LeMond v. Trek

I hope they improved on the triple chain ring over the years. I grew up riding a gitane . Nothing
but problems. I'm not sure how the europeans bikes differ on long top tubes. A buddy of mine bought
a merck bike while racing in europe ( a last season team bike from a dutch team). Had to get rid of
after he got back . The geometry was not the same as american merck bike. It would be cheaper just
to change your gears to something that's more friendly. I wouldn't say that a lemond geometry is
that much different from trek. The only other route would be a custom bike.

Drew Cutter said:

I hope they improved on the triple chain ring over the years. I grew up riding a gitane . Nothing
but problems. I'm not sure how the europeans bikes differ on long top tubes. A buddy of mine
bought a merck bike while racing in europe ( a last season team bike from a dutch team). Had to
get rid of after he got back . The geometry was not the same as american merck bike. It would be
cheaper just to change your gears to something that's more friendly. I wouldn't say that a lemond
geometry is that much different from trek. The only other route would be a custom bike.

Believe me, I've thought of upgrading my bike. However, I have an old Trek with down-tube shifters.
I'd have to buy a new crank, bottom bracket, and front derailluer (I think the front shifter is
actually for a triple). That's not too bad, but I don't think it'll work. The chain, when I was in
the outer chainring, would be offset. Also, I don't think I could get a bottom bracket that's long
enough. 115mm seems too short, and that's the size I'd have to have. How much do I ride in the large
chainring? Probably about 1/3 of my current ride. It's just the hills where I'm standing and/or
grinding where I want the third chainring. Also, all my tools and stand are packed and very hard to
get to. So, this means I'd be paying probably close to $300 to add a triple crank and associated
hardware on a bike that's about 15 years old (I bought it in 1989 and it was already one-two years
old) and doesn't have the right geometry anyway. I've always had an extender so that I could push my
seat back far enough to get comfortable. Currently, I'm riding a Brooks saddle on a Thompson
set-back seat post, and I still slide all the way to the back of the saddle. So, I'd love to spend
$300 instead of probably $1,500, but it's not going to happen.

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

Quoted message said:

Are LeMonds really that much different in terms of geometry than Treks?

Yes. Plus the Lemond with a steel frame will have you feeling less fatigued than a 2200 aluminum
frame. Just be aware that a Lemond size 55 is comparable to some makers' 57 and others' 56. I would
recommend trying the Lemond Buenos Aires as well as it may be more comparable to a 2200.

Jkpoulos7 said:

Quoted message said:

Are LeMonds really that much different in terms of geometry than Treks?

Yes. Plus the Lemond with a steel frame will have you feeling less fatigued than a 2200 aluminum
frame. Just be aware that a Lemond size 55 is comparable to some makers' 57 and others' 56. I
would recommend trying the Lemond Buenos Aires as well as it may be more comparable to a 2200.

Thanks. I did see that LeMonds are sized a bit differently, so it turns out that I wasn't comparing
the frames correctly. The Buenos Aires is probably the bike I'll get, if I like it when it has my
pedals and seat on
it.

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

Jkpoulos7 wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Yes. Plus the Lemond with a steel frame will have you feeling less fatigued than a 2200
aluminum frame.

Not when you have to grunt that cheap ugly steel slug up the next hill.

Jk's take on AL frames is outdated by like a decade.

Good bike riders have long ago given up on steel frames, that's just not done these days.

Go with AL or carbon, you'll have to if you want a good frame anyway.

Bob M said:

I have an older Trek bike, and I'm looking to buy a triple chainring bike: My current bike has too
hard gearing for the hills I've been riding. I don't like the current bike I have because I can't
get behind the pedals far enough (depending on saddle) and the top tube is too short. Thus, I
started looking at LeMond bikes, which supposedly put me farther behind the seat and have longer
top tubes. I have not yet ridden one, as the closest dealer doesn't have my size in stock but
should next week. When I compare the geometry of a Trek 2200 versus the LeMond Alpe D'Huez, they
are very similar. For instance, the seat angle is 73 (LeMond for 55cm frame) versus 73.5 (Trek for
a 56cm frame). The top tube is 56.5cm for Lemond (55cm frame) versus 56 cm (56cm frame). 0.5 cm is
only .2 inches or 3/16 inches. Are LeMonds really that much different in terms of geometry than
Treks? If not, can anyone recommend a bike where you sit relatively back from the pedals and that
has a long top tube?

Thanks.

