.

But yeah, we'll be bringing some spare parts on any trip to the Himalayas regardless.
  • 22 1
 Cool to have technical information directly from you ! Thanks !
  • 23 0
 Thank YOU for offering actual informative answers to real questions, rather than dishing out PR fluff like most companies. RM kicks ass!
  • 2 0
 You're also way more likely to blow up a rear hub than a front. Just bring some spare bearings on the trip and you're good to go. With a rear hub you need to worry about pawls, springs, freehub body, etc so it makes a lot of sense to use the widely available 142.
  • 1 0
 Glad to see that not all companies are going to 148
  • 1 0
 @RockyMountainBicycles Would you be willing to share the A2C & offset of this fork? I'm building a 27.5+ right this second, & I'm curious how the fork I'm getting compares to this. I wasn't able to find any speccs online.
  • 2 0
 @Bryce... they explained why they didn't adopt the 148...on this model... don't assume the same for every model they have.
  • 5 0
 I love that Rocky is providing direct feedback and answering questions surrounding the reasoning. The bike industry (and pinkbike) needs way more of this, as it educates the readers and eliminates the hearsay. One point for Rocky.
  • 1 0
 I'm pretty sure Ridley was the first for tapered headsets on their road bikes.
  • 20 2
 I just use my regular old mountain bike.

www.pinkbike.com/photo/11620028
  • 5 2
 Nice setup. Advantage to fats & mid-fats for bike packing is traction on some really shitty terrain. They're great on sand for example, so opens up areas with deserts/beaches to easy access.
  • 6 1
 holy mother of saddle bag!!!
  • 7 1
 That can't have been good for your reverb....
  • 1 0
 @rideonjon What kind of pack is that?
  • 1 0
 It's a revelate seat pack,and it's a command post not a reverb so no problems there.Thanks Deeeight.
  • 2 0
 Is that some bear spray on the top tube?
  • 2 0
 yup,Grizzy country.really it's just seasoning for the bears meal.
  • 4 0
 @rideonjon nice setup, definitely a good idea to have easy access to bear spray. We might have to copy that in the Chilcotins this summer.
  • 3 0
 sorry i already own the patent.
  • 2 0
 Oh sweet jesus, please say the patent comment was a joke.
  • 2 0
 Ha totally joking.
  • 1 0
 Haha good!
  • 15 2
 This is a use of 27.5+ I can get behind. I thought they were basically pushing it at normal mountain biking but I couldn't see the point. This kinda makes sense....I am not going to buy one but it makes sense.
  • 1 7
flag hi-dr-nick (Apr 16, 2015 at 7:32) (Below Threshold)
 Except that really... It doesn't and you're just convincing yourself
  • 1 0
 i think 275+ is a great concept for mtn bikes, and this bike looks really nice and fun. i just dont know how large the target market is for this genre of bikes. that doesnt make this a shitty bike, just dont know if theyll be able to sell enough to justify future production or models.
  • 15 1
 Overland is the new Enduro! You heard it here first ;p
  • 5 0
 Overlanduro
  • 5 1
 Endoland
  • 1 0
 Have 5-day to a week long camping/overland/enduro races. Don't know if there are some already, I'm still new to the mtb community, and learning what races exist.
  • 22 14
 April fools was 17 days ago....
  • 10 2
 And yet the fools remain...
  • 6 0
 From what has been shown in the video, I'm failing to see how the wider tyres were required at all; it probably made the cycling harder.
  • 1 0
 ding ding ding!
  • 1 0
 @JB151 @andnyleswillriot Oh man, 27.5+ definitely isn't the answer for every application, but this trip would have been so much rougher if we'd been on low volume 2.2 tires. Sure you could do it and it would be awesome, but the extra volume is super nice for traction and being able to run lower pressures when loaded down.
  • 1 0
 @RockyMountainBicycles Interesting. I'd love to have a go to see for myself Wink
  • 1 0
 I'm secretly glad to see that 27.5+ is happening. I want to convert my hardtail 29er to a 27.5+ I don't race XC, so I'd rather be a little more comfortable with the extra cushion and more traction than on racy little 2.0s. And bikepacking sounds awesome, personally.
  • 4 0
 i like Rocky Mountain, they are honest on to what this bike is for, like cars, not everything is about speed and lightweight. I like going camping in my bike, i don´t care if i don´t get there fast, i like to enjoy the ride, the views, and this bike looks reliable. i would totally get one.
  • 4 0
 "Sherpa: to be able to ride anywhere, but to not be limited in the fun department because you're on some rigid 29er that's scarier to pound through technical sections aboard than waiting for the results of an STD test."

