stock vs. custom frames

Mark Heiple said:

I've been riding a 2000 Lemond Tourmalet (Reynolds 525 frame, 57cm) now
for about 4 years and been thinking of upgrading.

Quoted message said:

To make a long story short, when I first got the bike, I was ignorant
about how it was supposed to fit. I went to the wrong bike shop, who was
more interested selling bikes then making sure I got what I needed. I'm
convinced now that my frame is too small, so now I'm looking around for
new one. I've tried installing longer seat posts and stems, but I don't
think it is quite right.

Quoted message said:

I think my first step is to find a bike shop with a fit kit, take my
bike with me, and figure out if it really is a problem.

Good idea. Unless you are very tall/short or have unusual proportions, a
custom bike should not be necessary. But that doesn't mean that any frame
in "your size" will fit right. All "60 cm" frames are not alike. The
Lemonds are known for their slack seat angles, which may or may not be
right for you.

Quoted message said:

If it isn't right, my first choice would be to look at another lemond.
I really like the way the lemond handles, but their bikes have changed.
The new frames are steel/carbon or ti/carbon, and I hesitant to trust a
version 1.0 design. Anyone know how they are holding up?

Quoted message said:

I also noticed their geometry isn't the same - the chainstays (and
therefor wheelbase) are shorter. How much would this affect the
handling? I've tried short, compact frames before (Giant) and didn't
like it - very squirrely. Do the short stays restrict my tire size
choice? Right now I'm running GP 3000, 25c.

Short chainstays reduce comfort and stability, and don't offer any real
advantages except being in sync with the current fad. Don't buy a bike
that limits your tire options.

Quoted message said:

I know I need to go out and start test riding bikes again, but how does
one test ride a custom bike when there aren't any in your area and a
frame built to your measurements doesn't exist? Seems like an expensive
gamble to build a bike that you have never ridden.

It is a gamble. I've seen more than one "custom" bike up for sale because
"it didn't fit."

Quoted message said:

I'm a lot more comfortable riding now compared to 4 years ago, so maybe
I don't need the extra stability of the lemond any more.

Stability is a good thing. I've rarely heard someone complain that their
bike was too stable.

Quoted message said:

I'm 6'2", 225 lbs. I think have long legs & arms, short torso for
people my size. I don't race and never will. I have my handlebars set
about 1.5" below my saddle. I don't really need nor want an ultra-light
weight weenie bike. With all he stuff I carry in my saddle bag, my
tourmalet weighs about 26 lbs.

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your current Lemond seem
too short? The main criteria should be top tube length and seat tube
angle. What stem length are you using? The fact that you can get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were you, I'd try to fine
tune the fit on your current Lemond before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your current Lemond seem
too short? The main criteria should be top tube length and seat tube
angle. What stem length are you using? The fact that you can get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were you, I'd try to fine
tune the fit on your current Lemond before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in the drops, I
feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should be stretched out more. I
went to a bike shop with a pretty good rep and asked him about the size,
and he had me ride around a bit while he watched. He said that in the
drops, my elbows and knees overlap a lot more than they should - there
should be an inch or so gap between the elbow and knee when my foot is
at 3 o'clock (forward).

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to replace the one I
just broke. I'm not sure how long my handlebar stem is, but it is
really long and sticks up quite a ways. I think it is fairly long
horizontally also, and I've been warned that going too long will
compromise handling/stability.

Thanks.

Mark Heiple said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your current Lemond
seem too short? The main criteria should be top tube length and seat
tube angle. What stem length are you using? The fact that you can
get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were you, I'd try
to fine tune the fit on your current Lemond before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in the drops, I
feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should be stretched out more.
I went to a bike shop with a pretty good rep and asked him about the
size, and he had me ride around a bit while he watched. He said that
in the drops, my elbows and knees overlap a lot more than they should
- there should be an inch or so gap between the elbow and knee when
my foot is at 3 o'clock (forward).

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to replace the one I
just broke. I'm not sure how long my handlebar stem is, but it is
really long and sticks up quite a ways. I think it is fairly long
horizontally also, and I've been warned that going too long will
compromise handling/stability.

Longer stem should /increase/ stability, but "handling" (steering) will be a
bit slower.

Just an idea: try rotating your handlebar "out" a little bit, making the
drops farther away. (You might have to move the hoods/levers down
afterwards, if you don't like their new orientation.) Should stretch you
out a tad more...

Bill "talking out his butt, but worth a try" S.

