Serotta Legend Ti vs Ti

[redearedslider5]

I have a pearl white titanium serotta frame that is marked with only "ti" on the headtube rather than what I thought was the more common "Legend ti." Does anyone have anymore info on this model? Searches generally come back with the legend model.

[Ken Robb]

I think the early Legends were just marked "ti". Does it have a decal describing the tubing set and/or can you see the shaped tubes of a Legend? What is the serial number?

[Hilltopperny]

It is a Serotta Colorado ti. It was the predecessor to the legend. Very nice bike for sure. I used to own one, but the frame was a bit too long in the top tube for me. I passed it on to a forum member, but it was an extremely smooth ride with great power transfer.

[froze]

I have a friend that has a Serotta TI bike, I think the model is an Ottrott, it has swayed rear TI seat stays. Anyway before I bought my TI bike I tested rode his (and another person who had a Motobecane TI bike) and those test rides sold me on buying a TI bike. But when I test rode those two and then later got mine and compared it to the other two the Serotta was the most comfortable but also noticeably flexy even compared to the much lower costing Motobecane. Anyway I only recall TI letters on it and nothing else other than brand and model, plus a few S's scattered about.

[Clean39T]

Since the Serotta Ti experts are weighing in here...

Can anyone comment on the ride of the Ottrot vs Legend? Does the Ottrot lend itself to more of a "century" bike, geometry aside? Is it generally tuned for more smooth, less aggressive riding?

[dave thompson]

I've had Legend Ti, Mevici and Ottrotts. To me the Ottrott is the gold standard, the best ride of anything I've been on.

[happycampyer]

It's hard to gauge the stiffness of a Serotta model (e.g., the Ottrott, Legend, etc.) from a single bike. Unless the frame was a stock frame, or dealer demo, etc., the tubing was custom for each customer. i recall one of the employees of a Serotta dealer asking Serotta to make his Ottrott super stiff. The bike was ridiculously stiff--stiffer than the 595 I had at the time.

One other thing to note is that, on the whole, ti bikes have gotten stiffer from the late 1990's to the present. The trick is maintaining the smooth ride quality that ti is known for. In my experience, the latest generation of ti bikes have overshot the mark in an effort to compete with carbon.

[Ken Robb]

I had a stock 60cm Legend, 1" O2 fork. It had a delightful springy ride but was NOT noodley. It tracked very well on high speed descents. I only sold it because my Hampsten Strada Bianca by Moots is even better and accepts 35mm+ tires.

[froze]

Originally Posted by happycampyer

It's hard to gauge the stiffness of a Serotta model (e.g., the Ottrott, Legend, etc.) from a single bike. Unless the frame was a stock frame, or dealer demo, etc., the tubing was custom for each customer. i recall one of the employees of a Serotta dealer asking Serotta to make his Ottrott super stiff. The bike was ridiculously stiff--stiffer than the 595 I had at the time.

One other thing to note is that, on the whole, ti bikes have gotten stiffer from the late 1990's to the present. The trick is maintaining the smooth ride quality that ti is known for. In my experience, the latest generation of ti bikes have overshot the mark in an effort to compete with carbon.

I spoke to my friend about his and he bought his already made sitting in a LBS showroom with a few other Serotta's, he knew nothing about the custom route, they had his size on the showroom, he test rode it and bought it. All I know from riding it at least 2 dozen times that it was the best riding bike in the comfort department of any bike I have ever been on, but I did notice flex in BB area, the flex wasn't as apparent with the Motobecane TI bike I also rode a couple of dozen times. The Motobecane didn't have that high level of comfort like the Serotta but the Moto did seem to handle better. Compare those two to the Lynskey Peloton that I bought and the Lynskey was noticeably stiffer than the Serotta and bit stiffer than the Moto, the Lynskey tracked better to in tight fast turns over either, which we found out later it was the Enve 2.0 fork because my Moto friend after riding my bike several times bought a Enve 2.0 fork and his handling improved noticeably. The Serotta owner realizes the Enve 2.0 fork made handling differences vs his sluggish Serotta fork, but he won't change because he likes it the way it is.