With the former you see the bumps coming,
The latter the bumps arrive after you....
  • 2 0
 ...after the pounding?
  • 3 0
 27.5 + ..... plus this plus that ? surely just and ordinary 27.5 or 29er would be fine for adventure riding.... a 2.3 27.5 or 29er has tones of grip and rolls pretty well so surely making the tire to a plus size will make it roll less ? hmm maybe im wrong but i generally think that the bike industry have hit somewhat of a dead end in design and function of bikes and even components for bikes are pretty much future proof now..... so now they are trying almost a gimmicky way to create more money ....
  • 3 0
 This makes offers no functional benefits for the bike camper other than marketing a normal trail bike with larger tires. Why not engineer a full suspension bike that can fit dual pannier racks so the mass is kept low? like some kind of front triangle extension that wraps around the rear wheel so you can load it up with gear while the suspension can do its thing, or a shock setting for 'unloaded', medium, and 'fully loaded'. Also lame dissing people taking this seriously as weirdos or gravel road drones. This bike definitely does not fit the bill if you're that type of long distance rider in the first place.
  • 1 0
 Yeah I'd rather be on a mid-fat hardtail with rack mounts to be honest.... Surly and Salsa probably make stuff like that. If someone could figure out a good way to do FS with a rear rack that would be dope, but it would be tricky cuz the back wheel is always moving relative to the seatpost.
  • 1 0
 @blackthorne exactly. Plus there's quite a bit of complexity on this bike. Suppose you take this bike on a trip to someplace without a ready supply of parts (eg Cuba, India, etc).
  • 2 0
 @blackthorne @bkm303 @leelau mid-fat hardtails will be cool for sure, but lets be clear: lots of people make good bikepacking bikes, but we wanted to make something that was a bit more shred-able in scrabbly conditions. Plowing through tech stuff fully loaded on a hardtail with 29x2.2 tires at 55psi is a good way to scare the crap out of yourself.

Also, panniers are great in the right applications, but we've been loving Porcelain Rocket's seat bag + rail system. It keeps things from swaying side-to-side and prevents the bag ever sagging and contacting the tire.

As for the "weirdos" remark, we didn't write the article or the captions. We're all about weirdos! Razz
  • 2 0
 "And that's the exact idea behind the $4,499 USD Sherpa: to be able to ride anywhere, but to not be limited in the fun department because you're on some rigid 29er that's scarier to pound through technical sections aboard than waiting for the results of an STD test."