Aha! I may not have to buy a new bike. I believe that I can buy a 110 BCD, two-chainring crankset.
This solves all my problems, as I don't need a new derailleur or bottom bracket. The geometry on my
bike still isn't ideal, but it's ok.

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

Jkpoulos7 wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Let's see- the GREATS (Merckx, Lemond, etc) seemed to all have ridden steel and their exploits have
been unmatched by any "modern" riders using carbon or ti frames.

Oh come on, those guys were slugs by today's standards.

Look at this year:

Haut Var 4.46 hr Het Volk 4.55 hr Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne 4.48 hr Milan-San Remo 6.44

Merckx at his very peak would be a joke riding a drain pipe bike against Museeuw on his Time VX high
modulus carbon and vectran frame.

Yes, the days of steel frames is long gone.

Bob M <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Bob M said:

I have an older Trek bike, and I'm looking to buy a triple chainring bike: My current bike has
too hard gearing for the hills I've been riding. I don't like the current bike I have because I
can't get behind the pedals far enough (depending on saddle) and the top tube is too short. Thus,
I started looking at LeMond bikes, which supposedly put me farther behind the seat and have
longer top tubes. I have not yet ridden one, as the closest dealer doesn't have my size in stock
but should next week. When I compare the geometry of a Trek 2200 versus the LeMond Alpe D'Huez,
they are very similar. For instance, the seat angle is 73 (LeMond for 55cm frame) versus 73.5
(Trek for a 56cm frame). The top tube is 56.5cm for Lemond (55cm frame) versus 56 cm (56cm
frame). 0.5 cm is only .2 inches or 3/16 inches. Are LeMonds really that much different in terms
of geometry than Treks? If not, can anyone recommend a bike where you sit relatively back from
the pedals and that has a long top tube?

Thanks.

Aha! I may not have to buy a new bike. I believe that I can buy a 110 BCD, two-chainring crankset.
This solves all my problems, as I don't need a new derailleur or bottom bracket. The geometry on
my bike still isn't ideal, but it's ok.

You'll need to check on this, but my experience has been that I needed to change the drivetrain over
more or less completely. Triple rings need a longer chain which in turn needs a long cage deralleur
(rear) and the front derailleur will need to be able to swing far enough to catch all three
chainrings. How the new cranks fit on your bottom bracket spindle may be different. You might need
to go a bit wider. Almost certainly your chainline will be different. Shimano 105 comes in double
and triple flavors. Perhaps Ultegra does too?

[email hidden] (Jkpoulos7) brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
"]news:[email hidden] he conjectured that:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Good bike riders have long ago given up on steel frames, that's just not done these days.

Let's see- the GREATS (Merckx, Lemond, etc) seemed to all have ridden steel and their exploits
have been unmatched by any "modern" riders using carbon or ti frames.

Because carbon & aluminuium were not a viable option then. That was then. This is now.

--
Walter Mitty.

Quoted message said:

Let's see- the GREATS (Merckx, Lemond, etc) seemed to all have ridden steel and their exploits have
been unmatched by any "modern" riders using carbon or ti frames.

Lemond rode a number of tour stages on carbon. It was his preferred material for his light mountain
stage bikes.

Chris Neary [email hidden]

"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University

Fabrizio Mazzoleni <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jkpoulos7 wrote in message

<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's see- the GREATS (Merckx, Lemond, etc) seemed to all have ridden

steel and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their exploits have been unmatched by any "modern" riders using carbon or

ti

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

frames.

Oh come on, those guys were slugs by today's standards.

Look at this year:

Haut Var 4.46 hr Het Volk 4.55 hr Kuurne-Brussels-Kuurne 4.48 hr Milan-San Remo 6.44

Merckx at his very peak would be a joke riding a drain pipe bike against Museeuw on his Time VX
high modulus carbon and vectran frame.

Yes, the days of steel frames is long gone.

This line of reasoning is not applicable to this newsgroup, and in particular to the circumstances
outlined by the OP.

Comparing materials and technology used by the top .001% of cyclists to the needs of recreational
riders is absurd. Would you urge "Jkpoulos7" to replace the steel brakes on his automobile with
carbon? After all, that's what the pro's use.

The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few ounces. Switch to carbon
and save another couple of ounces; heck, let's be generous and call it one pound. Remember we're
talking about non-rotating weight. I can't measure the time difference between riding with one water
bottle or two. Can you? Do the math; one pound in 180 is one-half of one percent.