If anyone wants a fantastic TI bike without paying a high price the Moto is a very sweet deal, it's sold on Bikes Direct; the only reason I didn't buy one was because when I went to pull the trigger they were out of stock, I called and they said they would have more in within 3 months, 3 months came and went and none, I ended up waiting about 14 months and they never got them in so I thought they were no longer going to offer them so I bought the Lynskey on a introductory sale.

I don't think TI has overshot CF, well maybe some may have I don't know, but most have not, because anyone I have ever talked to who have own both (keep in mind these people are forum members on various forums) and they all think a TI bike rides better than an all CF bike, I would have to agree with that after test riding a bunch of CF bikes, none of which I really liked, but that's my opinion of course. All my steel bikes ride better than CF bikes I tested, and my TI bike rides better than all by steel bikes except for my 85 Schwinn Le Tour Luxe touring bike which is probably due to 1 1/4" wide tires with only 60 psi instead of 100 psi in 23c tires.

[happycampyer]

Originally Posted by froze

<snip>

I don't think TI has overshot CF,

What I meant by my comment was, in an effort to compete with ever lighter and stiffer carbon frames, ti builders have been making their frames stiffer and stiffer over the last seven years or so (while the Moots RSL wasn't the first ti bike to use oversized tubes and PFBB30/BB30, etc., its introduction in 2010 was something of a coming-of-age of the genre). I was initially seduced by several of these frames, but over time have come to feel that in the pursuit of stiffness they have sacrificed a lot of the smoothness that made ti so desireable in the first place. That's the mark that I was referring to.

[oliver1850]

Originally Posted by redearedslider5

I have a pearl white titanium serotta frame that is marked with only "ti" on the headtube rather than what I thought was the more common "Legend ti." Does anyone have anymore info on this model? Searches generally come back with the legend model.

1st year for Serotta titanium was 1993, it was called Colorado Legend Ti. In 1994 it was called Colorado Ti. In 1995 and 1996, simply Ti. 1997 through 1999 are question marks. The 1998 and 1999 catalogs list it as "Legend Ti" above the description, but the bikes in the pictures say "Ti". In 2000, the catalog shows "Legend Ti" both in the description and the pictured bike.

I'd say your bike dates from the 1995-1999 period. Serial number and frame details such as DT shifter bosses should narrow the year down.

[froze]

Originally Posted by happycampyer

What I meant by my comment was, in an effort to compete with ever lighter and stiffer carbon frames, ti builders have been making their frames stiffer and stiffer over the last seven years or so (while the Moots RSL wasn't the first ti bike to use oversized tubes and PFBB30/BB30, etc., its introduction in 2010 was something of a coming-of-age of the genre). I was initially seduced by several of these frames, but over time have come to feel that in the pursuit of stiffness they have sacrificed a lot of the smoothness that made ti so desireable in the first place. That's the mark that I was referring to.

I understood your comment, but you have to remember that in some aspects TI behaves like aluminum, if they made a small diameter ti tubing it would be too whippy, while it might be very comfortable to ride you wouldn't be able to hammer it without massive flexing (but unlike AL the frame wouldn't get weaker or break while flexing). So the builders had to build oversize tubes to prevent that. The worse (best if you're racing on TI) example of this was LiteSpeed Blade, that bike was the stiffest riding bike I've ever been on, no comfort could be found on that bike especially for long rides, but it just banged so much I swear you could feel it run over a worm! (ok, an exaggeration but you get the point!). LiteSpeed also made a bike called the Classic, which had small diameter TI tubing and that thing was indeed flexy but extremely comfortable but not something you would want to race on (this bike from what I recall when I test rode the Serotta was even more comfortable than the Serotta in terms of road vibration etc).