Haha, good stuff!
  • 4 1
 So they basically say the only reason to use a 27.5+ is to "try something different". Just goes to show how stupid some people in this industry really are. In all aspects, the + is worse.
  • 3 1
 if we weren't to "try somthing different" we would still be working out the mystery of making fire....
  • 1 4
 You're missing the point entirely. This "trying something different" is already known to not be any better.
  • 7 0
 yah, when are they gonna release fire+ ?
  • 2 1
 When the industry decided to "try something different" with 29 wheels, was that also useless? Because 29ers are huge now.
  • 5 0
 @scottzg Fire+ was last year, just wait till you try the new 27.8+ BoostFIRE™.
  • 2 0
 This is the exact bike i wanted to see released for 27.5+ tires. I wanted to b+ my anthem x but the rear clearance sucks. I only use the bike for long rides (3-5hrs) and think the b+ format would work well for everything. I have a long travel 27.5x2.3 setup for enduroing that works well
  • 2 0
 I dunno. When I started mountain bike back in 1990, it was pretty simple - you just bought a mountain bike. Now you've got your xc, enduro, DH and fat bikes, not to mention road and cyclocross. Adding another "category" seems to be getting borderline crazy - I mean even if you're planning a bikepacking trip (which I've done a few of myself in the 90's - Mt. Assinaboine, with a heli-food drop, which all worked awesome on my mtn bike at the time), which you might do once a year - don't we have enough "options" already available to us, without trying to convince us we need to buy another completely different bike? Cute marketing effort - but I don't see the need here. Ride what you got. If you aren't having fun - it's probably nothing to do with the bike.
  • 7 2
 Holy moly..I'm a sucker for tribal bike tattoo art. So sick!
  • 4 0
 Not really tribal, this be some olde arte from a distant dinasty.
  • 2 1
 It's art based on the native tribes in British Columbia, so I'd say it is tribal.
  • 3 0
 While the Chinese population in BC is quite high, they are not native to the area. It's a chinese dragon.
  • 1 0
 @smike *taps nose*
  • 4 0
 @gromer @smike it's a Nepalese Snow Lion, designed by our friend and airbrush artist Stacy Glaser at Painthouse. @buspilot glad you like it!
  • 1 0
 I was wrong then :o Regardless, I love it!
  • 7 2
 Well this proves 148/boost is unnecessary bullshit.
  • 2 0
 It only proves that when considering this bicycle's intended function, Rocky Mountain determined that cheaper and more available replacement parts held higher priority than a stiffer rear end. Boost 148 is in major production, and once the market catches up, we will likely see it as a standard. Consider disc brakes, tapered head tubes, and 1x11 before it, and how long it has been since an improved hub standard has become available. Anything that gives top-level performance should be encouraged, even if it becomes frustrating occasionally to adjust to new standards.
  • 1 0
 Sorry if my comment makes me seem a little buthurt. I have embraced allot of innovation over the years; dropposts, disk brakes and even 27.5 wheels.
Some innovations made my rides better and some were purely profit driven and made absolutely no difference.
Norco just released a DH bike with a142mm rear axle yet Boost marketing would like for us to suddenly start beleiving their 148mm hubs, forks and drive trains are necessary for wide tire trail riding.
I have tried a fatbike and counter steering was a singnificant annoyance and this would be the case no matter what the axle size.
I just think the bike industry should chill and experiment more with rim width, tires and casings before it reverts yet again to its two year cycle of reinventing the wheel.
I guess my point was that It's a small victory over marketing propaganda that RockyMountain made a wide tire bike with the current axle size.
  • 2 0
 That is a very respectable rebuttal. Thanks for the clarity. Happy trails!
  • 1 0
 Demoed the Sherpa at a local trail today (10 miles fairly smooth with one 0.2 mile climb) and my time was about the same riding my 5 lbs lighter 29er plus the ride was so much smoother. Just a 58+ male "C-" type rider. Trying it later this week on a bigger rougher 2.5 mile climb.
  • 4 1
 I see the big list of disadvantages, but I'm not really seeing any advantages of this over a "normal" trail bike. I like the idea, just not sure it's necessary.
  • 1 0
 But I would love to give it a try.
  • 3 0
 Southern Utah has some serious sand for miles and miles if you get in escalante. This could make for some awesome tours there, or on mountain single track when you cross a snowy section or anything else a fat bike can do better than a standard tour bike.
  • 4 0
 Would prefer a Alfine hub or gearbox for what its intended for
  • 6 11
flag deeeight (Apr 16, 2015 at 1:37) (Below Threshold)
 I'd prefer they'd designed in more tire clearance so as to not be limited to just the WTB 2.8s (which are actually only 2.8 in casing, the tread width is 2.3) My Vee Rubber Trax Fatty 650B x 3.25s will likely NOT fit the Sherpa and the WTB tires are shall we say... more fragile than I'd prefer to ride (folks on mtbr are already experiencing cuts in the casing/tread from riding on the rocky trails around Moab).
  • 18 0
 No worries @deeeight — those Vee Rubbers will fit just fine, even with a double chainring setup.
  • 6 2
 You can do the same kind of ride on any trail bike. Marketing concept !
  • 1 1
 This^!
  • 3 0
 You're right - they are just saying that the sherpa just might do it better than any old trail bike. You can do a DH ride on a 29er hardtail, but likelihood is that a DH bike would be better for it. Each bike style serves a purpose.
  • 2 0
 With an extra 25-30 lbs of gear, those bigger tires would help distribute the weight on that kind of terrain. Lots of sand in the desert.
  • 3 0
 Two bikes from big companies have already spec'd the Maintou Magnum. New XC contender?
  • 4 0
 I am not a lonely weirdo, @mikelevy . OK, maybe I am.
  • 2 0
 "some rigid 29er that's scarier to pound through technical sections aboard than waiting for the results of an STD test"