I would further argue that even the elite cyclists of this newsgroup would achieve better
performance with a custom Columbus Foco (for example) steel frameset vs. an off-the-rack carbon
bicycle. The total weight difference at this $4k price point is probably equivalent to a couple of
swigs from that hypothetical water bottle. Another ten or twenty watts of power resulting from
better fit and less fatigue would more than offset a few ounces.

The difference between something that fits you vs. something that you fit is indescribable. Get
yourself one dress shirt custom made, and you'll see what I mean.

Quoted message said:

Yes, the days of steel frames is long gone.

Don't be too sure about this ... there's a persistent rumor that the Cervélo bikes being
ridden by CSC Tiscali at the TdF have some Nivachrome components. Anybody over there right now
with a magnet?!?

baltobernie

baltobernie said:

Fabrizio Mazzoleni <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jkpoulos7 wrote in message

<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, the days of steel frames is long gone.

This line of reasoning is not applicable to this newsgroup, and in particular to the circumstances
outlined by the OP.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few ounces. Switch to carbon
and save another couple of ounces; heck, let's be generous and call it one pound. Remember we're
talking about non-rotating weight. I can't measure the time difference between riding with one
water bottle or two. Can you? Do the math; one pound in 180 is one-half of one percent.

Yes, spot on.

I have a chromoly hybrid. I have lost 60 pounds since Jan. 2003 and hence the bike is much lighter
than before!

I hope to lighten this bike by another 35 pounds before the end of the year.

(I have no idea what the Trek 720 itself weighs)

--
Regards, Joe

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

baltobernie said:

Fabrizio Mazzoleni <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jkpoulos7 wrote in message

<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, the days of steel frames is long gone.

This line of reasoning is not applicable to this newsgroup, and in particular to the
circumstances outlined by the OP.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few ounces. Switch to
carbon and save another couple of ounces; heck, let's be generous and call it one pound.
Remember we're talking about non-rotating weight. I can't measure the time difference between
riding with one water bottle or two. Can you? Do the math; one pound in 180 is one-half of one
percent.

Yes, spot on.

I have a chromoly hybrid. I have lost 60 pounds since Jan. 2003 and hence the bike is much lighter
than before!

I hope to lighten this bike by another 35 pounds before the end of the year.

LOL! Great way to think about it...

--
David Kerber An optimist says "Good morning, Lord." While a pessimist says "Good Lord,
it's morning".

Remove the ns_ from the address before e-mailing.

"garmonboezia" <cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

You'll need to check on this, but my experience has been that I needed to change the drivetrain
over more or less completely. Triple rings need a longer chain which in turn needs a long cage
deralleur (rear) and the front derailleur will need to be able to swing far enough to catch all
three chainrings. How the new cranks fit on your bottom bracket spindle may be different. You
might need to go a bit wider. Almost certainly your chainline will be different. Shimano 105 comes
in double and triple flavors. Perhaps Ultegra does too?

A more careful reading of the post would show "I believe that I can buy a 110 BCD, two-chainring
crankset."

That being the case, the existing B-racket might well be fine, assuming it's a square taper. All
other parts should be OK as well, but best to check if the F derailer can be lowered to match the
new and smaller large ring. Not unusual for a this to be a problem - tapered down tube, bottle cage
bolt in the way, braze on, etc...

If all goes well, a 34/50 ring set works quite well, 34 being the smallest ring in the middle (in
this case - small) position. Or a 48 large depending how the gear chart works out. SB

Steve said:

"garmonboezia" <cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

You'll need to check on this, but my experience has been that I needed to change the drivetrain
over more or less completely. Triple rings need a longer chain which in turn needs a long cage
deralleur (rear) and the front derailleur will need to be able to swing far enough to catch all
three chainrings. How the new cranks fit on your bottom bracket spindle may be different. You
might need to go a bit wider. Almost certainly your chainline will be different. Shimano 105
comes in double and triple flavors. Perhaps Ultegra does too?

A more careful reading of the post would show "I believe that I can buy a 110 BCD, two-chainring
crankset."

That being the case, the existing B-racket might well be fine, assuming it's a square taper. All
other parts should be OK as well, but best to check if the F derailer can be lowered to match the
new and smaller large ring. Not unusual for a this to be a problem - tapered down tube, bottle
cage bolt in the way, braze on, etc...

Yes, I wondered about this. I believe (hope) it will work. I believe that the crank will work.