So when picking out a TI bike you have to choose what you want in a ride, my friends Serrota wasn't as flexy as the LiteSpeed Classic but I actually liked the ride a lot, but it didn't have the razor sharp handling that even the much less expensive Motobecane had not to mention my Lynskey. Like I mentioned before, both the Moto and my Lynskey have a more comfortable ride than any of my 6 steel bikes (just comparing the steel bikes with 23c tires) and still have more stiffness where you need it when hammering than the steel bikes have. I would have never bought the Serotta because I couldn't justify spending
the $7 grand for it! The same reason I didn't look at the expensive ones like Moots, and Seven and a slew of others in that price league. I think the Lynskey I got was the second best deal, I would have been happy buying the Moto as well even though I wouldn't have been able to upgrade the fork like I was able to with the Lynskey even though the Moto weighs about another 1/2 pound more than mine. The Moto TI listed weights are off by about a 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound but it's made by the best Asian TI builder (Oro), the welds are just as good as my Lynskey.

[cornelldewitt]

Originally Posted by oliver1850

1st year for Serotta titanium was 1993, it was called Colorado Legend Ti. In 1994 it was called Colorado Ti. In 1995 and 1996, simply Ti. 1997 through 1999 are question marks. The 1998 and 1999 catalogs list it as "Legend Ti" above the description, but the bikes in the pictures say "Ti". In 2000, the catalog shows "Legend Ti" both in the description and the pictured bike.

I'd say your bike dates from the 1995-1999 period. Serial number and frame details such as DT shifter bosses should narrow the year down.

Anyone happen to know when in the above timeline they switched from 1" steerer to 1 ⅛"? Thanks!

[konstantkarma]

Originally Posted by Hilltopperny

It is a Serotta Colorado ti. It was the predecessor to the legend. Very nice bike for sure. I used to own one, but the frame was a bit too long in the top tube for me. I passed it on to a forum member, but it was an extremely smooth ride with great power transfer.

I think I am the forum member Hilltopperny is referring to. I still have this Serotta Colorado Ti and it is a really nice riding bike. The biggest difference between the Colorado Ti and the Legend is that the Colorado Ti does not have the 3D rear drop outs that were noted as being a beautiful design feature seen on later Serotta titanium bikes. I had a Serotta Concours Ti that I sold that had the 3D drop outs (shown in the photo). I am not sure they added much to the way the bike rides, but they sure are pretty.

[robt57]

I rode one Titanium Legend in the day, that being 99 probably.
I had a 96-7 Classic and just got way to strong for hammering it.

Example, came out of a fast sweeper and raised off the saddle pushing huge watts and it flexed enough to hop to the little ring. I paused the power and it hopped back up. It was clear I had got strong enough to need another bike for riding how I was.

To 'frame' it, I was 40ish yrs old and 27.5" thighs. I rode a friend's Legend and recall ruling it out feeling I needed stiffer pretty quickly. Was it a stock or custom, I dunno.

My point here is for LS Classic comparison in the thread. I opted for a 2000 Classic, and it was better but still not stout enough for me @ that time. Carl Strong solved this issue for me, and that frame was #1 for 13 years. And 20+ years later is probably stiffer than I really need.

Never rode the MotoPecan, but prior to the 1st classic Classic rode Natchez, Catalyst. Catalyst was a 2 mile test ride and went back for something i could not bend not trying, wound up with 1st Classic [1-1/8 HT]. Prior to the 2nd Classic rode a Arenberg and an Ultimate. Arenberg felt like the newer Classic to me, The Ultimate beat me to death.

Yes, huge LS shop and we were all keeping up with the LS Jones'ez, except those whom opted/spent for the Serottas in another shop near by.

So any one reading that has ridden lots of Ti in the day probably rode most of these as well, for comparative data points. [190lb ride on 58-60CM bikes FWIW] I think Ti in the larger sizes presents more challenges to the design/build of the frame. Thus late 90s being the manipulate or perish period for the Ti frame makers IMO.

Forward to 2016ish and I got my friend's 97 Spectum Ti Super he ordered new in 96. In 2000 I'd never have afforded that or a Serotta, young kids etc. But now as far as noodles and Ti frame went, this was 1000% the opposite. Sold that here few years back and still stands as Highly Remarkable to my cycling experience/memory.

Bear in mind by 2016-7 my 27.5" thighs and power long gone and more mortal power by comparison. All my perceived bending of frames probably moot at this point comparatively. I don't need how stiff my old Strong is even anymore.

>Apologize for the caffeine assisted diatribe.