A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LeMond v. Trek



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 03, 05:35 PM
Bob M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek

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
Ads
  #2  
Old July 17th 03, 05:58 PM
Drew Cutter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #3  
Old July 17th 03, 06:33 PM
Bob M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek

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
  #4  
Old July 17th 03, 08:45 PM
Jkpoulos7
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek

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.
  #5  
Old July 17th 03, 08:47 PM
Bob M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek

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
  #6  
Old July 17th 03, 09:58 PM
Bob M
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek

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
  #7  
Old July 18th 03, 04:23 AM
Fabrizio Mazzoleni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek


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.


  #8  
Old July 18th 03, 07:36 PM
Joe Potter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek

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
  #10  
Old July 18th 03, 08:53 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default LeMond v. Trek


"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


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Info on 1986 Trek 620 Mark Traphagen General 2 July 12th 03 02:59 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.