Quoted message said:

If all goes well, a 34/50 ring set works quite well, 34 being the smallest ring in the middle (in
this case - small) position. Or a 48 large depending how the gear chart works out. SB

I was thinking 36/50. However, I'm just thinking. When I use the gear chart, there's not much
difference in mph for 100 rpm for 36 to 39 (currently, I have a 39/53). My rear cog is a 7-speed
with 12-27 I think (I know the 27 is right; I'm not sure about the 12). I have a good ride except
for certain hills, where I'd like to zoom up at 90 rpm, but I'm either standing or pounding away at
about 50-60 rpm or lower. My knee is beginning to hurt, although the illiotibial (sp?) band
stretches have helped. Should I go 36 or 34 for the bottom?

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

baltobernie wrote in message ..

Quoted message said:

Would you urge "Jkpoulos7" to replace the steel brakes on his automobile with carbon

No, but I certainly wouldn't stop that retro-dude from replacing his brake fluid with something like
soapy water.

Quoted message said:

The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few ounces.

Sorry, but today to be competitive with guys like me you must be riding something in the 16 - 17.5
lbs range.

Steel doesn't cut it out on the road. You'll be riding with the B or C group, I try and keep my
group showing up with the proper bike and kit. We get respect.

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:59:53 GMT, <[email hidden]>, Lance's shadow,
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email hidden]> expounded:

Quoted message said:

I try and keep my group showing up with the proper bike and kit.

Would that be Barbie or Barney kit?

Quoted message said:

We get respect.

Not when you moving the finish line on them.
--
zk

All the hyperbole here is enough to make you sick. Find the frame you like and the component group
that gives you the most versatility. I see a number of road bikes running huge mtb cogsets with XT
or XTR derailleur. Three rings are not optimum shifters. But then again are you looking for super
crisp shifts so you do not blow up in the peleton? Likely not.

The Lemond is a great bike. If you have doubts, try a Colnago for the same long Euro feel.

Good luck.

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Steve said:

"garmonboezia" <cthvlhv@r'lyeh.arg> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

You'll need to check on this, but my experience has been that I needed to change the drivetrain
over more or less completely. Triple rings need

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

longer chain which in turn needs a long cage deralleur (rear) and the front derailleur will
need to be able to swing far enough to catch all three chainrings. How the new cranks fit on
your bottom bracket

spindle

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

may be different. You might need to go a bit wider. Almost certainly your chainline will be
different. Shimano 105 comes in double and triple flavors. Perhaps Ultegra does too?

A more careful reading of the post would show "I believe that I can buy

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

110 BCD, two-chainring crankset."

That being the case, the existing B-racket might well be fine, assuming it's a square taper. All
other parts should be OK as well, but best to check if the F derailer can be lowered to match
the new and smaller large ring. Not unusual for a this to be a problem - tapered down tube,
bottle cage bolt in the way, braze on, etc...

Yes, I wondered about this. I believe (hope) it will work. I believe that the crank will work.

Quoted message said:

If all goes well, a 34/50 ring set works quite well, 34 being the smallest ring in the middle
(in this case - small) position. Or a 48 large depending how the gear chart works out. SB

I was thinking 36/50. However, I'm just thinking. When I use the gear chart, there's not much
difference in mph for 100 rpm for 36 to 39 (currently, I have a 39/53). My rear cog is a 7-speed
with 12-27 I think (I know the 27 is right; I'm not sure about the 12). I have a good ride except
for certain hills, where I'd like to zoom up at 90 rpm, but I'm either standing or pounding away
at about 50-60 rpm or lower. My knee is beginning to hurt, although the illiotibial (sp?) band
stretches have helped. Should I go 36 or 34 for the bottom?

--
Bob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply

"baltobernie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few ounces. Switch to carbon
and save another couple of ounces; heck, let's be generous and call it one pound. Remember we're
talking about non-rotating weight. I can't measure the time difference between riding with one
water bottle or two. Can you? Do the math; one pound in 180 is one-half of one percent.

You are being disingenuous, cycling equipment is all about weight. If not, we'd be all riding steel
cranks, brakes, handlebars, stems, etc., etc.

Quoted message said:

The difference between something that fits you vs. something that you fit is indescribable. Get
yourself one dress shirt custom made, and you'll see what I mean.

I have had a lot of custom clothes made (I'm 6'10"😉. The reason most people don't wear custom
clothing is because off the rack is nearly as good (often better, actually) in fit, and it's always
cheaper. The same thing is true (actually much more so) for bike frames.