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Heiple said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Harris said:

You sound like a Lemond type. In what way does your current Lemond
seem too short? The main criteria should be top tube length and seat
tube angle. What stem length are you using? The fact that you can
get the bars
1.5 inches below the saddle is a good sign. If I were you, I'd try
to fine tune the fit on your current Lemond before giving up on it.

Good Luck.

Art Harris

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in the drops, I
feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should be stretched out more.
I went to a bike shop with a pretty good rep and asked him about the
size, and he had me ride around a bit while he watched. He said that
in the drops, my elbows and knees overlap a lot more than they should
- there should be an inch or so gap between the elbow and knee when
my foot is at 3 o'clock (forward).

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to replace the one I
just broke. I'm not sure how long my handlebar stem is, but it is
really long and sticks up quite a ways. I think it is fairly long
horizontally also, and I've been warned that going too long will
compromise handling/stability.

Longer stem should /increase/ stability, but "handling" (steering) will be

a

Quoted message said:

bit slower.

Just an idea: try rotating your handlebar "out" a little bit, making the
drops farther away. (You might have to move the hoods/levers down
afterwards, if you don't like their new orientation.) Should stretch you
out a tad more...

Bill "talking out his butt, but worth a try" S.

Good point, but the OP may also consider going to classic round-bend bars if
he's using anatomic bars now. He'll get more room in the drops for the same
reach to the hoods and tops - that's why I avoid so-called "anatomic" bars.
Some of them are awful! It'll require some measuring and comparison
shopping, but if the scrunch is his only issue, it's a lot less trouble and
expense than a new bike.

As for the other's points about geometry and sizing, the thing to focus on
is weight distribution. Front center and chainstay length should combine
with your build and position to give you good balance, which should hit
around 45%front/55%rear when you're seated and in the drops. Basically, if
you tend to have your seat slammed way back behind the bottom bracket,
you'll need longer chainstays and a shorter front end, and the opposite if
you sit more forward. The forward inside edge of your bar hooks should fall
over the front axle as closely as possible as well. If your long stem puts
you way out in front of the front wheel, you probably need a larger frame
(with a longer front end), which from the sound of it (long stem, xtra long
seatpost) may be the case. Not necessarily custom, just a bit bigger.
Don't know how Lemonds are sized, but a 57 sounds small for someone who's
6'2".

SB

Mark Heiple said:

I feel ok when I'm riding on the hoods, but when I'm in the drops, I
feel a bit scrunched up. I feel like I should be stretched out more.

Quoted message said:

I have an extra long seat post now (Salsa Shaft) to replace the one I
just broke. I'm not sure how long my handlebar stem is, but it is
really long and sticks up quite a ways. I think it is fairly long
horizontally also, and I've been warned that going too long will
compromise handling/stability.

Yeah. Sounds like the frame is too small. What is the nominal frame size
anyway?

Art Harris

Steve Blankenship said:

Don't know how Lemonds are sized, but a 57 sounds small for someone who's
6'2".

Ah, I missed that. Yeah, that sounds small especially for a 6'2" guy who
says he has long legs. I'm 6'3" (35.5" inseam) and ride frames of 62-63 cm
c-c.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>,

Arthur Harris said:

Steve Blankenship said:

Don't know how Lemonds are sized, but a 57 sounds small for someone who's
6'2".

Ah, I missed that. Yeah, that sounds small especially for a 6'2" guy who
says he has long legs. I'm 6'3" (35.5" inseam) and ride frames of 62-63 cm
c-c.

Art Harris

My inseam is somewhere between 34" and 35", probably closer to 34", so
I'm not quite as long legged as you.

The Lemond is measured c-c, and I have noticed that even compared to
other bikes measured c-c, the Lemond seems bigger. My brother-in-law
has 58 cm cannondale (not sure how it is measured), and my 57 cm Lemond
feels a lot bigger. It also feels bigger than a 58 cm Trek. Makes it
all kind of confusing what size a bike really is!

A related topic:

My lemond is mostly shimano Tiagra/Sora components, which has mostly
functioned reliably. The front derailleur (triple) is really the only
part that gives me any trouble. It doesn't shift real well in and out
the granny, and the chain will usually jump off if I try to shift into
the granny onto a hill.

Does an Ultegra triple work better than the lower groups, or does it
just save a little weight?

