LeMond v. Trek

[Bob M]

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.

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

[Drew Cutter]

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.

[Bob M]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:58:17 -0400, Drew Cutter >
wrote:

> 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

[Jkpoulos7]

>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.

[Bob M]

On 17 Jul 2003 19:45:02 GMT, Jkpoulos7 > wrote:

>> 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

[Bob M]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:35:27 GMT, Bob M > wrote:

> 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

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

Jkpoulos7 wrote in message >...

>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.

[Joe Potter]

baltobernie wrote:

>
> Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote in message
> . ca...
>>
>> Jkpoulos7 wrote in message
> >...
>>
<snip>

>>
>> 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>
>
> 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

[archer]

In article >,
says...
> baltobernie wrote:
>
> >
> > Fabrizio Mazzoleni > wrote in message
> > . ca...
> >>
> >> Jkpoulos7 wrote in message
> > >...
> >>
> <snip>
>
> >>
> >> 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>
> >
> > 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.

[Steve]

"garmonboezia" > wrote in message

> 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

[Bob M]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:53:57 GMT, Steve > wrote:

>
> "garmonboezia" > wrote in message
>
>> 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.

> 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

[Fabrizio Mazzoleni]

baltobernie wrote in message ..
>
> 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.


>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.

[Zoot Katz]

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:59:53 GMT,
>, Lance's shadow,
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" > expounded:

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

Would that be Barbie or Barney kit?

>We get respect.

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

[waxxer]

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" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:53:57 GMT, Steve > wrote:
>
> >
> > "garmonboezia" > wrote in message
> >
> >> 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.
>
> > 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

[Peter Cole]

"baltobernie" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

> 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.