classic Levy
  • 4 1
 That is up there with the sexiest frame decals i have ever seen.....
  • 2 0
 this could be a new way to get around the golf course just keep hitting into the woods
  • 4 3
 Manufacturers who have created the new trend for us to buy and manufacturers saw their profits increase! Boycott the consumer society!
  • 12 3
 A company has a nice new concept that might appeal to some people - Aagghhh, grab your tinfoil hats and run!!
  • 1 0
 yip I can see the advantage of having a playful adventure overlander when you getting steezy in Mongolia... 5000 miles away from the nearest hospital...
  • 2 0
 Sweet graphics, I can see the appeal of this, that and even with wide rims/tyres theres no need for another axle standard.
  • 2 1
 With tyres that big is rear suspension needed? Specially if we're looking at things that could go wrong when you're miles from help.
  • 3 0
 Even a 4" fat tire will batter you after a while since the movement is not damped, in my experience
  • 3 0
 @portlyone great question. Rear suspension isn't necessary for some applications, and we're excited to see some of the 27.5+ hardtails coming out. That being said, there's no replacement for good old fashioned suspension damping—you can't control compression or rebound with tire deflection, so if you want to ride more aggressive terrain loaded down there's a massive advantage to rear suspension.
  • 2 1
 There's already a Sherpa which is perfectly fine for bikepacking, and a whole lot more besides

www.stantonbikes.com/content/sherpa-853
  • 1 1
 Umm, you can't really compare a trail hardtail to this very specific use carbon full-suspension.
  • 3 0
 @squidboy the Stanton looks good, but we didn't take their name. Our very first model was called the Sherpa, designed in 1981 in cooperation with Tom Richey and produced in 1982. Smile
  • 2 0
 RMB, I was not trying to say you had stolen the name, apologies if it came across that way. I was just pointing out that the Stanton Sherpa was a perfectly good bikepacking bike without the 'need' for bells and whistles. it's a niche bike to be sure, but a damn fine looking niche bike. keep up the good work and thanks for the personal reply
  • 2 0
 Rocky needs to do way more bikes with graphics like these, the graphics themselves make me want to buy the bike
  • 2 1
 You could just use your 26er with fat rubber and 6" suspension - but damn - no hipster graphics. Back to the drawing board...
  • 3 0
 Rocky has some of the best graphics going for production bikes.
  • 1 1
 I really would have liked to have seen an integrated rack for the seat stays. no interference with a dropper, puts the weight lower, no load swing. seems like a missed opportunity.
  • 1 1
 Meh the seatbags work great.
  • 1 1
 cool bike, beautiful paint. I would definitely ride and would consider buying. How does the setup work with regular 29er tires? Does this change suspension dynamics too much?I'm
  • 1 0
 This makes me want to hit the trails and pitch a tent... Such an awesome looking bike!
  • 1 0
 1:50 -- Careful around that jumping cholla. That shit's made out of hate and bile. Hangs on like an ugly blind date.
  • 3 1
 I need this bike so bad, I'm turning into Spongebob!
  • 1 0
 'Overland- intended use' got to hand it to you RM, you've done your research alright. FML
  • 1 1
 142 wrong choice. Who's going to shell out a few grand for an obsolete bike? It's not the consumers fault, the industry keeps changing and 'updating' what we need.
  • 3 1
 Welcome to the future...
  • 1 0
 so getting sideways and sick whips are a good idea in the boonies?
  • 10 0
 Sick whips are ALWAYS a good idea.
  • 2 1
 Great a new bike category, because a trail bike just wont cut it.
  • 1 0
 I would just buy this bike because of graphics Smile
  • 1 0
 Besides being all else, it would make a great Clydes bike as well.
  • 2 1
 British weather bike for sure! I want it!
  • 1 0
 Beautiful bike
  • 1 1
 I have a friend that rides 60 to 80 miles almost every Sunday.
  • 1 1
 Wait what? Its not April 1st?
  • 1 1
 Sherpa DERPA DERPA!
  • 5 8
 Not a big fan of their flaccid shock position. like a modern 80 years old dude.
  • 10 0
 You base your bike-buying decisions on which looks the most like a teenage kid's junk?
  • 1 0
 Pretty sure that angle is what allows them to get a decent leverage ratio curve. A lot of top tube mounted shocks have a big soft spot in the middle, whereas this one might be actually consistently progressive. See linkagedesign.blogspot.com.es for comparisons. Though too bad that they're sticking with the low-anti-squat smoothlink system on a bike that's meant for a hell of a lot of pedaling.
  • 1 0
 now i know how ellsworth and redalp make money.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.034540
Mobile Version of Website