1999 Rapid Tour geometry?

[bec143]

Greetings from a Serotta newbie!

Does anyone have any idea of the basic geometry of a Colorado Concept Rapid Tour model from 1999 or so in 52 cm?

I know these bikes are really individuized for fit, but are things like the hta and sta pretty standard? I've done some searching without much luck.

Thanks!

Bruce

[David Kirk]

I have a 2000 catalog and I think the spec's were the same as 1999.

ST - 52 c-c
TT - 53
SA - 73
HA - 71.5
Cstay - 42.5
Rake - 5.5
BB drop - 8

I hope that helps.

dave

[bec143]

Dave-that's awesome! Thanks.

What do folks think of these bikes in general? I take it they are in the lower part of the Serotta totem pole, but still pretty fine.

[dave thompson]

Originally Posted by bec143

Dave-that's awesome! Thanks.

What do folks think of these bikes in general? I take it they are in the lower part of the Serotta totem pole, but still pretty fine.

Lower part of the Serotta totem pole? Not at all!

From the Serotta catalog:
"If the Rapid Tour would be described in automotive comparisons, it would probably be a SAAB 9-5 V6 Turbo Wagon. It responds like a race bike, is practical enough for the most reasonable Northwesterner and handles with ease. It's got room enough for full, supple tires (28~35MM depending on the brand), fender clearance (with eyelets front and rear) and plenty of room for a triple crank. Rear rack mounts are also standard, so when you want, load it up. One ride in the hills and you'd swear you were on a race bike because it climbs and corners like all Serottas-incredibly. The slightly longer chain-stays aide in smoother shifts with triples while a stabilizing, slightly slackened front-end and lower bottom bracket adds to your sightseeing pleasure. The extended head tube provides the opportunity tor a higher handlebar position for eliminating back fatigue experienced by many cyclists."

The Rapid Tour used the same tubing as the Atlanta, considered one of the better Steel Serottas. I would probably describe the Rapid Tour as a fast credit-card touring bike, capable of forging ahead on most all passable roads.

You've got a keeper!

[Frankwurst]

What Dave said. I've wanted to get my hands on one of them in my size for along time. They don't surface very often and ther is a reason why.

[Ken Robb]

I borrowed one for a few hours and wanted to buy it. I did buy a Rivendell Rambouillet which is quite similar in ride/handling.

If a 60-61cm Rapid Tour came up for sale I might have a hard timekeeping my wallet in my pocket.

[Ahneida Ride]

I have a 2002 Legend Ti Rapid Tour ...

RT is definitely NOT lower end.

It is a comfortable ride with high end performance ...

Consider your self fortunate if you can locate a RT in your size.

[bec143]

Originally Posted by Ahneida Ride

I have a 2002 Legend Ti Rapid Tour ...

RT is definitely NOT lower end.

It is a comfortable ride with high end performance ...

Consider your self fortunate if you can locate a RT in your size.

the fit seems pretty close. I do want to look into options to replace the 0 degree quill stem with something with a little rise if possible

Currently ride a Specialized Roubaix Expert. This will be my second "fun" bike

[palincss]

Rapid Tour was Serotta's version of a bike that would fit reasonably sized tires with fenders, and could carry light luggage for credit card touring. In a word, "sensible" and not just a fair weather toy for let's play racer. There's nothing "low end" about that.

[joelh]

I have a CRT from 97 and it is a superb ride. I have the handle bars set up just a bit higher and it is a super comfortable bike for the long haul. Not the quickest handler, but then it wasn't designed to be

[Ken Robb]

Originally Posted by joelh

I have a CRT from 97 and it is a superb ride. I have the handle bars set up just a bit higher and it is a super comfortable bike for the long haul. Not the quickest handler, but then it wasn't designed to be

But is it "quick" enough? It may be my lifetime riding motorcycles that skews my sense of handling but I have never ridden a bicycle that I couldn't turn as fast as I needed. I have ridden a few that I thought were needlessly "twitchy".
I can always supply plenty of force to turn a bicycle but when I've been tired or conditions weren't ideal I sometimes lacked the riding skills to prevent line-wandering on twitchy bikes.

[capybaras]

I have one and it is kind of heavy - but I guess that is the point, to be able to carry the rider plus gear. Very practical with fenders, a rack, a triple. The previous owner of my bike did a lot of touring on it and she said it was great. It is a nice commuter now but for weekend rides with friends I prefer a lighter bike.

[bec143]

Originally Posted by capybaras

I have one and it is kind of heavy - but I guess that is the point, to be able to carry the rider plus gear. Very practical with fenders, a rack, a triple. The previous owner of my bike did a lot of touring on it and she said it was great. It is a nice commuter now but for weekend rides with friends I prefer a lighter bike.

I plan to use it for commuting and light touring and use my Roubaix for the weekends. I didn't weigh the bike but I'm guessing around 22- it certainly seemed lighter than a Bianchi Volpe we have at home, also a touring set up of sorts.

[victoryfactory]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

I have a 2000 catalog and I think the spec's were the same as 1999.

ST - 52 c-c
TT - 53
SA - 73
HA - 71.5
Cstay - 42.5
Rake - 5.5
BB drop - 8

I hope that helps.

dave

Dave is spot on.
I have the '99 catalog
Also listed in the 52cm RT Geo Chart:
Wheelbase: 99.3
Standover: 77.0

[bec143]

Originally Posted by victoryfactory

Dave is spot on.
I have the '99 catalog
Also listed in the 52cm RT Geo Chart:
Wheelbase: 99.3
Standover: 77.0

Thanks- anyone know what the standard stem length was, or is there even such a thing as a standard stem size with a Serotta? This looks like a really long Cinelli A1 or something along those lines. I'll know more in a few hours!