After reading the newsgroup here, I'm also toying with the idea of going
Campy. People seem to be happy with its durability/repairability, and
compatibility with the different levels and even new vs old appears to
be a lot better than Shimano. On the down side, it's a lot more
expensive and harder to find locally.

I thought about going double, but I'm a poor climber and heavy enough
that I should stick with a triple.

markh-<< My lemond is mostly shimano Tiagra/Sora components, which has mostly
functioned reliably. The front derailleur (triple) is really the only
part that gives me any trouble. >><BR><BR>
<< idea of going
Campy. People seem to be happy with its durability/repairability, and
compatibility with the different levels and even new vs old appears to
be a lot better than Shimano. On the down side, it's a lot more
expensive and harder to find locally. >><BR><BR>

There are comparible levels of Campagnolo to shimano, in price. Campagnolo is
easy for a bike shop to get as well. Look at the Centaur level.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Qui si parla Campagnolo ) said:

markh-<< My lemond is mostly shimano Tiagra/Sora components, which has mostly
functioned reliably. The front derailleur (triple) is really the only
part that gives me any trouble. >><BR><BR>
<< idea of going
Campy. People seem to be happy with its durability/repairability, and
compatibility with the different levels and even new vs old appears to
be a lot better than Shimano. On the down side, it's a lot more
expensive and harder to find locally. >><BR><BR>

There are comparible levels of Campagnolo to shimano, in price. Campagnolo is
easy for a bike shop to get as well. Look at the Centaur level.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

I took a look at the Campagnolo web site, and saw that they have both 9s
and 10s versions. For future compatibility, I assume 10s would be the
way to go. Campy's faq says that the even though the 10s chain is
narrower, it is just as strong as the 9s. Is this really true?

Another stupid question: after looking around at the bike shops, it
appears that forks have all gone threadless (my bike is threaded). How
hard is it to swap it for a threaded fork? Probably a detail not worth
worrying about, but I don't really see the advantage of giving up the
ability to adjust my handlebar height.

Thanks

Mark Heiple said:

I took a look at the Campagnolo web site, and saw that they have both 9s
and 10s versions. For future compatibility, I assume 10s would be the
way to go. Campy's faq says that the even though the 10s chain is
narrower, it is just as strong as the 9s. Is this really true?

For all practical purposes, it should be true. The 10-speed sprockets
are also narrower, so technically the side plates of the narrower chain
can be made just as strong. Roughly a half of professional cyclists
ride this equipment and their chains aren't breaking. The other half
now uses Shimano 10-speed stuff and their chains aren't breaking either.
If anything, a 10-speed drivetrain might wear faster, but even then
it's not a day and night difference.

-as

mark-<< Campy's faq says that the even though the 10s chain is
narrower, it is just as strong as the 9s. Is this really true? >><BR><BR>

We see no reliability issues with 9 or 10s chains from Campagnolo, Wipperman or
Sram.

<< Another stupid question: after looking around at the bike shops, it
appears that forks have all gone threadless (my bike is threaded). How
hard is it to swap it for a threaded fork? >><BR><BR>

Threaded forks, headsets and quill stems continue to be easy to get.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<rwItc.722

Quoted message said:

Short chainstays reduce comfort
and stability, and don't offer any real
advantages except being in sync with
the current fad.

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is something
still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

JT

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Short chainstays reduce comfort
and stability, and don't offer any real
advantages except being in sync with
the current fad.

Quoted message said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is something
still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

JT

Yeah! I saw we get rid of chainstays entirely! That'll fix things!

Pat in TX

Mark Heiple <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Another stupid question: after looking around at the bike shops, it
appears that forks have all gone threadless (my bike is threaded). How
hard is it to swap it for a threaded fork? Probably a detail not worth
worrying about, but I don't really see the advantage of giving up the
ability to adjust my handlebar height.

Thanks

Hi, you don't give up your ability to adjust handlebar height, you
just do it differently. Part of a proper LBS bike sale should include
the swapping of stems, until you are happy. After you know the rise
and length that works best, you can always then go to a real nice
quality stem of your choosing. And with removable faceplates, they are
easy to swap out. Here is a stem chart, that will give you an idea of
how this works: http://www.habcycles.com/fitting.html

To solve your current bike's FD shifting problem, get a Jump Stop and
no more chain dropping. I have one on both of my bikes, one of them a
2002 Tourmalet. Take a look:
http://www.gvtc.com/~ngear/
Send Nick email with your shipping info and seat tube size, he will
send you one right out.

