|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
LeMond v. Trek
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Info on 1986 Trek 620 | Mark Traphagen | General | 2 | July 12th 03 02:59 AM |