Life is Good!
Jeff

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is something
still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

Chainstays cannot have been _that_ short in the days before vertical rear
dropouts.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is something
still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

David Damerell said:

Chainstays cannot have been _that_ short in the days before vertical rear
dropouts.

Yes they could.

I have cut the bottom front of Campagnolo ends by request on
short (96cm) frames. Remember curved seat tubes? How about
Bob Jackson Lugano TT bikes? There have been many an
ultra-short frame in every era.

When you say 'before verticals' you're on more solid
ground, I suppose. That puts us somewhere about 1960 I think.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

People have been decrying short chainstays for years. Is something
still a fad if it's been going on for 15 years?

David Damerell said:

Chainstays cannot have been _that_ short in the days before
vertical rear dropouts.

Yes they could.

I have cut the bottom front of Campagnolo ends by request on short
(96cm) frames. Remember curved seat tubes? How about Bob Jackson
Lugano TT bikes? There have been many an ultra-short frame in every
era.

When you say 'before verticals' you're on more solid ground, I
suppose. That puts us somewhere about 1960 I think.

Jack Taylor made curved seat tube bikes in the early 50's, I suppose
because vertical dropouts were not the norm and curving the tube
allowed getting the wheel out without deflating the tire. I've had
several bikes with horizontal dropouts where the chianstays were so
short that the wheel could not be inserted or removed with the tire
inflated (these were all Raleighs, interestingly enough).

I've never understood the attraction for short chainstays. The bike
handles badly in turns, the rear tire wears out more quickly, the ride
is less comfortable, chainline problems are worse, and there's no
benefit whatsoever. A peculiar trend altogether.

Tim McNamara said:

I've never understood the attraction for short chainstays. The bike
handles badly in turns, the rear tire wears out more quickly, the ride
is less comfortable, chainline problems are worse, and there's no
benefit whatsoever. A peculiar trend altogether.

Indeed.

I think it started as a track trend, the idea being it allowed teammates to
draft closer. But then some knucklehead decided it was applicable to road
racing too. Since then, short chainstays have been symbolic of "racy," the
shorter the racier. Cannondale even made bikes with cantilevered dropouts for
awhile, so the seatstays would look steeper and the chainstays shorter, for the
ultimate racy appearance.

What's really stupid is the same, super-short chainstays being used on all frame
sizes. There's no good reason to put a 6'5" rider on a bike with a sub-40"
wheelbase.

Matt O.

I went to the bike shop and got measured, and they also measured my bike
(57 cm Lemond). They then put my bike on a trainer, I rode it for a
while they watched.

We decided that my frame is definitely small for me. My bike actually
measures 58 cm c-c, 60 cm c-t. They suggested that I should start by
looking at 60 to 62 cm c-c frames.

They also noticed that with the long seatpost and stem, my bike was
flexing really badly, to the point that they said if I keep riding it
stuff will start breaking.

I asked if that meant I should avoid a steel frame, they said no, a
correctly sized steel frame should be much stiffer than my current bike.

I test rode a couple bikes, a Klein (with Dura-Ace 10 speed) and a
Gunner (Ultegra).

The Klein was MUCH stiffer (fat tubed aluminum), and I did like how
responsive it felt. The bike shop said the stiffness would make it
easier to climb hills. I did feel little easier, but it is also lighter
and has different gearing than my Lemond (39 x 25 low gear vs 42 x 25 in
my lemond's middle ring). Does extra stiffness really help climb hills?
I did notice it was harsher over the bumps.

The Gunner (steel) wasn't as stiff, was more compliant over the bumps,
seemed to climb almost as well as the Klein (I think it is 42 x 25 in
its middle ring), but didn't like the position as much. It seemed like
my center of gravity was higher.

They also had a 2004 Zurich (steel/carbon) bike, and after looking I
think I can rule it out. It looks like the shorter chain stays do
restrict you to 23c tires. 25c might fit, but it looks close. So if I
want another Lemond I'll have to go the custom route with their old
steel frame.

So now I guess I will start test riding bikes, looking for a stiff yet
compliant ride. I asked about carbon bikes, but was told if I didn't
like the harsh aluminium ride, I probably wouldn't like carbon either.

The bike shop also does Waterford custom bikes, so if I can't find
something I like I can always go that route.

The bike shop guy said that Ultegra 10 speed will be out this december,
which makes me even more inclined to go Campagnolo. I don't want to buy
a bike with a soon to be orphaned drivetrain.

Thanks.